Were heavy tanks ever useful in WW2

In 1940? The 2lber had better anti tank performance than any german tank gun hardly puny.

'Infantry' tanks that the anti infantry effect supplied by a MG or two.
Though you could use the 2 pdr as a giant sniper rifle, and try to pick off AT crewmen one at a time.

Infantry tank should have had the 18 or 25 pdr with a 15mm BESA, not a great hole puncher.
the 2 pdr was slightly above average in the 37-40mm class of 1939, overlooking that the 2 pdr shot shot tended shatter against Nazi face hardened plate
 

hipper

Banned
'Infantry' tanks that the anti infantry effect supplied by a MG or two.
Though you could use the 2 pdr as a giant sniper rifle, and try to pick off AT crewmen one at a time.

Infantry tank should have had the 18 or 25 pdr with a 15mm BESA, not a great hole puncher.
the 2 pdr was slightly above average in the 37-40mm class of 1939, overlooking that the 2 pdr shot shot tended shatter against Nazi face hardened plate

In 1939 no German tank (or any other) had face hardened plate, that did not occur untill 1941 the British Discovered they were using face hardened plate in 1942 and had ballistic capped ammo in 1943
 
In 1939 no German tank (or any other) had face hardened plate, that did not occur untill 1941 the British Discovered they were using face hardened plate in 1942 and had ballistic capped ammo in 1943

Polish TP7 had FHA in 1938.

Panzer II had RHA with surface heat treatment, but not full FHA. Per _German Tanks od World War II_ by von Senger, the Mk III and IV were FHA, Turrets FHA and RHA

In the Desert, 8th Army reported how 25 pdr HE was cracking the FH plates on the Mk III and MkIV, and the AP 2pdr shot was ineffective due to the shot shattering on impact, and later how much better the APC for the 6 pdr worked than the earlier AP, and same for the 75mm on the Grant, to the point where they would pull the M72 projectile and use captured German 75mm APCBC, modified to work in the US cannon and cartridge
 
Infantry tank should have had the 18 or 25 pdr with a 15mm BESA, not a great hole puncher.

There is a doctrinal wrinkle here: one of the roles of the Infantry tanks was defensive, protecting the infantry against immediate counterattack by tanks, as getting anti-tank guns to the frontline would be difficult. Fire support for the infantry, using high-explosive shells was primarily a Royal Artillery role, who didn't have tanks.
 

hipper

Banned
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.


Hard to ensure that you only count tanks destroyed by tanks in that case. Which renders the whole 5:1 ratio thing pointless.

If you count British tanks cruser destroyed Vs German tanks destroyed in 1940 I’m sure the ratio will be much better than 5:1
 

hipper

Banned
Polish TP7 had FHA in 1938.

Panzer II had RHA with surface heat treatment, but not full FHA. Per _German Tanks od World War II_ by von Senger, the Mk III and IV were FHA, Turrets FHA and RHA

In the Desert, 8th Army reported how 25 pdr HE was cracking the FH plates on the Mk III and MkIV, and the AP 2pdr shot was ineffective due to the shot shattering on impact, and later how much better the APC for the 6 pdr worked than the earlier AP, and same for the 75mm on the Grant, to the point where they would pull the M72 projectile and use captured German 75mm APCBC, modified to work in the US cannon and cartridge


The polish tank info was new, however When did they give heat treatment to the panzer II, all german tanks were uparmoured during the course of the war.
 
There is a doctrinal wrinkle here: one of the roles of the Infantry tanks was defensive, protecting the infantry against immediate counterattack by tanks, as getting anti-tank guns to the frontline would be difficult. Fire support for the infantry, using high-explosive shells was primarily a Royal Artillery role, who didn't have tanks.

25 pdrs were used in the AT role frequently in NA with AP, and that penetrated more than the 2pdr. The 18/25 pdr fired a 20 pound Shot at 1550 fps, the 25 pdr mk2 with the muzzle brake could use supercharge, and get 2000fps
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/#
shows the 18/25pdr AP@1550fps penetrating the MkIVF2 out to 1300 meters frontally vs Hull or Turret, and 2000 every other aspect. That's the heaviest armored tank they had in the desert, save for the few Tigers late in Tunisia, 91mm for the 18/25pdr, with 119mm penetration for the 25 pdr Mk2 with supercharge.

A tank with a 18/25pdr in 1940 would have filled the panzertruppen with fear

But what kind of defensive role did the Matilda I have against armor?
 

Deleted member 1487

Hard to ensure that you only count tanks destroyed by tanks in that case. Which renders the whole 5:1 ratio thing pointless.

If you count British tanks cruser destroyed Vs German tanks destroyed in 1940 I’m sure the ratio will be much better than 5:1
Quoting from the book I cited before (leaving out the table for each battalion due to formatting issues on the forum for copy-paste jobs):
The Germans kept detailed records on the loss of each Tiger and on the number of enemy tanks they destroyed. The claims of American and British tanks destroyed have been confirmed, to various degrees of reliability, from available records. For Soviet losses, very few records are available to confirm the German claims. In these instances, the German claims are generally accepted without the benefit of verification. Whatever mission heavy tank battalions were given, their primary task was to destroy enemy tanks. In so doing, they were undeniably successful. The kill ratio of heavy tank battalions when measured against Tigers lost in direct combat is an impressive 12.2 to 1. The ratio as measured against all Tigers lost, regardless of reason, is still a credible 5.4-to-l kill ratio.9 Although the last ratio is based upon the total annihilation of every heavy tank battalion, it is probably the most accurate considering that a certain percentage of kills claimed by Tigers must certainly have been repaired and returned to service in the same way that Tigers were returned to service after being damaged, (see table 5) As would be expected, some heavy tank battalions were more successful than others in destroying enemy tanks. Some battalions were able to destroy close to 13 enemy tanks for the loss of each Tiger and others were able to achieve only a one-for-one exchange. Variables that could account for this include the terrain, enemy, leadership, and missions assigned. Of these, the mission assigned to heavy tank battalions was the one area that the Germans could most influence. In general, heavy tank battalions were most successful when they were concentrated for offensive missions and dispersed behind the front for defensive missions. Even though results differ greatly from battalion to battalion, when taken as an overall average, heavy tank battalions were undeniably effective at destroying enemy tanks.1 0

Notes: Of all of the unit's claims, SS-Heavy Tank Battalion 503's is the most difficult to verify, but if accurate, the most impressive. This battalion was never fully equipped and only fought from January 1945 until the end of the war. Committed to the Eastern Theater, it was split apart to many different areas under many different commands. Its records are incomplete and cannot be verified. This battalion fought in places like Küstrin, the Seelow Heights, and in Berlin, in addition to many others. It is difficult to imagine how the battalion destroyed more than 500 Soviet tanks in a little over three months of combat.
Sources: Schneider, Tigers in Combat I, 47, 78, 100, 144-45, 173, 226-27, 242, 263, 279, 311, 323, 344, 357, 372, 381, 408, 421, 439, 447, 456; idem, Tigers in Combat II, 56, 83, 268, 320, 336, 365, 375, 398
 
the 18 or 25 pdr with a 15mm BESA
I really don't think you need the 15mm BESA and should drop it for size and weight reasons, a 25pdr (with a rifle calibre MG coax) in a turret will make this a monster if available early war, it will also be very large for the time....

The 25pdr could then be lengthened to serve the rest of the war into something like the Garrington gun?
 
25 pdrs were used in the AT role frequently in NA with AP, and that penetrated more than the 2pdr. The 18/25 pdr fired a 20 pound Shot at 1550 fps, the 25 pdr mk2 with the muzzle brake could use supercharge, and get 2000fps
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/#
shows the 18/25pdr AP@1550fps penetrating the MkIVF2 out to 1300 meters frontally vs Hull or Turret, and 2000 every other aspect. That's the heaviest armored tank they had in the desert, save for the few Tigers late in Tunisia, 91mm for the 18/25pdr, with 119mm penetration for the 25 pdr Mk2 with supercharge.

A tank with a 18/25pdr in 1940 would have filled the panzertruppen with fear

...

Can see this leading logically to a Centurian type concept a year or two earlier.
 
I really don't think you need the 15mm BESA and should drop it for size and weight reasons, a 25pdr (with a rifle calibre MG coax) in a turret will make this a monster if available early war, it will also be very large for the time....

The 25pdr could then be lengthened to serve the rest of the war into something like the Garrington gun?
AE0Qpgb.jpg

Churchill 75NA. A field mod where the front of the turret was torch cut out to match with a M4 Sherman gun mount. The exterior mantlet setup freed up enough space to fit a US M3 75mm.
I put this here to point out that the turret ring size commonly used by the British of 1388mm. The M4 Sherman with a different version of its removable gun mount, could host the 105mm Howitzer.

So had there been a desire, I feel the A10 could have had a 18/25 pdr mounted. OTL, it had the 3.7" mountain howitzer from WWI, and it carried mostly smoke
640px-Cruiser_MkIIA_CS_1_Bovington.jpg

Set that up with an exterior mantlet to get the guns trunnion mounted out ahead of the turret ring, extend the back portion of the turret to:
A: add weight for counterbalance of the gun moving forward
B: provide additional recoil run, and more room to work the gun.

Now for the 15mm BESA, that's for the same reason the US and Soviet used HMGs, they turn Cover into Concealment. Hiding behind a tree or a few sandbags will not save you, unlike with rifle class MGs

This will still be a terribly unreliable tank, but unlike the 2 pdr, and hit from its 20 pound AP projectile will go thru any German Panzer when a hit is achieved, out to where it's low power telescopic sight and modest 1550 fps ballistics would allow. Even at 2000 yards, it would be able got all the way thru a Panzer III, unless the transaxle or engine was hit.

For length, the obvious mods for a exclusive Tank gun would to have fixed ammo, rather than projectile and charge, and it was an L31 gun, and medium pressure.

By time you go for a longer barrel and higher pressure from a enlarged propellant charge, you are looking at a OTL 20 Pounder
219px-20poundercartridgecasewithHEshell.jpg


But we are looking for a fix that would be adequate thru 1943, where something like the high-Vel 17 pdr would be in the works. Going out to 40 calibers would not be difficult

This means that the UK will be using the 25 pdr similar to the way that the Soviets used their 76mm F-22 regimental field gun.
 
Are these not very different guns in very different weight and recoil classes! (13lb v 25lb and twice or more the MV)

They are, but chassis of that size have mounted the M3 75mm, that had 400 ft.tons of recoil energy, the 18/25 had 333 ft.ton for the 1550 fps AP shot
 
786px-Char-B1bis-Saumur.0004axt0.jpg

The French had in 1941 the heavy Char B1
during the German attack in village of Stonne a Char B1 under command of Capitain Billotte encounter 11 panzer III 2 panzer IV and two Anti Tank guns of Germans
Billotte and his crew destroy all of them, one after other, while his Char B1 got 140 hits by germans tanks and guns and that thing still was able to combat !

On Tiger heavy version aka Königstiger
General Patton praised this tank as "The best road blockade the German ever build" mocking its problem of running out of fuel do its thirsty engines...
 
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 thing is unless you can build enough of your 5:1 kill ratio heavies and get them into situations where they can reliably engage 5+ opposing tanks over time all that killing power doesn't help. (Heavy tanks tended to not only be expensive to produce but hard to move about either under their own power or by other means even if they don't break down).

Which basically means a lot of their effectiveness comes down to how they are handled as a force. Against the "WAllies"* in Europe the tigers were in generally defensive which makes that deployment with that goal in mind is easier.

Now obviously that gets into German manufacturing vs. Allied manufacturing which is a losing battle anyway what ever tanks they go for, but it exacerbates the above.

Concentrating on less heavy tanks as opposed to more light tanks does mean you need less crews though!







*sorry WAllies = Western Allies (I'm new here)
 
Last edited:
On Tiger heavy version aka Königstiger
General Patton praised this tank as "The best road blockade the German ever build" mocking its problem of running out of fuel do its thirsty engines...
At least it and the Char B1 didn't run out of fuel as often as the Centurion, so they weren't a total failure in mobility. Not that it prevented the French from paying dearly for having such thirsty tanks in 1940 or that it prevented Germany from paying dearly for the same reason in 1943-1945- they were still very poor in fuel requirements.
 
Top