Cold War Tiger Tank MBT

[keep]

Recently, I've been reading about the Tiger and King Tiger tanks and details about them. From what I gathered, it was a powerful tank during its era but faced the severe issue of the engine not running well on account of it being too heavy.

Let's say that someone, like the United States, looked at the King Tiger, and decided to make it the American's Main Battle Tank. Ignoring the legal issues involved, they take the Tiger, give it a better engine, replace it's WW2 armor with early Cold War-era armor, and upgrade the gun from the 8.8 to the 90mm cannon.

How would this tank fare against it's other counterparts? How well would it do in scenarios like the Korean War?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

There were several US heavy tank projects in the 1950s & 60s. Only one as I recall went into limited or as the M103 (?). By the 1960s the M60 had emerged, and by WWII standards was a super heavy.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Recently, I've been reading about the Tiger and King Tiger tanks and details about them. From what I gathered, it was a powerful tank during its era but faced the severe issue of the engine not running well on account of it being too heavy.

Let's say that someone, like the United States, looked at the King Tiger, and decided to make it the American's Main Battle Tank. Ignoring the legal issues involved, they take the Tiger, give it a better engine, replace it's WW2 armor with early Cold War-era armor, and upgrade the gun from the 8.8 to the 90mm cannon.

How would this tank fare against it's other counterparts? How well would it do in scenarios like the Korean War?

Why would they when they had the M26/46/47/48? They were basically a Tiger I done right, with sloped frontal armor, 90mm gun, and a rear drive, which saved them a ton of weight.

Plus they had their own heavy tank designs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M103_(heavy_tank)
The above is basically the American Tiger II in terms of weight class and with a much heavier gun.

 

[steamboy]

Also with the advent of HEAT ammo becoming more common, armies shied away from putting loads of heavy armour on their tanks because it just made the cutting jet more effective. Its why tanks like the Leopard and AMX-30 were so very lightly armoured, their designers thought "Whats the point, HEATs just gonna go right through it."

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Also with the advent of HEAT ammo becoming more common, armies shied away from putting loads of heavy armour on their tanks because it just made the cutting jet more effective. Its why tanks like the Leopard and AMX-30 were so very lightly armoured, their designers thought "Whats the point, HEATs just gonna go right through it."

I don't know if it made it more effective, but why carry around the extra weight if it is a waste of effort? The Germans overreacted with the Leopard being lightly armored I think in part due to their rejection of WW2 design philosophy, instead emphasizing gunnery and speed/maneuverability and easy serviceability at the expense of armor, while the Brits invented Chobham armor and had a mockery of the continental AFV design ideas.

 

[steamboy]

with a HEAT projectile, the more stuff in the way, the bigger and longer the jet cone is, thats why the Germans and French abandoned armour on MBT's because they felt that HEAT rounds made thick armour basically a waste of weight because if you got hit, then it would cut through no matter what.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

with a HEAT projectile, the more stuff in the way, the bigger and longer the jet cone is, thats why the Germans and French abandoned armour on MBT's because they felt that HEAT rounds made thick armour basically a waste of weight because if you got hit, then it would cut through no matter what.

There is a limit to the jet, the issue is when the jet formation starts, which is why HEAT ammo was eventually made with a stick on the end:

 

[Blue cat]

Also with the advent of HEAT ammo becoming more common, armies shied away from putting loads of heavy armour on their tanks because it just made the cutting jet more effective. Its why tanks like the Leopard and AMX-30 were so very lightly armoured, their designers thought "Whats the point, HEATs just gonna go right through it."

I also wonder if the lower weight and presumably lower material requirements for tanks such as the Leopard one played a role in this decision ?

If heavy armour was believed to be of questionable usefulness I can see why nations such as West Germany that had large conscript based armies to equip might have preferred a lighter vehicle ?

 

[FBKampfer]

It could have done reasonably well with redesigned armor profiles.

And it should be noted that the Soviets preferred KE penetrators, because they were easier to manufacture, and the ballistics made them better for low skill conscript crews. Which is to say the majority of mobilized Soviet armed forces.

The Tiger II had two primary weaknesses that would need to be overcome. First is the weight. It was a very big tank in every dimension, and thus heavy despite average armor for cold war standards.

Rear drive, and a slightly narrower body are needed, as well as more heavily sloped armor.

Second is the turret. That flat front is horrible, and the original turret design would have proven more effective.

Third is the 88mm gun needs to be replaced. A 105mm would be sufficient, but a 120 or German 128mm would be better for a heavy tank (which is the best role for a Tiger derivative).


However this is all feasible. Overall, it could be made into a solid if not outstanding heavy tank.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I also wonder if the lower weight and presumably lower material requirements for tanks such as the Leopard one played a role in this decision ?

If heavy armour was believed to be of questionable usefulness I can see why nations such as West Germany that had large conscript based armies to equip might have preferred a lighter vehicle ?

The Bundeswehr wasn't a mass conscript army, they had 12 divisions and were considered the best trained army of the Cold War, so were much more in line with von Seeckt's idea for a post-WW1 highly mobile, highly efficient army than a Soviet style mass army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr#Cold_War_1955.E2.80.931990

During the Cold War the Bundeswehr was the backbone of NATO's conventional defence in Central Europe. It had a strength of 495,000 military and 170,000 civilian personnel. Although Germany had smaller armed forces than France and the United States, Cold War Historian John Lewis Gaddis assesses the Bundeswehr as "perhaps world's best army".[19] The Army consisted of three corps with 12 divisions, most of them heavily armed with tanks and APCs. The Luftwaffe owned significant numbers of tactical combat aircraft and took part in NATO's integrated air defence (NATINAD). The Navy was tasked and equipped to defend the Baltic Approaches, to provide escort reinforcement and resupply shipping in the North Sea and to contain the Soviet Baltic Fleet.

Rear drive, and a slightly narrower body are needed, as well as more heavily sloped armor.

Second is the turret. That flat front is horrible, and the original turret design would have proven more effective.

Third is the 88mm gun needs to be replaced. A 105mm would be sufficient, but a 120 or German 128mm would be better for a heavy tank (which is the best role for a Tiger derivative).

At that point you have an entirely different tank, more inline with the M48 than the Tiger II.

 

[Riain]

Australia's Centurions ate a lot of smaller calibre HEAT rounds in Vietnam but of the 42 that took battle damage only 6 were beyond repair. I wonder how our Leo 1A3s would have fared in similar circumstances.

 

[marathag]

Australia's Centurions ate a lot of smaller calibre HEAT rounds in Vietnam but of the 42 that took battle damage only 6 were beyond repair. I wonder how our Leo 1A3s would have fared in similar circumstances.

HESH was probably more useful to the OZ tankers than HEAT. I think the Leo 1A1 would have been similar to the ARVN M41, that actually had heavier armor, and the TC's .50 was better than the MG3

 

[KuboCaskett]

That would be an interesting idea that's not done very often; taking a WWII design and updating it to like circa 1960's or beyond. That or an amusing one considering how many bells and whistles the Tiger tanks have shown.

 

[Musketeer513]

It could have done reasonably well with redesigned armor profiles.

And it should be noted that it Soviets preferred KE penetrators, because they were easier to manufacture, and the ballistics made them better for low skill conscript crews. Which is to say the majority of mobilized Soviet armed forces.

The Tiger II had two primary weaknesses that would need to be overcome. First is the weight. It was a very big tank in every dimension, and thus heavy despite average armor for cold war standards.

Rear drive, and a slightly narrower body are needed, as well as more heavily sloped armor.

Second is the turret. That flat front is horrible, and the original turret design would have proven more effective.
Third is the 88mm gun needs to be replaced. A 105mm would be sufficient, but a 120 or German 128mm would be better for a heavy tank (which is the best role for a Tiger derivative).


However this is all feasible. Overall, it could be made into a solid if not outstanding heavy tank.

The first turret had a very bad shot trap. Second turret roomier and carried more ammo.
German 128 used in tank destroyer variant.

 

[steamboy]

You'd also need to try and work on the Tiger II's horrific fuel consumption. Because of its weight it was a maintenance nightmare too.

 

[FBKampfer]

The Bundeswehr wasn't a mass conscript army, they had 12 divisions and were considered the best trained army of the Cold War, so were much more in line with von Seeckt's idea for a post-WW1 highly mobile, highly efficient army than a Soviet style mass army.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr#Cold_War_1955.E2.80.931990




At that point you have an entirely different tank, more inline with the M48 than the Tiger II.

One could argue the same of any other updated WWII design.

 

[Riain]

HESH was probably more useful to the OZ tankers than HEAT. I think the Leo 1A1 would have been similar to the ARVN M41, that actually had heavier armor, and the TC's .50 was better than the MG3

The Centurions didn't use HEAT, the stuck with canister, APCBC and HE.

I think 'thin' armour is a bit of a misnomer for the Leo 1, the layered amour was pretty thick and the design would have made it effective. I do wonder how it would have gone in Vietnam with all the mines, RPG2 & 7 and recoilless rifles from 57mm to 107mm. The Cent's thick armour made it tough, I wonder if the spaced armour would be as effective after several hits or was it a one hit wonder.

 

[Peabody-Martini]

The Tiger would continue to develop, the mobility and fuel economy would continue to be issues until it eventually kills the program. At that point it gets put aside in favor of newer versions of the Panther.

 

[marathag]

The Centurions didn't use HEAT, the stuck with canister, APCBC and HE.

I think 'thin' armour is a bit of a misnomer for the Leo 1, the layered amour was pretty thick and the design would have made it effective. I do wonder how it would have gone in Vietnam with all the mines, RPG2 & 7 and recoilless rifles from 57mm to 107mm. The Cent's thick armour made it tough, I wonder if the spaced armour would be as effective after several hits or was it a one hit wonder.

The 1A1 still had the original roundish cast turret and no applique plates, but had the rubber skirts, the armor upgrades resulting in the 1A2 didn't happen till the early '70s.

So you had 35mm on the upper hull sides, 25mm lower and 15mm on the hull floor, and 60 on the turret sides. That's not good for mines and the B-60/RPG-6

The M41 had 38mm on the Hull floor in the fighting compartment

 

[PSL]

Leopard I armor was designed to defeat auto-cannons, nothing more. Early RPG shells would have just ricochet off most sloped surfaces, which was the best defence. Against tanks their best defense was the fact they could shoot twice as fast as WARPACK tanks, and as the pundits claimed ...'he who shoots first , hits first ' ...and that's the best defence of all.