Could America have used heavy tanks?

Soren · 03-07-2008, 07:43 AM

The Tiger Ausf.E's armor couldn't stand against any of German 88's.

plan_D · 03-07-2008, 08:02 AM

Sorry, but the E-100 was definately a super-heavy tank and completely pointless. The numbers are nice but in reality the E-100 and Maus were both on a level playing field which was not a very stable one for either of them. It weighed over 100 tonnes ... that's a moronic weight. That's more weight than any modern MBT.

Soren · 03-07-2008, 09:11 AM

The weight of the E-100 with the MAUS turret was very high, 137 metric tons, which is double that of the Tiger Ausf.B. However with speed of 38 - 40 km/h it could work. But with a smaller turret and gun (Instead of the 150 - 173mm gun) the weight would've decreased considerably.

The MAUS on the other hand weighed in at 188 metric tons, a behemoth of a tank, and very impractical, seeing that no bridge could hold it.

The best design the Germans had finished was undoubtedly the Tiger III Ausf.L, which at a weight of 95 metric tons and with a 1500 HP HL450 engine was a very sound design. Its armour protection and armament was incredible. It was to be armed with a 128mm KwK44 L/61 equipped with infrared sights, range finders, and armour protection was in excess of 250mm.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-07-2008, 09:11 AM

How can the E-100 not be considered a Super-Heavy tank? Hell it weighs more than the best modern tanks today. Granted that is partially due to better armour and construction materials but still...

Konigstiger205 · 03-07-2008, 09:19 AM

The Germans kinda got nuts at the end of the war with some really unrealistic designs...what they should have concentrated was on improving the Tiger, produce more Stg44 and perhaps work on the Me262...

Juha · 03-07-2008, 11:30 AM

E-100 was clearly impractical, real "paper-tiger".
Not surprisingly no nation seriously considered to mass-produce 100-140 ton tanks after 1945.

Juha

DBII · 03-07-2008, 12:31 PM

OK guys, I found these links on the T28 Super Heavy Tank. I first saw this monster in 1979 while at Fort Know. The Patton Museum as a video of this monster on the move.

Missing Links Gallery Daniel Mitchell T28 Heavy Tank
2007 08-07 Patton Museum of Armor at Fort Knox - T28 Super Heavy Tank photo - Bryan photos at pbase.com

DBII

Soren · 03-07-2008, 02:56 PM

I disagree on the E-100 being impractical. As long as the fording capability was good the tank would prove very useful.

As for the E-100 being super heavy tank, well I concede.

At any rate the E-90 Ausf.L was a much better design, and at 95 tons and a 1500 HP engine, it featured a better power to weight ratio than any other heavy tank of the time.

Perhaps the one piece ammunition 105mm KwK44 was a better solution than the two piece ammunition 128mm KwK44 though, considering the lower reloading time of the 105mm gun.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 03-07-2008, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soren

I disagree on the E-100 being impractical. As long as the fording capability was good the tank would prove very useful.

Until it sank in the mud...

The Tiger, King Tiger, and Panther were more than good eneogh. The E-100 and any of the other "super heavy" tanks were a waste of recourses and impractical.

Glider · 03-07-2008, 06:13 PM

I must admit a 100 ton tank is basically useless. You would have great trouble finding a bridge that could take the weight, a tunnel big enough to fit it or a railway wide enough to carry it.
How on earth you would move it to the front is a bit of a mystery to me.

syscom3 · 03-07-2008, 08:00 PM

Soren, most tank battles were at ranges under the theoretical max effective range of their guns.

The US 90mm was more than capable of defeating the Tiger and Panther at the medium and short ranges that usually occured.

And its a wasted argument of yours saying that the German tanks that the Pershing destroyed were manned by Hitler Youth. The fact is the Pershing engaged them and knocked them out.

comiso90 · 03-07-2008, 09:20 PM

No knowledgeable person can fault the Sherman. It wast designed for a slugfest. It's job was to punch through and hit the supply lines. Speed, reliability and moilty supreme! Let the "Tank Destroyers"(M-10, M-36) and aircraft mop up. There is no way Patton could have covered as much ground as he did if he had Tigers and KingTigers. The German tanks were marvelous machines built for a different type of battlefield. Do I fault American armored doctrine for not including a heavy tank at least in a limited capacity?

YES! The Pershing was too late to even mention.

The Sherman did it's job but it could have used a bigger brother to hide behind when things got tough.

Who here would have liked to have been a Tanker in a Sherman??

Those were some brave Mo Fo's!!!

.

glen · 03-07-2008, 09:21 PM

Quote:

The US strategy for armoured warfare, was to use the Sherman tank used in the mobile part of the battle to "go deep" and cutoff enemy strongpoints with dedicated tank destroyers to go "one on one" with the enemy tanks.

Obviously, this strategy didnt work out so well.

Right! General Mcnair of US army was the "murderer" of US heavey tank. His strategy(persitsed by himself) is just like that. On one hand, US tank destroyers did very well in knocking out german tanks, on the other hand, US medium tank suffered from german panther/tigers. If Mcnair had not been so stupid, the allied would got pershing @ D day.

Quote:

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.

Soren allways forget sth. which is "bad" for german. It's kingtiger not Tiger.

Quote:

The Pershings that did get into a match with the Germans did prove they were perfectly capable of taking them on.

Pershing/Js2 and panther are of same weight, tiger nad kingtiger are much heavier. ....As we all known, Yamato class is the strongest battle ship in the world, but it's hard to say Japanese marine technology is the best! Note that Yamato class is much heavier than IOWA/bismark.... Stronger protection require more amor(weight), and stronger firepower requires bigger or longer cannons which renders more weight and space. Soren, if you are proud of germany 60 tons heavy tank's advantage over allied 30-40 tons medium tanks, enjoy it plz. I am also enjoying the BIG "marine technology advantage" of Japanese over germany.

With regard to firepower, 17pdr L58/76mm=L70/75mm, L50/90mm=L56/88mm, L70/90mm=L71/88mm...I can't find any advantage of German guns. For those thick target plate, the quality should be "bad" inevitably no matter which country produces it. Therefore the penetration of 17pdr/kwk43 is "fake", that is to say they can penetrate thick vertical amor(bad quality) in battle field, however, they are insufficient facing Panther's 80mm/55degree (good quality) or pershing's 102mm/46degree(good quality) .

You don't know how APCR works, soren. APCR's real diameter is quite small, so they are insuffcient facing high obilique/ enough thickness (>>40mm)plate because their poor T/D number. For example, the L56/88mm apcbc can't penetrate panther's 80mm/55 degree, neither can it's apcr. However, if the plate thickness or oblique is small such as T34's 45/47mm, js2 early version's 120mm/30degree, the apcr will show their power.

Optics, allied is not bad, they even have elevation stabilizer.

Soundbreaker Welch? · 03-07-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Who here would have liked to have been a Tanker in a Sherman??

I think being stuck in a burning tank would feel worse than being stuck in a burning plane.

But I have never been stuck in either so I really don't know.

glen · 03-07-2008, 09:44 PM

I don't know the quality of pershing amor, but if it is as good as M4A3E2's, the 102mm/46degree of upper front will be imune to Panther or Tiger's apcbc/apcr. Even the kingtiger's kwk43 can only pene. it within 500 meters. of couse, th turret front is only 102mm-110mm vertical which can be pene. by many late guns from far away.