Why were Heavy Tank Developments halted? Heavy Tanks were very effective during WW2 and with blast resistant armor could survive Anti-Tank Missiles. What made both the Soviet and American Generals prefer Main Battle Tanks?
Halting of Heavy Tank Developments
Austin Foster
Easton Diaz
MBTs are mulatto Heavy tanks that happened because "muh infrastructre damage", nevermind in a real war everything get's blown to shit and none of that matters.
Logan Morris
Heavy tanks were a meme and never did very well on the offensive. MBTs had armor comparable to heavies anyway unless you count French and west German designs along with guns that were just as big and effective as anything that could be put on a heavy. MBTs had the armor and firepower of heavies so there really wasn't a point to going any bigger due to diminishing returns on armor protection and gun effectiveness and mobility reductions.
Jonathan Harris
Anything above 50 tons is going to have increasingly limited strategic mobility, and even when mobility isn't a problem the difference in breakthrough capability between a 45-ton MBT and a 60-ton heavy tank really isn't big enough to be worth the added cost and logistical load (particularly since ground assaults against fixed defenses are pretty rare nowadays, meaning your heavy tank will mostly be used as either an ersatz exploitation tank or a very expensive assault gun).
Liam Diaz
Heavy tanks = more expensive to make, more breakdowns and more fuel used. Basically why run a single heavy tank when for the same financial and logistical cost you could have 2 medium (MBT) tanks.
Hahahaha, hang on are you serious? ATGMs are the size they are because they overmatch all threats, if the threats got bigger so would ATGMs just like we have seen with SAMs over the years.
Robert Lee
Armor doesn't matter as much anymore, at least not in pure thickness.
Countering different kinds of ammunition is more of a priority so you can have a relatively light tank that can survive HEAT, which is common for handheld shit, even though it can't survive the huge payload from your average ATGM - but honestly nobody expects to survive modern AT missiles so not getting hit is much more important than surviving it.
Jason Roberts
Thats why. Also with bigger guns and tungsten penetrators armour was useless. Half of western states just say fuck it and produced tin cans like Leopard. Reduced armour to buff mobility and range.
Thomas Perez
Citation needed.
For the most part as said they were useless on the offensive and it was far more efficient to combine Medium and Heavies together into the MBT.
Jeremiah Scott
How well would you say heavy tanks work in defensive situations? Also, would merging heavy tanks and assault/siege guns work, or would that be pointless?
Bentley Jackson
The best defensive manoeuvre is an offensive, therefore you'd still have the same problems with heavy tanks. Expect if you want a moving pillbox, but that is retarded.
There are no modern assault guns, so the question doesn't make any sense to begin with. Assault guns are in essence turretless tanks that were used to support the infantry because they are cheaper than real tanks.
Aaron Williams
Main Battle Tank is just a rebrand of heavy tank for PR reasons. (heavy is bad, heavy is fat, like Americans, bad word, bad word)
Isaac Davis
Well my Danish Pastry newfriend it is evident you have made a mistake since the Abrams is in fact the lightest tank in the world to the point that in the motorpool they have to weigh them down with bricks to stop them floating away. Once you add the crew however the tank often exceeds 70 tons.
Dominic Sullivan
MBT combines speed of medium tank as well as heavy tank armor, so there's no point.
The only problem is not having enough of tank.
Julian Jones
Heavy tanks are made completely redundant by the invention of modern tank shells. Slapping on more and more armor isn't worth it when the enemy has shells that can still pen it all or just get bombed by an enemy aircraft or helo.
Robert Foster
What if it's made of diamond, the hardest metal in the world?
Henry Wilson
It then breaks down before it reaches the battlefield good tank though when it works
Colton Jones
NS armor is just a marketing gimmick. It shatters easily and is overall worthless. It exists purely because it is light, replaceable and can help deform penetrators. But a layer of NS will not save you. The enemy shell will still pass right through.
Brandon Wilson
That's spring steel, or extra hardened steel.
Mixing simple aluminum and steel gets you better results than nano crystal failure.
Leo Reyes
Yeah but a heavy tank today would be 80-90t, come with their own organic air defense, and fire 155mm guns NLOS.
Isaiah Peterson
Heavy tank is tank that weights >40 tons.
Easton Mitchell
Who told you that? A heavy tank is a tank which has an order of magnitude more armor than a medium tank and a gun that is as good as a medium tanks at taking out other tanks, but also has the ability to take on structures.
In late WWII/early cold war the armor went something like this:
5mm - light tank
50mm - medium tank
500mm - heavy tank
And late WWII/early cold war armament was:
Machine gun or
Chase Watson
There is no fixed height that makes a tank "heavy", it's completely dependent on the power-pack and cannons of the time. There are MBTs today that would have been considered super-heavy in the inter-war period the difference is today they have 1,500HP and back then they would have had 300.
I would consider any tank that can reliably bounce 120-125mm APFSDS from the frontal arc to be a heavy tank today.
Daniel Reyes
That pic. Here’s how I would defeat a 100 ton tank. Am I supposed to spell it tonne? That lions like British and therefore Canadian spelling, but I also feel like ton and tonne are two different measurements.
Isaiah Lee
...
Thomas Taylor
Jesus Christ that atrocious spelling.
bit of mud*
his car*
Samuel Stewart
(Philippines)
The pic doesn’t have a size but I guess the Maus was 188 tonnes(?) I assumed that chink “moving pillbox” was bigger. But i’m Not sure if track width will really help with all that weight, I don’t know much about tanks but I’ve gotten many tractors stuck in soft earth and had the tires dig down several feet, but those are tires not tracks. Sorry for the truly abhorrent post.
Carter Bennett
And they are in fact super-heavy tanks.
Jose Taylor
Then why can't they bounce most shells like super-heavy tanks?
Justin Gray
Among adopted and practical super-heavies only IS-4 came close for some period of time to
All other super-heavies didn't so its not really their quality.
Leo Rogers
shells became more killy
Elijah Garcia
Proof?
Andrew Barnes
French heavies often bounced frontal AP shells until their attacker ran out of ammo, the same is true for the IS series and the German cats.
They sure did to the point a modern "heavy tank" would be stupidly heavy needing ~3m RHA equivalent frontal armor.
Henry Wood
That picture is actually completely wrong because it's just an artist drawing something big and impressive. The real thing was a single prototype hull with 800mm (or possibly 900mm) wide tracks:
tanks-encyclopedia.com
Carter Butler
That only happend up to mid 41, until hs-ap shells were introduced.
Bentley Scott
Yes they could be killed but the majority of tank / AT guns in action couldn't get a frontal kill. That is my point and why I would set the standard today at 120 / 125mm APDS as that is the majority of the modern battlefield.
Jose Barnes
heavy tanks are a meme
best tank is light and fast ok
heil guderian
Jordan Morgan
And there are mediums in late war period that would be considered heavies in early war period.
The point is the definition shifts, today a heavy tank would be different from WWII definition.
Yes, but I would add it would have to bounce 120mm APFSDS from the side. The heavy tank relies on armor more than maneuverability, so its not always bothering to turn the glacis to enemy fire.
All that semen in your keyboard mate.
Nathaniel Gomez
And the KV series, especially KV2. Even the Sherman did if it was properly positioned, and that's a medium.
Just ignore the alien, he's dumb.
Jaxon Gray
1 tonne world wide = 1 metric ton = 1000kg (SI definition)
1 ton in the united Kingdom = 1016 kg
1 ton in Canada = 2000 pounds = 907 kg
(laws-lois.justice.gc.ca
Just use metric for fucks sake. Your entire weight system is derived from kilograms anyways.
Hunter Gomez
Actually 1 ton in canada is 1000kg. We're just using it for kg now, because people can't spell "tonne". Also the english are saying "tonne" is just the quebec way to spell ton.
Jordan Gutierrez
Here it's technically Tonne but we write Ton on everything like forklifts, cranes and other heavy equipment because it's easier to recognize at distance.
James Cooper
Your shit is all retarded.
Read that fucking link again. It's your own retarded law. What some retards in some frozen French hellhole do is irrelevant.
Ian Barnes
If I'm remembering right, the WW2 definition of Super-Heavy Tank was somewhere in the ballpark of 70tons and above, lightest being the Char 2C, to the heaviest (constructed) being the Maus at 188 tons. So the Abrams is basically a heavy bordering on super-heavy according to WW2 classification. Although the Pershing was originally a heavy tank even though it was 41 tons to the Sherman's Jumbo's 38, and the Panther was a medium with it's 44 tons, so the Burger definitions are fugged beyond hope.
Isaiah Jones
As I stated I was confused about the spelling not the measurement. But that statement isn’t even correct because I would be surprised if 1/3 of Canadians knew what their weight was in kg. We technically do use metric but everyone uses lbs for weight and uses foot/inches for their own height even thought most people besides boomers use km for distance. Also no one uses Fahrenheit for the temperature but I’ve never seen an oven that only was set for Celsius. At least that is how it is where I live I can’t speak for the whole country.
I think we’re the same, but I rarely spell ton(ne).
That’s what happens when you live next to a country like the U.S. technically we are supposed to use British spelling it I know many people that only spell “Colour” the English way, while words like “centre, defence, licence” are often spelt the American way.
Nicholas Cook
But back to tonks: the kike Merkava IV weights 65 tonnes. and doesn’t have a loaders hatch so ATGMs won’t go off
And the upcoming Turk Altay: which is based off the Korean Black Panther but is 10 tonnes heavier at ~65 tonnes.
Ryder Lewis
They're a developmental dead end. 90% of what they do can be done as effectively or even more effectively by an MBT more cheaply and with much easier logistics (no collapsing bridges etc). They were the battleships of armoured warfare: great at killing other battleships but obsolete once smaller things could kill them at a fraction of the cost (or if you prefer once offensive power overtook armour again).
Connor Green
Also as well as simple unit cost if you're using both MBTs and heavy tanks (and you'll likely have to since heavy tanks are more specialised) you've got to duplicate the logistics trail behind it to handle whatever parts aren't interchangeable. Every additional specialised bit of equipment adds permanent costs beyond simply purchasing it because you have to maintain it, feed it and train people to use it.
Aiden Bennett
Literally just google it you incompetent monkey
Both are trash and lightly armored. Merkavas die left right and center, and the Altay is a tincan since it is just a Frankenstein Korean K2 with random parts made by random foreign companies. The gooks claim their K2 can stop an 120mm APFSDS round from the L55 but they haven't provided any proof whatsoever and therefore it is obvious they're bullshiting.
Ayden Lopez
They’re the two heaviest 3rd gen tonks I could find besides the (((Abrams))) I have never doubt both are trash.
Dominic Rodriguez
They're heavy due to retarded design choices, not armor. I hate to admit it but there isn't any tank with more effective armor than the French Leclerc. The fuckers knew how to protect their vehicles. Everyone else is a retard who thinks putting armor at the front is truly the best option, but they still get blown up from the front by old soviet ATGMs anyway because they keep using retarded armor that gets defeated by anything that isn't cold-war era APFSDS.
Tyler Hall
Adam Reed
Leo 2 the armor god what's new
Joseph Flores
so by your retarded standards all the Stuarts were not even tanks unless you count its front armor plate over the transmission which makes it a medium, the luchs was also not a light tank ether, the Chaffee and T70 are medium tanks, the Pershing is a medium tank, (fair enough, it was reclassified as one after the war) the churchill was a medium tank, the Tiger was a medium tank, the Tiger 2 was a medium tank… You get the idea on how stupid that is now right?
Ok now I know you really are just a fucking leaf.
Aaron Myers
What the hell kind of super-metal can in any practical way equal 7 METERS of steel?
Brayden Perry
It also has a crew hatch in it's ass because it can carry troops too. Which I'm sure isn't a weak point and also protects against ATGMs
Thomas Lopez
By those standards you could fit a whole platoon in any regular AFV.
Dominic Cook
Well it does say
but I'm sure it's still a tight squeeze.
Jason Moore
Jews tend to be of rather small stature.
Robert Taylor
Still it looks more like an emergency rescue thing rather than standard procedure.
I imagine the plan is is you have a section cut off and getting fucked on you can get a Merkava to ditch their ammo and quickly race in and out to extract them.
Parker Sanders
Three or four stretchers for wounded men, with an extra one or two medics in the turret to make look after them.
Anyone more than that is "this episode of future weapons"-tier.
Hunter Collins
ROTANTBN
Probably some kind of active protection system.
Abrams has 1.2m of composite armor, just dumb inert ceramics. Armata combination of radar triggered ERA and composite armor already equals over 1.3m of RHA for even lighter setup, because the reactive armor chews up incoming KEW and the composite armor blocks the remaining pieces. But RHA equivalent doesn't mean 7m of anything, it just means that after the chewing process in order to have pieces big enough to penetrate the composite armor, you need a continuous rod KEW that could also penetrate 1.3m of steel.
Steel equivalent is just a measure.
tl;dr if an Abrams were to mount about 10t of radar triggered ERA system and another 5t of APS system to chew up incoming projectiles, due to ridiculous levels of inert armor to catch the pieces, it might reach 3m steel equivalent against KEW and 5 meters of steel equivalent against HEAT.
Daniel Scott
If kikes had a brain they would do it desant, because a wounded guys life or a fucking infantry fireteam is not worth compromising the lives of four tank crew members, or bankrupting your country to build retarded tanks.
That's the basic armor package, dutch were lying their ass off so they could get the Leopards, because germans were paying them off.
Connor Fisher
You put a major modern electrical generator like a MAN 45/60 V6 (7.8mW), you as much 50kW static in-wheel motors in the tracks as you and you put 7m of steel armor around it.
You have a 600t tank and spare power for a gun electro chemical gun/laser/rail gun.
Jacob Davis
I think you are better off with a boat on tracks. At least it will have excellent river crossing capabilities and you'll have an excuse to mount an automatic 127mm gun on it.
Austin Cooper
Please do keep in mind that we are talking about a product made by a certain semitic tribe. They never specified the condition of those 8 dismounted soldiers that will be put inside that tank.
Well it fucked finns up good to the point where rear echelon HQ homos thought that the reports regarding KV-2's by the front line units was pure fantasy. Now that I think about it, it was really a miracle as to how we didn't completely lose our independence due to incompetence and fits of retardation by our high command.
Bentley Howard
Are modern day Finns butthurt against Russia and Sweden and have a victim complex that you built your national identity on? Or is that just the Poles and Ukrainians?
Sage for off-topic potentially thread detailing post.
Joseph Lee
IIRC they hate the swedes and don't like the Russians (but liked the Czar).
Easton Brooks
Kind of odd that when they decided to build landships, they chose an upscale contemporary medium tanks instead of this.
David White
That's because the Czar was actually nice to people, everyone liked him.
Also communism is the demon seed and Stalin is Satan., most Russians hated that asshole.
Grayson Thompson
Hey we also build our national identity on other things you know? Like Messiah complex and butthurt
Sebastian Gutierrez
Stalin didn't boil nuns in vats of tar just because, he sent them to forced labor camps, but not force them to have Communions of molten lead.
Neo-cons only hate stalin because he bumped their favorite kike off.
Austin Hall
Playing Generals I thought it was typical Westwood's commie-deprecating propaganda but HOLY SHIT CHINKS STILL BE USING THOSE IRL!
Luis Cox
Dude their "modern" tank has 18hp/t power ratio at sea level. At high altitudes it can barely move because compressor sucks balls.
They had to invent a cheap light tank to use in himalayas.
On the other hand their only land enemy is pajeets which put a window in front glacis and a screen door on submarines so…. China is ok.
Lucas Collins
Bullshit, you've got to be lying. Surely no one would put a fucking sliding door on a sub. That's just silly.
Jeremiah Long
The way military build-up works is:
1. Governments address threats
2. Governments create new threats
Nobody would bring out heavies unless they had a build-up advantage, such as a surplus of iron, or a novel and useful design they could keep secret, somehow.
That's why weaponizing space is a problem. Every action results in counter-action, and not just by Russia, but by other governments too.
Elijah Ward
Wew, what a retard.
Gavin Rivera
Retard
Angel Brown
Look up the kalvari class. It's 4 years behind schedule and armed with target torpedoes, as in, the shit that navy ships train against. The screen door is their "weapons reloading hatch" which is a lighter steel construction than the rest of the hull, and actually limits the depth it can travel because otherwise water would break through it and the sub would sink.
Ryder Butler
no wonder you have no friends or sex life :p
Matthew Wright
Okay so I might be retarded, but what does the Y axis mean in those graphs? Percentage covered by X mm of RHA?