Girls und panzer has a autoloading karl gerat and a drifting bt-42 🤦♂️ so wouldn't use it for reserch, a anime wiki is the last place i would search for informaton about tanks i would use something better such as tank encycopedia
I mean i'm not shitting on the anime i watched it and it's kinda mid the historical references make it a tad bit better but still the realism out of the window didn't make me like it that much, plus the oversexualization of the characters.
@@dmitripetrenko4999 the Panzer IV was also having some transmission problems as they applied more armor than it was initially designed for. There were also more problems initially with the Tiger and Panther as they were rushed to the front for operational use before some of the defects were worked out.
@Hernando Malinche A heavy artilery piece does effective nothing if the shell doesn't direct impact or land right next to the tank. But if it does, oh boy. The shots is going to esentially pulverize the tank. I've seen photos where arty just straight up flipped a tank on it's side
Also one thing to note the Allied super heavy tanks primarily Tortoise and the T28 super heavy tank were developed with one thing in mind punching through the Siegfried line which were World War 1 Style fortifications. Which by the time ear these could have gone into production they were already past. The Maus on the other hand was what happens when you allow a cazy mustached man to take a tank measuring contest to his extremes.
No, the Maus is what you get when tanks are massively increasing in capability every year and you're worried the Soviets might be spamming IS-3s at you c. 1943. And then of course when everyone has settled on T-34s and upgraded Pz IVs and half your factories have become rubble, it gets built anyway despite being cancelled because Porsche go brrr.
@@mysss29 no offense but I think you mean kv series tank the maus was being designed in 1942 ,2 years before the is -3 was even designed and 3years before it was unveiled to the world
Yeah exactly what the US found out with the T95, T28 Prototype, T29(and it's variants T30/32/34), and M103(along with it's upgraded brother the T57 Heavy) all failed. M6 became the T29 which ultimately was doomed for being too heavy, and the T14 never made it out of testing with only 1 surviving at Tank Museaum Bovington known as "Excelsior". The M26 Pershing is the only "heavy" tank to actually see combat and be effective, and even then the M26 was really more of a heavily armored medium like the Jumbo than it was a designated "heavy" tank. Still more than capable of dealing with Tiger, Tiger II, Panther, STUG, and Hetzer.
@@soulessshadow5356 Yep, and the even then it was discovering that transporting these things across the sea is even more difficult and honestly it was a smart move to focus more on the Sherman then their well...other failed projects isn't that right Germany?
I think time/era also has a thing in this. Back in 40's 50-60 ton tanks were no doubt heavy but people's insanity was making them to build further heavy tanks as they thought more mass= more armour = more chance of winning leading to some unbelievable shit like p1000 and etc. Today we know it isn't true and that's why every nation makes a tank which got to be both heavy and agile at the same time. And especially with all the computers and other stuffs on board the tank typically weights in around 70 tons but not more than that. Maybe that's why we don't call them as "heavy tanks" since heavy tanks were made on simple idea of taking damage and steamrolling the enemy which is not true for a MBT.
It's important to keep in mind that the anti-tank armament has advanced tremendously since then. Heavy tanks were meant to be nearly invincible. Modern tank crews are keenly aware of just how vulnerable their tin box is, and use them accordingly. In a sense, the MBT role is more similar to light and medium tanks than heavy ones
@@thebighurt2495 Not really. It's a medium tank armed and armored like a medium tank. Heavy tanks are designed to sacrifice some mobility for armor and firepower. So if your "heavy tank" is highly mobile, that means that if you still want it to be a heavy tank, you need to put a bigger gun and thicker armor on it. Tanks in general get better over time so one generation's heavy thank may have its armor and firepower matched by the next generation's medium tank, but the medium is still not a heavy. The T-54 had drastically more armor and firepower than the older KV-1 heavy tank, but that doesn't mean it had "the armor and firepower of a heavy tank", because it existed at the same time as the T-10 heavy, which was much more powerful.
I myself would think a “heavy tank” is one the cannot be penetrated easily by common calibers of their respective era. Not just that it weighs a lot (reduced mobility) or has bigger gun than anything else. It would be an honor to have a weapon caliber or types designed to specifically penetrate my tank. UwU.
Pros: -Your tank can drive over dragon's teeth -Your gun could pen a destroyer if you wanted -Incredibly intimidating, high morale damage Cons: -Your tank can't drive over bridges -Your gun is just as unwieldy as a destroyer's -Incredibly large target, easy to damage
This is a bit of a confusing statement if you know anything about war Because in truth, even back in World War II air power was hugely important. Just like you had light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, super heavy tanks, half-tracks, tank-hunters, and gun carriers. You also had the different classification of aircraft, fighter aircraft, dive bombers, tactical bombers, strategic aircraft, attack planes, what have you If you lost air superiority this means that essentially everyone was vulnerable to being bombed. The real cost of superheavy tanks was raw materials.
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 not just raw materials but logistics as a whole. Everything from fuel to spare parts and repairs was just way way harder on super heavy tanks. And that doesn't even mentions stuff like rivers getting in your way
@@OnGuardYT Japanese anime about high school girls who compete in a sport that conduct "war" games with tanks. It is a slice of life anime with tanks. The title is obviously German: Girls und (and) panzer (tanks). I watched it, and it is a cute change of pace.
@@OnGuardYT To each their own. If you ever get tired of what the main stream US entertainment companies are pushing as entertainment, give anime a try. So much more than cute stuff to pick from. If you are a horror fan, a small warning, Japanese horror is on a different level than Western horror, you have been warned...
I HATE how game companies separate the T28/T95 from each other. THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING in fact the "T28" is the version WITHOUT the extra suspension on the outside the main tracks (hints why the T95 has the iconic 4 tracks) and COULDNT move under its weight without them. Even the Name T28 and T29 was thrown around a bunch of times like T28 Heavy then T95 GMC and finally landed on T28 Super Heavy and wasn't given a different name during transport cuz two tracks were taken off. Im specifically referring to World Of Fakes and War Leaker a doing this logic LOL.
Not entirely accurate. Russian MBT’s resemble medium tanks much more than heavy tanks. They are designed to be fast and agile with less armor like T-90 or T-62
@@Old_user123 only the ones with gas turbine engines. Which don't do good in cold, requires expensive high grade fuel, and burns through much faster. Diesel engines are much cheaper, reliable and economical.
A Leman Russ can do *all* the jobs. Infantry? Punisher Vehicles? Annihilator BIG Vehicles? Vindicator Buildings? Demolisher The Old Girl's got you covered
Heavies we're a necessity because of the need for a breakthrough vehicle with heavy armor and a large gun but with the limitations in transmission durability and the lack of composite armor creating a massive vehicle. The real niche is casemate tank destroyers
@@wokedog1799Sweden and Germany never had a big fleet of TDs. Sweden went in deep with the MBT idea, yes the STRV103 was designated a MBT by Sweden. Germany had a lot of Stugs, but Stugs aren't TDs.
The other thing is tactical and strategic mobility. Some German tanks had to be shipped with the turret removed because they were too heavy to be shipped together.
The cost effectiveness was zero percent of the reason why they were useless, the infrastructure like roads and bridges could not support them, so in order to use them, brand new dedicated lines would have to be made, so they were scrapped.
I knew someone would have mentioned the inability of most infrastructure to handle them. Roads, tunnels, and bridges meant mostly for domestic traffic could be way too narrow or even too weak to handle the largest tanks.
@@nickverbree Ignore all of that even, how could they ship them? Everyone that developed super heavy tanks realized that they can't be shipped anywhere on any standard transport. The T95/T28 had sort of considered this when making the outer tracks be able to come off, but everyone else? Nah.
@@volatile100 Exactly. Then there are the tactical limitations if you somehow managed to wave a magic wand and teleport them to the battlefield. There goes all the speed of an attack, and it's not like you're going to have an easy time hiding one.
So, basically, they cost a fortune to build and maintain, and then you have to blow another couple squillion dollars/rubles/whatevers just getting them _to_ the fight since nothing not purpose-built to the task could convey them there? Sounds like they weren't even close to worth the cost of fielding them.
It still was part of the equation, but yes, they were less reliable and mobile, which is at odds with the favoring of mobile doctrines, they were logistical nightmares too as you mentioned
I think the IS-2 is an exception for that statement, it was pretty reliable and simple for being a heavy, it was cheap enough for producing thousands and it weighed the same as a panther, please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this facts.
@@justyourdad4469 yeah the Pershing's were pretty good heavies, but the KVs had TERRIBLE transmission problems, and it was much less mobile than his cousin the IS-2, the jumbo on the other hand was a good tank but came too late to the war, and it's ground pressure was much higher and the extra armor put a lot more stress on the transmission, and it also had a lower limit of gas and millage
There was a forth weight class called "Tankettes." Basically armored tractors, more or less, primarily used to move stuff like artillery around, and most had only machine guns if that. The Renault UE Chenillette being a personal favorite of mine, but the entire weight class is just as obsolete as the Super Heavies, with basically the only exception being the German Weasel.
Tankettes were very useful and still are very useful. You need to remember that infantry is a very large part or an army and machine guns are very efficient at getting rid of infantry.
I find it adoring he just screenshots is phone’s screen for these, instead of just saving the image itself & using that. Or…even cropping the screenshot, in editing, & save it. Lol! I love being able to see the actual Google Images Search Results. Lol!
Well, a big part of it was also that the main battle tank in the cold war and up to now had to deal with new HEAT and HESH rounds, rendering armor effectively useless.
mbts just got heavier over time due to armies needing to cram more technology into them. Also unlike the king tiger modern mbts are actually maneuverable and pretty fast.
@@iampurechaos depends on where you're looking really, Russia started off with medium tanks into that turned into a MBT while Britain had heavy tanks that turned into an MBT. America is pretty split. The M26 was first designated as a heavy tank but was redesigned as a medium tank.
Heavy or not. MBT are designed around being both fast and versitile. An heavy armored will always be outgunned by heavy cannons. That why MBT was designed to rely on maneuverality instead of armor to survive. This is so much true in modern world with the advent of automatic missile targeting system and drones
You had armored tractors, light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, super heavy tanks, tank destroyers, gun carriges, artillery, AA tanks, Armored Personnel Carriers, railway guns, half tracks, amphibious landing vehicles and amphibious tanks (both of which are predecessors to the amphibious assault vehicle), flame thrower tanks, mobile bridge tanks, experimental things like Antonov A-40 flying tank, the praying mantis tank that instead of a rotating turret has a turret on the end of a Crane arm that can raise to fire over walls, or diesel electric hybrid tanks, even theoretical things like landships (i mean like the P-1000 Ratte). And that's all just armored vehicles that use tracks, That doesn't account for armored cars and trucks. Or the advancements in plane armor. Or all of the new ships. WWII was just the golden era of armored vehicles in general.
I mean, he also used his rifle, only used the 1911 because he got charged at while out of ammo. Alvin York later said "I think God was looking out for me that day", to which the officer in charge of deciding whether 300+ germans captured in ome action were enough for a MoH answered "i'm starting to think you're right".
You should do a longer video on weird tank designs, anid unbuilt prototypes, I watched a video a while ago(I can't find now) that had a load of odd tanks but no real info on them and you're great at going into detail. This video showed one that looked like a hedgehog, one that had a metal parasol thing over the top. Would love to hear your list of weird tanks
Heavy tanks were effective very effective super heavy tanks should not be lumped in with heavy tanks they were almost a class of there own if you want more info just reply to the comment and I will respond with more info
Thank you. If anything, the American insistence that medium tanks could do everything on their own is what was proved foolish. They suffered so badly from their lack of a heavy tank that they ended up just welding armor plates to the front of a Sherman to make an ersatz substitute, the little known but heavily used "Jumbo Sherman".
Expect they suck logistically, gotta have engineering vehicles to tow them back for repairs and such if they get damaged in battle, strong enough bridges and spare parts so when they break down you won't have to cannibalize other tanks for parts. This is why the Sherman did so well (along with most Medium's).
@@dark7element What do you mean the M4 Sherman sucked so bad? The Sherman did all of its jobs extremely well, and could take care of most tanks the Germans had. The Jumbo wasn’t even made until 1944 and that’s when the Sherman had a nice two year service which was relatively good.
@@robertoroberto9798 Main problem with the Sherman is it just wasn't heavily armored enough (PaK 40 cut right through it and the FlaK 88 could kill it from way beyond the Sherman's gun range) and couldn't deal with Tigers or Panthers. And Panthers weren't THAT rare, either. Which means the US didn't have something to do what heavy tanks do: spearhead concentrated attacks against heavy defenses. It's like not having a large-size wrench in your toolbox, and justifying that by saying "but I was able to afford FIVE mid-size wrenches instead!" If the Sherman was perfectly adequate why did they field the Jumbo as a stop-gap until the M26 Pershing could be rushed over? There was no good reason for the US army not to have a heavy tank in its inventory for D-Day and they definitely felt the pain of lacking one.
@@dark7element Panthers were in 1943, and were mainly used on the Eastern Front before Normandy. Pak-40s and 8.8cm Flak can pierce through the Sherman’s frontal armour at long range, but good luck trying to get that long range when you can’t see anything past 700 meters because of French Hedgerows. It could deal with Panthers and Tigers, mainly by flanking them and using the good maneuverability and visibility given to the crew to attack the side armour. Even then, there was only two reported attacks by Shermans against Tigers on the Western Front, and Shermans won both of them. By that wrench analogy, the US came with the reasoning of why have one big wrench that can do the biggest of tasks, when you can have 5 medium wrenches that do everything well and if one breaks, you got 4 other wrenches. The Americans fielded the Jumbo because there was some shortcomings for the armour, the Sherman itself was still adequate against most enemies it faced. There was also a good reason for not servicing a heavy tank. They were fighting a war across a thousand miles, and shipping heavy tanks would complicate supply lines with the M6 being barely any better than the M4.
@@meatball.9710 Jesus whoever had that idea must have been crazy. Maybe its a myth but heard that the romans used to light pigs on fire to scare the phoenicians Elephants and it apparently worked pretty well.
Im the last Heavy tank to be in service. I'm T-10M (IS-8) Soviet Heavy tank. In service: 1953-1996. I'm probably the best Heavy tank. Only weight 50 tonnes. My pfp is the image of T-10M.
"arguably" lol, who's arguing? What possible conflict saw the amount of development and "throwing spaghetti at the wall" that WW2 did in regards to tanks?
The Germans and Russians primarily focused on heavy tanks to deal with fortifications, with the Tiger specifically developed to combat the T-34s and KV tanks. By the time the Allies got to Europe, they developed dedicated tank destroyers or used air power to deal with axis heavy armor.
One the best stories I heard concerning tanks was when someone leaked classified UK government documents about tank types just so they could prove someone else wrong on a forum for world of tanks
@@iampurechaos 4 leaks actually (probably not in order) tiger airframe leak , Leclerc turret traverse leak , Challenger layout and armour? leak, and the Ztz ammo leak.
The super Heavy Tank, the US had made was only designed and made to go through the German Siegfried-line, however they managed to do that without the Tank and they even lost one of them in an Open Field for over 20 years, still in the US
Yes, the maus, tortoise, doom turtle (not actual name but post-war internet nickname) were all super heavies, however, the baneblade i feel would come under a different classification in real life due to it being more of a moving fortress.
I think the classification is the same still and MBTs would be heavy tanks and the speed is just what came with engine improvements like with planes between WWI and WWII
well, in british and french tank doctrine prior to and during WW2 they distinguished between cruiser tanks and infantry tanks, cruiser tanks being fast tanks to punch through and disrupt enemy lines, and infantry tanks to support the main battle forces. however, once militaries realized that wasn't very effective (and saw how useful multi-purpose tanks like the sherman or t-34 were) the concept of the "main battle tank" became for favorable as tank doctrine instead, leading to, for example, the centurion tank in 1945. i realize after typing all this that it might not be that relevant to the question, but fuck it i'm not deleting it after all that work.
That actually raises a good question: how different are historical medium tanks and contemporary MBTs in terms of mobility? Have advances in suspension, track, and drivetrain entirely compensated for in some cases doubling their weight? If their battlefield mobility is comparable, then they could be tactically treated as very powerful medium tanks. But regardless, in terms of them reaching the battle via the infrastructure of the time, they would still very much be heavy or super-heavies. I think in the big picture, the surrounding support requirements like truck and mobile crane capacity, dockyard crane and ship capacity, factory crane capacity, fuel transport capability, and electronic complexity have just all increased since WWII so much that any MBT of even the 1970s or 80s would force armies of the time to consider them super-heavy tanks that could seldom be used to their full potential.
The thing with heavy tanks is that they were meant to be used to attack, however, that was the main problem, they were too slow and too big which made them an easy target, however, in a deffense tactic they where great (speaking about the tiger 1 and king tiger). Yes i know they had many mechanical problems, what I mean is, heavy tanks were amazing at holding a position, thats why german heavy tanks did so well in k/d ratios terms.
in ww2 an american soldier was walking down a road with a metal detector mine sweeping and came upon some german soldiers and they saw the metal detector and the stuff that powered it and thought it was one of these new wonderweapons "vonderwaffen" that they had heard Americans were working on and the germans immediately surrendered to him. he walked them all down the road to his command and they asked him if you dont have a gun how the hell did you capture these men and when he told them the metal detector had scared them into surrender they all broke into hysterical laughter and then informed the young german soldiers what it truly was.. and that to me is the best crazy weapon story i have ever heard
The superheavy tanks are also a nightmare to carry across the Atlantic Ocean and transport to the actual front so (most) powers that built tanks kept it relatively light
lets also not forget that basically no bridges could support them during the time line they existed. which also meant that no aircraft could transport them. the could only operate in dry weather and ground conditions as well since they would almost immediately start to sink on wet ground if they did anything other than go straight.
Another one I think was the bouncing bombs. British would drop these cylinders from bombers flying at low altitude, that would skip like rocks across the surface of a reservoir and had a timed fuse, so when they arrived at their destination, like a dam for example, and sunk below the surface, they'd detonate, hopefully bringing the dam down. They were actually somewhat successful, as they managed to breach some dams in the Ruhr valley causing widespread flooding and destruction. Once the Germans figured out what's going on, they increased AA defenses around dams, rendering the bouncing bomb obsolete shortly after it was introduced. Germany also became interested in the design, but because they were deemed too dangerous for the aircraft, they never finished the design.
MBTs are actually a combination of all tank types, that have heavy armor like heavy tanks, good speed, good mobility like medium tanks, the gun caliber of a tank destroyer, and the vision of a light tank(light tanks were recon and scout vehicles) The Russian IS and American Pershing were the closest things to MBTs in WW2.
Upon reading the question the first thought in my mind was "Tank hunters in WW2." Which coincidentally was also kinda a result of the batshit WW2 tank fiasco
Heavy/superheavy tanks would've been PERFECT during WWI, since 3-4 of those monsters could just punch through the frontline while the enemy had to call in air support/ retarget the artillery. But in the lighting warfare campaigns of WWII when aviation was developed enough to wipe those tanks almost instantly, they were a massive liability.
Heavies WERE effective though. Tigers and King Tigers were probably the first tanks we ever heard about. If the Cold War went hot, Soviets had the IS series (IS-3 specifically), US had prototypes for T29/32, France had the AMX 50, etc. Modern MBT's also have more armor and firepower than WW2 heavies and weigh roughly the same, it's just modern engine tech allows them to move and rotate the turret faster.
I like using the Super heavy tank Chassis in hoi4 and a level 4 Heavy Tank Chassis as the Super heavy tank gun lowers reliability so it’s more effective just to put a heavy tank gun on it.
I respect a man that gets his sources from the girls und panzer wiki
🤙 guppies
Yeeee boii
Thats a bad anime
@@lurtzy_ oh no
Anyway
@@lurtzy_ i respect your opinion but, it's not correct.
"My source is the Girls und Panzer wiki"
Highest credibility out of any other sources.
The finest source there is
Still more credible than wikipedia.
Girls und panzer has a autoloading karl gerat and a drifting bt-42 🤦♂️ so wouldn't use it for reserch, a anime wiki is the last place i would search for informaton about tanks i would use something better such as tank encycopedia
I mean i'm not shitting on the anime i watched it and it's kinda mid the historical references make it a tad bit better but still the realism out of the window didn't make me like it that much, plus the oversexualization of the characters.
When even the roads won't support the weight of your tank, you know you fucked up.
lol 😂
Lol, the Maus literally couldn't cross any bridge at all because they'd collapse under it's weight. Probably why it was never produced tbf
That's why they have tracks silly goose
@@yaboianz needed to lose some weight 😂😂😂
@@yaboianzIt was produced, just not mass-produced. There were about five made, I think.
There is also the fact that very heavy tanks have big problems in terrain. Like sinking down into earth.
Or crossing Rivers. Never underestimate rivers
@accelerationquanta5816that extra weight did not help the poor transmission.
@@vondantalingtingThis is a myth, the Tiger I was as reliable as a Panzer IV
@@dmitripetrenko4999Well that's not true But TIGER 1 certainly wasnt uncapable as many say.. It stats say alot.
@@dmitripetrenko4999 the Panzer IV was also having some transmission problems as they applied more armor than it was initially designed for. There were also more problems initially with the Tiger and Panther as they were rushed to the front for operational use before some of the defects were worked out.
Yeess, let's make a super-heavy
*Fighter bombers would like to know your location*
**DENY**
wait
why doesnt it work?!
**deny**
**deny**
**deny**
HEELPPP
Artillery Barrage : Did someone say *Super Heavy*
Lol
P-47 (A-10's namesake): Hey yo!
@Hernando Malinche A heavy artilery piece does effective nothing if the shell doesn't direct impact or land right next to the tank. But if it does, oh boy. The shots is going to esentially pulverize the tank. I've seen photos where arty just straight up flipped a tank on it's side
Also one thing to note the Allied super heavy tanks primarily Tortoise and the T28 super heavy tank were developed with one thing in mind punching through the Siegfried line which were World War 1 Style fortifications. Which by the time ear these could have gone into production they were already past. The Maus on the other hand was what happens when you allow a cazy mustached man to take a tank measuring contest to his extremes.
No, the Maus is what you get when tanks are massively increasing in capability every year and you're worried the Soviets might be spamming IS-3s at you c. 1943. And then of course when everyone has settled on T-34s and upgraded Pz IVs and half your factories have become rubble, it gets built anyway despite being cancelled because Porsche go brrr.
@@mysss29 Porsche go brrrr is still a motto we germans operate under. Only reason we still have no speed limit.
@@mysss29 no offense but I think you mean kv series tank the maus was being designed in 1942 ,2 years before the is -3 was even designed and 3years before it was unveiled to the world
@@sethneall5705 the IS series is already under development, also Panthers and Tingers are made to counter the KV
The T28 was for invading Japan.
Heavy tanks are a really polite way of telling your enemy exactly where your main forces are concentrated
Superheavy Tanks are the embodiment of "Sounds good, doesn't Work"
Yeah exactly what the US found out with the T95, T28 Prototype, T29(and it's variants T30/32/34), and M103(along with it's upgraded brother the T57 Heavy) all failed. M6 became the T29 which ultimately was doomed for being too heavy, and the T14 never made it out of testing with only 1 surviving at Tank Museaum Bovington known as "Excelsior". The M26 Pershing is the only "heavy" tank to actually see combat and be effective, and even then the M26 was really more of a heavily armored medium like the Jumbo than it was a designated "heavy" tank. Still more than capable of dealing with Tiger, Tiger II, Panther, STUG, and Hetzer.
@@soulessshadow5356 Yep, and the even then it was discovering that transporting these things across the sea is even more difficult and honestly it was a smart move to focus more on the Sherman then their well...other failed projects isn't that right Germany?
Drive the bane blade closer, I wanna hit them with my sword.
Now THAT is a tank, 11 barrels of hell, and the size of a house, what more could you ask for?
"IT IS THE BANEBLADE!"
"A BANEBLANE!!!"
Everything the Ratte wishes it would have been if it was built
The Baneblade goes barely any faster than the Maus did.
Ayo one or the images was from the girls und panzer wiki
The most trustworthy and unbiased source
@@Armadurapersonal true
@@Armadurapersonal facts
Better than "trust me bro" source
This mans is actually just watching anime made for simps for his information
I respect that you search all the photos at 14% from the phone
Modern MBTs are pretty much heavy tanks, with their weight coming close to 70 tons
Yeah but they’re about 4 to 5 times faster on average
@@alexhohl8530 wouldn't day 4-5x. If we're talking top speed they're around 2x as fast, if we're talking power 3x
@@alexhohl8530
Speed isnt what determines the class of the tank, there are many light tanks that are slow as hell such as the French Renault FT.
I think time/era also has a thing in this. Back in 40's 50-60 ton tanks were no doubt heavy but people's insanity was making them to build further heavy tanks as they thought more mass= more armour = more chance of winning leading to some unbelievable shit like p1000 and etc. Today we know it isn't true and that's why every nation makes a tank which got to be both heavy and agile at the same time. And especially with all the computers and other stuffs on board the tank typically weights in around 70 tons but not more than that. Maybe that's why we don't call them as "heavy tanks" since heavy tanks were made on simple idea of taking damage and steamrolling the enemy which is not true for a MBT.
It's important to keep in mind that the anti-tank armament has advanced tremendously since then. Heavy tanks were meant to be nearly invincible. Modern tank crews are keenly aware of just how vulnerable their tin box is, and use them accordingly. In a sense, the MBT role is more similar to light and medium tanks than heavy ones
Effective or not, the whole concept of a heavy tank and the period that used them will forever be my favourite
I can still hear all those transmissions crying from here
_NOW_ is the era of heavy tanks though.
Tiger 2, M1A2 and Challenger 2 all weigh in at about 70 tons.
Combat Weight of a modern T-80 is about 50 tons.
@JamesNeave1978 Tbf, an MBT is the speed of a Medium tank. It's a Medium tank Armored and armed like a Heavy.
@@thebighurt2495 Not really. It's a medium tank armed and armored like a medium tank. Heavy tanks are designed to sacrifice some mobility for armor and firepower. So if your "heavy tank" is highly mobile, that means that if you still want it to be a heavy tank, you need to put a bigger gun and thicker armor on it.
Tanks in general get better over time so one generation's heavy thank may have its armor and firepower matched by the next generation's medium tank, but the medium is still not a heavy. The T-54 had drastically more armor and firepower than the older KV-1 heavy tank, but that doesn't mean it had "the armor and firepower of a heavy tank", because it existed at the same time as the T-10 heavy, which was much more powerful.
I myself would think a “heavy tank” is one the cannot be penetrated easily by common calibers of their respective era. Not just that it weighs a lot (reduced mobility) or has bigger gun than anything else.
It would be an honor to have a weapon caliber or types designed to specifically penetrate my tank. UwU.
I like that one of the sources for the picture of the t28 you used was from the girl und panzer wiki
Yeah
I use Azur Lane for sources on Naval History lmao
@@kingwolf9447 my cultured fellow 😂
Pros: -Your tank can drive over dragon's teeth
-Your gun could pen a destroyer if you wanted
-Incredibly intimidating, high morale damage
Cons: -Your tank can't drive over bridges
-Your gun is just as unwieldy as a destroyer's
-Incredibly large target, easy to damage
Any dive bombers would have a field day with Super Heavy Tanks
POV: u played hoi4 too much
Bruh
more like people who say heavy tanks are good play hoi4 too much
@@anegg9057 dont most people prefer medium tank divisions though
Heavy tanks were decently effective, but super heavy tanks such as the t28/t95 or the maus needed constant air superiority as to not get bombrd
This is a bit of a confusing statement if you know anything about war
Because in truth, even back in World War II air power was hugely important. Just like you had light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, super heavy tanks, half-tracks, tank-hunters, and gun carriers.
You also had the different classification of aircraft, fighter aircraft, dive bombers, tactical bombers, strategic aircraft, attack planes, what have you
If you lost air superiority this means that essentially everyone was vulnerable to being bombed.
The real cost of superheavy tanks was raw materials.
Put respect on the TOG II
@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 not just raw materials but logistics as a whole. Everything from fuel to spare parts and repairs was just way way harder on super heavy tanks. And that doesn't even mentions stuff like rivers getting in your way
"Decently" is the important word here. Because while heavies are decent, mediums can perform their jobs better
Wasn’t that, it was mobility and weight. Was very difficult to get them anywhere in any numbers.
Let’s just appreciate the fact that one of the pictures is from Girls und Panzer
He is obviously a man of culture.
What the fuck is that
@@OnGuardYT Japanese anime about high school girls who compete in a sport that conduct "war" games with tanks. It is a slice of life anime with tanks. The title is obviously German: Girls und (and) panzer (tanks). I watched it, and it is a cute change of pace.
@@Tempestan Oh, I'm not a fan of anime or cute things but cool I guess.
@@OnGuardYT To each their own. If you ever get tired of what the main stream US entertainment companies are pushing as entertainment, give anime a try. So much more than cute stuff to pick from. If you are a horror fan, a small warning, Japanese horror is on a different level than Western horror, you have been warned...
I HATE how game companies separate the T28/T95 from each other. THEY ARE THE EXACT SAME THING in fact the "T28" is the version WITHOUT the extra suspension on the outside the main tracks (hints why the T95 has the iconic 4 tracks) and COULDNT move under its weight without them. Even the Name T28 and T29 was thrown around a bunch of times like T28 Heavy then T95 GMC and finally landed on T28 Super Heavy and wasn't given a different name during transport cuz two tracks were taken off. Im specifically referring to World Of Fakes and War Leaker a doing this logic LOL.
"Behemoths that nothing could simply touch"
Airforce: 🙂
Well technically medium tanks didn’t evolve into MBTs heavy and medium tanks would be merged to make the centurion which would lead to MBT programs
And the pershing that people can never decide if its a medium or heavy tank.
@@robertharris6092 well it was a medium but it had variants later on that where heavy’s so it’s a medium overall
Not entirely accurate. Russian MBT’s resemble medium tanks much more than heavy tanks. They are designed to be fast and agile with less armor like T-90 or T-62
@@derblah9006 except they are slower than western mbts
@@Old_user123 only the ones with gas turbine engines. Which don't do good in cold, requires expensive high grade fuel, and burns through much faster. Diesel engines are much cheaper, reliable and economical.
The mighty legend TOG-II
TOG-II is most epic swag 2016 compilations (*not click bait!!!*) tonk
Tog armor😳
I like grille 15
That's a log
*THE P-1000 RÄTTE AND P-1500 MONSTER HAVE ENTERED THE CHAT*
@@tankythemagnorite9855 Easily the most batshit, useless designs conjured up by the nazbois
MBTs are just heavy tanks that work ngl
These heavy tanks may be more of a disadvantage , but they're hella intimidating and cool LoL.
“Super heavy tanks are not cost effective”
As a guard player I feel that in my soul.
Both in the Wallet and Points.
A Leman Russ can do *all* the jobs.
Infantry? Punisher
Vehicles? Annihilator
BIG Vehicles? Vindicator
Buildings? Demolisher
The Old Girl's got you covered
and yet, even in Horus Heresy, as part of the death guard legion, I really want to field a Baneblade
i feel like the baneblade is more of a MBT than a super heavy tank. It can move quite fast....
althought that was in DoW, not sure bout the table
even as a marine enjoyer, it’s like “move, let me get my FELLBLADE SUPER HEAVY TANK AND SHOVE IT UP THEUR RECTUM.”
Heavies we're a necessity because of the need for a breakthrough vehicle with heavy armor and a large gun but with the limitations in transmission durability and the lack of composite armor creating a massive vehicle.
The real niche is casemate tank destroyers
I'd say casemate TDs were actually pretty worthwhile for nations that lacked a strong economy like Cold War era Sweden or WW2 Germany
@@wokedog1799Sweden and Germany never had a big fleet of TDs. Sweden went in deep with the MBT idea, yes the STRV103 was designated a MBT by Sweden. Germany had a lot of Stugs, but Stugs aren't TDs.
Which started out as Assault Guns like the Stug intended to provide direct HE Fire support to the infantry.
Heavy tank: **coughs**
FAB-5000: *_"Hello there"_*
The other thing is tactical and strategic mobility. Some German tanks had to be shipped with the turret removed because they were too heavy to be shipped together.
The cost effectiveness was zero percent of the reason why they were useless, the infrastructure like roads and bridges could not support them, so in order to use them, brand new dedicated lines would have to be made, so they were scrapped.
I knew someone would have mentioned the inability of most infrastructure to handle them. Roads, tunnels, and bridges meant mostly for domestic traffic could be way too narrow or even too weak to handle the largest tanks.
@@nickverbree Ignore all of that even, how could they ship them? Everyone that developed super heavy tanks realized that they can't be shipped anywhere on any standard transport. The T95/T28 had sort of considered this when making the outer tracks be able to come off, but everyone else? Nah.
@@volatile100 Exactly. Then there are the tactical limitations if you somehow managed to wave a magic wand and teleport them to the battlefield. There goes all the speed of an attack, and it's not like you're going to have an easy time hiding one.
So, basically, they cost a fortune to build and maintain, and then you have to blow another couple squillion dollars/rubles/whatevers just getting them _to_ the fight since nothing not purpose-built to the task could convey them there?
Sounds like they weren't even close to worth the cost of fielding them.
It still was part of the equation, but yes, they were less reliable and mobile, which is at odds with the favoring of mobile doctrines, they were logistical nightmares too as you mentioned
I think the IS-2 is an exception for that statement, it was pretty reliable and simple for being a heavy, it was cheap enough for producing thousands and it weighed the same as a panther, please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this facts.
The jumbos, kv1s and super Pershing’s were a similar thing the only ones that were really ineffective were superheavies
@@justyourdad4469 yeah the Pershing's were pretty good heavies, but the KVs had TERRIBLE transmission problems, and it was much less mobile than his cousin the IS-2, the jumbo on the other hand was a good tank but came too late to the war, and it's ground pressure was much higher and the extra armor put a lot more stress on the transmission, and it also had a lower limit of gas and millage
If IS-2 doesn't have very TERRIBLE gun depression, then its a good tank. But the IS-2 has -3° of gun depression.
@@fatcat7481 The Pershing is a medium tank... the Super Pershing is a Heavy.
@@deutschespanzer-iv-ausf.g8374 sorry my bad, then I meant aone of the heavy T 26s
I love that NO ONE missed the girls und panzer source XD
Ahhh yes tha Abrams tank!! An absolute beast on the battlefield! Still waiting for my mammoth tank though 😕
Your example of a super heavy tank only had 2 vehicles built. One caught fire and the other had the longest running game of hide seek.
I can still not wrap my head around how you lose an 85t tank in a field.
@@harmdallmeyer6449 85?? That number is way too low, you gotta bump that number up.
He used the girls und panzer wiki for the t28 YES
Lmao I laughed why he used gup wiki
I thought that is T95 not T28
@@ZaKaizar T95 and T28 GMC are both meant for the same vehicle
@@feivellazuardi1867 wait really?
@@ZaKaizar yes, at first it's named T95, but after 1946 it's renamed into T28
Even the roads calling them fat😭
Tiger: Lemme introduce myself
The Tiger also being penned from the front by Cheaper, Mass Production Shermans, specifically the Firefly and Sherman 76 Models
There was a forth weight class called "Tankettes." Basically armored tractors, more or less, primarily used to move stuff like artillery around, and most had only machine guns if that.
The Renault UE Chenillette being a personal favorite of mine, but the entire weight class is just as obsolete as the Super Heavies, with basically the only exception being the German Weasel.
my personal favorites are the Carro Veloce L3/33 and the TKS. Interesting and pretty little pieces
Imagine being shot at while your head is in the renault’s «dome hatch thing» lol
@@tlshortyshorty5810 Mine are L3/33 and Weasel.
Tankettes were very useful and still are very useful. You need to remember that infantry is a very large part or an army and machine guns are very efficient at getting rid of infantry.
I find it adoring he just screenshots is phone’s screen for these, instead of just saving the image itself & using that. Or…even cropping the screenshot, in editing, & save it. Lol! I love being able to see the actual Google Images Search Results. Lol!
Ikr
He used the Girls und Panzer wiki as a source and I love it
Tank classes sounding like battlemechs from Mechwarrior.
Well, a big part of it was also that the main battle tank in the cold war and up to now had to deal with new HEAT and HESH rounds, rendering armor effectively useless.
"Medium tanks evolved into modern tanks"
The king tiger weighting almost the same to modern mbts: yeah.. About that.
mbts just got heavier over time due to armies needing to cram more technology into them. Also unlike the king tiger modern mbts are actually maneuverable and pretty fast.
@@iampurechaos depends on where you're looking really, Russia started off with medium tanks into that turned into a MBT while Britain had heavy tanks that turned into an MBT. America is pretty split. The M26 was first designated as a heavy tank but was redesigned as a medium tank.
@@leovang3425 Most western MBTs seem more like heavy tanks while eastern MBTs seem to be closer to medium tanks.
Heavy or not. MBT are designed around being both fast and versitile. An heavy armored will always be outgunned by heavy cannons. That why MBT was designed to rely on maneuverality instead of armor to survive. This is so much true in modern world with the advent of automatic missile targeting system and drones
More like a combination of the best traits of the Medium and heavy.
You had armored tractors, light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, super heavy tanks, tank destroyers, gun carriges, artillery, AA tanks, Armored Personnel Carriers, railway guns, half tracks, amphibious landing vehicles and amphibious tanks (both of which are predecessors to the amphibious assault vehicle), flame thrower tanks, mobile bridge tanks, experimental things like Antonov A-40 flying tank, the praying mantis tank that instead of a rotating turret has a turret on the end of a Crane arm that can raise to fire over walls, or diesel electric hybrid tanks, even theoretical things like landships (i mean like the P-1000 Ratte). And that's all just armored vehicles that use tracks, That doesn't account for armored cars and trucks. Or the advancements in plane armor. Or all of the new ships. WWII was just the golden era of armored vehicles in general.
Funny thing though:
Tiger II Heavy Tank: 69 tons
M1A2 SEP V3: 67 tons
Challenger 2: 75 tons
(Combat Weights)
Sherman 76, Tiger, Panther, Churchill our IS1 were wonderful tanks.
Shermans and Panthers were medium tanks, Churchills were infantry Tanks.
Tiger and IS-1 did have their role in ww2, but their use dwindled throughout.
Heavy tanks still my favorite tho.
Fourth short of asking to cover the man who captured a MG Nest with his M1911 and managed to make the german surrender
I mean, he also used his rifle, only used the 1911 because he got charged at while out of ammo. Alvin York later said "I think God was looking out for me that day", to which the officer in charge of deciding whether 300+ germans captured in ome action were enough for a MoH answered "i'm starting to think you're right".
You should do a longer video on weird tank designs, anid unbuilt prototypes, I watched a video a while ago(I can't find now) that had a load of odd tanks but no real info on them and you're great at going into detail. This video showed one that looked like a hedgehog, one that had a metal parasol thing over the top. Would love to hear your list of weird tanks
Bro looks like chad and harry potter had a fusion
Heavy tanks were effective very effective super heavy tanks should not be lumped in with heavy tanks they were almost a class of there own if you want more info just reply to the comment and I will respond with more info
Thank you. If anything, the American insistence that medium tanks could do everything on their own is what was proved foolish. They suffered so badly from their lack of a heavy tank that they ended up just welding armor plates to the front of a Sherman to make an ersatz substitute, the little known but heavily used "Jumbo Sherman".
Expect they suck logistically, gotta have engineering vehicles to tow them back for repairs and such if they get damaged in battle, strong enough bridges and spare parts so when they break down you won't have to cannibalize other tanks for parts.
This is why the Sherman did so well (along with most Medium's).
@@dark7element What do you mean the M4 Sherman sucked so bad? The Sherman did all of its jobs extremely well, and could take care of most tanks the Germans had. The Jumbo wasn’t even made until 1944 and that’s when the Sherman had a nice two year service which was relatively good.
@@robertoroberto9798 Main problem with the Sherman is it just wasn't heavily armored enough (PaK 40 cut right through it and the FlaK 88 could kill it from way beyond the Sherman's gun range) and couldn't deal with Tigers or Panthers. And Panthers weren't THAT rare, either. Which means the US didn't have something to do what heavy tanks do: spearhead concentrated attacks against heavy defenses.
It's like not having a large-size wrench in your toolbox, and justifying that by saying "but I was able to afford FIVE mid-size wrenches instead!"
If the Sherman was perfectly adequate why did they field the Jumbo as a stop-gap until the M26 Pershing could be rushed over? There was no good reason for the US army not to have a heavy tank in its inventory for D-Day and they definitely felt the pain of lacking one.
@@dark7element Panthers were in 1943, and were mainly used on the Eastern Front before Normandy. Pak-40s and 8.8cm Flak can pierce through the Sherman’s frontal armour at long range, but good luck trying to get that long range when you can’t see anything past 700 meters because of French Hedgerows. It could deal with Panthers and Tigers, mainly by flanking them and using the good maneuverability and visibility given to the crew to attack the side armour. Even then, there was only two reported attacks by Shermans against Tigers on the Western Front, and Shermans won both of them.
By that wrench analogy, the US came with the reasoning of why have one big wrench that can do the biggest of tasks, when you can have 5 medium wrenches that do everything well and if one breaks, you got 4 other wrenches.
The Americans fielded the Jumbo because there was some shortcomings for the armour, the Sherman itself was still adequate against most enemies it faced. There was also a good reason for not servicing a heavy tank. They were fighting a war across a thousand miles, and shipping heavy tanks would complicate supply lines with the M6 being barely any better than the M4.
An weapon that was a bomb strapped to an animal. They tried it multiple times and werent effective and/or werent practical
Didnt they try to train dogs to go under tanks with bombs? Think it was dropped because the dogs would just run under their own tanks when testing it.
@@giovanni4470 that was one of the projects, but there were multiple. Another one was strapping explosives to bats.
@@meatball.9710 Jesus whoever had that idea must have been crazy. Maybe its a myth but heard that the romans used to light pigs on fire to scare the phoenicians Elephants and it apparently worked pretty well.
@@giovanni4470 FIRE PIGS, that must have been something.
You just reminded me of the pigeon missiles. Lmao
Not having tanks is better than having tanks.
Not if the enemy has tanks 😂
@@warlock-jr-2545 Definitely fucked when your forces couldn't hold the line, but it's a blessing if they are in urban warfare
@@xenomorph9114 tanks suck in urban warfare.
POV: You play World of Tanks Blitz
Plot twist: You have the Tiger II
Some don't understand the power of that thing-
Im the last Heavy tank to be in service. I'm T-10M (IS-8) Soviet Heavy tank. In service: 1953-1996.
I'm probably the best Heavy tank. Only weight 50 tonnes. My pfp is the image of T-10M.
Obj-279 moon rover better ;)
Tonk-10Mačo
"arguably" lol, who's arguing? What possible conflict saw the amount of development and "throwing spaghetti at the wall" that WW2 did in regards to tanks?
I mean, ww1 went from no tank to tank, that's a pretty big development right there
“Arguably” means that the topic can be argued and won 100% of the time lol not that there was an argument to be made against
@@Shloomy_Shloms well you are arguably wrong
"And the answer is heavy tanks and super heavy tanks". KV, Tiger, IS left this chat.
The Germans and Russians primarily focused on heavy tanks to deal with fortifications, with the Tiger specifically developed to combat the T-34s and KV tanks. By the time the Allies got to Europe, they developed dedicated tank destroyers or used air power to deal with axis heavy armor.
One the best stories I heard concerning tanks was when someone leaked classified UK government documents about tank types just so they could prove someone else wrong on a forum for world of tanks
War thunder, not WOT. It’s a meme in our community, and WOT doesn’t have modern tanks
@@alexvicario835 we had what 3 leaks by now?
something about the challengers 2 armor, Chinese ammo and what else?
@@iampurechaos 4 leaks actually
(probably not in order)
tiger airframe leak , Leclerc turret traverse leak , Challenger layout and armour? leak, and the Ztz ammo leak.
To quote a certain starcraft caster:"More shit counter less shit"
The super Heavy Tank, the US had made was only designed and made to go through the German Siegfried-line, however they managed to do that without the Tank and they even lost one of them in an Open Field for over 20 years, still in the US
Reminds me of the massive vehicle they built for Admir Byrd’s Antarctic expedition
Huh... So "super heavy" keywords in 40k (looking at you Baneblade) was actually a real term
Yes, the maus, tortoise, doom turtle (not actual name but post-war internet nickname) were all super heavies, however, the baneblade i feel would come under a different classification in real life due to it being more of a moving fortress.
@@StrakanDocrusReakal not to mention titans, gargants, revenant titans, etc
What would modern MBTs be classified as back then? I'd assume they are just heavy tanks with medium or light tank movement capability.
I think the classification is the same still and MBTs would be heavy tanks and the speed is just what came with engine improvements like with planes between WWI and WWII
well, in british and french tank doctrine prior to and during WW2 they distinguished between cruiser tanks and infantry tanks, cruiser tanks being fast tanks to punch through and disrupt enemy lines, and infantry tanks to support the main battle forces. however, once militaries realized that wasn't very effective (and saw how useful multi-purpose tanks like the sherman or t-34 were) the concept of the "main battle tank" became for favorable as tank doctrine instead, leading to, for example, the centurion tank in 1945.
i realize after typing all this that it might not be that relevant to the question, but fuck it i'm not deleting it after all that work.
That actually raises a good question: how different are historical medium tanks and contemporary MBTs in terms of mobility? Have advances in suspension, track, and drivetrain entirely compensated for in some cases doubling their weight?
If their battlefield mobility is comparable, then they could be tactically treated as very powerful medium tanks. But regardless, in terms of them reaching the battle via the infrastructure of the time, they would still very much be heavy or super-heavies. I think in the big picture, the surrounding support requirements like truck and mobile crane capacity, dockyard crane and ship capacity, factory crane capacity, fuel transport capability, and electronic complexity have just all increased since WWII so much that any MBT of even the 1970s or 80s would force armies of the time to consider them super-heavy tanks that could seldom be used to their full potential.
@@skele3310 I do believe it was AN awnser at least. The French and British would have called it a cruiser.
Russian ones are medium and american ones count as heavy
The thing with heavy tanks is that they were meant to be used to attack, however, that was the main problem, they were too slow and too big which made them an easy target, however, in a deffense tactic they where great (speaking about the tiger 1 and king tiger). Yes i know they had many mechanical problems, what I mean is, heavy tanks were amazing at holding a position, thats why german heavy tanks did so well in k/d ratios terms.
Everyone talks about the big heavy tanks, but no one talks about the little baby tanks that England put on gliders
Super heavy tanks being able to kill anything, a HOI4 player's dream
Trade offer.
You recive: a P-1000 Rätte.
I recive: 2,613,839.28 reichmarks.
As a WoT player I can attest to that. Especially on open battlefields. You're a big and slow moving target with a heavy tank.
in ww2 an american soldier was walking down a road with a metal detector mine sweeping and came upon some german soldiers and they saw the metal detector and the stuff that powered it and thought it was one of these new wonderweapons "vonderwaffen" that they had heard Americans were working on and the germans immediately surrendered to him. he walked them all down the road to his command and they asked him if you dont have a gun how the hell did you capture these men and when he told them the metal detector had scared them into surrender they all broke into hysterical laughter and then informed the young german soldiers what it truly was.. and that to me is the best crazy weapon story i have ever heard
I look forward to listening to this man talk about the rise of Crab Tanks & Mechs
Wheraboos crying thier souls out rn
True that, always funny to watch them cope on how "Waaa the Sherman sucked and the *Insert German tank of choice* was so much better!"
A funny twist is that the MBTs weigh about the same as WWII heavy tanks even though those were deemed a logistical nightmare to move around
The other issue is an unsupported super heavy is prime target for all types of bombers, even like high altitude bombers because they’re so slow
we’re super heavy actually utilized a lot because it just seems like a massive target
Unless it’s the Tortoise. Goodbye Mannerheim line!
Never mess with my turtle 🐢
The superheavy tanks are also a nightmare to carry across the Atlantic Ocean and transport to the actual front so (most) powers that built tanks kept it relatively light
"Cost effective"
MBTs are costing as much as some countries entire militaries. MBTs have just become more mobile super heavy tanks
*the newest MBTs. You will struggle to find a country whichs Army doesn't operate any kind of MBT.
And they are still very cost effective.
fun fact. The MBTs of today are heavier than the heavy tanks of then. A Tiger was 54 tonnes, a Leopard 2 is 62 tonnes
Fr. I love superheavies and heavies, but really a good gun on a somewhat zippy medium is all you need
Super heavy tanks are a bombers dream
"Good medium tanks"
*picture of a go kart with cardboard walls*
😂
The best medium of the war.
lets also not forget that basically no bridges could support them during the time line they existed. which also meant that no aircraft could transport them. the could only operate in dry weather and ground conditions as well since they would almost immediately start to sink on wet ground if they did anything other than go straight.
And Not forget the Battlefields we're mudy even in dry days IT was hard Not to Sink Into the ground
I love that era of vehicles, so fucking cool. I love them.
Logical that they tried out so many of tanks in ww2. It was a fairly new weapon system, no one could be sure what worked in reality.
The super heavies were also big slow targets for planes with big bombs
Another one I think was the bouncing bombs. British would drop these cylinders from bombers flying at low altitude, that would skip like rocks across the surface of a reservoir and had a timed fuse, so when they arrived at their destination, like a dam for example, and sunk below the surface, they'd detonate, hopefully bringing the dam down. They were actually somewhat successful, as they managed to breach some dams in the Ruhr valley causing widespread flooding and destruction. Once the Germans figured out what's going on, they increased AA defenses around dams, rendering the bouncing bomb obsolete shortly after it was introduced. Germany also became interested in the design, but because they were deemed too dangerous for the aircraft, they never finished the design.
Today's MBTs would have qualified as heavies during WWII!
That’s why most seal squads prefer the dune buggies! Fast af and way more maneuverable and fun!
MBTs are actually a combination of all tank types, that have heavy armor like heavy tanks, good speed, good mobility like medium tanks, the gun caliber of a tank destroyer, and the vision of a light tank(light tanks were recon and scout vehicles)
The Russian IS and American Pershing were the closest things to MBTs in WW2.
Interestingly most MBTs today would be considered as heavy tanks in those days ... Because of the weight.
I still hope that one day we will build the Ratte. Or at least be able to play with it in a videogame
Germany's logic was "it looks badass so it must be good" and I can't argue with that.
Upon reading the question the first thought in my mind was "Tank hunters in WW2."
Which coincidentally was also kinda a result of the batshit WW2 tank fiasco
Heavy/superheavy tanks would've been PERFECT during WWI, since 3-4 of those monsters could just punch through the frontline while the enemy had to call in air support/ retarget the artillery. But in the lighting warfare campaigns of WWII when aviation was developed enough to wipe those tanks almost instantly, they were a massive liability.
Its kinda funny that modern MBTs are as heavy as the heavy tanks.
Heavies WERE effective though. Tigers and King Tigers were probably the first tanks we ever heard about. If the Cold War went hot, Soviets had the IS series (IS-3 specifically), US had prototypes for T29/32, France had the AMX 50, etc. Modern MBT's also have more armor and firepower than WW2 heavies and weigh roughly the same, it's just modern engine tech allows them to move and rotate the turret faster.
Its so sad that the world is full of war. No one has the time to make some wonder weapons for fun 😢
With modern engineering i would like to see someone build a Chinese emperor tank in real life.
Don’t talk about my baby the T95 like that 😭
I like using the Super heavy tank Chassis in hoi4 and a level 4 Heavy Tank Chassis as the Super heavy tank gun lowers reliability so it’s more effective just to put a heavy tank gun on it.
It's funny that the under 40ton Medium tanks of WWII morphed into the 70+ton Main Battle Tanks of today.