Why were Super-Heavy Tanks designed?

What was the point of building these monstrosities when airpower could easily neutralize their potency? They could barely move and were too heavy for bridges.

T-28



Panzer VIII Maus



Tortoise

 

You wouldn't unless you had air superiority, or you would have to move at night like Tiger2 and Jagdtigers.

The T28 and tortoise were built with a limited goal in mind that of reducing fixed instalations, tanks with only one mission tend not to be succesfull -there was only one Seigfreid line and although they might have been of use against bunkers if Japan had been invaded weapons such as M12 and M40 and Sherman Flamethowers would have done the job with greater flexibity.

 

Air power couldn't easily neutralize these beasts. They moved at night not for the tanks protection but for the safety of the supporting vehicles.

The other obstacles you list are valid.

Was developed to breach German fortified places only a couple were built an never used.

This one was developed to be able to sit and fight heavy armor. Not many people will argue that this was not a waste.

I am not sure about this one.

Generally everything has a purpose behind its development. The trick it to find it and try to understand it.

 

They could certainly damage them - particularly their tracks. Smaller German Panzers in Normandy were often damaged or immobilized (but rarely destroyed) by fighter-bombers.

Such vehicles would require a lot of self-propelled anti-air units, though..

What I'm really curious about is how they planned to deploy these weapons in formations and their tactical implementation.

 

Battleships of the Land.

Although air power quickly changed the way Navy battles were fought, they still continued to build bigger and better Battleships. Why? Because of the sheer power they have over any other ship. Much like these land battleships. They have the ability to take on many tanks at once due to there power, sure they were a waste but could have been effective in the right situation.

 

Maus and e100 is what a nation gets when a PFC is in charge of a country. Both have 40mm armour on the roof and 240mm on the front. T28 which had a perceived role unlike the Maus/E100 had 240mm of armour basic on the hull front and another 240mm on the gun mask.

The 120mm gun derived from the standard US heavy A/A gun firing HVAP shell could pierce 250mm of armour at 30degree 1000yards so super heavy tank gone.

Without control of the air aerial bombs would wreck a large target such as this fairly quickly.

I did road control amongst other things and you don't move heavy military equipment at night unless it is absolutely necessary as you end up with bad accidents and damaged equipment.

Battleships were prestige weapons after Taranto, Pearl harbour. Yamato was sunk by light attack aircraft. Arazona was sunk primarily by taking a hit through the roof of B turret, as was the Italian battleship Roma which was sunk by a single guided bomb.

Steve

 

Yes Arizona was hit by torpedos but it was a high level bomb that destroyed blowing up the forward magazine, Arizona was still upright and intact when the A/P bomb hit it as can be seen in the film of the event. Many ships hit by torpedos in harbour survive unless they suffer an interal explosion, otherwise they rapidly settle and flooding prevents fire spreading.

 

The whole idea of building big tanks was just a waste of time. Even the famous tiger may not have been a smart move because it way several times more expensive than other tanks

 

The Tiger was the Last tank design started prior to Barbarossa and was designed to better anything the Russians had at the time, the Germans were aware of Russian Bunker busters such as the SMK,T100 and probably the KV. They were not aware of the T34 although it had been shown to US reporters in the winter of 1940-41. The Germans were aware that something was wrong as Russian military officers had told the Germans that they were not showing all their tank types when they had a tour of German facilities in the fall of 1939.

The Tiger could better a T34/76 and even the T34/85 could only just about be regarded as nearly equal.

Totally agree it also put strain on all other resources, Tiger 1 in particular needed a none standard one of a kind ammunition for its gun, all the engineering equipment, repair, recovery transporters needed upgrade -and which idiot thought of having two sets of tracks for transportation?

Steve

 

Hmm?!!

Germany had HUGE problems with raw materials and production.

 

So what? No body is talking about Reichmarks.

A Tiger took 300,000 manpower to build but could any allied dedicated armor-killing vehicle can knock it out. US 3-in., 76mm, 90mm and Russian 85mm could make flank shot kills at long ranage. Russian 122mm can do it at any range. An utter waste of resources and time.

 

I call tanks steel coffins on tracks cause thats just what every tank is even the tiger 1

 

In a battlefield, pschologically you would feel safer in your coffin rather than crouching behind some bricks

 

You base your opinions about weapons way too much on Call of Duty..

 

well most are yes but I,m saying that the super heavy tanks where made so the germans had the best of the best but basically the super heavy tank is a self propelled artillery piece with a turret so what I,m trying to say big guns where ever you need them with great armor to protect the crew although this probably would not be a very good idea because of allied airpower so they decided to make a lighter variant cause like you said before they are very slow and easy to hit with bombs and thats probably why they did,nt use them

 

The heavy tank concept was outdated by '45 because standard tank and anti-tank guns had grown so powerful, the weight required to have good all-around protection (immunity at ranges over 500m) became impossible. The super-heavies of 44-45 that succeeded the heavies of 41-43 had massively increased frontal armor but no appreciable improvement over its flanks. Inspite of their power and armor, they were still vulnerable on the battlefield and as significantly has no endurence to fight the deep battle beyond the breathrough which is the fight where tankers earn their keep.

 

The UK 17/ 90 were relatively uncommon and unwieldy (unless mounted on a tank/tank destroyer, weren't they?

When German Panther/Mark IV tanks broke through the Ardennes in late 1944, the main stationary A/T guns they faced were only 57mm

And the Russian 85mm/US 76mm would have to let the tank get to a relatively close range, which wasn't always possible.

The IS-2 (in 1945) seemed to have performed well against enemy A/T fronts.

 

Heavy and super-heavy tanks had a purpose within a limited tactical scenario. That is why they were created. The tactical scenario where they were useful was one where an attacker was faced with a heavily fortified line that would be difficult to break. Defensively, the heavy / super-heavy tank could act as a mobile bunker capable of causing serious delay to an attacker.
The problem with both is that this scenario is rare at best. The added value of a heavy or super-heavy tank is marginal as well. That is, the Tiger wasn't that much better than a Pz IV or Panther nor was the Js II that much better than a T 34/85. The Jumbo Sherman is the same case.
The end result was that nations producing tanks recognized that the heavy / super-heavy tank was not worth the extra effort to produce and field it. It is that simple.

 

You wouldn't be commenting on my old post that have ceased to be extant would you. I am a sneaky bastard that way.

I consider the 17 pndr a common weapon. The Brits aimed to arm one out of five tanks in their plt. (or was it squadron) with a 17 pndr. Frontal fire is not at all what I am talking about here. IS-II is vulnerable to 75mm L/48 at long range from the flanks.

What I am trying to communicate is that heavy tanks don't pay off anymore. The Tiger E was a better investment than the Tiger B because in 1943 nothing can touch a Tiger E so that E's combat power outweighs its immobility and extragavant use of resources. In 1945, there are almost nothing the Tiger B can do but the Pz. V cannot. Against a reasonably well armed opponent such as a 76/85 gun armed TD or tank, there are practically no combat advantage being in a Tiger B instead of a Pz. V except weapon range.

On the meanwhile, you are bigger, slower, expensive more fuel-hungry and need bridging.

 

The post changed completely, haha.

I was more referring to the commonality of stationary (towed) 90mm and 17 pounder guns. Most of them seemed to be mounted on the M-36 Slugger or the Sherman Firefly.

I think the Tiger II (in 1945) had some application over the panther- mainly its front armor was proof against all Allied A/T weapons and it could take the IS-2 on toe to toe. It's side armor was less, but gave it much better survivability against the 85mm and the 76mm compared to the easily penetrable panther side armor.