Jump to content


Why has any Army Ever Bothered to Have Heavy Tanks?

heavy tanks

  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

Hayton #1 Posted 18 February 2020 - 11:53 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 54485 battles
  • 164
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
When obviously medium tanks and cars are far superior.....at least in this game anyway.

Slyspy #2 Posted 18 February 2020 - 11:55 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 15519 battles
  • 18,347
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostHayton, on 18 February 2020 - 11:53 AM, said:

When obviously medium tanks and cars are far superior.....at least in this game anyway.

 

What sort of tanks does a modern army have?



Ceeb #3 Posted 18 February 2020 - 11:56 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 35730 battles
  • 6,734
  • [BEXF] BEXF
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

Well, back in the day, bigger was better... just look at Battleships. 

 

You need to look into the history of the  birth of the MBT.



BQBD #4 Posted 18 February 2020 - 11:58 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18369 battles
  • 283
  • Member since:
    11-02-2018

Because its not like we see so many of the armoured behemoths like E100's, Mauses and Type 5's driving around the modern battlefields....

 

Mobility and flexibility any time any day.



Dava_117 #5 Posted 18 February 2020 - 11:59 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Moderator
  • 24773 battles
  • 7,026
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostHayton, on 18 February 2020 - 11:53 AM, said:

When obviously medium tanks and cars are far superior.....at least in this game anyway.

 

Well, armour is an advantage, especially since tanks don't have an HP bar IRL.

And if you think about it, what is a modern MBT? A medium tank with HT armour and firepower and LT mobility.



Tazoslo #6 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:03 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 10622 battles
  • 67
  • Member since:
    06-05-2013
back in the days, with the quality of shells they had, bigger was better. The more armour the more invincible you were. Today, the penetration of modern shells make it impossible to make a tank that can rely on blocking power. In addition to that we have helicopters, drones and missiles that can take you out from a great distance. It just to be about armour, now its about speed, agility and stealth.

Wintermute_1 #7 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:05 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 55651 battles
  • 2,788
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013
Because armour used to be quite important. 

4nt #8 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:12 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31667 battles
  • 1,673
  • Member since:
    04-09-2013

View PostDava_117, on 18 February 2020 - 11:59 AM, said:

 

Well, armour is an advantage, especially since tanks don't have an HP bar IRL.

And if you think about it, what is a modern MBT? A medium tank with HT armour and firepower and LT mobility.

Yah. If one examines modern tanks, there are quite hilarious signs of minmaxing. For instance, most modern tanks can be penetrated from rear with 25-30mm APCR, common practice is also to save weight by reducing side armor. Most 2WW late tanks could pen M1A2 from side hull. Same goes for all russki MBTs. 

 

You can pack all the armor in the world to front arc of your tank, as long as engine can move it. It still cannot make one invulnerable- which is reasoning behind french and german early cold war designs. In WoT one doesn't need to consider real world battlefield threats, sustainability, fuel, or part expediency, so HTs and SHTs are a thing.

 

Edit- and one can ask about how bad the wheelchairs IRL were against tanks from South African armed forces. One could look into french, Italian and american designs too, since these among others have drifted towards wheeled designs during and after cold war.


Edited by 4nt, 18 February 2020 - 12:21 PM.


Mav75 #9 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:16 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35396 battles
  • 1,849
  • Member since:
    10-04-2013

Armor used to very important, but the development in weapons (HEAT and ATGM's) made it less relevant. During the war there were few heavy tanks deployed: the Soviet KV-1, the German Tigers.

After the war several armies had heavy tanks or at least tried developing them: the US M103, Brits the Conqueror, the French the ARL 44 and the Soviet IS-family.

 



splash_time #10 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:24 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18006 battles
  • 2,591
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-20-2018

Because back in the day, a well armoured tank was able to survive for very long time, and they weren't forced to replace it with another one after short time if it get destroyed. 

 

That why Germany made Maus and Tiger & King Tiger.



frange #11 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:33 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 34013 battles
  • 412
  • [FRNR] FRNR
  • Member since:
    10-25-2013

Back in WWII both the Panther and Tiger were far superior and OP against the ruski T-34 and murican M4 Shermans, Tiger had a kill ratio somewhere around 10:1 - or even higher due to the fact that a huge amout of lost Tigers because of fuel loss or engine/drivetrain failure and the crew abandoning and blowing up their own tank so it wouldnt be captured by enemies. 



Dava_117 #12 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:36 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Moderator
  • 24773 battles
  • 7,026
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

 

View Post4nt, on 18 February 2020 - 12:12 PM, said:

You can pack all the armor in the world to front arc of your tank, as long as engine can move it. It still cannot make one invulnerable- which is reasoning behind french and german early cold war designs. In WoT one doesn't need to consider real world battlefield threats, sustainability, fuel, or part expediency, so HTs and SHTs are a thing.

 

I guess with modern technology, one army could make a modern Maus, with 1500mm effective frontal armour and 700-800 mm sides and rear. But, as you said, that would not be practical. Especially since vehicles became a lot faster than during WW2 and not being able to cross bridges would be quite a bad drawback. And this without counting the required maintenance! :)



Gremlin182 #13 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66950 battles
  • 10,845
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

The plan was the same as always you develop a better tank with the technology available at the time.

You send them into battle they hopefully win the war before the enemy develops an effective counter.

The game gives players the counter, no matter how good the tank in game there is already a counter.

When the system fails and something gives an unbalanced advantage they change the game to even things out again.

Problem is the game is so complex fixing one problem creates others so its endless really.

 

The day of the Heavy tank is over but really in many battle situations the day of any tank is over.

They can only be used once you completely control the air space over the battlefield.

 



8126Jakobsson #14 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:44 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 85522 battles
  • 6,310
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
Maybe they like to win more often or something. 

MeetriX #15 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:46 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 28573 battles
  • 5,244
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

One word scalelaws or is two words?

 



Balc0ra #16 Posted 18 February 2020 - 12:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 79091 battles
  • 24,363
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postsplash_time, on 18 February 2020 - 12:24 PM, said:

That why Germany made Maus and Tiger & King Tiger.

 

In this game. The meta does change constantly. At one point armor was vital. And most of the new stuff added was broken heavies. Then camo was key and most of the new premiums were bush ninjas. Now speed is key.

 

War is no different. The meta changes constantly there too. Tiger faced tier 5's all day. Sherman's that needed to wolf pack it to kill it. It kinda changed once the IS did appear. I suspect if the IS-3 did not miss the war by a few days. It would be different again. As armor was the focus for that war. The more weight and armor the better. Once the war ended, the meta did change. And armor on tanks that weighed over 100 ton was not a thing anymore. As you can see in most post-war tanks the German WW II HTs do face. Besides the Bern tunnel focus that is.

 

It's why the reputation of the Tiger is not as superb here. And he is a support HT vs a brawler. As he faces guns and armor he never did face. Even from the next decade that had a different focus, for a different war. I mean the Tog is a good example of that. A tank made by people still in the old meta, for a type of war that never came again.


Edited by Balc0ra, 18 February 2020 - 12:54 PM.


malachi6 #17 Posted 18 February 2020 - 01:01 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 51526 battles
  • 4,853
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
Why are modern tanks generally called Main Battles Tanks?  Because they are a hybrid of medium and heavy tanks.

Edited by malachi6, 18 February 2020 - 01:01 PM.


RockyRoller #18 Posted 18 February 2020 - 01:07 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 42079 battles
  • 1,960
  • Member since:
    06-15-2016

boils down to technology of the past. Shell ammunition had a finite mm of armour it could penetrate, engines that could carry the weight, so they built the armour to suit the max, and then a year later a bright engineer or scientist invented better shells and engines.

 

A game is not coded with physical finites for the coding, it has hard and soft bandwidths of probability so you have the opportunity to explode that Centurion AX with a tank made with WW2 technology that in the real world wouldn't stand a chance.

 

In the real world the USSR would just nuke the battlefield for the win.... Google 'Seven days to the Rhine' for the actual Soviet Cold War battle plan in Europe

Another real world obstacle has nothing to do with technology, but with taxes and a nations' leader preferring to be immortal by sponsoring and naming a Bridge to nowhere then upgrade a tank to a 21st century version.

Main Battles Tanks = the politicians jack of all trades solution, American with the Industrial military complex had an era of vehicle for limited battlefront conditions, great in fair weather planes but grounded in a storm


Edited by RockyRoller, 18 February 2020 - 01:15 PM.


ProfessionalGoldSpammer #19 Posted 18 February 2020 - 01:08 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 42610 battles
  • 133
  • [VNOMS] VNOMS
  • Member since:
    12-04-2014

View PostHayton, on 18 February 2020 - 11:53 AM, said:

When obviously medium tanks and cars are far superior.....at least in this game anyway.

There is no such thing like a heavy tank nowadays.

Modern armies are using Main Battle tanks.

 



jabster #20 Posted 18 February 2020 - 01:19 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12871 battles
  • 28,699
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSlyspy, on 18 February 2020 - 10:55 AM, said:

 

What sort of tanks does a modern army have?

 

I know the answer to this, big ones.







Also tagged with heavy, tanks

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users