US heavy tanks.

Britain did, for years it's main front was in North Africa and the Med was blockaded. I think the sea argument is overblown, the Allies could have found or built ships to carry heavy tanks. Besides, prewar tank design was limited by railway loading gauge yet that limitation was overcome when war began.
There's a reason why the vast majority of tanks in North Africa were cruiser tanks.

Besides, the heaviest commonly deployed British tank, the Churchill, was only 7 tonnes heavier than the Sherman. It didn't have the same logistical problems that a 58 tonne monstrosity like the M6 would have had.
 

Paul MacQ

Donor
What was the performance of the 105 on the M6A2E1 looks like an interesting machine

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M6a2e1.jpg

M6a2e1.jpg
 
Well the Churchill was never able to mount larger than a 6-pounder, the Panther and the Tigers were both overly complicated and unreliable (and in addition the Panther's armour layout was quite poor if it was forced into anything but a street-fight), and the KV series, while effective at first suffered later as a result of armour-only upgrades. The IS-2 might have been good, but for the A-19 which seriously hampered its ability to hurt Panthers (in comparison to the alternative, the BS-3, which had trouble with anything that wasn't well armoured), and the IS-3 had its own problems like a cramped turret, and a limited gun-depression angle.

Compared to that the M26 was probably comparable, but that would be about it. All in all, heavy tanks were, while a good idea, generally not as good as they could have been.

1. The final Churchill variant, the black prince, had a 17pdr. Most in 44 had a 75mm.
2. The panther was designed for Russia and for large scale engagements on open ground, we're most actions would envolve a team of Panthers facing large numbers of T34 in their front. Therefore it was armoured for that. Normandy was the worst possible area for Panthers, with it's closed terrain. The Tigers were, when used to their strengths, outstanding hunter killers.
3. The Germans regarded the IS2 has the best tank they had to face. The 122mm had two faults, rate of fire (separate loads) and size of rounds. It could destroy Panthers (and Tigers) and proved to be devastating for blowing up strongpoints (and Berlim first floor apartments)
 
A slow beastie. A relatively tall, unsloped glacis, too.

Still, with 800HP, not as slow as it looked. (22mph) That 105mm had been conceived as a "ultimate" AT gun and proved to big for towed use. Put a platoon of those creatures in a well chosen hull down position on Malmedy road and you can kiss Kampfgrouppe Peiper goodbye...
 
Last edited:
According to Ian Hogg, it fired a 39lb AT shell at 3100fps and would penetrate 210mm of Armour at 1000m. The towed version weighted 8t...
Which is why it is constantly nerfed in World of Tanks. It is a really good gun, provided you can get it to the battlefield.
 
There's a reason why the vast majority of tanks in North Africa were cruiser tanks.

Besides, the heaviest commonly deployed British tank, the Churchill, was only 7 tonnes heavier than the Sherman. It didn't have the same logistical problems that a 58 tonne monstrosity like the M6 would have had.

I would suggest that the vast majority of US tanks would be mediums if the US Army had built the T1/M6, just like the Matilda and Char 1 were an important minority in the early British and French armies and the KV1 and Tiger were for the Soviets and Germans later.
 
1. The final Churchill variant, the black prince, had a 17pdr. Most in 44 had a 75mm.
12 1/2 tons heavier, 4 1/2 feet longer, 1/2 foot wider, more than half a foot higher and almost 5 mph slower. The Black Prince bears as much resemblance to the Churchill as does the M26 to the Sherman.

2. The panther was designed for Russia and for large scale engagements on open ground, we're most actions would envolve a team of Panthers facing large numbers of T34 in their front. Therefore it was armoured for that. Normandy was the worst possible area for Panthers, with it's closed terrain.
Forgive my asking, but how does open ground work to keep the enemy in front of you? Wouldn't it allow them more freedom to come up on your flank than the close terrain of western Europe?

The Tigers were, when used to their strengths, outstanding hunter killers.
This faced similar problems of weaker-than-average side armour and an unreliable drive-train, which again, meant that they were better used in Europe where this lack of reliability wasn't so noticable due to having to move much shorter distances to engage the enemy.

3. The Germans regarded the IS2 has the best tank they had to face. The 122mm had two faults, rate of fire (separate loads) and size of rounds. It could destroy Panthers (and Tigers) and proved to be devastating for blowing up strongpoints (and Berlim first floor apartments)
Seems I misread then.
 
Forgive my asking, but how does open ground work to keep the enemy in front of you? Wouldn't it allow them more freedom to come up on your flank than the close terrain of western Europe?
Longer engagement ranges. Flanking manuevers leave you getting your ass shot off trying to cover a thousand meters of open ground to get a decent shot on their flanks.
 
Longer engagement ranges. Flanking manuevers leave you getting your ass shot off trying to cover a thousand meters of open ground to get a decent shot on their flanks.


Especially on the eastern front with badly trained T34 gunners and lousy sighting equipment that couldn't hit anything beyond 500 meters.

Also, open space is far more difficult for the infantery to either advance or assult a tank compared to forests, hedge county or cities. Just add a halftrack of infantery to the tank group and they could keep down the russians by machinegun suspicious moves.
 
12 1/2 tons heavier, 4 1/2 feet longer, 1/2 foot wider, more than half a foot higher and almost 5 mph slower. The Black Prince bears as much resemblance to the Churchill as does the M26 to the Sherman.

Forgive my asking, but how does open ground work to keep the enemy in front of you? Wouldn't it allow them more freedom to come up on your flank than the close terrain of western Europe?

This faced similar problems of weaker-than-average side armour and an unreliable drive-train, which again, meant that they were better used in Europe where this lack of reliability wasn't so noticable due to having to move much shorter distances to engage the enemy.

Seems I misread then.

Matt:
1. The Black Prince was a Churchill. Even if it wasn't, the 75mm rules out your claim that it never packed anything bigger than the 6pdr. There are variants with 95mm Howitzers, and AVRE varaints with even larger demolition mortars, but you were probably talking about gun tanks.
2. In open terrain, and when large units are involved, being caught by surprise with an expose flank is more dificult. Imagine ou are on one side of a football field and you oponent on the other. It takes more time to go aroumd and knife him in the ribs than inside a phoone booth. Of course you can take a position on a ridge covering a road that runs paralel to your lines and hope the enemy will drive along that road exposing their flanks. Most likely they'll be facing you. Unless you've actually been in field trying to get a shooting position on somebody its hard to explain, but as a basic rule, the further away they are, and the wider the fields of fire, the harder it is to sneak around their flanks...
3. Again, driving on flat open spaces is the easiest going for a tank, stop and go driving in closed terrain is the hardest. The problem with the Panther was the transmission, more than the engine. Recovering tanks in Normandy was nearly impossible because of the presence of allied fighter bombers. There are very few targets easier to spot than a ARV towing a tank...
4. The IS2 did very poorly on tests conducted in the US, who regarded it as being poorly made, very cramped, tiring to operate, etc. But the germans respected it, and hasso von manteuffel flat out called it the best tank of WW2. Interestingly, when the French in Indochina got intel that the Cinese had IS2 across the border they initially called for wartime Panthers to be deployed as a counter mesure. M36 were deployed instead, and used only as fire support vehicles with their 90mm guns.
 
Didn't the Panthers have quite slow traverse and poor gun stabilisation?

They didnt have gun stabilization on the modern sense, only the US tanks had. They fired while stoped to hit. The one with slow traverse was the Tiger, but since the tank could turn very rapidly (being nearly square) most crews traversed to tank to get a new bearing and used the turret for precision aiming. Precise fire on the move of the kind you see in Gulf war images is a 80s thing from the computer age.
Note that the 75mm on the Panther was an incredibly accurate weapon.
 
Other countries ideas

Just for curiosity, here's what the Italians felt was their ideal tank in 1943. (P35/43 or P43bis)
480HP engine ( a copy of the Russian V12 diesel with Italian engine quality) a 90/53 gun, good armour protectionwith a good balistica shape, low sillouette. I found a photo of a model on the web. Give it a better suspension and it would be a very useful Panther alternative...

P43bis-2.jpg
 
Matt:
1. The Black Prince was a Churchill. Even if it wasn't, the 75mm rules out your claim that it never packed anything bigger than the 6pdr. There are variants with 95mm Howitzers, and AVRE varaints with even larger demolition mortars, but you were probably talking about gun tanks.
Yes I was talking gun tanks. Also, the 75mm was actually a modified 6 pounder (rebored barrel and adapted breach), which had a lower muzzle-velocity than the 6 pounder. As for the Black Prince, it started out as a Churchill tank, but in the end the only commonality was the engine, which was by then underpowered.

2. In open terrain, and when large units are involved, being caught by surprise with an expose flank is more dificult.
I never said anything about sneaking, if you posess massive superiority of numbers then how are they supposed to stop you flanking?

3. Again, driving on flat open spaces is the easiest going for a tank, stop and go driving in closed terrain is the hardest.
Agreed, but in closed terrain your flanks are exposed much less often unless you're unlucky, or driving into an area held by the enemy, and even then, rifles wouldn't be enough to dent them.

When you have decent frontal armor, and are dealing with sub-optimal enemy gunners, you can afford to stop and take aim.
How about the side armour though? Much poorer wasn't it?

The one with slow traverse was the Tiger, but since the tank could turn very rapidly (being nearly square) most crews traversed to tank to get a new bearing and used the turret for precision aiming.
If wikipedia's to be believed, the Panther's turret traverse depended on how fast the engine was going, and varied from 15 seconds down to 46 seconds, which sounds like it's still going to turn pretty slowly unless you're raving the engine.
 
Tanks are caught in the flank usualy when they drive into basic L shaped ambush positions, were you put your AT guns in enfilade positions. Thats nearly impossible in open ground, happen a lot in fluid actions on closed ground.
Old tanks moved towards the enemy, select a firing position, stop and move the turret (a bit) to fire. No tank commander would leave its tank parked and just turn the turret to face a threath to its flank.
Matt, I was the proud boss of an antitank platoon when I was a Company CO, and you can trust me on this one. If you want to flank tanks, you must do it in closed terrain or find some freakish terrain (an L shaped edge, or a bend in a river). And tanks avoid that kind of easy to spot trap.
 
I'll take your word on that then. Still the US was the only nation in mid-late 1944 that lacked tanks with the kind of stopping power that worked against Panzers, even Britain managed to do it, despite not having a native tank design that was really worthwhile in tank-tank combat.
 
I'll take your word on that then. Still the US was the only nation in mid-late 1944 that lacked tanks with the kind of stopping power that worked against Panzers, even Britain managed to do it, despite not having a native tank design that was really worthwhile in tank-tank combat.

The ordnance department did built those tanks. They tested a 70 caliber 90mm on a M26 in Europe, built the M6 in 41, built the T29 in 45. They had a powerful gun in 42, the 3'', but failed to develop its ammo the way the Brits developed the rounds for their guns. The initial failure of the halftrack mounted 75mm was quickly solved with the M10, and the M36 was introduced very quickly when it was needed. US industry could do almost anything the Army asked for in WW2, but the Army was very conservative.
The M6 was not perfect, but it arguably was better than the KV1. If it had been progressively improved, US tank Corps could have had their own independent heavy tank battalions. They did move around their 240mm M1 howitzers so it's not like they couldn't move heavy loads around...
 
Top