Practical application of super heavy tank

[yamato2cz]

Figured you guys in historic forum would know.

I was wondering what would be function of super heavy tank formation if it came into being? During ww1 germans almost finished two super heavy tanks and france and britain were both working on own super heavy tanks. In ww2 japan, US, russia and germany were working on super heavy tanks as well. But what could be possible practical application of super heavy tank?

Possible short time breakthrough/semi-static defense bunker?

We are talking about super heavy tanks of 100-200 tons, but if you feel like it, id like theory on monster/ratte or any other ludicrous design.

For sake of discussion, do not consider production cost (including its carriage) but only actual ability to move tanks around and their application in battle.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Maus is 190 tons? So, 380,000 American pounds?

Heavy axle railway cars can carry about 300,000 pounds, give or take, depending on the rail bed.

You need special railway cars to even move them, and only the heaviest possible bridges can be crossed.

When they get there, they're basically mobile pill boxes; outstanding on defense, like the King Tigers outside Berlin, worthless on offense.

Oh, and bring LOTS of AAA. You're going to need it.

In exchange for one of them, how many medium tanks, AT guns and artillery pieces can you build to hold the same piece of ground?

 

[yamato2cz]

Maus is 190 tons? So, 380,000 American pounds?

Heavy axle railway cars can carry about 300,000 pounds, give or take, depending on the rail bed.

You need special railway cars to even move them, and only the heaviest possible bridges can be crossed.

When they get there, they're basically mobile pill boxes; outstanding on defense, like the King Tigers outside Berlin, worthless on offense.

Oh, and bring LOTS of AAA. You're going to need it.

In exchange for one of them, how many medium tanks, AT guns and artillery pieces can you build to hold the same piece of ground?

Said dont consider production costs.

Also, speaking of maus, it wouldnt use most bridges. Had system for crossing rivers. dont remember what it was though. Something about supplying it with power from other vehicle until it was on the other side.

So you think that super heavies would be bad on the offensive?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Said dont consider production costs.

Also, speaking of maus, it wouldnt use most bridges. Had system for crossing rivers. dont remember what it was though. Something about supplying it with power from other vehicle until it was on the other side.

So you think that super heavies would be bad on the offensive?

Yes, good on defense as mobile pillboxes that can relocate short distances to avoid the inevitable artillery barrage, bad on offense because they have no speed and no legs.

Compare and contrast the value to the defense of Berlin a handful of Panzer VIb on the edge of Berlin killing many times their number in Russian heavy tanks, versus their throw away value as a slow, mechanically unreliable, gas guzzling spearhead down a snowy forested road in the Ardennes.

The solution you are looking for are Main Battle Tanks, the next evolution of post-war armor. Well armored, well armed, fast and nimble for their size.

 

[yamato2cz]

Yes, good on defense as mobile pillboxes that can relocate short distances to avoid the inevitable artillery barrage, bad on offense because they have no speed and no legs.

Compare and contrast the value to the defense of Berlin a handful of Panzer VIb on the edge of Berlin killing many times their number in Russian heavy tanks, versus their throw away value as a slow, mechanically unreliable, gas guzzling spearhead down a snowy forested road in the Ardennes.

The solution you are looking for are Main Battle Tanks, the next evolution of post-war armor. Well armored, well armed, fast and nimble for their size.

but thats not my point. Not looking for solution, but combat application of sh tanks.

would you think that in city combat sh tanks would fare well?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

but thats not my point. Not looking for solution, but combat application of sh tanks.

would you think that in city combat sh tanks would fare well?

Terrible. They would have huge problems navigating around the rubble after the artillery barrages began.

 

[yamato2cz]

Terrible. They would have huge problems navigating around the rubble after the artillery barrages began.

so not any better than other armored vehicles?

 

[JodelDiplom]

so not any better than other armored vehicles?

Certainly not

At the close ranges of urban combat the SH tanks' armor advantages would also not help them as much as it would help them at longer combat ranges. Certain kinds of weapons like molotov cocktails or mines would be as dangerous for them as they would be for smaller tanks.

 

[pithorr]

so not any better than other armored vehicles?

Even worse...

 

[yamato2cz]

Certainly not

At the close ranges of urban combat the SH tanks' armor advantages would also not help them as much as it would help them at longer combat ranges. Certain kinds of weapons like molotov cocktails or mines would be as dangerous for them as they would be for smaller tanks.

so what would be ideal combat use?

 

[bz249]

so what would be ideal combat use?

We are talking about a Churchill AVRE on buff... so I guess the same situation, i.e. taking out fixed fortified positions, because as long as you have to move you are screwed (this also means defense no option, because the enemy is evil and they attack somewhere else than you expected, thus your supertank will not be there where it is needed).

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

so what would be ideal combat use?

The reason these vehicles are never fielded is becuase they have no ideal combat use. They only look good on paper; in reality their massive cost and limited functionality makes them obsolete out of the gate.

 

[yamato2cz]

The reason these vehicles are never fielded is becuase they have no ideal combat use. They only look good on paper; in reality their massive cost and limited functionality makes them obsolete out of the gate.

again, i said dont consider production. you have 20 maus tanks ready. what will you use them for.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

again, i said dont consider production. you have 20 maus tanks ready. what will you use them for.

Break up your twenty tanks into groups of 2-3-4 tanks, scatter them around to reinforce and strengthen a defensive position as mobile pillboxes, preferably on high clear ground with tremendous sight lines. Keep them protected with strong AAA and infantry with heavy weapons reinforced with indirect artillery. Assign an engineer unit to keep the units functional, the roads clear and to build entrenchments to hide them. Use their 128mm L/55 gun to destroy armor at extremely long range. Do not leave them in the same place, move them around short distances to various pre-prepared positions to avoid indirect fire and/or tactical air response.

 

[yamato2cz]

Break up your twenty tanks into groups of 2-3-4 tanks, scatter them around to reinforce and strengthen a defensive position as mobile pillboxes, preferably on high clear ground with tremendous sight lines. Keep them protected with strong AAA and infantry with heavy weapons reinforced with indirect artillery. Assign an engineer unit to keep the units functional, the roads clear and to build entrenchments to hide them. Use their 128mm L/55 gun to destroy armor at extremely long range. Do not leave them in the same place, move them around short distances to avoid indirect fire and/or tactical air response.

thanks. stuff like that i need to know.

 

[Vincentst]

It is said before, but those monster tanks should first get to the battlefield. And since even the light tanks often got stuck in the mud, I don't think these monters would be an advantage...

 

[viale]

Break up your twenty tanks into groups of 2-3-4 tanks, scatter them around to reinforce and strengthen a defensive position as mobile pillboxes, preferably on high clear ground with tremendous sight lines. Keep them protected with strong AAA and infantry with heavy weapons reinforced with indirect artillery. Assign an engineer unit to keep the units functional, the roads clear and to build entrenchments to hide them. Use their 128mm L/55 gun to destroy armor at extremely long range. Do not leave them in the same place, move them around short distances to various pre-prepared positions to avoid indirect fire and/or tactical air response.

The funny thing is that even under these extremely favorable conditions and given the unlimited resources at disposal a bunker network would still perform better

 

[DoomBunny]

No. A super-heavy tank is just a bad idea with no practical applications. Hell, heavy tanks are a bad idea with very few practical applications.

The asset a tank brings to the battlefield is not its firepower or protection, rather it is the ability to mobilize this firepower and protection. A tank that can't move practically is useless on the offensive because it can't go anywhere, and useless on the defensive because the enemy will either go around it or target so much firepower onto it that the thing is disabled anyway.

Moreover, there comes a point when it is simply unnecessary to make a tank any larger. Take the Tiger vs Sherman tradeoff for example; the Tiger has an initial advantage and a major one at that, but as soon as you stick a 17-pdr in the Sherman then all the Tiger's advantages evaporate and you're left with an expensive, slow, unreliable waste of resources. Similarly with something like the Maus, there's nothing to stop the enemy producing a dedicated tank killer for half the price.

 

[bz249]

Take the Tiger vs Sherman tradeoff for example; the Tiger has an initial advantage and a major one at that, but as soon as you stick a 17-pdr in the Sherman then all the Tiger's advantages evaporate and you're left with an expensive, slow, unreliable waste of resources.

Since tanks not supposed to fight each other it is not necessarily true... if the job is overran/suppress/destroy whatever enemy strongpoint the Tiger still have its advantage because of the bigger gun and more armor. There is a reason for the Sherman Jumbo (it is not supposed to fight other tanks, but sometimes it is nice to have ~6" of steel between you and the enemy) or the 105 mm howitzer equipped version. The question is how often would you call a Jumbo/Chruchill AVRE to do something what a regular Sherman cannot.

 

[yamato2cz]

No. A super-heavy tank is just a bad idea with no practical applications. Hell, heavy tanks are a bad idea with very few practical applications.

The asset a tank brings to the battlefield is not its firepower or protection, rather it is the ability to mobilize this firepower and protection. A tank that can't move practically is useless on the offensive because it can't go anywhere, and useless on the defensive because the enemy will either go around it or target so much firepower onto it that the thing is disabled anyway.

Moreover, there comes a point when it is simply unnecessary to make a tank any larger. Take the Tiger vs Sherman tradeoff for example; the Tiger has an initial advantage and a major one at that, but as soon as you stick a 17-pdr in the Sherman then all the Tiger's advantages evaporate and you're left with an expensive, slow, unreliable waste of resources. Similarly with something like the Maus, there's nothing to stop the enemy producing a dedicated tank killer for half the price.

if heavy tanks were bad idea, why were they outperforming other tanks?

also we are not talking about tank that cant move. we are talking about tank with possible speed of 10-40km/h, depending on what super heavy tank you chose. Thats rather fast, compared to infantry.

Would you place bets on sherman or maus in 1v1 battle?

Also, we are talking about tanks, not tank hunters.

We are talking about whether our unit of 20 or whatever amount of tanks can actually be useful, we are not talking about feasibility of production, but about combat performance of unit of super heavy tanks (als oremember we are not talking specificaly about maus, but super heavy tanks in general)