Were heavy tanks ever useful in WW2

could someone please tell me the practical difference between an infantry and a heavy tank?
Problem for the British was that their Infantry tanks could be lighter than the Cruiser tanks. For example the Infantry Valentine tank ( 16t ) was lighter than the contemporary Cruiser Crusader ( 18t ). So Heavy tank was meaningless as a designation as all tanks in production would be classified the same, hence Heavier Armour became Infantry , Higher Speed Cruiser.
 
could someone please tell me the practical difference between an infantry and a heavy tank?

Infantry tanks were supposed to work closely together with, well, infantry, so no great speed was needed whereas a heavy tank was meant to fulfill tasks without infantry support and as such could go significantly faster.
 
These are all Infantry tanks.....

Matilda 1 and Matilda II

a12matilda_002.jpg



Black Prince and Matilda 1 from one extreme to the other

Screen-Shot-2017-03-23-at-21.06.11.png


As you can see the Infantry tanks is not necessarily a heavy tank - but with the exception of the Matilda 1 (which was a relatively heavily armoured light tank - the Infantry tank was generally a heavy tank as well
 

Deleted member 1487

could someone please tell me the practical difference between an infantry and a heavy tank?
Infantry tanks didn't necessarily need to be heavy in the weight class. Technically something like the Sturmgeschutz was an infantry tank, but was certainly no heavier than a medium. Also a heavy didn't necessarily need to be locked into the infantry support role like the Tigers, they were breakthrough tanks that were more often than not limited to Panzer division or mechanized infantry division breakthrough support. That or counterattack spearhead/mobile heavy AT weapon platform.
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
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

The War Stories podcast has an episode on heavy tanks, specifically Tigers and their doctrine.
https://warstoriescast.com/2016/12/12/1-5-tigers-on-the-eastern-front/
 
I thin it's important to stress the relative nature of the term 'heavy', yes the 26t Matilda was about the same as a late war PzIV, but in 1940 it was 26t vs ~17t, so the Matilda was definitely a heavy in its heyday.

I'm waiting for this thread to degenerate into one about Sherman's; kill rates, what 'knocked out' means, US TD doctrine bla bla bla.
 

Deleted member 1487

I thin it's important to stress the relative nature of the term 'heavy', yes the 26t Matilda was about the same as a late war PzIV, but in 1940 it was 26t vs ~17t, so the Matilda was definitely a heavy in its heyday.

I'm waiting for this thread to degenerate into one about Sherman's; kill rates, what 'knocked out' means, US TD doctrine bla bla bla.
Stay off reddit/r/tankporn then. There has been a giant pissing match that had one poster start his own subreddit and is posting a huge series on the Tigers in Normandy to prove the kill ratios.
 
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.

Which isn't so bad, for a 'Breakthru' tank. You had to do some real good shooting with a 6 pdr/M1 57mm M1 AT gun to kill a Tiger.

For an exploitation tank, like the M4 Sherman, would be terrible.

But not having one, was also bad. The US could have used ten times the numbers of Jumbos actually built: and even with the extra weight, that tank was still far more reliable than any of the Nazi Cats.
 
he 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!

What gets most tanks burning is three things

Fuel system hit
Ammunition hit
Hydraulics hit

Now the Matilda used diesel that lessened that chance, traverse motor and lines well protected, ammo stored low in bins that protected the solid shot(no HE to cook off)
P1140379.jpg


M4 and Panther both used gasoline with ammo stored high, , and had plentiful HE rounds, with the M4 with hydraulic traverse.
German and US HE would burn, while Soviet HE would explode
 
....
German and US HE would burn, while Soviet HE would explode

The propellant powder in thin soft brass cases is the fire hazard. The HE rounds are thick walled steel, and the explosive mix is designed to be shock proof. In bore explosions suck. Most HE detonators are two part systems to get the very high temp flame it takes to initiate the HE detonation. Unless struck at the right angle the fuze/detonator is more liable to break off. In the field artillery it was fairly common when the projectile hit at a bad angle to have a dud.

Once the propellant or other fires get hot enough then the HE filler can cook off. Shaped charges can do this as well. Or occasionally a solid shot penetrator shatters a HE projectile just right.
 
From what I understand US propellant would fizzle before really going off. Meaning US crews had way more time to get out before everything went to shit. So many British tanks which used US ammo would also benefit. On the whole the heavy US tanks like the Sherman Jumbo proved tactically useful as they were used at the front of armoured advances since they could take hits that other Sherman couldn't.
 

hipper

Banned
From what I understand US propellant would fizzle before really going off. Meaning US crews had way more time to get out before everything went to shit. So many British tanks which used US ammo would also benefit. On the whole the heavy US tanks like the Sherman Jumbo proved tactically useful as they were used at the front of armoured advances since they could take hits that other Sherman couldn't.

wet storage and not keeping ammo above the turret ring was the American advantage in the later Sherman tanks
 
The propellant powder in thin soft brass cases is the fire hazard. The HE rounds are thick walled steel, and the explosive mix is designed to be shock proof. In bore explosions suck. Most HE detonators are two part systems to get the very high temp flame it takes to initiate the HE detonation. Unless struck at the right angle the fuze/detonator is more liable to break off. In the field artillery it was fairly common when the projectile hit at a bad angle to have a dud.

Once the propellant or other fires get hot enough then the HE filler can cook off. Shaped charges can do this as well. Or occasionally a solid shot penetrator shatters a HE projectile just right.

Cannons sized bits of nitrocellulose with nitroglycerin hardly burn in open atmosphere. The more it is confined, the more and hotter the deflagration and more pressure, so the cases need to be hit just right as well

Problem with early US stowage was the brass casings were almost totally exposed in a ready rack that was all along the M4 turret basket, so fragments could rupture many cases at the same time, to where the crew might only have seconds to bail out before the whole hull would pressurize and get that blowtorch out the hatches effect. Comp D used in the HE shells was very stable, and even that happening would rarely set them off
Same problem with hydraulic lines, very exposed and US fluid was very flammable: a problem thru the M60 series
 
wet storage and not keeping ammo above the turret ring was the American advantage in the later Sherman tanks

In Korea, Tankers drained out the Glycol to reduce weight, and found that the drained bins prevented fires just as well. No more wet stowage, it was unnecessary
 
Top