Practical application of super heavy tank

[Kovax]

There have been numerous replies that ridiculed the idea, mainly because the idea of using such monsters under real-life combat conditions IS ridiculous. What was once an only marginally useable and highly impractical concept, proven not to be worth the effort and expense, is now a complete waste, thanks to anti-tank missiles, artillery, and other weapons that render it even more vulnerable than the lighter and faster machines it's expected to replace.....let's see: I can have a giant tracked pillbox that hopefully inches slowly toward the enemy if I can get it to the battle at all and find a flat, firm field where it can operate, or I can have a handful of faster and more useful tanks instead, which are infinitely more flexible and quite capable of dealing with anything in the opposing arsenal at decent odds. Sure, it's a lot more useful than NOTHING, but there is no longer any practical application where it's preferable.

 

[MCMartel]

Practical Application: None

 

[chepaeff]

Tons of practical applications: tank designers are busy creating something, military strategists are busy inventing its tactical role. Everybody receives generous funds, awards and all that while being far from frontline. Crews of these monsters not so much but oh well.

 

[billcorr]

Superheavy tank guns would have farther range.

All i asked you is to give opinion on possible combat use of such tanks

The combat use for a superheavy tank would like likely revolve around its direct fire range.

Assuming that a superheavy would mount something equivalent to a 14 inch ship gun, then:

The 14"/50 caliber gun was designed in 1916 and entered service in 1918 on the New Mexico-class battleships. The guns were capable of firing a 1,402 pounds (636 kg) armor-piercing (AP) projectile at an angle of 15 degrees, to a range of 24,000 yards (22 km). Each gun weighed approximately 179,614 pounds (81.472 Mg), including the breech, and was 714 inches (18.1 m) long. The propellant charge used for the ammunition weighed 470 pounds (210 kg) and was contained in four bags.[1]
​

Such a stand-off range would allow the super-heavy to engage targets up to 13 miles.

This assumes

• a clear field of fire for direct-fire mode.
• or working with forward observers in an indirect-fire mode.

In a game such as HoI4, a superheavy tank would likely get bonuses for fighting where there is a good line of sight, such as in

• deserts,
• marshes,
• plains, and
• perhaps hills (height advantage, thus increasing the field of fire).

Also, there'd be a bonus against fortifications.

 

[billcorr]

the guns were capable of firing a 1,402 pounds (636 kg) armor-piercing (AP) projectile

Note that 636 kg is a bit less than a Kübelwagen.

Imagine hurling shells with the mass of a Kübelwagen over 20 kilometers.

 

[ThaHoward]

Note that 636 kg is a bit less than a Kübelwagen.

Imagine hurling shells with the mass of a Kübelwagen over 20 kilometers.

View attachment 312758

Except that a mg42 would litterally rip it apart?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

All i asked you is to give opinion on possible combat use of such tanks if you put aside their production cost and impractical strategic transportation. All you people do is mock me, for questioning you, or trying to keep you in the theme we were discussing. I thought you would be more open minded to some theme like this, seems like i was mistaken. Id like to ask mod to close the thread.

Re-read the thread. We calmly and patiently answered your question from a variety of angles. You didn't like our answers. We gave you a new set. You didn't like those answers. After that, we changed our tack. No one mocked you; we did, however, enjoy playing with the idea of a supertank that exists outside the known laws of physics.

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

I propose a motion that we name our prototype Fliedermaus Supertank: The Loretta!

It will be symbolic of our struggle against the oppression created by the Laws of Physics to break the shackles repressing tank design and performace.

 

[Kovax]

A late acquaintance who served in Korea once commented about his company calling for fire support while around 14 miles inland. The requested fire arrived only a couple of minutes later, directly on target. When the officer in command called to congratulate and thank the artillery group for the impressive support (and to call off further rounds), the reply was from a US battleship a couple of miles offshore.

Basically, a heavy self-propelled artillery gun might have some uses, but a massively armored monstrosity designed for direct fire probably has a lot less, if any.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

A late acquaintance who served in Korea once commented about his company calling for fire support while around 14 miles inland. The requested fire arrived only a couple of minutes later, directly on target. When the officer in command called to congratulate and thank the artillery group for the impressive support (and to call off further rounds), the reply was from a US battleship a couple of miles offshore.

Basically, a heavy self-propelled artillery gun might have some uses, but a massively armored monstrosity designed for direct fire probably has a lot less, if any.

On that note, there is a story from Omaha Beach of a panzer unit forming up just outside the known range of the American battleships guns. The captain of USS Texas ordered his torpedo blister flooded, causing his ship to list slightly, adding 5 degrees more arc to his 14" naval rifles firing range. The German panzer formation was decimated.

I have no doubt this story would have a different ending if the Loretta Fliedermaus had been deployed. The Germans would have returned fire, and the fleet forced to withdraw before the Lorettas went amphibious and deployed her torpedoes.

 

[billcorr]

We calmly and patiently answered your question from a variety of angles. You didn't like our answers. We gave you a new set. You didn't like those answers. After that, the gloves were off. No one mocked you, we did mock the Unicorn Tank you were designing.

Perhaps the frustration was due to a litany of responses that did not answer the original question:

I was wondering what would be function of super heavy tank formation if it came into being?

The majority of responses did not address what would be the function of a super heavy tank formation.

"It can't be done."
"It should not be done."
"it would cost too much."
"the opportunity costs are staggering."
"there is no place on the battlefield for superheavy tanks."

But that was not the question.

The question is,

"what would be function of super heavy tank formation?"

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I invite you to go back and reread the first page of the thread before making that pronouncement. We did answer his question, repeatedly. Many of the posts came from professional engineers who elaborated in great detail why his specific examples were simply not practical for use on the battlefield. It was when he stopped listening to legitimate answers and tried to make a super-heavy tank into something it simply is not that the split occurred.

 

[billcorr]

I invite you to go back and reread the first page of the thread before making that pronouncement.

Ah, found the rose among thorns:

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.

Yes, you were right. There was a description of a practical application of a super heavy tank on the first page.

I stand corrected.

Thanks!

 

[Narwhal]

Second page had several answers, too

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

My pleasure. But, seriously, I thank the OP for starting the thread. Without it, the legendary Loretta Fliedermaus Supertank would never have been born; and I intend to help keep it alive for quite some time to come.

 

[gagenater]

Perhaps the frustration was due to a litany of responses that did not answer the original question:



The majority of responses did not address what would be the function of a super heavy tank formation.

"It can't be done."
"It should not be done."
"it would cost too much."
"the opportunity costs are staggering."
"there is no place on the battlefield for superheavy tanks."

But that was not the question.

The question is,

"what would be function of super heavy tank formation?"

My answers are in the previous pages, but boil down to explanations of the following: A superheavy tank (individual or formation) has no strategic or tactical mobility. If there is a battle, it is unlikely to be able to get to the battle to participate in it (strategic mobility) If they arrive in, or are placed in the correct position to be employed in a battle, they lack the tactical mobility to be likely to make a valuable contribution to it.

I almost answered that they would be best employed by placing the hull of the tank in a large hole, then filling the hole with concrete to reinforce it, and leaving only the turret sticking up, but THAT would have been a smart butt response, so Instead I tried to thoughtfully detail WHY tanks of that nature can't move around in a way that is practical for military use.

 

[keynes2.0]

Assuming that a superheavy would mount something equivalent to a 14 inch ship gun, then:

Even the Ratte (which was insane) was *only* 11 inch guns. A 14 inch ship gun, it's turret and it's ammo would be the better part of a thousand tons. That's before you even get into the automotive system, transmission, treds, body armor...

Might as well just put some treds on an actual battleship at that rate!

 

[billcorr]

Might as well just put some treds on an actual battleship at that rate!

 

[keynes2.0]

That secondary battery arrangement is wildly impractical and anachronistic.

 

[bz249]

That secondary battery arrangement is wildly impractical and anachronistic.

Note that in tank you don`t have to worry about drag forces, so unlike the pencil shaped water battleships, land battleships can have whatever shape they like.

 

[George Parr]

I invite you to go back and reread the first page of the thread before making that pronouncement. We did answer his question, repeatedly. Many of the posts came from professional engineers who elaborated in great detail why his specific examples were simply not practical for use on the battlefield. It was when he stopped listening to legitimate answers and tried to make a super-heavy tank into something it simply is not that the split occurred.

I disagree. Yes, there were some who gave a proper answer, but also many many users who ignored the entire premise of the topic. The answer to the question "what do you do with these things if you have them?" is not "they are too expensive". All those who pointed at production costs and all that stuff didn't answer the question at all. The fact that some people gave a proper answer doesn't change that many others didn't. As such, any comment aimed against those answers is perfectly valid.

That doesn't cover the bits were people were just throwing weird ideas around for the fun of it.