That really is the pivotal point that people miss. The US military has a huge logistical component. Historically all their wars have been geographically far from the point of production. People can't seem to understand that transporting a 75 ton tank is vastly more difficult and expensive than a 35 ton tank.
@@johnshaft5613 What most people can't seem to understand is that a 35 ton tank , even two or three 35 ton tanks, are no substitute for a well armed 75 ton tank in a firefight . Of course , this is because most people will never actually have to fight in a 35 ton tank. In the 1940's America was the most industrialized Nation in the world . By Far. Consider the British Mulberry harbours.These were created by a nation with a tiny fraction of Americas industrial base. It was certainly not beyond the ability of the American Nation to field a heavy tank in WW2. Every other serious tank building contender managed it.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 Really, only the Germans and the Russians built true heavy tanks. And both nations had relatively short logistical supply lines, practically being able to drive the vehicles from the factory into combat. Coincidence? No. Would I want to fight in a 35 ton tank vs a 75 ton? No. But ultimately the USA strategy succeeded. Smaller, mass produced, reliable, and easily shipped tanks won the war, while it was admittedly at the cost of the lives of quite a few US tank crews. You can also argue, quite successfully, that the Nazis probably could have postponed defeat for some time longer had they produced more Panthers and Panzer IVs rather than Tigers, King Tigers, Jagdtigers, etc. The German heavy tanks are darlings of wargamers and hobbyists today, but in many ways were military failures. I think a better compromise would have been "medium" tanks armed with good guns. A gun like the 17 pounder would penetrate the frontal armor of any heavy tank in the war at any reasonable range, and with adequate numbers of tanks armed in this manner, of what value is the weight and bulk of a King Tiger?
Ultimately US commanders found any problem the Sherman's couldn't handle could simply be shelled to death by 155+ artillery guns already attached to infantry units or the purpose built td units.
Or simply enough, bombed. Germany made their heavies purely out of ego. There was no actual capability that they hoped to achieve with those heavies. In reality, it was basically a Russia v Ukraine type moment. The very few heavies that Germany could even pump out, were basically singled out and bombed. On the rare occasion you couldnt call for air support, they would just get a few shermans and shoot them on the sides, and be done with it.
M4 Shermans performed exceptionally well in the Pacific Theater compared to the Western front, and there was no real reason to introduce heavy tanks there if you have naval and air supremacy, using the island hopping strategy, and having almost no competition in terms of tank quality AND quantity. All American heavy tanks would do is slow down the advance towards the Japanese archipelago. Slower moving, slower to transport, and a lack of existing spare parts compared to the M4.
To be fair they performed very well in the Western and Eastern fronts too, but indeed they did outclass every Japanese tank available. The M3 and M4 were so much more effective that a heavy tank was not needed in the Pacific or Asia.
@@bejaminmaston1347 To be fair the Japanese did have a couple of impressive designs on tap but only a few prototypes and low production numbers of them were made...had they gotten them all afield for, say, Okinawa, it would have been interesting for US tankers to say the least, but there's no way with the Naval interdiction of most Japanese transportation that they could have gotten them to Saipan, Guadalcanal, or the like. The best they could do in those locations were their light "naval tanks". Their attempt to retake the airfield at Peiliu with an armored attack showed the futility of going up against US armor for them on a 1:1 basis.
Well, when you only have a limited amount of tanks that can cross the Atlantic, you may as well make them the best that you can, i.e., modern Abrams (larger heavily armored tank) vs. t72s (smaller, cheaper), the argument can be made both ways: Make tanks that can ship in large amounts, or make tanks that you won't need to send again. It seems that the US has opted for the opposite of this in modern times.
Honestly that last bit is vital. A lot of people underestimate how difficult it is to engineer *ANYTHING,* let alone something meant for combat, *LET ALONE* something as complex as a tank, and even in this, they don’t think it’s super hard to get a heavy tank that works.
If you look at it, the only successful heavy tanks produced in large numbers during WW2 was the Churchill, the Tiger, and the IS-1&2 (maybe the Panther I if that counts). Everything else was either scrapped or turned into a failure.
@@pax6833 B1's were quite good for 1940's. But outdated french doctrine and high on something commanders... France could alone finished that war in less, then a year, before germany grew strong.
@@deauthorsadeptus6920French doctrine in both World Wars was literal ass. I did a presentation on it, and I shit you not, their infantry doctrine entering World War 1 was literally “bayonet charge the enemy until he dies.” It’s a miracle they still had an army by the end of it.
1:08 I shoot the Tiger 2's mantlet with L7 APDS and fail to pen it, spookston shoots the mantlet with a much bigger shell and the mantlet stops being modelled
Imagine that instead of or together with IS-3 at Berlin Parade soviets would have unveiled T-44? Pershing might have gotten its "long 90mm" with fat case and also a reworked T32 inspired frontal armor section. Brits might have opted to equip modernized Centurion with 32-pounder(if 20 pounder was still ways off). Meanwhile M103 and Conqueror would never be created. Or at least not in a shape and form we know them...
The issue with the putting the 32pdr in a cent is that the breach is massive for a 90mm. The 105mm L7 is revolutionary to the cannon world for how small they got the recoil systems and breach, and the L7 is waaaaaaaaay off. Conqueror will still happen because that 120mm is the RTR's baby and they want a tank that can be a tank and SPG at the same time.
Only if the Third Reich could have somehow curbed up their production and crew training. They already had serious issues to get any trained pilots and tankers for late 1944. Even more so in 1945.
Tank battles were almost irrelevant for the Americans after Normandy: most of the problems came from field guns, which was what made the heavier armor valuable, as these tanks would need to go into likely ambushes.
@@Smokey348 As interesting little fact, the German Military gave the order to concentrate production for 1945 on the Jagdpanzer 38t, better known as Hetzer, where as production orders for heavy tanks like the Tiger II and Jagdtiger remained the same. Infact the order demanded that with the end of 1945 the production of the Jagdpanzer 38t should reach about 7000 per month. Completely unrealistic of course. But it highlights that the Wehrmacht tried to focus more on lighter tanks with much easier production that could be thrown out in large numbers. Not unlike what the Soviets and US did over the war. So if the war would have continued there would have been a much higher number of probably smaller and less "impressive" vehicles.
I always liked playing the U.S. heavies. They actually perform well and are fun to use. I always laugh when a Tiger II tries to penetrate my T32’s hull plate, and then I aim for his turret.
US doctrine never really needed a heavy tank tough, so I wouldn't really say they were bad, just not built for the right country to use. Besides, after WWII heavies became rather obsolete.
The Wikipedia article on the T-10 Heavy tank put it best: "The engagements of the Six-Day War merely emphasized what the Soviet Army already knew...that the heavy tank had its day."
The T29/T30 seems to have the same situation as tanks like the T-34 and IS-3, where the specifications (gun, armour mobility) made it very good, but at the cost of things like Reliability, maintenance and fuel/ammo efficiency, which are not modelled in-game. Really cool video as always!
Soft stats are not only often not modelled in game, where they are modelled they are often modelled in a way that can't be justified from the actual performance and build of the tank. One thing that always bothered me was the lack of modelling of ergonomics. Tanks with poor layouts should very quickly degrade crew performance when the tank is being fought. Imagine if your crew took an exhaustion penalty in percents of effectiveness for driving around in a tank with poor seats, poor turret layout, awkward controls, and cramped conditions. For that matter, imagine if when driving off-road there was a percentage chance based off how ergonomic and how cramped the fighting positions were that your crew would get injured by being thrown into projecting metal objects. There were incidents on the eastern front where crew was knocked out of action and some sustained lethal injuries simply by being thrown around the cabin when travelling at moderate speed off road. Imagine needing to throttle back to avoid killing your own crew.
@@celebrim1Throtteling back in order to not kill your crew due to terrible ergonomics sounds very much like Soviet tank design In WW2. French tanks had the same problem, but they never went fast enough for it to be a problem, still that also meant their tanks weren't incredibly mechanically unreliable.
I really love the shape of the T29-T30 series. It just says "Tank" to me. It might be because I started playing PC games with command and conquer and the tanks in that game look similar.
I have to say my T30 in game is faster then the T34 and T29 I always wondered why but your video explained to me that the T30 has a better engine thank you Spookston!
When you think about it it is like that i mean 70 tonnes is a lot for that fast tank. That just shows how much we evolved with tank designs in past 80 years.
Nah. The Abrams isnt supposed to be called a heavy tank. Its called an MBT for a reason. People dont want the tank to be seen in the traditional sense of a heavy tank yk. They named it an MBT, because it really was just a general purpose platform, that fullfilled certain roles in a cheap/effective manner. Their not suposed to be heavy, nor are they supposed to be overly fast.
It makes sense that the T29/30/32/34 hulls were very similar to the one of the M26 Pershing. When it was first fielded the Army classified the Pershing as a heavy tank so it was technically a heavy tank fielded by the US. So these newer heavy tank models were just building on an existing one. It was re-classified as a medium in 1946 after the war when they changed their definitions of what a heavy tank was.
That's cause, The T29 and T30 are gatekeeped. Gaijin doesn't want every US mains to have access these vehicles, cause they know they gonna hard slap the King Tigers in the name of justice for what they did to their Jumbo 76. However, The other nations might suffer alot against a full lineup of just T Heavies. And cause gaijin is greedy.
@@hubertgizinski7962 They slapped the US 76mm with massive ahistorical nerfs a while back. As is tradition to do to US stuff. Late war plus 76mm M1 gun tanks should have the 239 pen M93 APCR, but gaijin took it away and forced the 191pen shell on everyone. This really sucks when you know the face plate numbers of the Tiger II getting spammed in your range. In other news, the French Jew Sherman from 1965 has a 400pen AMX-30 gun HEAT shell and a new power plant while being lower br than the Jumbo 76. MUCH WOW.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 German players litterally have tantrums whenever their 100% dominance is threatened. I never noticed just how borderline BRAINDEAD your average german player plays, untill i went back to 4.7-5.3 BR. Its fucking INSANE. Whenever America wins in those matches, its always because the entire team managed to pull an ungodly level of teamwork and tactic to get at the German tanks. But even then, thats on the off chance that the german side is abnormally more mentally handicapped than usual, and does stupid shit like drive off into the open field. Playing the US is like playing France/Sweden/Israel, but having everything unhistorically nerfed for no reason.
@@Haaton-of-the-Basement honestly, i feel too many people play the, in my opinion, shitbox tiger 2. I prefer the jagdtiger, for everything better, or maybe because i am a tank destroyer lover. JPz 4-5 should go to 6.7 with a few nerfs, and would be a great balanced tank too, to cure the pain of slow tanks.
The M6 looks like it was a tank a kid would come up with when you ask them: Draw me a heavy tank. So, they put way to many guns on it, entirely to big for what it is and just to much. The M103, T29, T32 and those late and post war heavies are far more viable beasts. The US figured out how to make big fat heavy tanks 30 years later in the M1 Abrams.....thing was still like 65 some odd tons and only got fatter from there lol.
I mean, if the M6 had been finished and ready to deploy in tandem with the M4, it almost certainly would've been, and it probably would've performed well in north africa and been considered a success in a theater where it would not be considered overly vulnerable to axis forces. Problem for the M6 was it just didn't quite make it into production in time.
The Abrams series is deliberately made heavier for an MBT due to the large oceans between us and literally anyone who can remotely threaten US Soil. Shipping those big girls to the front can be risky, and you may lose that tank without a replacement. That's why she thicc. There's some risk we can't replace that lost tank as easily as Russia could with some hypothetical future war in Berlin.
Realistically you wouldn't want to have anything above 50 tons before the 1970's when a new generation of transmissions became available. 30-35 tons was the sweet spot for WWII and around 35-40 tons in the post war era with the 50 ton Centurion and M60 series on the high end.
Despite their problems, I’ve always found these heavies fascinating. Not only their designs but also their potential performance in combat. We can only imagine how they would’ve performed if the war dragged on beyond 1945.
Heavy tanks may be cumbersome and hard to field but you got to admit. The T29, T30, T34, and M6A2 make a line up that smacks in WT. the T32 used to be my bread and butter but now it doesn’t feel the same. I still remember slugging out with jadgpanthers, Tiger 2s, and Jadgtigers at 1,200-1,600m on the older version of Kursk and having nothing but fun.
The M103 and the T 29 heavy tanks were my favorite tanks within the American tree when I was grinding it sure the reload sucked but they hit so hard and took so much damage as if it was nothing I would go most the game with out dying I liked them so much I made them both premiums and still use them in Cold War era tank battles.
Wow from what I've been hearing it seems like every tank in world war 2 had some significant reliability issues it's definitely a good thing that tanks had improved in modern times when it comes to reliability
Its not just WW2 tanks, its just vehicles from that era in general. Its a modern miracle that we make vehicles this reliable. Your average CHRYSLER nowadays, wouldv been inconeivably reliable back in the 1940s. It wouldv been even more so compared to a modern toyota. My teacher would always talk about how highways used to be littered with cars with a broken down carburettor on the side of the road, or how repair shops used to make a shit ton of money just because of cars back then. Now, its rare to see a car broken down near a highway.
Those German players were at one point tiger II H's stomping on shermans and comets, T-34 85's and the poor poor CHI RI II trying to research their FPE and parts so I don't feel too bad tbh.
@Hyperborean Feelz no they weren't lol. The lowest panzer IV is 3.7 The lowest T34-85 is a 5.0 or 5.3 And the m4a1 76 isn't much more of a threat to a panzer IV than a normal 75mm sherman. Infact the m4a1 76 is a easier kill for the panzer IV than the m4a2 at 4.0 because the m4a1 has worse armour. Meanwhile the 76 does nothing the 75 isn't already capable of doing to the panzer IV
Logistics had a lot to do with the US having few heavy tanks. You mentioned the T 28 Super heavy but didn't show it. My understanding is that besides late for WWII, it was too big to carry on a train, problematic to get across the Atlantic. The Germans and Russians had the advantage (or lack there of) of driving their heavy tanks into battle.
Funny how the M26 Pershing was originally designated as a heavy tank but was later designated as a medium tank. It's also interesting how many post-WW2 medium tanks had better armor than WW2 heavy tanks. On a related note, is anyone else kind of disappointed that the M103 never saw any combat?
I think ‘heavy’ back then had more to do with armor and top speed, while later on engines and transmissions improved to the point where no matter the armor, a tank wouldnt be crippled by how slow it was
I think the T32 would've been the most successful out of the experimental heavies, it was the most reliable, used a gun already battle tested, and was far lighter than the others
T32E1 would have lasted into the 60's before the Soviet darts became enough to deal with the turret face. Plus some time with add-ons and overwatching T43's the Soviet sweated profusely over avoiding ending up in a sniping duel with. Mostly I just get bummed when there are no stories of a T32 sitting in the middle of a road with T-34's and IS-2's being shit out of luck because graft is graft and the military runs on it.
the m26 pershing was originally classified as a heavy tank, the tank classification system was revised/changed after ww2 leading to the m26 pershing being reclassified as a medium tank
@@gonozal8_962 Weight is only a big deal for airplanes. Volume is what you need to look at, which is why the Shermans you see, have extremely rectangular and modular sides. Its to be compact
Interesting video as always, I remember suggesting this topic a few weeks ago on an earlier video so I'm very happy to see this one get made. Maybe with all the MPF drama going on it would be cool to do a retrospective on American Light tanks like Chaffee and Bulldog? Or other nations attempts at heavy tanks? The British with Caernarvon and Conqueror? Or the French with the AMX 50? In any case, this is a cool series and I can't wait for the next installment.
I spent time at Ft. Knox as a Reserve side NCO training 19D Cav scouts I got to visit with all the Heavies' some of MBT 70 series and many other odd vehicles placed around the post. As test beds they did a good job. If money and more time had been available, the T34 and T32 could have been reworked into fair combat vehicles. Beefed up suspensions and refined cross drive Transmissons and improved Continental engines. Other issues such as ammo storage and handling plus better controls, control placement and other ergonomic issues could have been dealt with. Armor thickness and angles improved once some combat time with them to correct exact setups to improve crew survivability.
The M6 and M4 were designed at the same time. The M6 resembled an overgrown M4 so was nicknamed Junior. The 55 ton beast had a fluid drive to avoid burning up friction clutches and the first HVSS bogie suspension. The crews hated their cramped working conditions and that the tracks didn't hold up long due to the weight. The Army cancelled further production of the 258 ordered for testing and training after the armor commanders said they didn't want or need a big slow tank. The Jumbo was made by Fisher Body from a standard M4. They added additional weight to one to see if the suspension and clutch could handle it snd both did. That allowed the mechanics to use the front drives, turrets and other parts from disabled M4's on Jumbo hulls to keep them in action. The Army didn't want a heavy tank in 1943 yet Congress felt they needed to have one in action before the Fall Elections in 1944. The Press claimed that Congress was too cheap to provide the funding for a heavy tank so ordered the War Department to come up with one or else. The WD told the same to Ordnance who then super sized the T25 into the T26 by that December. The assembly plant was ready by September of '44 with no parts to assemble due to production delays encountered by the suppliers. Assembly started after the elections in November where 14 were produced and 24 in December. The first 21 made were shipped to Europe without being tested, without trained crews and mechanics and without any replacement parts. The Army refused to use them for one month until forced to by Ike.
what I get from this video is that Heavy Tanks require a lot of time and development especially in making it reliable and based on how American Tank development was focused on reliability in the mid 1900s, that's going to be a pain and is not worth the time when you can have 2 better reliable tanks sent out overseas for 1 heavy unreliable tank.
I think time and time again people forget that although heavy tanks are nice to have, you also need to transport them to the battlefield, during WW2 you could transport 2 normal Shermans for each Jumbo, so why in earth would you pick the Jumbo, when you realize that the main duty of a tank is infantry support, not hunt for other tanks, therefore having 2 medium tanks is better than 1 heavy tank. After WW2 most nations didn't want to spend much money on military development, years later if you look at the wars the US got involved in, they all were quite far away, so the arguments still apply there. Also after Vietnam war we slowly began the process to the Main Battletank which merged the Medium and Heavy tank roles due to improvements in armour and gun tech. Well that's my take, and no you should'd care about a shit I just said.
People actually liked the bigger howitzer instead of the anti-tank ones, because half the engagements were against infantry, and not tanks. If they even encountered tanks, they would be just regular german ones, and not full blown tigers.
The Army gave the Marines the M103 heavy as a hand me down. I’m unclear how the M103 would fit into the USMC. In as much as the marines are expected to be mobile and deployable
Considering the Marines had M48A3s by the 60s my guess is the Marines would deploy the M48s with the first wave of Marines once a beachhead was established they would deploy M103A1s with Marines pushing inland.
Spookston giving a friendly reminder that heavy tanks are still a shitty concept that can't go five feet without coming late to the party before wrecking their guts in the process.
As an American it is confirmed we were and still are more focused on mediums, lights and MbT like they were pretty simple and therefore were easily upgradable and adaptable which is an American tank advantage
Issue with American heavy tanks is they were only really ever used in testing/trials which never seemed to truly work out or time was the issue. They were better for further tank developement than the tank itself
They gave the Sherman the 90mm in WW2. They just called it an M36B2 Gun Motor Carriage. The Sherman was an excellent tank. Bogging the Armored Divisions down with heavier, less reliable, and less mobile tanks that can't use regular bridges would have been stupid. Shermans killed more German tanks than were lost to German tanks. If anything the US in WW2 needed a mine clearance vehicle and an SPG with a big demolition gun or mortar for clearing bunkers and large obstacles. And more fuel trucks
@@Fulcrum205 The turret in the M36B2 GMC, aka the "Slugger" (the Limeys called it the "Jackson", as in Stonewall, long before the notion of political correctness), was different than the M4, being thinner and open-topped. The 90mm gun simply wouldn't fit in the Sherman's turret, not even the T23 turret adapted to the Sherman in later models.
@@selfdo the M1 76mm and M3 90mm mounts were identical. The 90 would fit on the T23 turret but was extremely cramped. The Army built a couple Sherman's with T26 (Pershing) turrets. This worked but ammo stowage space in the Sherman hull was unacceptable. Army Ordnances baby was the Pershing so they didn't try to develop the T26 turreted Sherman. It was a perfectly capable vehicle but not a huge leap over 76mm. Armored Force in general did not really care for the 90mm or the Pershing. They never felt the reduced ammo, lower rate of fire, slower engagement time, lower mobility, etc, was worth the extra penetration and damage. Ordnance department was the ones pushing the 90mm, the M36, and to get the Pershing into action. In the context of WW2 an M36B2 was a Sherman with a 90mm. Yes it had a different turret but so did the 75mm and 76mm turrets variants. They did make a closed top version of the M36 turret. The M36 and the Sherman both were excellent vehicles. M36s last fought in Yugoslavia in 1990s and some upgunned Sherman variant is still sitting in a motor pool in some far flung corner of the world.
@@Fulcrum205 The 90mm severely limited the gun depression in even the T23 turret (which was designed around the 76mm anyway, as you pointed out, the Pershing was to be the tank with the 90 mm), which all but eliminated the ability to fire from a "hull-down" position. Not an issue with the M36 GMC and its OPEN top (another reason the tank destroyer had one, also that the "doctrine" was that the TC had more need of visibility to spot targets than for protection; I'm not sure the CREWS felt that way!). This was another reason up-gunning to the 90 mm was rejected. The other was simply that the M1 76mm gun could, with the proper HVAP rounds (which the Army, for whatever reason, failed to make readily available, giving a lot of 76 mm equipped Shermans simple AP), penetrate the Panther's armor, save for the gun mantlet itself, at normal combat ranges, and could deal adequately with the side armor of both Tigers, and even at 500 yards or less punch through the Tiger I's front. Performance was reduced with AP versus HVAP, IDK why the Army was reluctant to issue it, the Soviets weren't to their tanks. Even the M3 75 mm gun was adequate to destroy the majority of German AFVs; so this notion that the Shermans were equipped with "pea shooters" is a MYTH. So also is the idea that tanks were restricted by Army doctrine from engaging enemy armor; leaving that task to tank destroyers. Tanks were meant to exploit break-through and "raise merry hell" in the enemy rear, shooting up supply dumps, command posts, and artillery batteries. Of course they trained to fight enemy tanks as they expected to encounter them! Tank destroyers were meant to deal with enemy armor that was attacking; they generally weren't used in the same break-through manner as tanks, due to their vulnerability. More or less they used "shoot and scoot" tactics, with superior mobility (especially in the M18 Hellcat) to evade enemy fire. This led to a problem, I guess one to have, but still a "problem", in that by the time the US Army was in NW Europe, German panzer attacks were few, they had precious few tanks and not enough gasoline to run what they had. So in a lot of instances, TDs had to be used in the infantry support role, else they were out of a job!
@@selfdo I'm mostly agreeing with you. The 76 Sherman was perfectly adequate and overall probably the best tank of the war. Tiger Is had less effective armor than the Panther. The King Tiger and Jagtiger were almost never encountered. The main request for commanders in theater were for 105mm Sherman's with power traverse to help deal with AT guns and fortifications.
Why did the U.S. Army not use heavy tanks during WW-II? The real reason has to do not with armor thickness or firepower, but with an issue that the presenter never even touches upon. There is an Army saying that "amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics". In contrast with the German and Soviet Armies, every single American tank had to be transported overseas...in cargo ships. That meant that, unlike German and Soviet tanks, American tanks could not be so large and heavy that they could not be hoisted on and off cargo ships using the ships' own cargo-handling gear, and had to be able to fit into the ships' existing cargo holds. In those days the heaviest available cargo-handling gear on most cargo ships was limited to 50 tons, although a few had gear capable of handling up to 75 tons. Even then, however, the 50-ton or 75-ton "jumbo booms" could only service a single cargo hold (out of five), the other four holds being limited to access by 5-ton gear. In other words, unless heavy-lift shore cranes were available, which was extremely unlikely in a war zone, the average cargo ship was not going to be able to accommodate super-large, super-heavy tanks. Of course, today they have "roll-on-roll-off" ships, on which tanks can simply be driven on or off, but such vessels simply did not exist during WW-II.
Didn't the M6 see a few battles at the very end of the war, but there were only like two of them fielded in Berlin or something? I vaguely remember another video about it but it could have been wrong idk
If we wanted to go a little "out there" the Pershing and the lookalike heavyweight dressups, it wasn't a medium-to-heavy dressup, it was a makeover of an already established heavy tank. The Pershing was, all in all, a Heavy Tank by doctrine, weight class, and usage in the war, but was later reclassed to a medium in the 50's when they were using it and, simultaneously, retrofitting them to make M46's and M47's. However, by the time T29/30/34 and the T32 respectively were being developed and later canceled, it could still be accurate to call it a medium-to-heavy dressup, but I like to refer to the M26 as it's historical, weight class and doctrine specification; Heavy Tank.
T29s would be too outclassed while the T30 might have some hope if it's fighting the earlier or mid variants, T-34 would be the same situation too but with a reduced caliber and higher velocity shells
@@michaelsalazar7331 Of course, yes. And the t54 penetrates the American t34 even into the "thick" mask of the gun, because the Americans never learned how to make tank armor
The Hog Rider card is unlocked from the Spell Valley (Arena 5). He is a quick building-targeting, melee troop with moderately high hitpoints and damage. He appears just like his Clash of Clans counterpart; a man with brown eyebrows, a beard, a mohawk, and a golden body piercing in his left ear who is riding a hog. A Hog Rider card costs 4 Elixir to deploy. Strategy His fast move speed can boost forward mini tanks like an Ice Golem in a push. At the same time, he can also function as a tank for lower hitpoint troops such as Goblins as he still has a fair amount of health. Most cheap swarms complement the Hog Rider well, as they are nearly as fast as him and usually force more than one card out of the opponent's hand. The Hog Rider struggles with swarms, as they can damage him down and defeat him quickly while obstructing his path. Barbarians in particular can fully counter him without very strict timing on the defender's part, though be wary of spells. A Hunter can kill the Hog Rider in 2 hits if placed right on top of it. However, if you place something in front of the Hog Rider, the Hunter's splash will damage the Hog Rider and hit the card in front of it more. A good placement and timing with Guards and The Log will fully counter the Hog Rider, canceling all Hog hits. The Hog Rider in conjunction with the Freeze can surprise the opponent and allow the Hog Rider to deal much more damage than anticipated, especially if the opponent's go-to counter is a swarm, or swarms are their only effective counter to him. Skeletons and Bats will immediately be defeated by the spell, while Spear Goblins, Goblins, and Minions will be at low enough health to be defeated by a follow up Zap or Giant Snowball. However, this strategy isn't very effective against buildings as the Hog Rider will take a while to destroy the building, giving the opponent ample time to articulate another counter. Against non-swarm troops, it can deal a lot of damage during the freeze time, but this can allow the opponent to set up a massive counterpush. For this reason, players should either only go for a Hog Rider + Freeze when they have other units backing it up from a counterattack, or if the match is about to end and they need to deal as much damage as possible. It is not a good idea to send in a Hog Rider simply to destroy a building, especially if it is the only building targeting unit available, as defeating Crown Towers becomes substantially more difficult. Spells or simply waiting out the lifetime of the building are more effective. The exception to this is an Elixir Collector placed in front of the King's Tower. If a Hog Rider placed at the bridge, he can destroy the Collector for a positive Elixir trade, though the damage from both Princess Towers will usually mean he does not survive to deal any damage to them. However, if the opponent sends in defending troops, it can be an opportunity to gain spell damage value. In a deck with several low-cost cards, it might be worth it to simply send the Hog Rider against one building. These decks shuffle their card rotation quick enough, that they will arrive to their next Hog Rider before the next building arrives in the opponent's card rotation. Long-ranged troops like Musketeer and Flying Machine can snipe those buildings, preserving some of the Hog Rider's health, possibly allowing it to get some Tower damage. When there are buildings placed in the middle to counter the Hog Rider, understanding the placement of the Hog Rider and the type of building placed can help the Hog Rider to bypass certain buildings. Passive buildings such as spawners and Elixir Collector have a larger hitbox than defensive buildings; which means that if a passive building was placed 3 tiles away from the river in the middle of the opponent's side, then it is impossible for the Hog Rider to bypass that placement as the Hog Rider will get pulled to that building. Defensive buildings have a smaller hitbox than a passive building, which means if that if a defensive building was placed three tiles away from the river in the middle of the opponent's side, a Hog Rider placed at the very left or right side of the Arena may be able to bypass it due to its smaller hitbox. If the player has a building already placed down in the center of the arena, and the opponent tries to bypass it with a Hog Rider at the edge of the arena, they can use certain air troops to push the Hog Rider towards the building as it jumps over the river, effectively denying the bypass attempt. They must be already hovering over the correct placement, as very quick reflexes are required to correctly perform this technique. For Bats, Skeleton Dragons, and Minion Horde, they should be placed right in front of the Hog Rider as soon as it is deployed. For Minions, Skeleton Barrel, Mega Minion, Flying Machine, Electro Dragon, Baby Dragon, Inferno Dragon, Balloon, and Lava Hound, stagger the above placement one tile to the right if the Hog Rider is placed on the left side of the arena, and vice versa. They can also use ground troops to achieve the same result. Something like an Ice Golem deployed at the Hog Rider’s landing spot will obstruct his path and force him to go around the unit, which causes him to be closer to the building instead of the Crown Tower. The Hog Rider can kite Very Fast non-building targeting troops due to his own Very Fast speed and building only targeting if he is placed on the fourth tile from the bridge, slightly into the opposite lane. He can also stall grounded units when placed right at the bridge. He will pull them towards him while deploying, and then be untargetable by them when he jumps over the bridge. After landing, he will pull them back. This can be useful when the player needs to deal damage in the same lane they are defending. It will also help separate troops behind a tank in a large push. A Tornado placed on the second tile front of the player's King's Tower and staggered two tiles towards the Princess Tower will activate it without any damage dealt to the Princess Tower, helping them in defending future pushes. This can also be a method of mitigating all damage dealt to a Princess Tower, but doing this more than three times may result in the King's Tower's health being low enough to be targeted directly, opening up the possible threat of a back door three crown. A better alternative is to pull the Hog away from the Princess Tower into the attacking range of all three Crown Towers, which will negate all damage as long as none of them are already distracted A very powerful combo is the Hog Rider, the Musketeer, and the Valkyrie, typically referred to as the Trifecta. The Musketeer will defend against most troops, while the Valkyrie can protect her and the Hog Rider from swarms or high damage units. The Hog Rider is used to deal damage to the tower. This can be effectively countered by Lightning, one-shotting the Musketeer and severely damaging both the Valkyrie and Hog Rider. The Minion Horde is also effective, but the enemy can Zap them and the Musketeer will one-shot them all. Even if the Musketeer is defeated, the Hog Rider and Valkyrie will have enough time to severely damage the Tower. The Hog Rider should be placed behind the Valkyrie to give it a boost so that it stays in front of the Hog Rider, protecting it. A Hog Rider combined with a Goblin Barrel can be awkward for the opponent to defend against. Timing it so that the Hog Rider is tanking the tower shots for the Goblins is the most effective way to deal damage. However, a Barbarian Barrel can shut this down with minimal Tower damage for a positive Elixir trade, as long as the Goblin Barrel was placed directly on the Tower. Pairing the Hog Rider with the Balloon can deal devastating damage. If executed properly, the Hog Rider will act as a tank while the Balloon threatens to deal massive damage. The Hog Rider can also destroy any buildings attempting to slow down the combo. However, this combo is very vulnerable to swarms and anti-air cards as neither of the troops target anything but buildings. Additionally, they are easy to separate, due to the disparity in move speeds. Alternatively, the Hog Rider and the Balloon can be played in different lanes to spread the opponent's defenses thin. However, a building or Tornado can bring them back together for an easier defense. The Hog Rider can be paired with the Lumberjack as both a swarm bait and damage combo. It is a very fast combo with an extremely high damage output potential, so the enemy will likely try to counter it with a swarm. If this happens, use a spell like Arrows to render the opponent defenseless. If they manage to defeat the Lumberjack, the dropped Rage will make the Hog Rider even more dangerous than it normally is. A fast and deadly combination is the Hog Rider and Mini P.E.K.K.A. combo. Both units are fast but the Mini P.E.K.K.A. does much more damage and does not attack only buildings so the Mini P.E.K.K.A. can deal with troops like the Executioner and Musketeer. However, this combo can be defeated with swarms like Skeleton Army, which will defeat both of them since neither of them can deal area damage. They are also unable to target air troops, so the Minion Horde can stop this easily. A risky play is to deploy the Hog Rider at the bridge as soon as the match starts. If the opponent does not react fast enough, the Hog Rider will deal a significant amount of damage to the Princess Tower. This can also allow the player to quickly scout the opponent's deck if they happen to react to him fast enough.
They were REALLY good when we made them, US didn’t focus on heavy tanks due to the cost and complications that come with it Also we were pretty happy with the 76mm Sherman’s and the M18 hellcat(medium and light tanks) We didn’t need armor, we needed firepower, speed, and mobility and that is exactly what we got
It sounded like you said that the Jumbo never saw combat. I am reading that the Jumbo 1st say combat in July 1944. 492 were made and their combat life was 10 months.
Could’ve been some interesting combat between some of these potential American heavies and later Soviet IS series if the Cold War went hot in the early 50’s
The trouble for the US is that it has to SHIP its AFVs, which in turn means the capacity of cranes at the outbound and also the receiving ports are a limitation. Never mind also having to ship that much more FUEL. Hence why, much later, the "RO-RO" (roll ON, roll OFF) fast vessels were devised, which alleviates this problem, especially since the weight of US Army AFVs crept up there (52 tons with the M60, 65 to 70 tons with the M1 Abrams series). Or, just build one HUGE friggin' airlifter like the C-5 Galaxy! Both Germany and the Soviet Union transported their AFVs via RAIL, so yes, they could expect to get their heavies to the battlefield. Even then, that wasn't a guarantee, nor was getting a stricken Tiger or JS-2 OFF the battlefield all that easy! It's safe to say that the actual combat performance of the "Big Cats" was even more lopsided than raw casualty reports would indicate, as often Panthers and Tigers that could have been recovered, repaired, and sent back to fight had to be abandoned and/or destroyed, due to either lack of ARVs, or simply losing control of the battlefield. In all too many cases, they had to be left after breakdowns or even running out of fuel, NOT enemy action! By the time most of these oversized, overweight beasts could be brought into production, as "Heavy Gun" (120 mm and up) tanks, as the US Army classified its tanks according to main weapon size, we were involved in Korea, where even the "Medium Gun" (90 mm) tanks had significant mobility issues, even though their armor and firepower were superior to the opponent's T-34/85s. Given that Central Europe, especially Germany, where in the 1950s Army planners expected to be the most likely setting for the next major conflict, also is HILLY, this made the "Heavies" unappealing. Plus, by then the panzer commanders and strategists like Guderian, Von Manstein, Von Mellinthin, etc., etc. had been debriefed and were writing their memoirs, and virtually all of them took pains to mention the mobility and reliability problems of their "Big Cats" (Panther and Tiger tans). FWIW, Guderian tried to stop Panther and Tiger production, believing that the up-gunned Mark IVs were sufficient for the Panzerwaffe, that the "Big Cats" were more trouble than they were worth. Even Hitler, especially after its ill-fated debut at Kursk, decried the Panther, labeling it "that 'clanking He 177' ", in reference to the He 177 "Grief" (wow, could a synonym have been more apropos?) heavy bomber, itself a very troubled aircraft considered a dismal failure.
I agree since in wot blitz I play the american hevies and they are difficulty to use cause A. They move at less than 40 km / m ph and B. Their role is to be a hulldowned tank since the gun shield is the most powerful but the problem is there is a very few areas in the game but in real life.
You can’t move heavy tanks across the Atlantic fast enough to make a difference. The Americans made good use of the M4. They should have up-gunned it. But any heavy tank should have been manufactured in Europe. Not the US.
With covid, they had to shut down oil refineries. The current gas crisis in the US, was purely a result of shutting down factories, as they take months to ramp up to pre-covid production levels. Its the same story with one of the chrysler factories that made Abrams. The gov shut one of em down awhile ago, and it was reported that it would take a year to ramp it back up. Now imagine, setting whole NEW factories in a completely bombed out country with absolutely ZERO infrastructure, all in a timely manner. It would be borderline impossible. They did up-gun the sherman. They made the Sherman 76mm. In reality, the 76mm was pretty good against Tigers and other heavies, and did an exceptional job. War Thunder doesnt model it like that, because then the german playerbase would start crying over their 100% dominance being threatened.
T32E1 would've been a godsent with some updates in the korean war and beyond. Take the engine from the M46, the T54 90mm with the shorter stubby high velocity rounds, improve optic layout and give it a rangefinder, and cut down a bit on the back/side turret armor. Replace coax with a .50cal too. Shaving off unnecessary weight and giving it a better engine, improved gun with ease of reload/easier to produce and store ammo, and way more punch, inredible crew protection from the front, and add some more escape hatches for survivability, and can't forget the cross country capability on that
Actually the Pershing was considered terrible, and was phased out very quickly due to engine and transmissions problems. It's the same reason why the T32 wasn't used, as the extra weight made this problem even more noticeable.
@@Adierit Sorry I mentioned changing engine but I forgot to mention transmission as well, taking the engine and transmission from the M46, modified to be a bit sturdier with better torque, along with reduced weight by shaving off unnecessary/ineffective rear/side armor on the turret. Also altering the mantlet to be a wedge instead to provide significantly increased turret armor, and angling the UFP/LFP a bit more and adding fuel tanks into the very front bit with driver situated a bit further back.
Had the M6 been put into even limited production with the 90mm I wonder what the breakout from Normandy would have looked like. Yes the tank was heavy, but you could still put 5 of them on an LST and have landed them at Normandy. The logistical challenges would have kept them from mass adoption but as a heavy reserve force there’s no reason they couldn’t have found success in places like the boccage.
As long as low performance in main weapon penetration can made up by exceptional accuracy, having superior armour and maneuverability is the way to go. Especially so when it comes to armour, because in this game you're going to take hits no matter how good you are and this is something that can't be improved aside from covering your critical spots and correct angling. Your guns however will almost always get the job done with the right load and a well placed shot
American light tanks were pretty good. The M3 was a good enough design to be upgraded into the M5 and there were a lot of variants like the M8. The M22 was a solid, compact design as well.
if the war had gone worse, all the reasons for not shipping heavy tanks to Europe would have been ignored. Frankly the US didn't use heavy tanks because they didn't need them. Existing German heavies were few and far between and could be taken out by shaped charges such as HEAT/HESH, or by sabot. A skilled Sherman gunner could disable a Panther frontally by targeting the shot trap on the front of the turret, even with the 75. But if the Sherman really wasn't getting the job done for some reason, I have no doubt that the US would be ready, willing and able to both mass produce and deliver large numbers of M6 heavy tanks to the battlefront..
Like other US tanks, the M-26 Pershings had stabilized main guns. Unlike the M-4 Shermans 75 mm or 76mm guns or Grant/Lee tanks' 37mm cannons, the Tank Destroyers didn't have stabilized main guns, as they were envisioned to be waiting in ambush to stop enemy tanks with fire from the flanks.
@DonMeaker Early versions of the M26, when it was still in the prototype stage as the T25, did but was later removed before the design was finalized. After that, US tanks were not officially fit with stabilizers until the M60A1-AOS Half right but half wrong
@DonMeaker Except for the "105mm-equipped M4 Sherman tanks, all U.S.-built tanks had a stabilization system for gun elevation usable at low speeds. All US tanks were stabilized at least by 1944. Some attempt was made to stabilize Soviet tank guns as early as 1938." And your wrong about the M4
That's a cool heavy tank you got there... it would be a shame if someone put an OCEAN in between your factory and the frontlines!
very sneaky..
That really is the pivotal point that people miss. The US military has a huge logistical component. Historically all their wars have been geographically far from the point of production. People can't seem to understand that transporting a 75 ton tank is vastly more difficult and expensive than a 35 ton tank.
@@johnshaft5613 What most people can't seem to understand is that a 35 ton tank , even two or three 35 ton tanks, are no substitute for a well armed 75 ton tank in a firefight . Of course , this is because most people will never actually have to fight in a 35 ton tank.
In the 1940's America was the most industrialized Nation in the world . By Far. Consider the British Mulberry harbours.These were created by a nation with a tiny fraction of Americas industrial base.
It was certainly not beyond the ability of the American Nation to field a heavy tank in WW2. Every other serious tank building contender managed it.
*140k pound Abrams enter the chat*
@@andrewwoodhead3141 Really, only the Germans and the Russians built true heavy tanks. And both nations had relatively short logistical supply lines, practically being able to drive the vehicles from the factory into combat. Coincidence? No. Would I want to fight in a 35 ton tank vs a 75 ton? No. But ultimately the USA strategy succeeded. Smaller, mass produced, reliable, and easily shipped tanks won the war, while it was admittedly at the cost of the lives of quite a few US tank crews. You can also argue, quite successfully, that the Nazis probably could have postponed defeat for some time longer had they produced more Panthers and Panzer IVs rather than Tigers, King Tigers, Jagdtigers, etc. The German heavy tanks are darlings of wargamers and hobbyists today, but in many ways were military failures.
I think a better compromise would have been "medium" tanks armed with good guns. A gun like the 17 pounder would penetrate the frontal armor of any heavy tank in the war at any reasonable range, and with adequate numbers of tanks armed in this manner, of what value is the weight and bulk of a King Tiger?
Ultimately US commanders found any problem the Sherman's couldn't handle could simply be shelled to death by 155+ artillery guns already attached to infantry units or the purpose built td units.
Or simply enough, bombed.
Germany made their heavies purely out of ego. There was no actual capability that they hoped to achieve with those heavies.
In reality, it was basically a Russia v Ukraine type moment. The very few heavies that Germany could even pump out, were basically singled out and bombed.
On the rare occasion you couldnt call for air support, they would just get a few shermans and shoot them on the sides, and be done with it.
Bruh... 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
and air support
@@devnandannair2336 and nukes
@@shadowconquer-yv5ydUh… no.
M4 Shermans performed exceptionally well in the Pacific Theater compared to the Western front, and there was no real reason to introduce heavy tanks there if you have naval and air supremacy, using the island hopping strategy, and having almost no competition in terms of tank quality AND quantity.
All American heavy tanks would do is slow down the advance towards the Japanese archipelago. Slower moving, slower to transport, and a lack of existing spare parts compared to the M4.
And then Marines adopted the M103
Japan was a naval power, not a land power, so against her the M3 Lee was sufficient.
Mainly because Japan's anti tank weapons were dudes with warcrime sticks
To be fair they performed very well in the Western and Eastern fronts too, but indeed they did outclass every Japanese tank available. The M3 and M4 were so much more effective that a heavy tank was not needed in the Pacific or Asia.
@@bejaminmaston1347 To be fair the Japanese did have a couple of impressive designs on tap but only a few prototypes and low production numbers of them were made...had they gotten them all afield for, say, Okinawa, it would have been interesting for US tankers to say the least, but there's no way with the Naval interdiction of most Japanese transportation that they could have gotten them to Saipan, Guadalcanal, or the like. The best they could do in those locations were their light "naval tanks". Their attempt to retake the airfield at Peiliu with an armored attack showed the futility of going up against US armor for them on a 1:1 basis.
The US being smart and not wasting money on producing a ton of heavies. Especially trying to cross the Atlantic with them.
And the Pacific
Well, when you only have a limited amount of tanks that can cross the Atlantic, you may as well make them the best that you can, i.e., modern Abrams (larger heavily armored tank) vs. t72s (smaller, cheaper), the argument can be made both ways: Make tanks that can ship in large amounts, or make tanks that you won't need to send again. It seems that the US has opted for the opposite of this in modern times.
But I have to say. Those build by the USA were sexy af. And if one country could build heavy tanks it was the USA.
@@ALC100percent And their mediums were that ugly. Chad heavies and Virgin medium tanks
No
Honestly that last bit is vital. A lot of people underestimate how difficult it is to engineer *ANYTHING,* let alone something meant for combat, *LET ALONE* something as complex as a tank, and even in this, they don’t think it’s super hard to get a heavy tank that works.
If you look at it, the only successful heavy tanks produced in large numbers during WW2 was the Churchill, the Tiger, and the IS-1&2 (maybe the Panther I if that counts). Everything else was either scrapped or turned into a failure.
@@pax6833 B1's were quite good for 1940's. But outdated french doctrine and high on something commanders... France could alone finished that war in less, then a year, before germany grew strong.
@@deauthorsadeptus6920French doctrine in both World Wars was literal ass. I did a presentation on it, and I shit you not, their infantry doctrine entering World War 1 was literally “bayonet charge the enemy until he dies.” It’s a miracle they still had an army by the end of it.
@@swampfireian41 I mean, none of that would happen if french were actually competent.
1:08 I shoot the Tiger 2's mantlet with L7 APDS and fail to pen it, spookston shoots the mantlet with a much bigger shell and the mantlet stops being modelled
dont you know, content creators have favourable RNG. /s
Bigger is better.
*Freedom.*
Oh and I should point out the Flakpz 131 breaking his barrel, it visibly going black and broken, and then magically repairing
@@jackmino729 are you implying something
Imagine that instead of or together with IS-3 at Berlin Parade soviets would have unveiled T-44? Pershing might have gotten its "long 90mm" with fat case and also a reworked T32 inspired frontal armor section. Brits might have opted to equip modernized Centurion with 32-pounder(if 20 pounder was still ways off).
Meanwhile M103 and Conqueror would never be created. Or at least not in a shape and form we know them...
interesting
If history was to be more boring.
The issue with the putting the 32pdr in a cent is that the breach is massive for a 90mm. The 105mm L7 is revolutionary to the cannon world for how small they got the recoil systems and breach, and the L7 is waaaaaaaaay off.
Conqueror will still happen because that 120mm is the RTR's baby and they want a tank that can be a tank and SPG at the same time.
1200 heavies? Imagine if the war dragged on another year, the tank battles would have been very interesting.
Only if the Third Reich could have somehow curbed up their production and crew training. They already had serious issues to get any trained pilots and tankers for late 1944. Even more so in 1945.
Tank battles were almost irrelevant for the Americans after Normandy: most of the problems came from field guns, which was what made the heavier armor valuable, as these tanks would need to go into likely ambushes.
@@CrniWuk or not emphasising on heavy behemoth tanks
@@Smokey348 As interesting little fact, the German Military gave the order to concentrate production for 1945 on the Jagdpanzer 38t, better known as Hetzer, where as production orders for heavy tanks like the Tiger II and Jagdtiger remained the same. Infact the order demanded that with the end of 1945 the production of the Jagdpanzer 38t should reach about 7000 per month. Completely unrealistic of course. But it highlights that the Wehrmacht tried to focus more on lighter tanks with much easier production that could be thrown out in large numbers. Not unlike what the Soviets and US did over the war. So if the war would have continued there would have been a much higher number of probably smaller and less "impressive" vehicles.
@@CrniWuk look at his video in the hetzer. It was still bad
I always liked playing the U.S. heavies. They actually perform well and are fun to use. I always laugh when a Tiger II tries to penetrate my T32’s hull plate, and then I aim for his turret.
game and real life is not the same thing, for f's sake
@@niuchajianfa6222 And said game can't model terminal ballistics.
@@niuchajianfa6222 no one said that. You are the only one being pressed over this
@@How23497 did you watch the video? do you know what the video is about?
Did you happen to notice the war Thunder us heavy tank gameplay in the back? Still a relevant comment.
US doctrine never really needed a heavy tank tough, so I wouldn't really say they were bad, just not built for the right country to use. Besides, after WWII heavies became rather obsolete.
Not to mention on how to get enough of those Overseas in the first place.
The Wikipedia article on the T-10 Heavy tank put it best: "The engagements of the Six-Day War merely emphasized what the Soviet Army already knew...that the heavy tank had its day."
The T29/T30 seems to have the same situation as tanks like the T-34 and IS-3, where the specifications (gun, armour mobility) made it very good, but at the cost of things like Reliability, maintenance and fuel/ammo efficiency, which are not modelled in-game. Really cool video as always!
Soft stats are not only often not modelled in game, where they are modelled they are often modelled in a way that can't be justified from the actual performance and build of the tank.
One thing that always bothered me was the lack of modelling of ergonomics. Tanks with poor layouts should very quickly degrade crew performance when the tank is being fought. Imagine if your crew took an exhaustion penalty in percents of effectiveness for driving around in a tank with poor seats, poor turret layout, awkward controls, and cramped conditions. For that matter, imagine if when driving off-road there was a percentage chance based off how ergonomic and how cramped the fighting positions were that your crew would get injured by being thrown into projecting metal objects. There were incidents on the eastern front where crew was knocked out of action and some sustained lethal injuries simply by being thrown around the cabin when travelling at moderate speed off road. Imagine needing to throttle back to avoid killing your own crew.
@@celebrim1Throtteling back in order to not kill your crew due to terrible ergonomics sounds very much like Soviet tank design In WW2. French tanks had the same problem, but they never went fast enough for it to be a problem, still that also meant their tanks weren't incredibly mechanically unreliable.
I really love the shape of the T29-T30 series. It just says "Tank" to me. It might be because I started playing PC games with command and conquer and the tanks in that game look similar.
2:38 You can see your barrel get disabled then re-enabled after the enemy dies, just look at the X-ray view in the bottom left.
I didn't even notice lol
Wanted to write the Same thing, its really strange, been playing wt for 7 years now and I never ever saw that
It's not a bug, it's a feature
@@AleLGB yes yes, partnership feature
And they say Russian bias is real
I have to say my T30 in game is faster then the T34 and T29 I always wondered why but your video explained to me that the T30 has a better engine thank you Spookston!
You can check hp
@@rain-er6537 I’m to lazy lol
@@Cavemanjenkins or too dumb at that point :P
To be quite fair the Abrams are the Heavy Tanks of the MBTs.
Challengers are much heavier
When you think about it it is like that i mean 70 tonnes is a lot for that fast tank. That just shows how much we evolved with tank designs in past 80 years.
Or the Merkava
@@Zorro9129 combat ready Chally 2 is 75 tonnes. M1A2 Sep v.3 is 66.8. Merkava Mk4 is 65.
Nah. The Abrams isnt supposed to be called a heavy tank. Its called an MBT for a reason.
People dont want the tank to be seen in the traditional sense of a heavy tank yk.
They named it an MBT, because it really was just a general purpose platform, that fullfilled certain roles in a cheap/effective manner. Their not suposed to be heavy, nor are they supposed to be overly fast.
making a tank heavy is the easy part
getting it to work is a different story all together
Just like the maus. Big box with tracks and gun
It makes sense that the T29/30/32/34 hulls were very similar to the one of the M26 Pershing. When it was first fielded the Army classified the Pershing as a heavy tank so it was technically a heavy tank fielded by the US. So these newer heavy tank models were just building on an existing one. It was re-classified as a medium in 1946 after the war when they changed their definitions of what a heavy tank was.
I unlocked the t34 yesterday and I hate how a lot of American tanks get apcr rounds yet germany is getting some nuclear Hiroshima futuristic he shells
That's cause, The T29 and T30 are gatekeeped. Gaijin doesn't want every US mains to have access these vehicles, cause they know they gonna hard slap the King Tigers in the name of justice for what they did to their Jumbo 76.
However, The other nations might suffer alot against a full lineup of just T Heavies.
And cause gaijin is greedy.
Its funny how WHOLE USA tech tree at 5.7 have only 2 tanks that can pen churchil VII that is 4.7 and have 150 mm front armor
@@hubertgizinski7962 They slapped the US 76mm with massive ahistorical nerfs a while back. As is tradition to do to US stuff. Late war plus 76mm M1 gun tanks should have the 239 pen M93 APCR, but gaijin took it away and forced the 191pen shell on everyone. This really sucks when you know the face plate numbers of the Tiger II getting spammed in your range. In other news, the French Jew Sherman from 1965 has a 400pen AMX-30 gun HEAT shell and a new power plant while being lower br than the Jumbo 76. MUCH WOW.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537 German players litterally have tantrums whenever their 100% dominance is threatened.
I never noticed just how borderline BRAINDEAD your average german player plays, untill i went back to 4.7-5.3 BR. Its fucking INSANE.
Whenever America wins in those matches, its always because the entire team managed to pull an ungodly level of teamwork and tactic to get at the German tanks. But even then, thats on the off chance that the german side is abnormally more mentally handicapped than usual, and does stupid shit like drive off into the open field.
Playing the US is like playing France/Sweden/Israel, but having everything unhistorically nerfed for no reason.
@@Haaton-of-the-Basement honestly, i feel too many people play the, in my opinion, shitbox tiger 2. I prefer the jagdtiger, for everything better, or maybe because i am a tank destroyer lover. JPz 4-5 should go to 6.7 with a few nerfs, and would be a great balanced tank too, to cure the pain of slow tanks.
As a T29 fan, they’re op!
Well they are, until the is3 shows up
The M6 looks like it was a tank a kid would come up with when you ask them: Draw me a heavy tank.
So, they put way to many guns on it, entirely to big for what it is and just to much.
The M103, T29, T32 and those late and post war heavies are far more viable beasts.
The US figured out how to make big fat heavy tanks 30 years later in the M1 Abrams.....thing was still like 65 some odd tons and only got fatter from there lol.
well, the first prototypes of the M6 even have multiple turrets so that's a step up i guess.
I mean, if the M6 had been finished and ready to deploy in tandem with the M4, it almost certainly would've been, and it probably would've performed well in north africa and been considered a success in a theater where it would not be considered overly vulnerable to axis forces.
Problem for the M6 was it just didn't quite make it into production in time.
@@pax6833 Even Matilda was successful for a while in the African Theater. So i guess you can be right.
The Abrams series is deliberately made heavier for an MBT due to the large oceans between us and literally anyone who can remotely threaten US Soil. Shipping those big girls to the front can be risky, and you may lose that tank without a replacement.
That's why she thicc. There's some risk we can't replace that lost tank as easily as Russia could with some hypothetical future war in Berlin.
ngl the M6's final design sorta looks like a fatter sherman
Realistically you wouldn't want to have anything above 50 tons before the 1970's when a new generation of transmissions became available. 30-35 tons was the sweet spot for WWII and around 35-40 tons in the post war era with the 50 ton Centurion and M60 series on the high end.
I have no idea how you manage to talk with such a straight tone and still keep my attention throughout the whole video, props to you
As someone who likes heavy tanks I noticed when playing RTS’s that getting a bunch of panzer 3s is always more useful than 1 tiger 2
Wargame too. T80s and Leopard 2s do have their uses, but one mistake and you have a package delivered by arty or jets
Despite their problems, I’ve always found these heavies fascinating. Not only their designs but also their potential performance in combat. We can only imagine how they would’ve performed if the war dragged on beyond 1945.
Heavy tanks may be cumbersome and hard to field but you got to admit. The T29, T30, T34, and M6A2 make a line up that smacks in WT. the T32 used to be my bread and butter but now it doesn’t feel the same. I still remember slugging out with jadgpanthers, Tiger 2s, and Jadgtigers at 1,200-1,600m on the older version of Kursk and having nothing but fun.
The M103 and the T 29 heavy tanks were my favorite tanks within the American tree when I was grinding it sure the reload sucked but they hit so hard and took so much damage as if it was nothing I would go most the game with out dying I liked them so much I made them both premiums and still use them in Cold War era tank battles.
Wow from what I've been hearing it seems like every tank in world war 2 had some significant reliability issues it's definitely a good thing that tanks had improved in modern times when it comes to reliability
Its not just WW2 tanks, its just vehicles from that era in general.
Its a modern miracle that we make vehicles this reliable. Your average CHRYSLER nowadays, wouldv been inconeivably reliable back in the 1940s. It wouldv been even more so compared to a modern toyota.
My teacher would always talk about how highways used to be littered with cars with a broken down carburettor on the side of the road, or how repair shops used to make a shit ton of money just because of cars back then. Now, its rare to see a car broken down near a highway.
@@honkhonk8009I don't know the reason, but almost nobody wants to tow a Tesla.
That nod to Halo ODST... Happy new year, sir. May great things come your way. o7
Lets all pray for all the German players trying to just spade their vehicles and research FPE or parts that have been killed in this video
🤣
Youll never know if they are searching fpe cuz the broken aphe make sure to not let them even had the chance to fight the firw
At this BR fighting Cold War HEAT-FS and ATGMs is pure pain.
Those German players were at one point tiger II H's stomping on shermans and comets, T-34 85's and the poor poor CHI RI II trying to research their FPE and parts so I don't feel too bad tbh.
@Hyperborean Feelz no they weren't lol. The lowest panzer IV is 3.7
The lowest T34-85 is a 5.0 or 5.3
And the m4a1 76 isn't much more of a threat to a panzer IV than a normal 75mm sherman. Infact the m4a1 76 is a easier kill for the panzer IV than the m4a2 at 4.0 because the m4a1 has worse armour. Meanwhile the 76 does nothing the 75 isn't already capable of doing to the panzer IV
Logistics had a lot to do with the US having few heavy tanks. You mentioned the T 28 Super heavy but didn't show it. My understanding is that besides late for WWII, it was too big to carry on a train, problematic to get across the Atlantic. The Germans and Russians had the advantage (or lack there of) of driving their heavy tanks into battle.
Who would have guessed that a country atleast an ocean away from its nearest opponent has no use for a heavy tank
Funny how the M26 Pershing was originally designated as a heavy tank but was later designated as a medium tank. It's also interesting how many post-WW2 medium tanks had better armor than WW2 heavy tanks.
On a related note, is anyone else kind of disappointed that the M103 never saw any combat?
I think ‘heavy’ back then had more to do with armor and top speed, while later on engines and transmissions improved to the point where no matter the armor, a tank wouldnt be crippled by how slow it was
I think the T32 would've been the most successful out of the experimental heavies, it was the most reliable, used a gun already battle tested, and was far lighter than the others
T32E1 would have lasted into the 60's before the Soviet darts became enough to deal with the turret face. Plus some time with add-ons and overwatching T43's the Soviet sweated profusely over avoiding ending up in a sniping duel with. Mostly I just get bummed when there are no stories of a T32 sitting in the middle of a road with T-34's and IS-2's being shit out of luck because graft is graft and the military runs on it.
The Pershing was called a heavy tank at first when it was sent out at the end of world War 2.
Given the current weight of the M1A2 family, I would argue that those qualify as HEAVY tanks.
the m26 pershing was originally classified as a heavy tank, the tank classification system was revised/changed after ww2 leading to the m26 pershing being reclassified as a medium tank
That 1 shot on the tortoise was nasty @ 2:21
I really like the T-32 heavy, it's like if a Pershing decided to follow Saitama's workout regimen.
Why ship one massive tank overseas when you can do 4 mediums with the same ship?
a heavy weighted up to 60 tons in WWII, a sherman had a weight between 30.3 and 35 tons (metric, ofc.) so no, it’s a 2:1 scale
@@gonozal8_962 It's not necessarily about weight, it's more about how much space they take up
@@austin3600 ok, thx
@@gonozal8_962 Weight is only a big deal for airplanes.
Volume is what you need to look at, which is why the Shermans you see, have extremely rectangular and modular sides. Its to be compact
Interesting video as always, I remember suggesting this topic a few weeks ago on an earlier video so I'm very happy to see this one get made.
Maybe with all the MPF drama going on it would be cool to do a retrospective on American Light tanks like Chaffee and Bulldog?
Or other nations attempts at heavy tanks? The British with Caernarvon and Conqueror? Or the French with the AMX 50?
In any case, this is a cool series and I can't wait for the next installment.
i still tear up because my favourite tank, the T29, never saw service. even though it was smart, I'M STILL MAD
I spent time at Ft. Knox as a Reserve side NCO training 19D Cav scouts I got to visit with all the Heavies' some of MBT 70 series and many other odd vehicles placed around the post. As test beds they did a good job. If money and more time had been available, the T34 and T32 could have been reworked into fair combat vehicles. Beefed up suspensions and refined cross drive Transmissons and improved Continental engines. Other issues such as ammo storage and handling plus better controls, control placement and other ergonomic issues could have been dealt with. Armor thickness and angles improved once some combat time with them to correct exact setups to improve crew survivability.
The M6 and M4 were designed at the same time. The M6 resembled an overgrown M4 so was nicknamed Junior. The 55 ton beast had a fluid drive to avoid burning up friction clutches and the first HVSS bogie suspension. The crews hated their cramped working conditions and that the tracks didn't hold up long due to the weight. The Army cancelled further production of the 258 ordered for testing and training after the armor commanders said they didn't want or need a big slow tank.
The Jumbo was made by Fisher Body from a standard M4. They added additional weight to one to see if the suspension and clutch could handle it snd both did. That allowed the mechanics to use the front drives, turrets and other parts from disabled M4's on Jumbo hulls to keep them in action.
The Army didn't want a heavy tank in 1943 yet Congress felt they needed to have one in action before the Fall Elections in 1944. The Press claimed that Congress was too cheap to provide the funding for a heavy tank so ordered the War Department to come up with one or else. The WD told the same to Ordnance who then super sized the T25 into the T26 by that December. The assembly plant was ready by September of '44 with no parts to assemble due to production delays encountered by the suppliers. Assembly started after the elections in November where 14 were produced and 24 in December. The first 21 made were shipped to Europe without being tested, without trained crews and mechanics and without any replacement parts. The Army refused to use them for one month until forced to by Ike.
Lazerpig really opened my eyes to the brilliance of the M4 Sherman: it was the perfect tank for fighting a two front war on a global scale.
nice video love the depth you took into it
2:40 Behold, the magic self-repairing barrel.
So happy seeing one of the T tanks
what I get from this video is that Heavy Tanks require a lot of time and development especially in making it reliable and based on how American Tank development was focused on reliability in the mid 1900s, that's going to be a pain and is not worth the time when you can have 2 better reliable tanks sent out overseas for 1 heavy unreliable tank.
Yep. It's been said to death but big sexy heavies may make nice models and be fun to play, but it's not how you win a war.
Really needed this while grinding the US.
Thanks for the conversion, imperial friend!
I think time and time again people forget that although heavy tanks are nice to have, you also need to transport them to the battlefield, during WW2 you could transport 2 normal Shermans for each Jumbo, so why in earth would you pick the Jumbo, when you realize that the main duty of a tank is infantry support, not hunt for other tanks, therefore having 2 medium tanks is better than 1 heavy tank.
After WW2 most nations didn't want to spend much money on military development, years later if you look at the wars the US got involved in, they all were quite far away, so the arguments still apply there. Also after Vietnam war we slowly began the process to the Main Battletank which merged the Medium and Heavy tank roles due to improvements in armour and gun tech.
Well that's my take, and no you should'd care about a shit I just said.
People actually liked the bigger howitzer instead of the anti-tank ones, because half the engagements were against infantry, and not tanks. If they even encountered tanks, they would be just regular german ones, and not full blown tigers.
@CK Lim They transported 2 Shermans and therefore could only transport 1 Jumbo.
The Army gave the Marines the M103 heavy as a hand me down. I’m unclear how the M103 would fit into the USMC. In as much as the marines are expected to be mobile and deployable
The jarheads have always been the DoD "red-headed stepchildren". Hence why they make do with equipment the Army doesn't want.
Considering the Marines had M48A3s by the 60s my guess is the Marines would deploy the M48s with the first wave of Marines once a beachhead was established they would deploy M103A1s with Marines pushing inland.
Think you should restart/continue this serie, i watt more history about tanks! Amazing job 😊
Thanks so much for the metric conversions - very helpful :))
Only German mains understand the pain of the T-34
Spookston giving a friendly reminder that heavy tanks are still a shitty concept that can't go five feet without coming late to the party before wrecking their guts in the process.
W subnautica banger playing in the back
T-34 and M4 Sherman might not have been the most technical tanks but thet were reliable, easy to maintain and cheap and fast to produce
As an American it is confirmed we were and still are more focused on mediums, lights and MbT like they were pretty simple and therefore were easily upgradable and adaptable which is an American tank advantage
But I still like Americans heavy probably because they are in some areas better then tigers and maus
Issue with American heavy tanks is they were only really ever used in testing/trials which never seemed to truly work out or time was the issue. They were better for further tank developement than the tank itself
The only real problem with the Sherman was the small gun. When the gun was upgraded it defeated everything in Korea
They gave the Sherman the 90mm in WW2. They just called it an M36B2 Gun Motor Carriage.
The Sherman was an excellent tank. Bogging the Armored Divisions down with heavier, less reliable, and less mobile tanks that can't use regular bridges would have been stupid.
Shermans killed more German tanks than were lost to German tanks.
If anything the US in WW2 needed a mine clearance vehicle and an SPG with a big demolition gun or mortar for clearing bunkers and large obstacles. And more fuel trucks
@@Fulcrum205 The turret in the M36B2 GMC, aka the "Slugger" (the Limeys called it the "Jackson", as in Stonewall, long before the notion of political correctness), was different than the M4, being thinner and open-topped. The 90mm gun simply wouldn't fit in the Sherman's turret, not even the T23 turret adapted to the Sherman in later models.
@@selfdo the M1 76mm and M3 90mm mounts were identical. The 90 would fit on the T23 turret but was extremely cramped. The Army built a couple Sherman's with T26 (Pershing) turrets. This worked but ammo stowage space in the Sherman hull was unacceptable. Army Ordnances baby was the Pershing so they didn't try to develop the T26 turreted Sherman. It was a perfectly capable vehicle but not a huge leap over 76mm. Armored Force in general did not really care for the 90mm or the Pershing. They never felt the reduced ammo, lower rate of fire, slower engagement time, lower mobility, etc, was worth the extra penetration and damage.
Ordnance department was the ones pushing the 90mm, the M36, and to get the Pershing into action.
In the context of WW2 an M36B2 was a Sherman with a 90mm. Yes it had a different turret but so did the 75mm and 76mm turrets variants. They did make a closed top version of the M36 turret. The M36 and the Sherman both were excellent vehicles. M36s last fought in Yugoslavia in 1990s and some upgunned Sherman variant is still sitting in a motor pool in some far flung corner of the world.
@@Fulcrum205 The 90mm severely limited the gun depression in even the T23 turret (which was designed around the 76mm anyway, as you pointed out, the Pershing was to be the tank with the 90 mm), which all but eliminated the ability to fire from a "hull-down" position. Not an issue with the M36 GMC and its OPEN top (another reason the tank destroyer had one, also that the "doctrine" was that the TC had more need of visibility to spot targets than for protection; I'm not sure the CREWS felt that way!). This was another reason up-gunning to the 90 mm was rejected.
The other was simply that the M1 76mm gun could, with the proper HVAP rounds (which the Army, for whatever reason, failed to make readily available, giving a lot of 76 mm equipped Shermans simple AP), penetrate the Panther's armor, save for the gun mantlet itself, at normal combat ranges, and could deal adequately with the side armor of both Tigers, and even at 500 yards or less punch through the Tiger I's front. Performance was reduced with AP versus HVAP, IDK why the Army was reluctant to issue it, the Soviets weren't to their tanks. Even the M3 75 mm gun was adequate to destroy the majority of German AFVs; so this notion that the Shermans were equipped with "pea shooters" is a MYTH.
So also is the idea that tanks were restricted by Army doctrine from engaging enemy armor; leaving that task to tank destroyers. Tanks were meant to exploit break-through and "raise merry hell" in the enemy rear, shooting up supply dumps, command posts, and artillery batteries. Of course they trained to fight enemy tanks as they expected to encounter them! Tank destroyers were meant to deal with enemy armor that was attacking; they generally weren't used in the same break-through manner as tanks, due to their vulnerability. More or less they used "shoot and scoot" tactics, with superior mobility (especially in the M18 Hellcat) to evade enemy fire. This led to a problem, I guess one to have, but still a "problem", in that by the time the US Army was in NW Europe, German panzer attacks were few, they had precious few tanks and not enough gasoline to run what they had. So in a lot of instances, TDs had to be used in the infantry support role, else they were out of a job!
@@selfdo I'm mostly agreeing with you. The 76 Sherman was perfectly adequate and overall probably the best tank of the war. Tiger Is had less effective armor than the Panther. The King Tiger and Jagtiger were almost never encountered. The main request for commanders in theater were for 105mm Sherman's with power traverse to help deal with AT guns and fortifications.
Outside the main gate of Yuma Proving Ground are several tanks on display. A few of the prototype heavies are present.
Why did the U.S. Army not use heavy tanks during WW-II? The real reason has to do not with armor thickness or firepower, but with an issue that the presenter never even touches upon. There is an Army saying that "amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics". In contrast with the German and Soviet Armies, every single American tank had to be transported overseas...in cargo ships. That meant that, unlike German and Soviet tanks, American tanks could not be so large and heavy that they could not be hoisted on and off cargo ships using the ships' own cargo-handling gear, and had to be able to fit into the ships' existing cargo holds. In those days the heaviest available cargo-handling gear on most cargo ships was limited to 50 tons, although a few had gear capable of handling up to 75 tons. Even then, however, the 50-ton or 75-ton "jumbo booms" could only service a single cargo hold (out of five), the other four holds being limited to access by 5-ton gear. In other words, unless heavy-lift shore cranes were available, which was extremely unlikely in a war zone, the average cargo ship was not going to be able to accommodate super-large, super-heavy tanks. Of course, today they have "roll-on-roll-off" ships, on which tanks can simply be driven on or off, but such vessels simply did not exist during WW-II.
Idk if you read the comments but have you ever considered doing a video on tank doctrine over time?
bump
Great Subnautica Vibe
Good Choice
Approaching ecological dead zone
it goes without saying, but amazing video!
Didn't the M6 see a few battles at the very end of the war, but there were only like two of them fielded in Berlin or something? I vaguely remember another video about it but it could have been wrong idk
If we wanted to go a little "out there" the Pershing and the lookalike heavyweight dressups, it wasn't a medium-to-heavy dressup, it was a makeover of an already established heavy tank. The Pershing was, all in all, a Heavy Tank by doctrine, weight class, and usage in the war, but was later reclassed to a medium in the 50's when they were using it and, simultaneously, retrofitting them to make M46's and M47's. However, by the time T29/30/34 and the T32 respectively were being developed and later canceled, it could still be accurate to call it a medium-to-heavy dressup, but I like to refer to the M26 as it's historical, weight class and doctrine specification; Heavy Tank.
It would have been interesting if American heavies like the T-29, 34, and 30 went up against T-54s.
T29s would be too outclassed while the T30 might have some hope if it's fighting the earlier or mid variants, T-34 would be the same situation too but with a reduced caliber and higher velocity shells
@@yi_hou3092 would a T-54 even with stand a hit from a T34?
@@michaelsalazar7331 Of course, yes. And the t54 penetrates the American t34 even into the "thick" mask of the gun, because the Americans never learned how to make tank armor
At least their suspension didn't immediately die like the Ferdinand.
idk why but I’ve heard this exact subnautica song like 40 times this week fron youtube alone
The Hog Rider card is unlocked from the Spell Valley (Arena 5). He is a quick building-targeting, melee troop with moderately high hitpoints and damage. He appears just like his Clash of Clans counterpart; a man with brown eyebrows, a beard, a mohawk, and a golden body piercing in his left ear who is riding a hog. A Hog Rider card costs 4 Elixir to deploy.
Strategy
His fast move speed can boost forward mini tanks like an Ice Golem in a push. At the same time, he can also function as a tank for lower hitpoint troops such as Goblins as he still has a fair amount of health. Most cheap swarms complement the Hog Rider well, as they are nearly as fast as him and usually force more than one card out of the opponent's hand.
The Hog Rider struggles with swarms, as they can damage him down and defeat him quickly while obstructing his path. Barbarians in particular can fully counter him without very strict timing on the defender's part, though be wary of spells.
A Hunter can kill the Hog Rider in 2 hits if placed right on top of it. However, if you place something in front of the Hog Rider, the Hunter's splash will damage the Hog Rider and hit the card in front of it more.
A good placement and timing with Guards and The Log will fully counter the Hog Rider, canceling all Hog hits.
The Hog Rider in conjunction with the Freeze can surprise the opponent and allow the Hog Rider to deal much more damage than anticipated, especially if the opponent's go-to counter is a swarm, or swarms are their only effective counter to him. Skeletons and Bats will immediately be defeated by the spell, while Spear Goblins, Goblins, and Minions will be at low enough health to be defeated by a follow up Zap or Giant Snowball.
However, this strategy isn't very effective against buildings as the Hog Rider will take a while to destroy the building, giving the opponent ample time to articulate another counter.
Against non-swarm troops, it can deal a lot of damage during the freeze time, but this can allow the opponent to set up a massive counterpush. For this reason, players should either only go for a Hog Rider + Freeze when they have other units backing it up from a counterattack, or if the match is about to end and they need to deal as much damage as possible.
It is not a good idea to send in a Hog Rider simply to destroy a building, especially if it is the only building targeting unit available, as defeating Crown Towers becomes substantially more difficult. Spells or simply waiting out the lifetime of the building are more effective. The exception to this is an Elixir Collector placed in front of the King's Tower. If a Hog Rider placed at the bridge, he can destroy the Collector for a positive Elixir trade, though the damage from both Princess Towers will usually mean he does not survive to deal any damage to them. However, if the opponent sends in defending troops, it can be an opportunity to gain spell damage value.
In a deck with several low-cost cards, it might be worth it to simply send the Hog Rider against one building. These decks shuffle their card rotation quick enough, that they will arrive to their next Hog Rider before the next building arrives in the opponent's card rotation.
Long-ranged troops like Musketeer and Flying Machine can snipe those buildings, preserving some of the Hog Rider's health, possibly allowing it to get some Tower damage.
When there are buildings placed in the middle to counter the Hog Rider, understanding the placement of the Hog Rider and the type of building placed can help the Hog Rider to bypass certain buildings.
Passive buildings such as spawners and Elixir Collector have a larger hitbox than defensive buildings; which means that if a passive building was placed 3 tiles away from the river in the middle of the opponent's side, then it is impossible for the Hog Rider to bypass that placement as the Hog Rider will get pulled to that building.
Defensive buildings have a smaller hitbox than a passive building, which means if that if a defensive building was placed three tiles away from the river in the middle of the opponent's side, a Hog Rider placed at the very left or right side of the Arena may be able to bypass it due to its smaller hitbox.
If the player has a building already placed down in the center of the arena, and the opponent tries to bypass it with a Hog Rider at the edge of the arena, they can use certain air troops to push the Hog Rider towards the building as it jumps over the river, effectively denying the bypass attempt. They must be already hovering over the correct placement, as very quick reflexes are required to correctly perform this technique.
For Bats, Skeleton Dragons, and Minion Horde, they should be placed right in front of the Hog Rider as soon as it is deployed.
For Minions, Skeleton Barrel, Mega Minion, Flying Machine, Electro Dragon, Baby Dragon, Inferno Dragon, Balloon, and Lava Hound, stagger the above placement one tile to the right if the Hog Rider is placed on the left side of the arena, and vice versa.
They can also use ground troops to achieve the same result. Something like an Ice Golem deployed at the Hog Rider’s landing spot will obstruct his path and force him to go around the unit, which causes him to be closer to the building instead of the Crown Tower.
The Hog Rider can kite Very Fast non-building targeting troops due to his own Very Fast speed and building only targeting if he is placed on the fourth tile from the bridge, slightly into the opposite lane. He can also stall grounded units when placed right at the bridge. He will pull them towards him while deploying, and then be untargetable by them when he jumps over the bridge. After landing, he will pull them back. This can be useful when the player needs to deal damage in the same lane they are defending. It will also help separate troops behind a tank in a large push.
A Tornado placed on the second tile front of the player's King's Tower and staggered two tiles towards the Princess Tower will activate it without any damage dealt to the Princess Tower, helping them in defending future pushes. This can also be a method of mitigating all damage dealt to a Princess Tower, but doing this more than three times may result in the King's Tower's health being low enough to be targeted directly, opening up the possible threat of a back door three crown. A better alternative is to pull the Hog away from the Princess Tower into the attacking range of all three Crown Towers, which will negate all damage as long as none of them are already distracted
A very powerful combo is the Hog Rider, the Musketeer, and the Valkyrie, typically referred to as the Trifecta. The Musketeer will defend against most troops, while the Valkyrie can protect her and the Hog Rider from swarms or high damage units. The Hog Rider is used to deal damage to the tower.
This can be effectively countered by Lightning, one-shotting the Musketeer and severely damaging both the Valkyrie and Hog Rider. The Minion Horde is also effective, but the enemy can Zap them and the Musketeer will one-shot them all. Even if the Musketeer is defeated, the Hog Rider and Valkyrie will have enough time to severely damage the Tower.
The Hog Rider should be placed behind the Valkyrie to give it a boost so that it stays in front of the Hog Rider, protecting it.
A Hog Rider combined with a Goblin Barrel can be awkward for the opponent to defend against. Timing it so that the Hog Rider is tanking the tower shots for the Goblins is the most effective way to deal damage. However, a Barbarian Barrel can shut this down with minimal Tower damage for a positive Elixir trade, as long as the Goblin Barrel was placed directly on the Tower.
Pairing the Hog Rider with the Balloon can deal devastating damage. If executed properly, the Hog Rider will act as a tank while the Balloon threatens to deal massive damage. The Hog Rider can also destroy any buildings attempting to slow down the combo. However, this combo is very vulnerable to swarms and anti-air cards as neither of the troops target anything but buildings. Additionally, they are easy to separate, due to the disparity in move speeds. Alternatively, the Hog Rider and the Balloon can be played in different lanes to spread the opponent's defenses thin. However, a building or Tornado can bring them back together for an easier defense.
The Hog Rider can be paired with the Lumberjack as both a swarm bait and damage combo. It is a very fast combo with an extremely high damage output potential, so the enemy will likely try to counter it with a swarm. If this happens, use a spell like Arrows to render the opponent defenseless. If they manage to defeat the Lumberjack, the dropped Rage will make the Hog Rider even more dangerous than it normally is.
A fast and deadly combination is the Hog Rider and Mini P.E.K.K.A. combo. Both units are fast but the Mini P.E.K.K.A. does much more damage and does not attack only buildings so the Mini P.E.K.K.A. can deal with troops like the Executioner and Musketeer. However, this combo can be defeated with swarms like Skeleton Army, which will defeat both of them since neither of them can deal area damage. They are also unable to target air troops, so the Minion Horde can stop this easily.
A risky play is to deploy the Hog Rider at the bridge as soon as the match starts. If the opponent does not react fast enough, the Hog Rider will deal a significant amount of damage to the Princess Tower. This can also allow the player to quickly scout the opponent's deck if they happen to react to him fast enough.
Good to know!
They were REALLY good when we made them, US didn’t focus on heavy tanks due to the cost and complications that come with it
Also we were pretty happy with the 76mm Sherman’s and the M18 hellcat(medium and light tanks)
We didn’t need armor, we needed firepower, speed, and mobility and that is exactly what we got
The T34 is really cool looking
It sounded like you said that the Jumbo never saw combat. I am reading that the Jumbo 1st say combat in July 1944. 492 were made and their combat life was 10 months.
Those stayed in use until Germany surrendered.
The dialogue was good but holy shit that was like the most satisfying war thunder tank gameplay I’ve ever seen
Good vid. Regards from Malaysian utuber
Could’ve been some interesting combat between some of these potential American heavies and later Soviet IS series if the Cold War went hot in the early 50’s
i mean yes but no, the US wouldve simple done what they did to the germans, overwhelm the heavies with boots, bombs, and bazookas.
@@chiefbigsad7995 ah cringe
too big, too heavy, too late. good video
The trouble for the US is that it has to SHIP its AFVs, which in turn means the capacity of cranes at the outbound and also the receiving ports are a limitation. Never mind also having to ship that much more FUEL. Hence why, much later, the "RO-RO" (roll ON, roll OFF) fast vessels were devised, which alleviates this problem, especially since the weight of US Army AFVs crept up there (52 tons with the M60, 65 to 70 tons with the M1 Abrams series). Or, just build one HUGE friggin' airlifter like the C-5 Galaxy! Both Germany and the Soviet Union transported their AFVs via RAIL, so yes, they could expect to get their heavies to the battlefield. Even then, that wasn't a guarantee, nor was getting a stricken Tiger or JS-2 OFF the battlefield all that easy! It's safe to say that the actual combat performance of the "Big Cats" was even more lopsided than raw casualty reports would indicate, as often Panthers and Tigers that could have been recovered, repaired, and sent back to fight had to be abandoned and/or destroyed, due to either lack of ARVs, or simply losing control of the battlefield. In all too many cases, they had to be left after breakdowns or even running out of fuel, NOT enemy action!
By the time most of these oversized, overweight beasts could be brought into production, as "Heavy Gun" (120 mm and up) tanks, as the US Army classified its tanks according to main weapon size, we were involved in Korea, where even the "Medium Gun" (90 mm) tanks had significant mobility issues, even though their armor and firepower were superior to the opponent's T-34/85s. Given that Central Europe, especially Germany, where in the 1950s Army planners expected to be the most likely setting for the next major conflict, also is HILLY, this made the "Heavies" unappealing. Plus, by then the panzer commanders and strategists like Guderian, Von Manstein, Von Mellinthin, etc., etc. had been debriefed and were writing their memoirs, and virtually all of them took pains to mention the mobility and reliability problems of their "Big Cats" (Panther and Tiger tans). FWIW, Guderian tried to stop Panther and Tiger production, believing that the up-gunned Mark IVs were sufficient for the Panzerwaffe, that the "Big Cats" were more trouble than they were worth. Even Hitler, especially after its ill-fated debut at Kursk, decried the Panther, labeling it "that 'clanking He 177' ", in reference to the He 177 "Grief" (wow, could a synonym have been more apropos?) heavy bomber, itself a very troubled aircraft considered a dismal failure.
2:40 YOUR CANNON DID WHAT
?????????????? why does that never happen to me??
The T32 was one of my favorite tanks in world of tanks even before the buffs it got. A video on it would be nice
I agree since in wot blitz I play the american hevies and they are difficulty to use cause A. They move at less than 40 km / m ph and B. Their role is to be a hulldowned tank since the gun shield is the most powerful but the problem is there is a very few areas in the game but in real life.
2:41 we not gonna talk about your barrel getting fully destroyed, you fire and it just goes back to orange
You can’t move heavy tanks across the Atlantic fast enough to make a difference. The Americans made good use of the M4. They should have up-gunned it. But any heavy tank should have been manufactured in Europe. Not the US.
With covid, they had to shut down oil refineries. The current gas crisis in the US, was purely a result of shutting down factories, as they take months to ramp up to pre-covid production levels.
Its the same story with one of the chrysler factories that made Abrams. The gov shut one of em down awhile ago, and it was reported that it would take a year to ramp it back up.
Now imagine, setting whole NEW factories in a completely bombed out country with absolutely ZERO infrastructure, all in a timely manner. It would be borderline impossible.
They did up-gun the sherman. They made the Sherman 76mm. In reality, the 76mm was pretty good against Tigers and other heavies, and did an exceptional job. War Thunder doesnt model it like that, because then the german playerbase would start crying over their 100% dominance being threatened.
T32E1 would've been a godsent with some updates in the korean war and beyond. Take the engine from the M46, the T54 90mm with the shorter stubby high velocity rounds, improve optic layout and give it a rangefinder, and cut down a bit on the back/side turret armor. Replace coax with a .50cal too. Shaving off unnecessary weight and giving it a better engine, improved gun with ease of reload/easier to produce and store ammo, and way more punch, inredible crew protection from the front, and add some more escape hatches for survivability, and can't forget the cross country capability on that
Actually the Pershing was considered terrible, and was phased out very quickly due to engine and transmissions problems. It's the same reason why the T32 wasn't used, as the extra weight made this problem even more noticeable.
@@Adierit Sorry I mentioned changing engine but I forgot to mention transmission as well, taking the engine and transmission from the M46, modified to be a bit sturdier with better torque, along with reduced weight by shaving off unnecessary/ineffective rear/side armor on the turret. Also altering the mantlet to be a wedge instead to provide significantly increased turret armor, and angling the UFP/LFP a bit more and adding fuel tanks into the very front bit with driver situated a bit further back.
loved the metric translation
Thnx for the metric My guy
Had the M6 been put into even limited production with the 90mm I wonder what the breakout from Normandy would have looked like. Yes the tank was heavy, but you could still put 5 of them on an LST and have landed them at Normandy. The logistical challenges would have kept them from mass adoption but as a heavy reserve force there’s no reason they couldn’t have found success in places like the boccage.
You can’t hide that subnautica music from me. I’d recognize those first few notes anywhere.
I've always wondered why the T32 didn't get adopted
thanks spookston for some knowledge
In real life, not so well, in war thunder, they are honestly so fun to just derp on people with.
As long as low performance in main weapon penetration can made up by exceptional accuracy, having superior armour and maneuverability is the way to go. Especially so when it comes to armour, because in this game you're going to take hits no matter how good you are and this is something that can't be improved aside from covering your critical spots and correct angling. Your guns however will almost always get the job done with the right load and a well placed shot
I main the T29 Allegheny and I've already brought it to 8.0
Can you do a how bad were American Light Tanks or on British Tanks?
American Light Tanks are... complicated.
American light tanks were pretty good. The M3 was a good enough design to be upgraded into the M5 and there were a lot of variants like the M8. The M22 was a solid, compact design as well.
Didn't know all these tanks led to M103 that's dope.
Wasn't the Pershing at one time consider a heavy and then redesignated to a medium tank?
if the war had gone worse, all the reasons for not shipping heavy tanks to Europe would have been ignored. Frankly the US didn't use heavy tanks because they didn't need them. Existing German heavies were few and far between and could be taken out by shaped charges such as HEAT/HESH, or by sabot. A skilled Sherman gunner could disable a Panther frontally by targeting the shot trap on the front of the turret, even with the 75.
But if the Sherman really wasn't getting the job done for some reason, I have no doubt that the US would be ready, willing and able to both mass produce and deliver large numbers of M6 heavy tanks to the battlefront..
Like other US tanks, the M-26 Pershings had stabilized main guns. Unlike the M-4 Shermans 75 mm or 76mm guns or Grant/Lee tanks' 37mm cannons, the Tank Destroyers didn't have stabilized main guns, as they were envisioned to be waiting in ambush to stop enemy tanks with fire from the flanks.
Correcting you there the M4 shermans had both 75 and 76 mm had stabilized guns and the Pershing didnt due to weight and ammo storage problems
@@chrissierra-5633 Pershing did have stabilized guns. The Super-Pershing didn't.
@DonMeaker Early versions of the M26, when it was still in the prototype stage as the T25, did but was later removed before the design was finalized. After that, US tanks were not officially fit with stabilizers until the M60A1-AOS
Half right but half wrong
@DonMeaker Except for the "105mm-equipped M4 Sherman tanks, all U.S.-built tanks had a stabilization system for gun elevation usable at low speeds. All US tanks were stabilized at least by 1944. Some attempt was made to stabilize Soviet tank guns as early as 1938."
And your wrong about the M4