Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Demise of the super heavy tank

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Demise of the super heavy tank

    http://www.military.cz/panzer/tanks/usa/t28/index_

    One of the most amazing tanks ever built, i'm surprised nothing ever came out of it. Built in WW2 to defeat the Siegfried defense line.

    It carried a 105mm gun (Tiger II had 88mm) and over 300mm of armor in most places. At 95 tons it was one of the heaviest tanks ever built.

    Anyone have any thoughts on this? Could something like this still be useful? As slow as this one was, no. But if theres one thing the Abrams has shown us, size does matter.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Defcon 6
    http://www.military.cz/panzer/tanks/usa/t28/index_

    One of the most amazing tanks ever built, i'm surprised nothing ever came out of it. Built in WW2 to defeat the Siegfried defense line.

    It carried a 105mm gun (Tiger II had 88mm) and over 300mm of armor in most places. At 95 tons it was one of the heaviest tanks ever built.

    Anyone have any thoughts on this? Could something like this still be useful? As slow as this one was, no. But if theres one thing the Abrams has shown us, size does matter.
    Well you can probably defeat the Siegfried line with artillery and airpower alone since the Germans lost their air superiority. German 88mm was probably the best gun though not head over heels over everything during WW2. Like the Italian 90mm gun during WW2 was compareable to the German 88. A bigger caliber gun doesn't gurantee that it will have superior penetration. So it may have a 105mm gun, doesn't necessarily mean it will penetrate better than the 88mm. Many people think the SU-85 tank must of had a punch like the 88mm simply because it had a gun that was only 3mm smaller. The dynamics of penetration are more complex than that. A 155mm or a 6 inch artillery shell don't even need much velocity. The sheer explosion from the artillery burst can knock out off a tank turret. US M109s practice direct fire with the 155 against Soviet tanks. Anyways. Such heavy tanks are expensive and slow. Not much mobility and will draw most of fire. You probably do better with a faster less armored tank than a slow, super heavy tank. If you want to destroy defenses, best way is to lob artillery shells on defenses and drop dombs from the air. M1 Abrams was really found to be effective in actual battle, because of speed, accuracy, firepower, and firing range than it's armor. Having good armor is important, but as what qualities made the M1 battle proven and effective are those qualities.
    Last edited by metalbeast; 27 Sep 05,, 22:37.

    Comment


    • #3
      Take a look at the Maus. It had a 128mm cannon and a weight of 188 tons. It was developed by Porsche if I am right. But it never entered serialproduction.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mt1
        Take a look at the Maus. It had a 128mm cannon and a weight of 188 tons. It was developed by Porsche if I am right. But it never entered serialproduction.
        Russian IS-3

        http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html

        http://www.battlefield.ru/is3.html

        http://www.battlefield.ru/is4.html
        Last edited by VovaLee; 29 Sep 05,, 18:52.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Defcon 6
          It carried a 105mm gun (Tiger II had 88mm) and over 300mm of armor in most places. At 95 tons it was one of the heaviest tanks ever built.

          Anyone have any thoughts on this? Could something like this still be useful?
          At 95 tons wt a tank is impractical. Since just a handfull of bridges will be able to support their weight. Transport by rail cars will be a logistical nightmare for the railways. You will have to redisign even the flatbeds of the rail cars.

          Cheers!...on the rocks!!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lemontree
            At 95 tons wt a tank is impractical. Since just a handfull of bridges will be able to support their weight. Transport by rail cars will be a logistical nightmare for the railways. You will have to redisign even the flatbeds of the rail cars.
            At 58 tons IA feels arjunMBT is overweight! .
            Last edited by indianguy4u; 30 Sep 05,, 09:16.
            Hala Madrid!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Defcon 6
              http://www.military.cz/panzer/tanks/usa/t28/index_

              One of the most amazing tanks ever built, i'm surprised nothing ever came out of it. Built in WW2 to defeat the Siegfried defense line.

              It carried a 105mm gun (Tiger II had 88mm) and over 300mm of armor in most places. At 95 tons it was one of the heaviest tanks ever built.

              Anyone have any thoughts on this? Could something like this still be useful? As slow as this one was, no. But if theres one thing the Abrams has shown us, size does matter.

              "The new design (known subsequently as the "Ferdinand", or at the front itself as the "Elephant") had the appearance of a giant Jagdpanzer with a 100-mm. L 70 gun in a fixed mounting. It had, in fact, all the disadvantages of the Jagdpanzer - narrow field of fire, no secondary armament, restricted accommodation - and the complications and expense in construction of a tank, including 100-mm. belly armour. At all events, Krupp got the contract for them and over ninety Ferdinands were produced. They were all committed to action on the same day, and few weapons in modern war were to have so inauspicious a beginning, or one that had such a disastrous effect on the main operation."

              A. Clark - Barbarossa

              "They were incapable of close-range fighting since they lacked sufficient ammunition [i.e., high-explosive as well as armour-piercing] for their guns and this defect was aggravated by the fact that they possessed no machine-gun. Once [the Ferdinands] had broken into the enemy's infantry zone they literally had to go quail shooting with canon. They did not manage to neutralise, let alone destroy, the enemy rifles and machine-guns, so that our own infantry was unable to follow up behind them. By the time they had reached the Russian artillery they were on their own."

              H. Guderian - Panzer Leader

              Comment


              • #8
                Does chrysler still build the tanks for US army?
                Hala Madrid!!

                Comment

                Working...
                X