Even in that case the enemy would be forced to keep really heavy ordinance around just in case the 30mm doesn't pass through it. Meaning resources are being deployed far away from more crucial areas.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
But they had 155mm artillery pretty much everywhere anyways. A few hits from that are going to shake the tank up enough to at least bring it to a halt. And given how slow the thing is and that it can't entrench well, massed fire will score many hits.
Which is why dummy armour would be better in the form of light or medium tanks that don't have all the disadvantages of super-heavy tanks.
But my point is that they wouldn't change the inventory to deal with them, they already wanted the 155mm for ordinary combat.
Fake tank divisions would keep those combat units out of battle with your real forces though, they would act as a diversion. And if you mixed in real tanks they would stay out for a lot longer.
That’s over the top, but what about making a towed artillery piece with the same gun as the super heavy tank. You have a bunch of well camouflaged positions. Are they towed guns? Dummy tanks? Real super heavy tanks? Hard to say.
You have real forces mixed in. Or build the superheavydummy tanks on top of real medium tanks. The recon units get gunned down by mixed in real forces. Plus It’s really hard to tell: did those 30 mm rounds pass through the dummy or bounce off a real one. That’s not easy to figure out at long range.
For what, fifteen minutes? Decoy units aren't supposed to be anywhere near the enemy. Five minutes after the first 75mm shell lands, the jig is up.
I figured the hypothesized scenario was that you had a bunch of super-heavies lying around, and you had to figure out what to do with them, not unlimited production.
Exactly:
vs
a few less moving parts, no?
And the 128mm Pak was also an utterly useless weapon (far easier to give some shaped charge for the normal artillery units, then to have a specialized AT beast with marginal usability in indirect fire)
Very informative thread. I was aware of some of the problems of heavy tanks before but this really brought it home to me. Thinking about the problems of super heavy tanks is quite useful for understanding the trade offs of heavy tanks. I just looked up the weight of the T54/55 and was quite shocked that it was only 36 tonnes. I guess the Soviets were the first to really experiment with heavy tanks and find out where the sweet spot was.
I also realise, as others have hinted that we've had super heavy tanks since the end of the fourteenth century, just at sea not on land. Land really is rubbish for moving things around. I guess that's why people really like the idea of Space combat. Space is even better than water for moving stuff around, as long as you don't get too close to those irritating gravity wells.
I also realise, as others have hinted that we've had super heavy tanks since the end of the fourteenth century, just at sea not on land. Land really is rubbish for moving things around. I guess that's why people really like the idea of Space combat. Space is even better than water for moving stuff around, as long as you don't get too close to those irritating gravity wells.
It wasn't their heavy tank, the heavy was the T-10.
But it's really remarkable how much tank the T54 managed to fit in a vehicle the same weight as a T-34/Sherman/late model Pz4 and considerably lighter then a Panther.