American supertanks
- Thread starter Blair152
- Start date
T-28
It was the T-28 Super Heavy Tank...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank
Impractical really, maybe in Japan as a part of an invasion to smash bunkers but a Pershing with a bit of spaced armor would save the same purpose with a 90mm gun and much better logistics fit. The T-28 would have taken up far too much lift capacity.
It was the T-28 Super Heavy Tank...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank
Impractical really, maybe in Japan as a part of an invasion to smash bunkers but a Pershing with a bit of spaced armor would save the same purpose with a 90mm gun and much better logistics fit. The T-28 would have taken up far too much lift capacity.
Blair152
Banned
That's eight miles faster than the tanks of World War I. Hitler would have laughed his ass off and had the Tigers and Panthers destroy them. It's HALF
the speed of a Sherman. The Sherman did a half-decent 24 MPH. Besides, the Easy 8, the M4E8, was a better tank.
Let's not forget one major problem the US had when it came to transporting tanks: they had to ship them by sea and often at locations other than a secure port facility. That was one of the major reasons why the Sherman was favored so much. This monster wouldn't have been able to be shipped across the sea in decent numbers in order to be effective.
This was the main reason the M-26 wasn't pushed forward. The M-4 was light enough to cross just about every bridge in Europe that could take cars AND it fit onto the current LCT and through the bow doors over every LST in service. The M-26 would have rewuired either new classes of transport vessels or port facilities, something that the Heer proved quite adept at denying to the Allies for virtually the entire war.
Blair152
Banned
Point taken. The M4, with all its deficiencies, was a better tank than anything the Italians and Japanese had. The end of the line, and the ultimate in protection for the Sherman, was the M4E8. The "Easy 8." Surplus Shermans were used by the Israelis.
Is this right?
First off, I am not army, never been in a tank. I am an engineer.
I have been looking at the specs and they must be messed up somewhere. The ONE engine used in the T28 was the same as in the M26 Pershing, which was half its weight. And the T28 range is also listed as 12 miles.
4 sets of tracks instead of two seems like a good idea, but if only one on the inside gets damaged doesnt that mean there's a good chance it will swerve, haha if going at top speed and they dont notice? Or cause damage that cannot be easily repaired.
Wheres the transporter design for moving this on land, I mean when it needed repairing of the battlefield?
First off, I am not army, never been in a tank. I am an engineer.
I have been looking at the specs and they must be messed up somewhere. The ONE engine used in the T28 was the same as in the M26 Pershing, which was half its weight. And the T28 range is also listed as 12 miles.
4 sets of tracks instead of two seems like a good idea, but if only one on the inside gets damaged doesnt that mean there's a good chance it will swerve, haha if going at top speed and they dont notice? Or cause damage that cannot be easily repaired.
Wheres the transporter design for moving this on land, I mean when it needed repairing of the battlefield?
Last edited:
BlairWitch749
Banned
The Tiger as designed was close to practicle... the problem was the Germans didn't deploy them correctly a lot of the time
Tiger's advantages:
Highly accurate, long ranged cannon that would knock out any allied tank in the inventory in one shot
wide tracks, which presented a surprisingly good ground pressure profile given its size
extremely thick and robust armor which heightened the vehicle's survivability, and intimidated the enemy as their shells bounced off
very very good for propaganda and intimidation
Tiger disadvantages:
Tremendous weight and size made it hard for them to cross bridges and soft terrain (endemic to all heavy tanks)
tremendous weight and size made it consume a lot of fuel (endemic to all heavy tanks even today)
tremendous weight and size strained the limits of available suspension, transmission, battery and engine technolgy creating loads of break downs
tremendous weight and size made it unsuitable for long distance road marches or operations (again endemic to all tanks in its class of the day)
it was extremely expensive, and labor intensive to produce (not all of this was design related par say, Hitler micromanaging the armaments industry, and the continued changing of the required specs on the vehicle also played their part in this)
German commanders employed the vehicles stupidly too. They believed their own propaganda broadcasts that the tiger was invincible, so they sent them on missions to which they where totally unsuited (ie attacking into swamps, trying to conduct long distance offensives with them, sending mere battalions to take on entire soviet tank armies etc)
after a year of them being in service (when Hitler wasn't ordering insane counter offensives) they where used correctly, in the proper tactical situations, ie they where employed in defensive operations where they could stand off with their long ranged cannons and shoot up allied and soviet spear heads, and then short sharp counter attacks where their thick armor allowed them to steam roll the front line, and then retire back to base for the night
given the knockout ratio, definently close to practicle
usertron2020
Donor
BlairWitch749
Outstanding analysis, as always. As far as the M-26 Pershing? The Big 3 (Detroit) could make far more $ making Shermans than Pershings. If the Pershings were available just after D-Day, thousands of Allied soldiers would be home today, with their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. "The war will be won or lost with the M-4!" so said the general in charge of the US Army Armor Replacement Command. What a wonderful situation. The manufacturers would be sending in 20mm cannon armed Studebakers. And the Army? Using M-4's to this day?
It took the Battle of the Bulge to get the 20 existent Pershings rushed to the battle line with all possible speed, and those twenty only saw action with the 9th US Armored at Remagen. 300 were in Germany by war's end, but the others saw no action. So apparently the Pershings could be used when they HAD to be. Eisenhower had begged through the Summer and Fall of 1944 to have the Pershings sent.
Marshall said no.
Oh, by the way, how did the Pershings do? They ate Panthers for lunch.
AFAIK, they saw no action against any other type of tank.
Last edited:
BlairWitch749
Banned
BlairWitch749
Outstanding analysis, as always. As far as the M-26 Pershing? The Big 3 (Detroit) could make far more $ making Shermans than Pershings. If the Pershings were available just after D-Day, thousands of Allied soldiers would be home today, with their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. "The war will be won or lost with the M-4!" so said the general in charge of the US Army Replacement Command. What a wonderful situation. The manufacturers would be sending in 20mm cannon armed Studebakers. And the Army? Using M-4's to this day?
It took the Battle of the Bulge to get the 20 existent Pershings rushed to the battle line with all possible speed, and those twenty only saw action with the 9th US Armored at Remagen. 300 were in Germany by war's end, but the others saw no action. So apparently the Pershings could be used when they HAD to be. Eisenhower had begged through the Summer and Fall of 1944 to have the Pershings sent.
Marshall said no.
Oh, by the way, how did the Pershings do? They ate Panthers for lunch.
AFAIK, they saw no action against any other type of tank.
American complacany was only part of the problem. They also had doctrine issues too. In the American doctrine, tanks where not supposed to fight other tanks, thats why they built up over 100 battalions of m-10's et all... BUT they gave their tank destroyers thin armor assuming they could stand off at long range, fire volleys and shoot up German tanks... the Germans on the other hand figured that at least SOMETIMES their tanks and tank destroyers would get up close and personal with enemy tanks and decided they all needed thick armor and long ranged cannons
In a sense, given the American strategy of concentrating on airforce and equipping their allies this wasn't a HUGE failure on their part... essentially when they saw a tiger, either the Shermans could beat it with sheer numbers (although this was gruesome, usually leaving a half dozen knocked out allied tanks) or call in P-47's which could drop a 500 pound bomb on the roof and rip her open like a tin can
The Sherman wasn't in the Tiger's class and that shouldn't be held against it... it was more comparable, given its weight and manueverability to a late model Panzer MK 4... and against a Panzer MK 4 it was competitive enough to get by
Given the sheer logistics involved in American tank warfare in the ETO the Sherman was a good fit for them ie have to transport tank and crew to Europe, have to transport fuel and ammo to Europe, have to keep resupply going... look at the problems that the allies had with getting fuel to the front in 1944 with a fleet of Shermans, now translate that probem to M-26's which burn a lot more
usertron2020
Donor
What Price Pershings?
It was COMPETITIVE against the Panzer IV, but if you are stuck in an American tank, won't you want something alot better? And sometimes you COULDN'T get away, and sometimes a P-47 WASN'T available. Sometimes you COULDN'T get around it to attack the side/rear. And sometimes running away meant leaving the infantry to their fate. And again, by blowing up all those Shermans (And now that you mention it, M-10s) you increase war orders for tank chassis, meaning even MORE $$$ for Detroit. Sorry, but sometimes even the commies are right.
The Panzer IV was a virtual tin can to a Pershing, the Panzer V had a better chance, but really not by a whole lot. The Tiger I had shock trap issues that meant head to head the Pershing STILL had the advantage. Though no Pershing ever MET any Tiger, I'm sure head to head the King Tiger II WOULD have the advantage, if only because of it's ridiculously overbuilt frontal armor (Along with the Maus and Elephant). But then, the frontal armor of a Tiger II would give problems for any American tank short of the M-1 Abrams.
Still, the doctrine issue you've raised was so etched in stone it took a seeming military defeat in the Bulge to get the desk soldiers moving. That and a direct order from President Roosevelt.
It was COMPETITIVE against the Panzer IV, but if you are stuck in an American tank, won't you want something alot better? And sometimes you COULDN'T get away, and sometimes a P-47 WASN'T available. Sometimes you COULDN'T get around it to attack the side/rear. And sometimes running away meant leaving the infantry to their fate.
And again, by blowing up all those Shermans (And now that you mention it, M-10s) you increase war orders for tank chassis, meaning even MORE $$$ for Detroit. Sorry, but sometimes even the commies are right.The Panzer IV was a virtual tin can to a Pershing, the Panzer V had a better chance, but really not by a whole lot. The Tiger I had shock trap issues that meant head to head the Pershing STILL had the advantage. Though no Pershing ever MET any Tiger, I'm sure head to head the King Tiger II WOULD have the advantage, if only because of it's ridiculously overbuilt frontal armor (Along with the Maus and Elephant). But then, the frontal armor of a Tiger II would give problems for any American tank short of the M-1 Abrams.
Still, the doctrine issue you've raised was so etched in stone it took a seeming military defeat in the Bulge to get the desk soldiers moving. That and a direct order from President Roosevelt.
BlairWitch749
Banned
It was COMPETITIVE against the Panzer IV, but if you are stuck in an American tank, won't you want something alot better? And sometimes you COULDN'T get away, and sometimes a P-47 WASN'T available. Sometimes you COULDN'T get around it to attack the side/rear. And sometimes running away meant leaving the infantry to their fate.
The Panzer IV was a virtual tin can to a Pershing, the Panzer V had a better chance, but really not by a whole lot. The Tiger I had shock trap issues that meant head to head the Pershing STILL had the advantage. Though no Pershing ever MET any Tiger, I'm sure head to head the King Tiger II WOULD have the advantage, if only because of it's ridiculously overbuilt frontal armor (Along with the Maus and Elephant). But then, the frontal armor of a Tiger II would give problems for any American tank short of the M-1 Abrams.
Still, the doctrine issue you've raised was so etched in stone it took a seeming military defeat in the Bulge to get the desk soldiers moving. That and a direct order from President Roosevelt.
The concept of independant heavy tank battalions was not new. In fact the British invented it with their Matilida tanks, which where isolated from the rest of the armored forces (cruiser tanks... like the A12 in one group, and infantry tanks like the Matilda in the other) The Russian employed the same strategy with their KV series tanks... if anything the Germans where late to the party by the time the Tiger made its debut
And they each developed their method for combatting them. The Russians used a combination of mass, uparmoring, and upgunning their AFV's along with the tandem development of the IL-2 fighter bomber into a tank buster
The Germans had the most diverse ways of killing heavy AFV's... stukas, plentiful AT guns, dual purpose AA guns, heavy AFV's of their own, and hand held anti tank rockets
The Americans had the airforce, but the bazooka was ineffective against the later generations of German tanks and was virtually a suicide weapon if used against them. The American's also didn't deploy many heavy AT guns with their infantry divisions which gave them little or no AT protection when the Germans counterattacked them (save for calling in air support, which wasn't viable in every tacticle situation, and their Shermans and tank destroyers where overmatched against most german AFV's... not a great mix
You forget one thing. Tigers were ment to create an opening which would be expoited by other tanks, which would be faster. However by the time Tigers showed up situation for Germany haschanged and it was forced on the defensive. only time that tigers were used "by the book" was releif of Budapest, 1945. so basically Germans were stuck with a tank designed with a specific role in mind, realizing that role has passed and tried to use in different roles. Often with something less than success....
IIRC, Tiger v. Pershing firefights did happen a couple times at the end of the war, and the score from those was 2 Tigers destroyed for the loss of 1 Pershing, although that's not much of a sample for assessing relative capability.