Super heavy tanks--any way to make them viable?

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

What about the Spanish Civil War having an example of 1 or 2 heavy tanks stopping an attack? Since anti tank weapons would be smaller, could get the misconception it was the tanks what won it, and keep armies wedded to the concept of heavy tanks smash the line, cruiser tanks exploit like cavalry.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What about the Spanish Civil War having an example of 1 or 2 heavy tanks stopping an attack? Since anti tank weapons would be smaller, could get the misconception it was the tanks what won it, and keep armies wedded to the concept of heavy tanks smash the line, cruiser tanks exploit like cavalry.

As it was no one took the SCW very seriously as a major indicator of what modern ground warfare would look like due to the contempt everyone had for the military abilities of the Spanish.

 

[Gunnarnz]

You mean something like this?
http://www.fillmoregazette.com/files/imagecache/640wide/files/soviet-bomber-1.jpg

Not bad, but it needs more engines and guns. And see if we can get some more glazing on it, my sister has a few greenhouses we could use.

 

[marathag]

I'm gonna say that's a prime target for an 88mm shell to end its ponderous charge. Assuming it wasn't lost prior to air attack or just on the march. 80 tons with a 600hp engine. Heavier than the Tiger II with a weaker engine...

Frontally immune to 100 yards with the early AP rounds the Flak units had, and sides immune at 1500 yards

It had a more realistic 8 mph top speed, but did have cooling trouble.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Frontally immune to 100 yards with the early AP rounds the Flak units had, and sides immune at 1500 yards

It had a more realistic 8 mph top speed, but did have cooling trouble.

What's its road march reliability? I mean it was a breakthrough tank that had to be train transported like the French heavies, but they couldn't be moved around by rail due to aerial attacks on rail lines and trains. So I'm thinking it would break down long before reaching any battlefield. Perhaps it is immune to 88s at 1000 meters, but an aerial bomb or just frankly low reliability, fuel needs, and the general events overtaking it prevent it from getting into action, much like the lighter Tiger IIs, who had abysmal reliabiilty and when forced on road marches general broke down under their own weight.

 

[deathscompanion1]

What's its road march reliability? I mean it was a breakthrough tank that had to be train transported like the French heavies, but they couldn't be moved around by rail due to aerial attacks on rail lines and trains. So I'm thinking it would break down long before reaching any battlefield. Perhaps it is immune to 88s at 1000 meters, but an aerial bomb or just frankly low reliability, fuel needs, and the general events overtaking it prevent it from getting into action, much like the lighter Tiger IIs, who had abysmal reliabiilty and when forced on road marches general broke down under their own weight.

Were the Tiger IIs really unreliable? I remember reading somewhere that despite all the bad press the Tiger Is actually were more or less as reliable as any other German tank in service and much better than the Panther.

 

[edgeworthy]

Were the Tiger IIs really unreliable? I remember reading somewhere that despite all the bad press the Tiger Is actually were more or less as reliable as any other German tank in service and much better than the Panther.

Possibly the Haynes Owners Manual For the Tiger Tank?
Its a semi-humourously titled guide to the Tiger, published by the Bovington Tank Museum.
(They have the world's only working Tiger, and are hence fairly authoratative).
According to them the Tiger I was much more reliable than the Panther, and they have also done comparisons with other contemporary armour.
(When it comes to mobility it compares favourably with the M4 and T-34, of which they also have working models)

 

[CalBear]

Frontally immune to 100 yards with the early AP rounds the Flak units had, and sides immune at 1500 yards

It had a more realistic 8 mph top speed, but did have cooling trouble.

It looks like the hull can be penetrated at 1,500 meters both front and side at 76.2mm (several sources agree, including the museum where the only TOG II prototype is kept). The Pzgr 39 had 78mm at 1,500. The Turret front is safe, but the hull is not.

 

[Kevin Renner]

Super heavy tanks are kind of land-based Alaska heavy cruisers (HERESY !!)

No wonder Calbear hates them so much

 

[marathag]

It looks like the hull can be penetrated at 1,500 meters both front and side at 76.2mm (several sources agree, including the museum where the only TOG II prototype is kept). The Pzgr 39 had 78mm at 1,500. The Turret front is safe, but the hull is not.

Luftwaffe units had the Pzgr Patr. m. Bd.Z. the Bezeichnung

It penetrated less, but had a larger HE burster than the Pzgr 39, that didn't get issued till after France to Flak units. 160 grams vs 59 grams. Made for shooting at concrete emplacements/bunkers

98@100M 93@500M 87@1000 80@1500

But this round had a history of shattering in 1941-42 on the Eastern Front against T-34s and KVs

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Were the Tiger IIs really unreliable? I remember reading somewhere that despite all the bad press the Tiger Is actually were more or less as reliable as any other German tank in service and much better than the Panther.

I'll say the Tiger I probably was because it was a handcrafted tank that was heavily babied; it eventually became reliable in 1944 after a lot of work to fix its teething issues. Still, it was not designed for significant road marches and at least half were lost to breakdown. The Tiger II never became reliable and it was a nightmare to maintain in the conditions of 1944-45.

 

[Alternator]

I can almost see somebody getting the BRILLIANT! idea to build a tank that's intended to serve as a mobile fortress: you're not going to expect to move twice (at least without repairs), but you want to put something huge, heavy, and well armored RIGHT HERE and RIGHT NOW. With a top speed of a blazing half a mile an hour, and getting a staggering engine efficiency of twenty feet to the gallon, but immune to basically anything artillery or aircraft can throw at it, and using it to anchor a defensive line...

I can see somebody thinking it might work.

 

[riggerrob]

Tigers were reasonably reliable. Their problem was getting spare parts. During the last year of the war, the RAF, RCAF, USAAF, Russian Air Force, etc. wrecked thier supply chain.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

As it was no one took the SCW very seriously as a major indicator of what modern ground warfare would look like due to the contempt everyone had for the military abilities of the Spanish.

The Soviets, Germans, and Italians took it pretty seriously, but mainly based upon the performance of their own expeditionary forces rather then the Spanish ones...

Modest quibble.

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

The first generation of super heavy tanks stemmed from the methodical battle doctrine championed by the French in the aftermath of the meatgrinder that was the Western Front in World War I. Since it was resolved that the next confrontation would devolve into the same static slugfest anything that could reduce casualties while at the same time bringing the hurt to the enemy, even at the expense of being a mighty glacier, was considered desirable. While tanks like the Char B-1 were ultimately unsuccessful in a grand campaign of maneuver they made quite an impact tactically (that is, in the role originally intended) as the Germans were at a loss for what to do against them. Super-heavies like the FCM F1 were simply the next logical step. While the events of the next 5 years and even beyond firmly demonstrated that the methodical, set-piece battle still very much occupied a place in modern warfare, operating a fleet of slow, ungainly super-heavies meant that an Army would essentially be sacrificing its capacity for strategic and operational maneuver for firepower on the tactical scale. For obvious reasons, this is less than ideal.

 

[riggerrob]

Oh wow!
Bob the baranarian,
You brought to mind an entirely new form of alpine warfare: glaciers!

Say during WW1, Italians and Austrians try cultivating thier pet glaciers to force out invaders?

Or more recently (the last half-century) India and Pakistani take turns watering glaciers to force out invaders a long thier northern frontiers?

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

Oh wow!
Bob the baranarian,
You brought to mind an entirely new form of alpine warfare: glaciers!

Say during WW1, Italians and Austrians try cultivating thier pet glaciers to force out invaders?

Or more recently (the last half-century) India and Pakistani take turns watering glaciers to force out invaders a long thier northern frontiers?

"Glacier" is a metaphor in the above sense.

 

[Michel Van]

NHBL
So Super heavy tanks are most tempting, in reality there quite unpractical

-Need for Steel, Super heavy tank need allot steel, you can build far more smaller tanks instead
-Need for Fuel, how bigger tank, so bigger it's engine and more those booze petrol and reduce range, compare to smaller Tank
-Need for Transport you have to move tank to battle field by train but if that Super heavy tanks of 188 tons each you got serious problem
-driving over bridge or cross a river is major obstruction for Super heavy tank, like 188 tons "Maus" was unable to cross a bridge, because it so heavy

and we have not look into 1000 tons "Ratte" and 1500 tons "Monster" or Soviet proposal for movable fortress of 10000 tons...
Bottom line, while Germans build bigger and bigger Tanks in smaller numbers, the soviet mass produce 50,000 T-34 tanks.

 

[Redbeard]

Had the 1940 stayed "Sitzkrieg" and not "Blitzkrieg" I guess we could have seen some very heavy tanks for the anticipated "breakthrough" - like French FCM F1 og British TOG. In such a scenario quite close to WWI you would have enough time to get the heavies into their starting positions for the assault and they would not need to advance more than a few miles. Seen from a pre-Blitzkrieg point of view I don't think the super heavy tank necessarily was that bad an idea, but IMHO the KV was a much better execution of that idea than the super-super heavy tanks.

 

[BlondieBC]

At least the Soviets were going to put a 2,000hp engine in their monster.

I do really like the rearward facing turret on the T-42, Sort of makes me wonder if the designers understood the whole turret thing.

When Stalin ask for a rear turret, you build a rear turret.