Could America have used heavy tanks?

[plan_D]

The Sherman was not a bad tank; it was faced against the wrong opponents. It must be remembered that the Pz.IV was the main battle tank of the Wehrmacht up until the end of the war - while the Pz.IV was superior to the M4 (all variants, in my opinion) it wasn't such a large gap as that between the M4 and Panther.

If the Allies had produced a tank like the Tiger it would have been great ! But if the Allies had adopted the same mentality and tactical ability as the Wehrmacht it would have also been great !

That said by 1945 the Allied force was looking quite formidable - the British were rolling the Comet and Centurion (was on its way to battle when the war ended) off the production lines and the U.S had the Pershing, Hellcat (TD, but a great one) and Chaffee (light tank, one of the best, if not the best).

If the Allies had the Centurion in 1944 then armour battles wouldn't have been so one side - but we can't have it all.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by syscom3

The 90mm gun would have meant the Panther and Tiger were at risk at far longer ranges than the pathetic gun the Sherman had.

Yes,, but at the same time the Allies already had a better gun, the 17pdr. So why the Pershing ?

The Pershing was no success, it was unreliable as heck, and provided inadequate protection against even the PaK 40 at 1,000 m.

As for reliability, it wasn't so bad as to not be kept in action by the immense logistics base the allies possessed.

This doesn't define the success of a tank however.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by freebird

I don't think "lack of knowlege" would apply, the British had quite a bit of experience in tanks {using the first ones in battle!}, although not always successful.

I'm not talking tanks in general Freebird, I'm talking heavy tanks, with which the British had ZERO experience. The Churchill is the perfect example of this, an attempt by the british to build a heavy tank, and look how that ended: The Churchill was terribly slow, it mounted a pea shooter of a gun, it had poor optics and unusually poor vision for the driver.

Compare this to the Tiger which was fast, very maneuverable (Regenerative steering), featured the best optics in the world, a super powerful & accurate main gun and excellent armor protection (Nearly indistructable to begin with).

It's quite clear that the Germans were well ahead when it came to designing & constructing AFV's.

The Allies quite simply lacked the know how when it came to designing & building heavy tanks, they simply hadn't spent nearly as much time designing & testing such designs as the Germans.

The British Tortoise would have worked quite well, had they not put it's development on the "back burner". It was designed to withstand any German AT gun {225 mm armour}, and also had the powerful 94 mm gun. The problem was that the powers in charge decided that they didn't need it, so its development was slow.

You do know how slow & unreliable this tank was right ? And as for its protection, well again it was insufficient, esp. for the time of its design. The 88mm KwK43 could punch right throught the front armor of the Tortoise at long ranges, and the 128mm KwK44 at even longer ranges.

Remember the KwK43 could punch through over 238mm of armor with its std. AP round, and more than 300mm with APCR rounds. The 128mm KwK44 was even more fierce.

The problem the Allies were facing was that they had simply fallen waay too much behind in regards to tank design, so when they finally designed some heavily armored tanks the Germans had at the same time already designed, built & deployed guns more than powerful enough to deal with them.

[DBII]

As everyone is aware the military was gutted after WWI (sound familiar?). Congress would not fund any tank development after the war. The Armor Corps had to hide what little they did do as armored cars. Like much of the army, tankers had to make do. They used 1/4 and 3/4 ton trucks and scout cars for exercises. The Recon elements still were using horses on a limited bases. This went on into the 1930's. When the war broke out, the army was in a mad rush to throw together a tank. After the Lee/Grants took a beating the best short term fix was the redesign the hull and the Sherman was born. It was better than the Lee/Grant but still under gunned.

During this time, there was a power struggle going on between the Inf and Armor about the best way to use tanks. The Inf won out and the tactics called for the tanks to be used as a gun system to support the foot soldiers. This struggle was similar to the Navy and Army fighting about the use of airpower. The tank was new technology and the traditionist did not want to change things. There was also a struggle as to the correct mix of tanks, heavy, medium and light. The Inf was in control and they wanted light tanks for recon and medium to support the foot troops. They did not see the need for heavy tanks. This is a way to protect their political power base.

To be fair to the Inf, tank theory was still being developed. Combined arms was not a proven concept yet. There were several different schools of thought. The Combinded Arms model was still unproven. The plan was to try and overwhelm the Germans with fast moving targets. It did work but the tankers paid a high price. The Sherman was call "Zippo" after the lighter.

There are parallels between tank developement and modern aircraft. No one once to pay for developement because we do not need high tech aircraft. The same thing was said about the tank.

A footnote of history. The fist modern tank battle was in South American. Most of the European powers and the US had observers at the war. This war was to armor warfare what the Spain War war was the aircraft. Sorry but I do not remember the country involved. I think it was Brazile. It was watching the tank battle that lead to the Germany using the conbinded arms attack through Europe.

I have talked way to long. This is just rolling out of my brain between calls at work so I my facts may be a little off.

DBII
clank, clank, I'm a tank

[Lucky13]

Originally Posted by Konigstiger205

Well the Tiger had many problems but it was on hell of a tank and in the right hands it was the worst nightmare for allied tanks.Lets remember what one Tiger did at Villers-Bocage.

Not to forget "Barkmann's Corner and Otto Carius and his company of eight (early and mid production) Tigers at the village of Malinava just to mention another two....

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Soren

I'm not talking tanks in general Freebird, I'm talking heavy tanks, with which the British had ZERO experience. The Churchill is the perfect example of this, an attempt by the british to build a heavy tank, and look how that ended: The Churchill was terribly slow, it mounted a pea shooter of a gun, it had poor optics and unusually poor vision for the driver.

Compare this to the Tiger which was fast, very maneuverable (Regenerative steering), featured the best optics in the world, a super powerful & accurate main gun and excellent armor protection (Nearly indistructable to begin with).

It's quite clear that the Germans were well ahead when it came to designing & constructing AFV's.

The Allies quite simply lacked the know how when it came to designing & building heavy tanks, they simply hadn't spent nearly as much time designing & testing such designs as the Germans.



You do know how slow & unreliable this tank was right ? And as for its protection, well again it was insufficient, esp. for the time of its design. The 88mm KwK43 could punch right throught the front armor of the Tortoise at long ranges, and the 128mm KwK44 at even longer ranges.

Remember the KwK43 could punch through over 238mm of armor with its std. AP round, and more than 300mm with APCR rounds. The 128mm KwK44 was even more fierce.

238mm at what range? That won't go through the frontal armour then, as it is 225 mm {IIRC} and sloped so that its effective thickness is more. You know more about guns & armour than me, but from what I understand the Tortoise was specifically designed to withstand direct hits from the feared 88 mm, which the Sherman couldn't hope to do. The designers tested the armour vs. an actual 88mm gun

The problem the Allies were facing was that they had simply fallen waay too much behind in regards to tank design, so when they finally designed some heavily armored tanks the Germans had at the same time already designed, built & deployed guns more than powerful enough to deal with them.

Can't argue with that Soren.

[syscom3]

By the time the allies figured out they needed heavy tanks, the war was lost for Germany, and it ended before the US could deploy only a couple hundred Pershings

Had the war lasted several months more, the allies would have had effective designs would have been fielded and able to take on the German heavy tanks on equal terms.

There was nothing "magical" about the Germans being the only ones able to desgn and build tanks.

[plan_D]

Soren,

I personally agree that the Germans were also one step ahead of the Allies in tank design (except in '39 - '41 when the T-34 was the greatest tank in the world). But I would not say that they were incapable of designing and producing heavy tanks. The Pershing was unreliable, yes, but the main problem was politics holding the machine up in the U.S.A. - the Pershing was capable of battling German tanks and the Super Pershing (only one built) was a very effective tank killing machine. Yes, the war was almost over but the proof was there that the Western Allies had the technology. The Centurion further strengthens that idea; the British were on par with German armour designs and only improving when the Centurion arrived.

For the Western Allies it was mostly politics and inferior doctrine that hindered the progress of heavy armour deployment. By '44 the Allies were relying on heavy weight in artillery and airpower to clear the way for the armour - in some respects, that's the way it should be done - but the Allies didn't quite grasp the speed of which the armour breakthrough should be achieved.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by freebird

238mm at what range? That won't go through the frontal armour then, as it is 225 mm {IIRC} and sloped so that its effective thickness is more.

With the Pzgr.39/43 (APCBC (HE)) the 88mm KwK3 L/71 gun punches through 238mm of 240 BHN RHA armor (The highest quality armor the Allies could produce), this is at 0 degree's (Vertical) and 100m. At 300m it punched through 225mm.

With the Pzgr.41/43 (APCR) the KwK43 punches through 307mm of armor at 300m, and 225mm at 1,745m.

You know more about guns & armour than me, but from what I understand the Tortoise was specifically designed to withstand direct hits from the feared 88 mm, which the Sherman couldn't hope to do.

Yes the 88mm KwK36 L/56, the KwK43 L/71 is an entirely different beast.

The designers tested the armour vs. an actual 88mm gun

IIRC against a 88mm FlaK 18/36 or KwK36.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

Soren,

I personally agree that the Germans were also one step ahead of the Allies in tank design (except in '39 - '41 when the T-34 was the greatest tank in the world). But I would not say that they were incapable of designing and producing heavy tanks.

They weren't incapable, but they failed to focus their attention to this area from as early on as the Germans.

The Pershing was unreliable, yes, but the main problem was politics holding the machine up in the U.S.A. - the Pershing was capable of battling German tanks and the Super Pershing (only one built) was a very effective tank killing machine.

Still it was too weakly armoured & armed. And although the Super Pershing addressed the issue with the armament, the armor was still the same, inadequate.

Also the Super Pershing AFAIK only had one engagement in the war, where it hit the lower frontal hull of a Tiger Ausf.B as it drove up a rubble embankment. A very lucky scenario against a very inexpertly driven Panzer. (Probably had a HJ crew)

Yes, the war was almost over but the proof was there that the Western Allies had the technology.

They might have had the tecnology, but not the know how. Also the optics only got improved after the war after studying the German equipment.

The Centurion further strengthens that idea; the British were on par with German armour designs and only improving when the Centurion arrived.

British weren't on par with the Germans in regards to heavy tank design, they were behind. But the British were the closest nonetheless.

That having been said the Centurion was almost on par with the Panther, so the British were closing the gap by 45. But remember the Panther was a medium tank by German definition, not a heavy tank. The Tiger Ausf.B was from the beginning of its introduction and till the end of WW2 the best armed & armoured tank of WW2.

Also to further prove the German dominance in tank design they had already finished designing and were on their way contructing a new tank series, the E-series, of which the E-100 would be the new std. heavy series tank armed with the 128mm KwK44 L/61 gun. Furthermore the Germans had already designed, build & tested the enormous Maus tank, a bunker on tracks.

When it came to heavy tanks, the German were way ahead from 42 and onwards, and mostly thanks to their high interest on the subject of heavy breakthrough tanks and their high level of research & testing in the area.

[plan_D]

The Super Pershing almost destroyed a few other AFVs after its King Tiger encounter; I believe a Panther was made a victim of the Super Pershing the day after the VI ausf B met its fate - but how the fight progressed I haven't a clue.

You are absolutely right on the optical equipment, but at the standard combat ranges of World War II (400 - 600 metres) the Western Allies had optical equipment good enough to hit their target.

"That having been said the Centurion was almost on par with the Panther, so the British were closing the gap by 45. But remember the Panther was a medium tank by German definition, not a heavy tank. The Tiger Ausf.B was from the beginning of its introduction and till the end of WW2 the best armed & armoured tank of WW2.

Also to further prove the German dominance in tank design they had already finished designing and were on their way contructing a new tank series, the E-series, of which the E-100 would be the new std. heavy series tank armed with the 128mm KwK44 L/61 gun. Furthermore the Germans had already designed, build & tested the enormous Maus tank, a bunker on tracks."

While this is all true, what you fail to notice is the day of the super heavy tank never came. If the war had continued the Germans would have been foolish to continue their testing and attempted production of those grossly over-engineered monsters.

Post-War armour shows us how armoured warfare progressed; the Germans seemed to be stuck in the mindset that bigger is better and frankly that's not the case when it comes to AFVs.

The Centurion, in my opinion, was the most advanced design in the Western Allied arsenal and it was the future (so much so that it served until the '60s). The way forward for Germany should have been the Panther, all other machines should have been abandoned to the medieval ages of armoured warfare - tanks are not land based battleships; that's something Germany did not realise.

The Panther ausf F should have been at the forefront of Germany's design and production priority list. The Centurion was the future for Britain. The Pershing was the future for the U.S.A. The IS-3 was the future for the Soviet Union.

The day was coming for the MBT - there was no place for the super heavy tanks post-world war II.

[Konigstiger205]

Originally Posted by plan_D

The day was coming for the MBT - there was no place for the super heavy tanks post-world war II.

And even today the tank is more vulnerable than ever with so many antitank weapons developed.

[Soren]

Plan_D,

Although we mostly agree I wouldn't call the E-100 a super heavy tank. The Maus most certainly (Like I said, a bunker on tracks), but not the E-100.

The E-100 was a very promising design, and with the 128mm KwK44 L/61 gun it would've also been the by far the deadliest tank on the battlefield. With sabot rounds the KwK44 would turn any tank inside out past 4km with ease (The gun has a larger charge capacity than the modern 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun), and the by then newly developed range finder equipment (Which the Allies also copied along with the optics designs) meant extreme accuracy at long ranges.

And on top of this the Germans were already deploying infrared equipment on their tanks, a group of Panthers effectively utilizing their new infrared sights to target and knock out a large group of Sherans during a night attack.

And in addition to the extremely powerful & accurate armament and night fighting capability, the E-100 also featured extremely good protection, being very heavily armoured, and thus ofcourse also heavy. But the powerful 800 HP engine (Possibly a 1,000 HP engine instead) would've also made sure that the weight was acceptable, providing an equal power to weight ratio as on previous Panzers.

Furthermore the Germans had also completed designing the Tiger Ausf.L E90:

E100 (With MAUS turret) & E90

[Glider]

There is no doubt without question that the Germans were ahead of the rest of the world in tank design.
If we are looking at second place its nice of Soren to say that the British were closest but I would have to give that title to the Russians.

There equipment, might have been simple and of poor quality but they did carry a decent gun, at a decent speed, with decent armour, was reasionably reliable and had a better than average cross county ability.

Allied Genrals must have had a heart attack when they first saw the JSIII in the victory parades.

[Soren]

JS-3 looked good from the outside, but its poor optics & gun really let it down. Also seeing that the Sabot round was in development the JS-3 wasn't going to prove to much of a heart ache.

The British were the closest to the Germans, they proved that with the Centurion, a tank which after the war came to utilize allot of the equipment used in German tanks during the war. And look at how well the Centurion did against the Soviet tanks.