Why were Super-Heavy Tanks designed?

By September, the 90mm anti-aircraft gun was the GI's own 88.

Heavy tanks sort of went out of fashion. If you look at operational use, the heavy tank was a one trick pony that was bad at its trick. A handful of Tiger I could spearhead a division in 43, but by 44 there were so many counters it just wasn't worth the effort to bring something so heavy up only to leave it behind once the fortifications were reduced.

Keep in mind that the IS-2 achieved having thick armor and heavy gunpower rivaling the Tiger II at the weight of the Panther. Its minimalist design speak volumes about the antiquity of super heavy tanks: it was more important to keep the attack moving then to have "the best" tank-killing power.

 

The IS-2's cannon was not optimal for the anti-tank role but rather designed for good HE capability. It could only fire 2 per minute and the whole tank had space for only 28 rounds (a third of the Tiger I/II).

The IS-2/IS-3 seemed to be more designed and deployed to attack strong German infantry defenses rather than fight tanks.

 

Perhaps but the IS's shell didn't even need to penetrate the armour of a panther, since the kinetic energy alone was enough to ripe of the turret.

 

That's partially true. Late war, the German welding and finishing quality had degraded a lot. Earlier, the Russians found that it was very hard for an IS-2 to knock out a panther trough the front. That problem disappeared by mid-44 as the quality of the armour started to degrade.
And to further add to the "heavy tank was useless" argument, a Panther could go toe to toe (with a slight disadvantage) against the IS-2 the only advantage the Tiger II had was that it could destroy an IS-2 at any range.
Plus, had they focused on the Panther, they'd have more guns to bring to the fray and that's always better than a big, bulky, unwieldy one...



Cheers...

 

The 122 could rip turrets with high explosives. Totally castastrophic to the crew.

 

The British had one Firefly per Troop in a troop of 4 tanks, 4 troops to a Squadron and three squadrons to a Regiment additionally each sqadron had a HQ troop and Reconnaissance troop of Stuarts/scout cars.

The number of towed 17pdr as opposed to SPGs varies from time to time as they had different functions, towed guns were set up as a back screen the SPGs were part of the advance.

 

Heavy and super-heavy tanks persisted well into the 60's with some of the designs surviving in service into the 70's. The Soviets continued development of the IS series culminating with the T-10. The US put the M 103 into service while Britain had the Conqueror. Even France experimented with the AMX 50 for a period.
All of these fell by the wayside as gun power increased to a point where a couple of inches more armor did nothing nor was a slightly bigger gun worth the effort to field it. The introduction of guided missiles brought another reason to drop the heavy tank. These could penetrate an AFV at any range they could be fired to. No longer could a heavy tank sit out of range of its opponets and use its larger gun to effect.

 

There seems to be a bit confusion over what is a super heavy tank, only the E100, Maus and the turretless T28 could really be regarded as Super Heavy -The US classified super heavy as around 100ton.

Other tanks US T29 T30 and T34 were heavy tanks as was the M103, The Conqueror was a universal tank in concept to replace the Centurion in effect the first MBT, it ended up as a superior overfire vehicle- like a fifties version of the Sherman Firefly.

The Russian Heavy tanks JS2 -JS3 were smaller lighter than German Heavy tanks. The T10 the Post war heavy tank only ceased production because of interference by the politbureau and Kruschev. Many post war tank enthusiasts see the T64 as a tactical replacement for the heavies.

There is of course the very super heavy tanks the Soviets in their first five year plan (1927) proposed a land ironclad weighing 1000tons armed with 6inch guns, it would proceed toward the enemy impervious to anything, probably ran over a few villages on the way to the front.

The German plans were for 110,130,150 and 170 ton vehicles all called Krupp Maus. The ultimate German fantisy was 1500ton vehicle powered by 4 U Boat motors with an 80cm gun in SPG mount and two six inch turrets.
With 250mm 45degree frontal armour. They must have been on drugs.

 

True, but it was a "one-shot" or bust deal. If the first hit didn't connect and they were spotted, the Panther/Tiger I/II could put a few rounds at them for half a minute before the IS-2 could respond.

Secondly, the IS-2/IS-3 had a very low ammo capacity. (possibly on the part of the designer trying to reduce the overall size and weight of their heavy tank)

 

Wolfy, you can only speak of the IS-2. The armour layout of the IS-3 would've rendered anything but the long 88 ineffective trough the front. Plus, the kinetic energy wouldn't always rip the turret of a Panther.



Cheers...

 

The IS-3 still had an even slower firing rate and some deficiencies in the target acquisition value of the main gun.

". While this low, hemispherical turret may have made the IS-3 a smaller target, it also imposed severe penalties inside the tank by significantly diminishing the working headroom, especially for the loader .

The low turret also limited the maximum depression of the main gun, since the gun breech had little room inside the turret to pivot on its vertical axis. As a result, the IS-3 was unable to use cover provided by the reverse sides of hills and embankments, and it had to expose itself by driving over the crest to fire at opponents."

But still, if the war went on well into 1945 to 46', the Germans would have to deal with large numbers of the IS-3, which would render their Panther tanks less effective.

 

The IS2 and 3 both had problems with the ammuntion stowage in that in the IS2 the rounds stowed in the rear turret were vulnerablle. the IS3 was in someways more so as without the bustle the stowage for the shell were around the turret. Any shells rather than shot in these racks were vulnerable to a none penetrating hit. Of course the JS3 never faced a Panther or Tiger, but were KOd by Israeli 75mm CN and 90mm tank fire in similar circumstances.

The energy of a 122mm gun hit on a Panther turret is game over, True it probably wouldn't rip the turret off but a HE impact at best (for the Panther) on the mantlet it would disrupt sighting and make the gunner very unwell. AP on the same, the best circumstance would be a upward richochette, again the sights and the gunner would suffer along with the mounting. Any other circumstance would result in the tank being written off probably with the crew. The comparative weakness of the Panther turret front was the reason for the Schmall turm development.

 

True. I misread what Wolfy said. I was speaking merely of a Panther and an IS-3 slugging it out 1 on 1. My bad. Still, what I said remains true. the 250mm front armour of the JS-3 is still impervious to most of the AP shots.

That's correct. I was merely referring to the fact that a Panther hit in the turret wouldn't be written off all the time. Most likely, it'd need to unjam the Turret recalibrate the sights and mend other damage from the shock. The German tests of the Panther vs an IS-2 showed that the turret could be severely damaged from up to 1000m. Hitting a small object like a turret at 1000m is another subject tough.




Cheers...

 

well yeah because the armor on the turret is not sloped and probably not very thick either so as you said shell to the turret means really bad shock to main gunner a hit anywhere else on a panther will do nothing.:bazookafire:anther:

 

Paratrooper506
I'll try to clarify this. I Mentioned a hit on the mantlet as hits elsewhere on the Panther turret with a 122mm D25 either HE shell shell or AP shell at maximum practical range would result in a wrecked tank, the only problem as Miguel B said is that aiming up on a tank turret at 2000m is difficult but it can be done. A Panther turret had 45mm ar 65degrees on its sides and rear and 16mm on the roof. For the mantlet best figure for Panther G modified was 120mm, this replaced the earlier rounded mantlet where a richochette from the lower mantlet by comparitively small claibre A/P projectile would be forced through the roof of the hull. the pentration figures for the Standard (lower specification A/P round) was 122mm at 2000m,133mm at 1500m and 142mm at 1000m. assuming a hit square on but as you can see from these figures survival is very limited, as I said previously the best chance is a richochette but the amount of absorbed energy will cause damage. The hull does give any better protection at 2000m the A/P round will priece 95mm at 60degree so in effect the pPanther hull front will not keep this out. and if it is not at optimum angle the damage to steering gear etc will still be really bad.

Soviet figures are that the given pentration is that 70% of the shot will pass through the plate, this compared to the standard German (western) standard is 50% possibly in the end it doesn't matter as 50% of 122mm shell would be pretty devestating.

The IS2 had its own problems and had very similar armour thickness to the Panther. One thing I have noticed is a caterstrophic failure of the turret front, which is possibly due to a terminal interal explosion, in that the gun mount in effect unbolted from the turret front.

Steve

 

okay listen closely for even the deadliest tank artillery can solve just about any problem with big old heavy armor tanks so it would not matter what an Is2s tank shell could do better dead than still moving I mean if you hit the turret the tank will probably keep right on going

 

What do you mean by that? I am having trouble understanding your post.

A Panther hit by 122mm in the turret is most emphatically not going to keep on going. With the quality of German armor at 44-45 a hit this close to penetration will effectively mission kill the tank if it didn't kill the crew.

I'd be the first to agree that the IS-2 had problems, but as compared to what in its weight class? The Tiger E, the Panther, the Pershing?

 

then the crew escapes and throws a few grenades in the hatch and it,s over.

 

And what was that supposed to mean? Please try to clarify your syntax. What crew throws grenade into whose hatch after what event?

 

Not what I said. I said that it had problems piercing the armour not that nothing would happen. Like Razin said, a square on hit on the hull by an HE round would cause some severe shockwaves. And because of the German armour quality of late 44/45 that meant welding breaking up and possible armour collapse. I said that in 43, Soviet AP shots had troubles dealing with the armour of the Panther but that problem disappeared once the steel and welding quality started to decay.

Oh and a Hit to the turret wouldn't be a "bad shock" probably the gunner would be tossed around along with radio sets and bolts inside the tank. that's pretty much a kill...



Cheers...