Were heavy tanks ever useful in WW2

The actual timeline doesn't have Germany (POD before 1900, setting after 1900). Tech is roughly equivalent though.

Was the use of heavy tanks such as the Tiger ever the best use of resources or would resources have been better allocated to an armored force with medium tanks as its heaviest class? How badly would a force with just light tanks fare in Central, North and South East Asia?
 
The KV series performed quite well, as did the later IS tanks. The only WAllies heavy that was truly worthwhile, in my opinion, was the Churchill tank. Even then, that was mainly because of the Funnies rather than it being a good tank. Hope this helps.
 
I would say that as long as medium tanks couldn't mount the better dual use (i say dual use because guns such as the 75mm kwk 42 L70 of the panther was shit against infantry compared to guns mounted on every other medium tank of the war) tank guns that could kill any tank at long range, heavy tanks have their use as the carriers of such guns (as did the various TDs).

A force of lighter tanks could be justified in an area with bad logistical arteries, but one would have to ask why such an area is important enough to be invaded with tanks anyway. As for rough terrain like south east asia, you could use a lioght tank but what is probably more important is having some kind of howitzer like the Commonwealth forces realized fighting there where the close support versions with the 3 inch howitzer was prefered to the 2-pounder gun.
 

hipper

Banned
The actual timeline doesn't have Germany (POD before 1900, setting after 1900). Tech is roughly equivalent though.

Was the use of heavy tanks such as the Tiger ever the best use of resources or would resources have been better allocated to an armored force with medium tanks as its heaviest class? How badly would a force with just light tanks fare in Central, North and South East Asia?

Less than 100 Matilda 2’s destroyed the Italian empire in Lybia and Ethiopia so yes quite effective
 

hipper

Banned
Was the Matilda 2 really a heavy tank? I think it only weighed 25 tonnes, less than a panzer iv if I'm remembering correctly.

The PZ IV weighed 18 tonnes in 1940 it reached 25 tonnes in 1943, the Matilda had 82 mm of armour on the front Glacis and 75 mm all round the turret. That made it a heavy tank.
 
Was the Matilda 2 really a heavy tank? I think it only weighed 25 tonnes, less than a panzer iv if I'm remembering correctly.
The Pz.Kfw.IV also weighed 25 tons but the Germans designated it a medium tank while the British designated the Matilda a heavy tank.
The Italian P-40 weighed 26 tons was also designated a heavy tank and for the Italians, it was.

P26-40_tank.jpg
 
Was the Matilda 2 really a heavy tank? I think it only weighed 25 tonnes, less than a panzer iv if I'm remembering correctly.

Compared to the italian tanks, it was almost a super heavy tank. The italian medium tanks weighted 14 tons and were powerless against the Matilda 2. And it was their best tanks.
 
Also the French B1 tank was 28 tons and was widely considered an heavy tank at the start of the war, even if it was lighter than a sherman.
 
Perhaps we need a measure of what a 'heavy' tank is?

Generally a 'heavy' tank is one which is heavier than it's usual contemporaries. In 1940 the CharB1 was heavy at nearly 30 tons. In 1959 the Centurion was normal at about 50 tons and the Conqueror was heavy. Of course one might argue that the Char 2 was the heavy at 70 tons and the Conqueror was in the same class as it weighed about the same.
 
In March 1943 a counter attack by the US 2d Armored Division was broken up by a half dozen Tiger tanks. Lt Col Hightowers medium tank battalion was the core of the counter attack & was effectively destroyed when caught in the open by the Tigers and their MkIII scout tanks. How the battle would have gone had the Tigers not been present I can't say. The US 2d Armored was missing detached battalions & was fighting multiple German divisions, but US tank losses would have been fewer that day.
 
The KV series performed quite well, as did the later IS tanks. The only WAllies heavy that was truly worthwhile, in my opinion, was the Churchill tank. Even then, that was mainly because of the Funnies rather than it being a good tank. Hope this helps.

I once made the mistake of suggesting that the Churchill wasn't much good and was unreliable (well the internets says so - so it must be true) within hearing range of a WW2 Churchill tank veteren (North Africa and Italy) and oh boy oh boy did he put me right.

If you were to ask a Churchill crewman what advantages a Panther tank has over his Churchill the response will be - the panther has a slightly better gun and is faster on a road - without any irony - they trusted their tanks.

Fact is that the Churchill could go pretty much were a goat could go where other tanks could not.

Its cross country mobility, and hill climbing ability was unrivaled - perhaps matched only by the Cent when it finally arrived.

It also had a reputation for saving its crews when hit and not burning. (note all tanks burn eventually)

I would say that the Matilda II in North and West Africa was to the Italians what the Tiger would later be to the Allies.

So relatively it was a Heavy tank as far as usage and its peers of the day is concerned

Also as it was more reliable than the Cruisers of the day it generally developed into a 'universal tank' and it came as a great shock when they started getting knocked out by long 50s later in the North African Campaign.

Also just look at it - it looks like its been chiseled out of a chunk of unobtainium

I just looked on the interwebs for a nice picture of it and there is a number of pictures showing knocked out Matilda II but none of them seem to have burned!
 

hipper

Banned
There was a book written about the effectiveness of the Tiger I tank and the conclusion was that even counting in mechanical losses, which accounted for nearly half of lost Tiger Is, it still had a 5:1 kill ratio against Allied tanks.
https://www.amazon.com/Sledgehammers-Strengths-Flaws-Tiger-Battalions/dp/0971765022

That really depends on what you call a kill? The usual way a 5 to one rate is obtained is to count as Killed those allied tanks that did not stay with the BN HQ at 5h3 end of the action. While In the German case those tanks which have been condemed as total losses by the maintence department of the Panzer Battalion.

If you look at the figures of German tanks with the Panzer BNs In the desert you see that they drop by Half after a couple of days action as the crocks and “ Hanger Queens” drop out.
 
Heavy tanks ( and I agree its a relative term ) are useful when their strengths outweigh their faults

Strength
Hard to kill, can grind through defenses
Boost morale in accompanying troops ( mind instinctively thinks big is better )
Worry opposing troops and commanders ( same reason as above )

Faults
Less of them for a given cost
Tend to need more maintenance and harder to recover.
Need more fuel
Tend to be less mobile
Tend to be slower
Size is a disadvantage ( easier to spot, less able to maneuver in restricted terrain )
No better in urban areas where the threat is infantry stalking
Weight can be a big issue ( Tigers for example were limited with what bridges they could use )

So a tendency to be better in Western Europe but worse in SE Asia due to terrain and infrastructure. One reason Italian tanks were so small initially in WW2 was that they were actually built with fighting in mountains in mind.
 

Deleted member 1487

That really depends on what you call a kill? The usual way a 5 to one rate is obtained is to count as Killed those allied tanks that did not stay with the BN HQ at 5h3 end of the action. While In the German case those tanks which have been condemed as total losses by the maintence department of the Panzer Battalion.

If you look at the figures of German tanks with the Panzer BNs In the desert you see that they drop by Half after a couple of days action as the crocks and “ Hanger Queens” drop out.
IIRC from the book they tallied up total write offs and only counted total write off Tigers (the 5:1 includes German write offs of broken down units that had to be abandoned and missing, it is about 10:1 if they only count total combat losses). Will check later when I get home.
 
There was a book written about the effectiveness of the Tiger I tank and the conclusion was that even counting in mechanical losses, which accounted for nearly half of lost Tiger Is, it still had a 5:1 kill ratio against Allied tanks.
https://www.amazon.com/Sledgehammers-Strengths-Flaws-Tiger-Battalions/dp/0971765022

Both the B1 during the campaign of France and the KV-1 before the tiger and long 75 in the Pz IV had similar if not higher "kill ratio" as well as the Mathilda (and Valentine to a lesser extent), it was kinda their job (not even the case for the B1bis as it wasn't supposed to fight other tanks but was invulnerable to all german tanks except the Pz IV on an unlucky day. The problem of all of those (except the British ones for once) and the tiger was their unreliability, their short range and catastrophic operational and strategic mobility. Which is what was needed to make them good tanks and not glorified anti tank bunkers. Having a lot of armor is good until your enemy have bigger guns and then you nedd mobility : The JS series had that as well as the Churchill.
 
Was the Matilda 2 really a heavy tank? I think it only weighed 25 tonnes, less than a panzer iv if I'm remembering correctly.

Thing was, originally the British didn't distinguish the tanks as light/medium/heavy but as infantry/cavalry tanks, and with that classification the Matilda was obviously an infantry tank.
 

Deleted member 1487

Both the B1 during the campaign of France and the KV-1 before the tiger and long 75 in the Pz IV had similar if not higher "kill ratio" as well as the Mathilda (and Valentine to a lesser extent), it was kinda their job (not even the case for the B1bis as it wasn't supposed to fight other tanks but was invulnerable to all german tanks except the Pz IV on an unlucky day. The problem of all of those (except the British ones for once) and the tiger was their unreliability, their short range and catastrophic operational and strategic mobility. Which is what was needed to make them good tanks and not glorified anti tank bunkers. Having a lot of armor is good until your enemy have bigger guns and then you nedd mobility : The JS series had that as well as the Churchill.
They were designed to be short ranged and high performance breakthrough weapons, not exploitation weapons. I mean the entire role of the heavy tank is to be specialized as a bunker buster/mobile bunker. The improvement in technology ultimately made the 'heavy' tank obsolete soon after WW2, as the 'mediums' were nearly as heavy as the old 'heavies', but more mobile.
 

hipper

Banned
Thing was, originally the British didn't distinguish the tanks as light/medium/heavy but as infantry/cavalry tanks, and with that classification the Matilda was obviously an infantry tank.


could someone please tell me the practical difference between an infantry and a heavy tank?
 
Top