Why Heavy Tanks Are A Bad Idea
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ค. 2024
- Heavy tanks embody the common understanding of what a tank is; a big metal box with a big gun that rolls right at the enemy. It's no wonder, then, that heavy tanks are some of the most popular vehicles, even in the armored fighting vehicle enthusiast community. But when you look at tank history, heavy tanks were only popular for a couple of decades. What happened to them, and why don't armored forces revive the concept?
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into the Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Gunner HEAT PC Crew Voices Mod (Personal, go play the game: gunnerheatpc.com/ )
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs.com/pages/spook...
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#warthunder #tanks #tankhistory - เกม
![[TH] 2024 PMWC x EWC Main Tournament Day 1 | PUBG MOBILE WORLD CUP x ESPORTS WORLD CUP](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f5Coja1zCzo/mqdefault.jpg)
For everyone saying that heavy tanks evolved into MBTs, that simply isn't true. If you trace the development of every major nation's MBT development, whether that be the US, Germany, Britain, or Russia, MBTs evolved directly from medium tanks. Certain Western MBTs weighing a lot doesn't automatically make them heavy tanks. Medium tanks were getting progressively heavier and well armed as time went on, eventually being rebranded to MBTs once the classic "light, medium, heavy" class structure was abandoned. Furthermore, Western nations with heavier MBTs are looking to drastically reduce weight with their next generation MBTs.
The heavy tanks were "heavy" because they were pushing the limit of weight viability, and current mbts do the same, with some of the same issues and dilemmas.
@@Theanimeisforme They were "heavy" because they were designed with armor protection and firepower being the overriding design aspects, knowingly sacrificing reliability, transportability, and mobility to maximize effectiveness in limited breakthrough actions. MBTs are a completely different class designed for a completely different doctrinal outlook. The weight of Western MBTs is specifically being scaled back because they DON'T want to sacrifice reliability, transportability, or mobility. Being heavy isn't the one characteristic a heavy tank has.
@@Spookston I will have to disagree on armor and weapons being overriding factors as the tiger 1 already breaks this since it has all three for it's time. Also weight of tanks are not being held back, ex: the abrams already has gain 12 tons since it's introduction, and all that is both fire power 105 to 120 and armor growing not from thickness but from protection systems. Same for leopard 1 to 2. Or any russian based tank new or old. Its not the 70s anymore. If anything future mbts are going for modularity so they can dance between its weight class better, but will sit at heavy in combat. Also guns still seem to be getting bigger with autoloaders which mean more weight.
@@Theanimeisforme and this is likely a good part of the reason why the "Light, Medium, Heavy" system was abandoned. Because MBT's just dont conform to any of those
@@Spookston I’m pretty sure the M60 Patton had it’s origin from the M26 Pershing, which was designed as a heavy tank. It was only reclassified as a medium after ww2 when it evolved into the M46.
ok but they look cool and i can't imagine this world without them.
they look cool LOL
@@Shadow-yq8wg ok
knew it's sarcasm but we're already lived in that world
@@Shadow-yq8wg yes they do!
Absolutely
Another good addition: Pretty soon after WW2, the 'tank triangle' of firepower, maneuverability, and armor was becoming increasingly blurred. You could get a medium with firepower that could compete with a heavy, while still maintaining its relative position in terms of being a genuine medium tank with regards to protection and speed. Engine power increases, better tank cannons, and better designs lead to mediums and light tanks benefitting the most. Heavies gained precious little from WW2, besides armor thickness that was difficult to offset even with new engines.
Yeah, it's not that heavy tanks went away, they were just merged with mediums into the MBT. Modern tanks have some really absurd levels of frontal protection.
Well said
@@MaxRavenclaw and dogshit sides and paper thin rears
@@LeMeowAu which does not make a big difference because if an enemy flanks you that way to actually hit your side's or rear you have some other big issues.
@@LeMeowAu 90% of the time you've got someone watching your rear
"So why did they disappear?" Same answer as to why we don't see many Medium Tanks anymore. The Main Battle Tank came along and replaced both of them, because an MBT is a great jack of all trades when it comes to fire support, breakthrough and siege warfare, as well as highly mobile warfare. Course by WW2 modern standards, most MBTs today could be categorized as heavy tanks just by their sheer weight alone.
technically they are heavy tanks on steroids with super engines
MBTs are basically medium tanks, it’s just a description give to the most used tank in your army. MBTs are not a tank category like light, medium and heavy.
My view is that the MBT is pretty much just a rebranding of the medium tank. I suppose it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to call them medium tanks anymore since "medium" implies that they are in between something heavier and something lighter. Heavy tanks no longer exist, and light tanks have mostly been absorbed into the IFV concept, so what used to be a "medium tank" is now really just a "tank".
@@exo068 Exactly, and I'm surprised I haven't seen acknowledgments of this more. As much as tanks have changed, you can still classify them the same way; it's just that basically every viable tank now is a medium tank with good frontal armor and speed.
@@exo068 well then are there any modern heavy tanks by that standard? Back then heavy tanks were heavy bc of thick armor and were slow. With composites and era, I feel like it might not be that accurate to use the same tank designations. A Abrams would be considered a heavy tank in world war 2 but I guess now could be called a medium since they’re fast and mobile
I take this away beforehand: we all know they have much more drawbacks than upsides.
But let's be honest, they look awesome and very imposing. Especially the last generation like the FV214 Conqueror, M103 or T-10.
@@Etaoinshrdlu69 They were barely found by Tigers sooo.
@@GalacticaonYT I don't like the Tiger because they were not symmetrical. The Jagdtiger was amazing though, big love.
@@GalacticaonYT Tiger 1 was obsolete by 44'
are not many modern mbt,s not ended as heavy Tanks ?
@@killerkraut9179 what
The Heavy Tank is a product of the Ironclad Mentality which is to respond to any threat in the foreseeable future with more armor.
The Maus is the perfect example of why the heavy tank became a developmental dead-end: The amount of regular "steel plate" armor that you need to withstand at least two or three direct hits from something like an ATGM would lead to a tank that is too heavy to move under its own power, too big to hide from plain sight, and too expensive to even build in the first place.
it could have been continued if developments in armor allowed for better protection for the same or less weight. basically its a matter of offensive technology outpacing defensive technology, to the point avoidance is simply a better choice than attempting to endure a hit.
i would say super heavys like the maus and T95 are their own thing. but i wouldnt call heavy tanks a developmental dead end as they did help make some more powerful engines and where pretty good test beds for some of the other tanks.
the reason i would say heavy tanks fell out of favor is both cost and Logistics when you can buy 1 super heavy, 2 heavys or 5 mediums to 10 lights your obvious choice would be between the light and mediums cause you get more bang for your buck. and since the last 2 eat up less fuel than the later 2 you can supple your tank lines with more fuel mbts are the jack of all trades they can be mediums, heavys well nto lights since those are now IFVs.
My main understanding of why heavies went extinct was mainly 3 reasons
1. Performance heavies are large and heavy leading to much more stress on components and much slower
2. Cost heavies are giant hunks of metal meaning they cost tons to make, transport and use
3. Technology with better ammunition and anti-tank weapons being made the armour of heavies became essentially useless unless if you had a massive plate that would make the first 2 problems even worse and even then the anti-tank weapons would quickly become more powerful to compensate
Heavies are popular because it's the whole opinion people had with tanks, massive indestructible machines that bring destruction to their enemies
Actually APDS rounds were developed by engineers of the french Edgar Brandt company, initally for old 75 & 37mm guns, after france was defeated they moved to britain and resumed their work for the allies, they also develloped the rockets used in the US's bazookas and rifles AT grenades
I mean, most modern MBTs are technically heavy tanks, just with proper engine power to get zoomin.
Now there is an interesting thing between the 50s and mid 80s where MBTs moved from being on the medium tank side to being more on the heavy tank side, and its largely due to new ways of creating armour alongside new tech allowing for better space usage and less crew to do the same work. So now we have MBTs doing a mix of the old medium and heavy tank role, with IFVs doing the light, TD and in some cases SPG style role, though we still got some neato artillery vehicles.
At least SPAA has just simply got tech modernizations with the role staying about the same.
Modern MBT's are basically Medium tanks with big guns
The only Heavy Tank is really the british Challenger... that thing weights like 70tons and it's slow
American Abrams is also Heavy af... but it got them big engine so he's fast
And effectiveness of Challenger armor is... kinda bad if you ask me... the most of it's weight comes from HUGE ERA BLOCKS... it rivals Russian T-34 with concrete as addon armor lol
@@kajmak64bit76 If the Abrams is not a heavy tank, what do you need to be a heavy tank lol? Maybe slap a naval gun in a depleted uranium bunker and slap some rails on it?
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me heavy armor usually equals to armor and weight tho
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me didn't you watch the video? Heavy tanks have better armor but same guns than medium
MBTs are medium tanks, their main defence isn't the heavy armor and you can pen the armor much more easily than you could with proper heavy tanks back in their day.
I don't think heavies disappeared, juste that the tank itself is the heavy, and other plateform such as ifvs are accomplishing the mlight and medium roles. Just look at the occidental designs, they all exceed 50T. A heavy tank is only classified heavy because there is lighter tanks to compare it with.
Now we could talk about medium/heavy mbts. Russian mbts are medium weight and west ones are the heavy ones
Modern tanks are mostly MBTs which are a direct successor to the medium tank role, light tanks still exist even if IFVs have taken a good chunk of their market share. Traditional TDs were succeeded by dedicated ATGM armored vehicles which have in turn been largely rendered obsolete by the more versatile IFVs. Heavy tanks were a dead end like casemate vehicles. Heavy tank is more a description of mobility then weight.
@@ethangellman4563 mobility cannot be the only classification. A tiger 1 tank was 60 tons with a good speed, faster than many medium tanks. The Matilda and valentine infantry tanks would likely be considered "light" by the standards of the day, but they had thick armour and in the case of the valentine, a decent gun. Clearly, classification is more complicated and possibly out of date.
Jordan Smith that’s true, also every country has different ways of doing classification which makes it even more complex
@@ethangellman4563 yes, MBT seems more of a catch all classification, than a role specific one. After all, the role of a T-72 is not really the same as the Leopard 2 or Leclerc, yet all 3 are MBTs
Reliability is also probably a factor, usually heavy weight means more stress on the drivetrain, and they tend to break a lot and need more maintenance. It’s almost impossible to find a heavy tank without engine or transmission problems
Except all modern MBTs are the weight of heavy tanks…
@@Phantom-bh5ru well engineers can design modern tanks with FEA software, which give them more accurate result of the force applied on each part, so thats why modern tanks increase tonnage while being more reliable. Plus, if anyone decide to design a heavy tank in 21th century it’s probably going to be heavier than those MBTs
@@Phantom-bh5ru by ww2 standards modern MBTS such as Abramas and Leopard2 variants they can reach up to 80 tons fully equiped which is pretty much super heavy class while still being able to reach high speeds
IS-2 didn't have engine or transmission issues but I see your point
@@Phantom-bh5ru not really. there is no set weight for heavy tanks. where the hell did you get that idea from?
technology is relative, modern MBTs are sometimes the weight classes of late ww2 heavy tanks, but our metallurgy/etc is better. we build stronger components than ww2 engineers could dream of. and our designs themselves help reduce the amount of stress and strain as a result fo shape/etc. we can build more powerful ngines and our logistical capacity is better too.
The way I see it, the mbt is a combination of both the medium and heavy, combining the best aspects of both.
Personally, I prefer the term for modern MBT's to be one coined in WOT: "Heavy-Mediums" or "Heaviums"
This was used to describe the fast heavies of the Soviet Union which are often described (and as I've personally done), played as MBTs.
Sticking with traditional WW2 descriptors:
A medium tank is a tank that should be balanced in terms of firepower, armor, and mobility.
A heavy tank is a tank that should be emphasizing armor and firepower at the cost of mobility.
A "Heavium" tank is a tank that emphasizes armor, firepower, AND mobility with little compromise for either of the three. Only restricted by logistics rather than design.
An MBT is just what it is: The (M)ain (B)attle (T)ank of a given nation. The Olefant tank of South Africa is considered an MBT... Of South Africa. What it is can be boiled down to an adaptation of a really supped-up Centurion tank, which was listed as a medium tank by the Brits.
You could make the claim that the Perishing (or Pattons of which were largely based off the Perishing) was a MBT or Medium in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. But in WW2 it was designed as a heavy tank.
"Heavium" in WOT is used to describe fast (but still armored) heavy tanks or strongly armored (but still mobile) medium tanks and in my honest opinion is a better descriptor than MBT, which should be used to describe the main service tank of a nation, which can literally be anything that fits the description of a tank.
Your not entirely wrong, as in Paraguay the M24 Chaffee and the Easy 8 Sherman are the only tanks in service, meaning that in Paraguay they could be considered MBTs(but only there). But I dunno
Something else possibly worth mentioning is that most modern MBTs are of similar weights to cold war era heavies (the 50-70 tonne range).
Curious what a heavy/ superheavy vehicle would look like in modern times, probably something like the mammoth tank from the original command and conquer but with a more sensible track and weapon layout and better shaping of the Hull but who knows.
if we are imagining something like the ratte they would probably launch missles instead of navy artillery
modern MBTS fall under ww2 category of super heavy tanks or heavy tanks at least , fully equiped abramas can reach 80 tons and leopard2a7 around 77 tons which is much more than Tiger 2
@@LordOfChaos.x Not really heavier. The Abrams Sepv3 is still 2 tons lighter than Tiger II production turret.
This is all because of confusion with metric ton, long tons and short tons.
It would have a CIWS system on the back to shoot down bombs and missiles.
Most likely it would have something like a 165mm smoothbore and a rediculous amount of composite armor…and likely would weigh like 90 tons. The most hilarious thing is that it actually wouldn’t be as underpowered as ww2 heavies cause we probably have the technology to make a 2,000 horsepower engine and a big chonkers transmission to go with it, though it would still be slow by modern standards. Issue is it would be insanely costly and therefore not worth it
1:43 first footage of one of spookston's enemies not being blind
Man, I don't think we need heavy tanks nowadays. But the WW2 heavy tanks are masterpieces they are so beautiful they are like art. I can't live without them.
Very much agreed
@@Electro3Strike hi bro I see you everywhere. 😃
@@Geniusinventor hi, lol same for you
@@Electro3Strike 😃😃
Heavy tanks are like Mechs. Expensive, slow, obsolete but man do they look cool conceptually.
hey man, i loved the Somua gameplay. I really got distracted by how good of a tank it is but all in all, great video!
Not only is the main battle tank capable of doing the jobs of the light tank, medium tank, and heavy tank, but I remember seeing somewhere that many early main battle tanks already had armor similar to or rivaling the heavy tanks that were in use during their introduction.
The modern concept of the MBT blends the protection and firepower of a heavy tank with the mobility of a medium tank, such that dividing tank concepts into those two categories isn't applicable. Just look at the Abrams, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2. In WW2 heavy tanks were hit-and-miss due to their execution, but the Tiger, KV series (and later the IS series), and the Churchill were instrumental during the war. The only major countries not to field large numbers of heavy tanks were Japan and the USA, mainly because of difficulties in shipping.
So no, I wouldn't say that heavy tanks were a dead end, they just evolved into the MBTs we know and love today.
*sigh* no it doesn't
1) there is no real difference between heavy tank and medium tank firepower
2) MBTs do not have heavy tank armour, their sides are paper thin, and if we built a heavy tank with modern technology it would have way thicker frontal armour.
3) it does not really have the mobility of medium tanks either, see limited ability to cross soft ground and bridgeing ability (and ofcaurse the mobility a tank gets from greater range)
4) all MBTs evolved from medium tank projects, not heavy tank projects. MBTs are evolved mediums not heavies.
@@matthiuskoenig3378
1) There was a significant difference, as a large gun has a large breech that needs to fit inside the turret, as well as space to store the larger ammunition. Medium tanks' guns grew larger throughout WW2, but they never matched that of contemporary heavy tanks, and to make up for it some mediums were converted into casemated designs. MBT cannons are larger even than that of heavy tanks and so have large turrets on hulls that can support it.
2) Current doctrine means tanks engage each other from long distances, frontally, and any exposure of side armor is a tactical error. Hence all the armor is on the front. By German WW2 definition this would place them as a "medium," but warfare is completely different now.
3) When did the old medium tanks ever have better mobility than modern MBTs? MBTs have better engines, tracks, snorkels, etc.
4) One could make that claim from development of the Centurion, the Panther, and the T-44, but their development incorporated lessons learned from heavy tank design as well. When MBTs came into their own they were distinct from medium tanks in both design and doctrine, and of course they did the job of heavies as well.
0:39 Cold
Yeah, I need a coat to protect myself from the Cold shells
Tell me now spookston, OPINION ON A SHERMAN BULLDOZER IN WARTHUNDER OR NOT? And reason for doing so
Waking up to a spookston video is always nice
Spookston defended himself with 2 crew while being *on fire* against 4 tanks and thought we wouldn’t notice 🥶
MBT as a role has replaced both heavies and mediums. Even their weight class no longer applies, with newer versions of the abrams weighing more than tiger 2, while lighter MBTs weigh similarly to panther tanks.
Not heavier, but close. The Abrams Sepv3 is 66 tons while the Tiger II is 68 tons. I don't know about the Sepv4 though, could be heavier.
@@darnit1944 this was a mixup between short and long tons, my mistake. Still, the weight of "impracticaly heavy" tanks is now normal
@@jordansmith4040 Short ton, long tons, metric tons, jeez so many different measurement.
@@darnit1944 yeah, there's a ton of different measurements - sorry.
what heavy tank roles do MBTs do? none. everything MBTs do medium tanks were already doing in ww2. MBTs are medium tanks.
and you can't compare weights of different generations of tanks, otherwise anything 20+ tons is a heavy tank like early ww2 heavy tanks like the char B1 heavy tank.
Heavy tanks didn't disappear. Technology simply made it so heavies and mediums became the same tank, and they are called Main Battle Tanks. A modern MBT has similar if not greater speed than a WW2 medium yet has the weight, protection and firepower of a heavy. There is little reason to deviate from the current triangle of firepower, armor and speed. You could make a tank that is faster but tanks already require governors because the are capable of speeds that are unsafe. 50 to 70 tons hitting a big bump at 60 miles an hour is terrible for the suspension and the men inside. You could give it more armor but it would be a simple matter to make a stronger anti-tank missile that can kill it. You could give it a bigger gun, but we are already pushing how large of a shell a crewman can carry and bigger shells would mean less shells carried. So, we have hit a sweet spot. The single biggest difference now is if your tank has an autoloader or not. I suspect tanks will evolve by adding higher tech countermeasures and sensors, not by being bigger, faster or getting a significantly bigger gun.
There are lighter armored pure fighting vehicles with no ability to carry infantry. They mostly exist because of their portability by air, not because their role in the field requires lighter weight.
5 months later germany is making a tank with a 130mm gun and the US is making a tank with no armor.
Perfect as always.
Lovely video
Most modern MBT's are heavy 60 tons plus and they work fine so long as they operate as combined arms with infantry, artillery and air units.
Well given the weight of some MBTs they are quite close to actually being a heavy tank.
Just with some mobility to it.
weight is relative, early ww2 heavy tanks were the weight of late ww2 medium tanks.
I find it interesting that really the only country that went from Heavies to MBTs was the US - Pershing was a heavy tank during the War, even if it started as a Medium project.
Simple: armour doesn't matter.
comparison does it all. A 30T tank can be classified heavy, when a 45t be a medium depending on what it compares to. You had this situation with the panther that was medium for germany, but heavy for the allies.
It does in real life. Don't apply video game logic with real life tactics. American tanks in Iraq being able to soak RPG and tank fire made all the difference and turned the tide of battles.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me armor isn't the main factor for a heavy tank classification, weight is. That's what he meant i believe.
@@tigerbesteverythingThat's because the Germans always like to over work their tanks. You don't need that much armor instead you could make more but no they decided they wanted big and bad the whole war and they paid for it
great video, and its nice to see some french action :) last shot was fucking sick btw
I like heavy tanks because they make me feel good about myself
True, they're very relatable to my irl physique.
@@jeremyshiu They are heavy for sure, but they are powerful and deadly.
...are you powerful and deadly tho?
@@darnit1944 my shits are powerful and deadly, does that count?
@@jeremyshiu i think you should get that checked out
Wow, I'm getting to comment sometime not 4 months on after you post a video LOL
Well presented.
This conversation is really part of a much larger discussion, which started long before gunpowder was invented. You can see this with ships, with soldiers, with vehicles and so on. And it goes far beyond the surface impression most lay people have.
Personally when talking about tanks or other armored fighting vehicles, I think it pertinent to also bring up battleships and other armored warships as there are more parallels than one would initially expect. (along with the simple fact that what happened with tanks up to the early part of the cold war, was essentially a miniaturized version of exactly what was going on in the naval sphere and even after the 50s there are still plenty of parallels and analogs)
It is the same change of terms meaning with tanks as with cars. Today MBT's grown as heavy as old heavy tanks, just like every generation of a car grows bigger and heavier. People are saying that D-segment of cars disappeared, but in reality, today compacts are as big as D segment was 20-30 years ago, and todays B is bigger than old C.
Didn't hear a word because that gameplay footage was so mesmerizing
One other thing that I haven't seen mentioned is simple manufacturing and logistics.
During the war you have multiple lines of tanks in production with different parts, manufacturing style, ammunition etc which was a logistical nightmare to support. Post-war you see that move to standardization across the board. Its alot easier the mass manufacture 1 tank that does all the required roles well enough and supply it than multiple different varients.
Mashed potatoes
Mashed potatoes
Fried Potatoe?
Potato potato
Boiled potatoes
All vaild trans poc queens above me
good video
👍
Spook can you do a breakdown/history/opinion of "light" MBTs?
With recent, uh, studies on modern armored warfare, with the prevalence of more capable man-portable AT systems and how detrimental a heavy fuel-inefficient tank is, would it be possible that lighter MBTs make a comeback? Even at the cost of Armor and survivability would the benefit in logistics (Range, Cost, etc.) now seem more beneficial? or are we going to see a new heavy tanks arms race with thicker armor, more capable ERA, and mass deployment and development of APS?
I was on Poland with you in this video I believe, or at least while you were in the Somua a couple of days ago. 07
i think that the M1A1sapv3 can be considered an heavy tank due to his weight of 66.8 tons.
For comparison the T10M weight is 50tons while the IS7 is 68 tons.
Although in the end, it comes down to role than weight. The heavies are used for breakthrough tanks (WW2) or carry heavier guns to combat other heavy tanks (Cold war).
so is the sherman a heavy tank? after all its heavier than a char B1 heavy tank.
a tank isn't a heavy tank just because its the mass of a previous generation of heavy tank.
Heavy tanks as a class may have died, but modern main tanks normally would classify as heavy tanks under the old classifications with IFVs being basically light tanks with armored fighting vehicles and scout tanks acting as mediums.
Back then tank designers had to juggle between 3 main design parameters: mobility/speed, armor, and firepower. That's why there's 3 tank categories depending what parameter you want to sacrifice: light tank with superior mobility, heavy tank with superior armor and firepower, and medium tank in the middle. MBT however managed to combine all three parameters without sacrificing any of them
Another good example of how much MBTs are just better, the T-72B T-64A/B with no ERA has around the frontal protection of a tiger II/I, while being much faster and lighter, at around 200MM RHA. With ERA on the AV or BV variants it becomes around 800-1000MM of RHA equivalency
Currently going through awful food poisoning. So nice to have something entertaining to watch while I'm dying. Your videos are so good it almost distracts me from knowing how much vomit and diarrhea I'm going to have to clean up.
Ps. If the potato is soft before you cook it THAN THROW IT AWAY!
I would add the infrastructure and logistics side of the thing as well. Heavy tanks also was prone to break due to the size and weight. Also because of their weight they couldn't be transported as easily and couldn't use certain bridges, roads and stuff. (If this side was said in the video, than I am sorry)
Ps: I like heavy tanks, but just as I like battleships, we have to accept the fact that they became unpractical after a short time.
I mean, in my view it's pretty obvious as to why.
As more powerful cannons (and rounds) came along, the need for thick armor became obsolete because rounds could penetrate either way, moving the focus away from armor and over to mobility.
nope, armour could also be scaled up.
its also just straight up wrong, the soviets didn't get rid of heavy tanks because heavy armour was obsolete the soviets got rid of heavy tanks as medium tank armour had become good enough to stop 90+% of NATO weapons (at the time), so why bother with heavy tanks and their associated costs and logistical headaches (or so the prevailing leadership's logic went. many in the army thought this was short-sighted but they didn't have the power to fully control budgets, and the counter-argument of 'we'll just make a heavier tank when the time comes' was brought up)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Refer to my section of "thick armor became obsolete", implying that heavies were becoming obsolete, because better solutions have been found.
What I said is not "just straight up wrong", because I wasn't talking about the soviets, I was talking about tank design in general.
Before APFSDS, HEATFS etc, heavy tanks were genuinely viable without TOO much drawback, as time went along, and rounds improved, different solutions had to be found for armor, and having it "too thick" would more or less be pointless, instead a good balance between the two should be found, which it has.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 bro do you feel the need to reply to every comment that disagrees with you
good video
0:57 St. Chamond isn't exactly heavily armored. in fact, it is absolutely paper thin. Renault used his handgun to test the armor of the st. chamond tank, and the bullet went straight through.
The side. It went through the side
Everyone else: Listening to Spookston
Me: Watching the satisfying gameplay 👁👄👁
The heavy tanks arn't extict it just so happen that the designation call is changed.
The heavy tanks we known now is the Main Battle Tanks.
By far the most heaviest MBT is the M1A2 Sep V3, Challanger 3 and the Leopard 2 Evolution which weight from 65 tons to 75 tons.
No, medium tanks are what we known now is the MBT. MBTs have more in common with mediums then with heavies in every category but "weight"
@@richardgaldos6901 the Medium Main Battle Tanks is basically a light Tank that weighs 35 to 42 tons such as the Kaplan MT Harimau, the MPF, ZTQ/Type-15, The CV90 120 and the ASCOD 2 MMBT
@@ryanc00p3r3 nope. those vehicles full light tank roles, not medium tank roles. thus they are light tanks. heavier light tanks, but still light tanks.
MBTs full medium tank roles, thus they are medium tanks.
nothing fulls heavy tank roles and thus nothing is a heavy tank in the modern day.
it doesn't matter what their weights are. otherwise a sherman would be a heavy tank (as it weighed more than a Char B1 heavy infantry tank)
Another thing is why produce Heavy tanks costing millions of dollars for each when one javelin costing 170k would destroy it or produce a faster lighter tank with less armor and costing way less. Both would die to an atm but one cost less and faster.
Spookston taught me more in 5 minutes than schools taught me in 5 months.
If active protection systems advance further and see wide adoption and/or tank armament improves (130-152mm or “rail gun”) I could see the use of vehicles like the EBRC Jaguar,AMX 10RC, CV 90, or even just a modernized version of the
Leopard 1/AMX 30 concept being used more. Enough armor to protect from auto cannon fire but still highly mobile. While modern MBT’s can be mobile/agile too the size/weight reductions would ease/open more options for transport (airdrop/rapid deployment, more bridges/roads available)
I find it funny how people often emphasise how heavy the tiger is, yet most mbt's weigh more. Heavy tanks never truly went extinct, it's just that medium tanks grew so much that they replaced heavy tanks almost entirely. And if you hear about the crazy armour values that mbt's are rumoured to have, it appears that those tanks still have that aspect of a heavy tank.
Weight alone isn't the main codifier of the term "Heavy". It's the role and how that role impacts what gets sacrificed and what gets featured, the fact that Heavy tanks were heavier in weight compared to medium tanks at them time is just a side effect of the mission requirements. So basically Heavy tanks are heavy in weight because their role demands it, not the other way around.
Modern western MBT's like the Abram's and Leo are heavier then the generation of tanks before them but they're role is the same so they are still MBT, not Heavy Tanks (even if they are _heavy tanks_). Of course a lot of their weight bloat is do to just kinda coming in at an odd time where armor, sensor and computer tech kinda exploded in advancement so they kept getting upgraded with newer, more powerful, and heavier kit.
'heavy' is relative to the logistical and transport capability of the period [and the power of engines you put into tanks], its not about absolute weight. its also about the doctrinal role.
all MBTs can be transported by air (by C-17s), most light tanks were too heavy for similar transportation in ww2 let alone medium or heavy tanks. and most MBTs have power-to-weight ratios closer to ww2 medium and light tanks.
and most importanly no MBT fulls the doctrinal role of a heavy tank.
MBTs basically share nothing in common with heavy tanks except ground pressure (on the heaviest MBTs) and non-military bridge crossing.
heavy tanks disappeared because their doctrinal role disapeared.
edit: you think MBTs have heavy armour? if we were to build an actual heavy tank with modern technology it would make MBTs look like lightly armoured.
@@TheRyujinLP note how the tank is called main battle tank, not medium. They were effectively both a replacement for the previous medium and heavy tanks. Even in function, mbt's are meant as a replacement of both heavy and medium tanks.
Even between mbt's there is quite a mobility difference. Challenger 2 can reach about 55kmh, while the armata travels closer to 90. This is a bigger mobility difference then between the tiger and the pz4.
Just came home to see this I’m home with a smile
TBH, I don't think the classifications ever whent away. I think we are seeing the re-emergence of the light tank right now. BMPT's and AFV's are moving rapidly towards roles similar to light tanks. The army is currently working on a treaded AFV with a 50 mm cannon..
Could you make a video on the idea of "Black hole BRs" examples would be like 6.7 can't be upteired to 7.7 only to 7.0 to prevent ww2 tanks from fighting heat-fs and ap-ds? Do you think this would be a good idea?
I find it ironic MBTs weight has nothing to do with them being a class of heavy tank. But the entire point of classes was based on weight to begin with.
Because that just makes sense.
no they weren't. a heavy tank was not a heavy tank because it was heavy, but because it had a heavier logistical strain than medium tanks.
the whole heavy-medium-light triangle comes from ww1. the main difference was medium and light tanks had to be logistically light enough to be supplied by stuff that could easily cross no mans land. while heavy tanks could not be.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Even if we used this logic tanks like the Abrams, Challenger, and Leopard all require large logistical trains to utilize because of their speed, high fuel consumption by weight, and proceeding maintenance requirements.
So either way you only proved me more correct.
The entire point of the classes was they had different jobs. Light tanks were primarily used as scouts, so mobility was the primary concern. Thus, weight was reduced as much as possible while still offering some protection and firepower.
Heavy tanks were designed to punch holes in enemy defenses. Thus, armor and was the primary concern. Thus, as much armor was added as possible so that the heavy tanks could absorb as much damage as possible while still being a threat. This added armor made them heavy, hence the name "heavy tank".
Medium tanks were designed to be the primary tank. They were designed to fight massive tank battles in open fields as well as supporting infantry and smashing through enemy lines to cause as much damage as possible. Thus, a balance was needed. They needed more armor than light tanks, but couldn't afford the strain a heavy tank's armor would put on the engine and transmission. This made them heavier than light tanks, but also lighter than heavy tanks. Hence the name.
Just imagine if Khrushchev waited one more year to axe the heavies. We would have junkyards full object 279s
First tank I see when I think about tanks is the Panzer 4 Ausf. H … but it kinda looks like a tiger.
Really? You don’t think of a modern tank? First one that I see in my mind is an Abrams.
“Why heavy tanks are a bad idea”
The thumbnail has a super heavy tank
Could you make a Video about the current T-72 (Turms) flood? I can't even play my Leopard 2K right now because the games are floodet with them and I can't do anything against them with my HEAT.
And do you think that the 2K should be 9.3 or even 9.0 because of the lack of armor and no thermal vision?
T-54/55, M60, Leopard 1, T-34/85, and M4 are the most TANK tanks in that they epitomize the role and function of tanks in modern mechanized warfare and are arguably the basis of most modern tank design and doctrine
Sherman is crap
@@destroyerarmor2846 On paper yes but the real draw of the sherman is how good it was in logistical terms
Don't forget the Panther.
Zorro9129 Pershing was a better Panther then the Panther
@@cursedcliff7562 Well, that and how easy it was to ship across the Atlantic. Something like the Tiger would have been a nightmare if it was even possible.
It was also reliable as frick (compared to other tanks of the time) and could be repaired quickly by its own crews. Germany's heavier tanks required specialized equipment used by specialized crews and took forever by comparison.
There was also crew survivability. Since American factories could churn them out like crazy, it made more sense to simply give good, experienced crews new tanks than to let them get killed and replaced by a crew that had no idea what they were doing.
Compare that to the Germans and Soviets. The former didn't have enough resources for that luxury and the latter didn't have enough time to make the T-34 "survivable" by the time the Germans were already outside Moscow.
My favorite type of tank is MBT and medium as they are technically the same in some areas
Tanks are a mobile cannon. It's best to remember this. The big part being mobile. Reliability is also vastly necessary. You want your gun to be there and work.
they had trouble crossing most bridges
that explains many things about it.
my idea was most nations after ww2 realized that, in the presence of heat and apds ammos, creating armor that can withstand them would be way too heavy. and that they are more effective with mobile tanks rather thank slow moving steel boxes. mobility and concealment is more important than armor in WT as well imo.
Ever tried playing dcs?
Now make a video about how a modern heavy tank would look like, just for the fun of it
My guy when I'm done with my school I'm going into the army and hoping to be a tanker and I want armor so I don't get blown to bits like flesh confetti
I must not be average, the first thing that came to mind when you said "tank" was the Maus...
I think most people who do not know anything about tanks or military would think of a t-62 or t-54 style design with a round turret. That or something modern.
Just as I thought, same general idea as battleships. Battleships were too slow and costly that most other ships, such as cruisers and destroyers, could match their firepower and strength while being more mobile and less expensive than the battleship. So, over time, battleships became obsolete
Also carriers and aircraft.
It wasn't those ships that made battleships obsolete. While those ships improved, so did battleships.
What made them obsolete were aircraft carriers. A big group of dive bombers and torpedo planes could effectively sink a battleship while putting fewer people and less metal and fuel at risk and can sink said battleship at a longer range than another battleship and without putting the carrier in danger. Carriers also had the advantage of sending out scout planes, meaning the carrier group can search a vast area fairly quickly. The only reliable defense a battleship had against a carrier was to have a friendly carrier nearby.
"when people think of a tank they probably think about--"
Im gonna stop you right there and say hello to the bob semple
Could you explain what you mean by medium tanks being good at "marauding"? What is marauding?
Evolving air power turned the slow lumbering heavy tank into a 1-shot kill.
While admittedly it is mostly semantics, I disagree slightly with your remarks about "heavy" tanks disappearing in the 1950s. Improvements in power output from relatively small engines made it possible for heavy tanks to be developed without the handicap of extremely poor mobility. I would argue that the "heavy tank" prevailed with virtually every tank building nation, and was simply renamed the main battle tank. I think it was the "medium tank" concept that disappeared. If one looks at the weight of an Abrams, Challenger, Leopard II, or Merkava, they are all in the 65-75 ton class, which is heavier than most "heavy tanks" from the 1940-1950 time frame. For example, the 45 ton M26 Pershing was regarded as a heavy tank when it entered service in 1945.
First, the M26 was classified as Heavy because of morale, second, I agree most of the first things you said except the medium concept disappearing. It did not, the "Medium tank" role is place on the MBT, the weight, armor and armament of the MBTs are comparable to "Heavy tanks" but their role on the field is different, MBTs served as a tank like the Sherman, used to support what it needed to support and add very much needed firepower.
@@agentkaos1768 Yeah...like I said...it's kind of semantics. If you define "medium tank" by role rather than weight, you are 100% correct, the MBT is today's medium tank. If you define "medium tank" by weight, then the medium tank no longer exists, we only have light tanks and heavy tanks. The truth is, none of the terms "light, medium, heavy" is particularly useful since it has always been kind of arbitrary and with a lot of overlap. Hence nowadays we have the MBT and "light" tanks, which are kind of rare and seldom used in most conflicts.
@@johnshaft5613 I agree on all points, it's really just semantics but most people will hear just heavy and think it's about weight, armor and armaments disregarding the role and the usual job this role of the old weight classifications.
Why not a heavy tank with lots of thick ERA
When I think of a tank I think of a MBT like the Abrams and Leopards
I think the main reason is that aircraft can simply destroy a slow heavy target with relative ease, just like how the Maus would've been practically large. And dont forget a giant behemoth of a tank is only as good as long as its tracks and engine parts will take it
I mean some Colonel in the British Army was talking about emplacements/pillboxes
He said "they pin down a lot of resources, and achieve the square root of f**k all"
They arent mobile, which in my opinion would be their main failing
I'm sorry did you say the survivability onion?
My personal opinion is that a modern heavy tank (with 360 degree active and passive protection against shaped charged warheads, a V shaped hull for dealing with IED’s, ERA on the roof, and thorough protection from APDSFS from the frontal 60 degree arc) that is around 80 tons and with a 1,800hp engine would be exponentially more effective than main battle tanks in urban combat. Although they would not be immune to air strikes and other forms of heavy directed attacks, they would extremely intimidating to infantry and other non specialized tank destroying vehicles and require much more effort to knock out. Your average Joe can easily knock out two 4 million dollar main battle tanks with two RPG-29’s, while a squad of average Joe’s isn’t going to really be able to do anything against a 8 million dollar modern heavy tank.
We ended up in a round together again. Seems to happen a lot.
cannon tech evolved faster than armor tech, thats it
In Britain and in France they didn't only class the tanks as light, medium and heavy, but there where also infantry tanks, heavy infantry tanks, cruisers, cavalry tanks and Char de Battaile, battle tank/breakthrough tank (Char B1). And I don't think MBT's evolved out of medium tanks, but out of a combination of all tank classes.
but they didn't evolve out of a combination of all classes. they evolved from medium tank projects to do medium tank roles.
and FYI by 1945 both the french and the british used the light, medium and heavy trio of classifications. and then later dropped the heavies and called their mediums MBTs.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 The Cruiser and Infantry tanks where not classified as light or medium. They had light tanks, but these had different roles, such as the Light VI.
How does tank classifications work
It is arbitrary.
The best form personally is the german WW2 era weight classification with the consideration of tankettes: 0-5 tons is a tankette, 5-25 is a light, 25-50 is a medium, 50-100 is a heavy and anything over 100 is a super heavy but some vehicles do dance around that subject like the panther and a lot of modern vehicles but it gives you a good idea.
@@cmsIGauffahrgestellPanzerkampf thats incorrect (and only 1943-45, not the whole war, they didn't have hard numbers prior to that, because hard numbers are moslty pointless. the system was only created in an attempt to coordinate tank design better)
its 5-10 tons is tankette (kleinpanzer in german)
10-25 tons is light tank
25-50 tons is light medium
50-75 tons is heavy medium
75-100 tons is heavy
100+ is super heavy
there is no other hard system other than this.
heavy tanks are probably just as vulnerable as medium tanks are. With the increased penetration of HEAT and APFSDS, armor placement is actually more important than all around armor.
Frontal arc protection became the mainstay resulting in MBTs which are heavvy medium tanks in general. The size of a heavy tank, with medium tank protection at the sides and with a heavy tank's frontal protection. It is the optimization of decades of tank design and operational experience.
That however is still evolving as now the top armor is the main target of new ATGM technologies. This is where unmanned or crew less turret designs will bring about the new "heavy" or new MBT in the future
Bulletproof box can be destroyed by so many things you might as well make it fast and reliable.
when someone say tank i remember for the object 906
Yep. Pretty accurate, it was more than just chemical rounds. Doctrine, tactics and the sheer weight needed to armor against new chemical ammunition compounded to make MBT’s more appealing overall.
Especially since any heavy tank thick enough to block an rpg 7+ on the front and sides, is probably going to be too thicc to take advantage of a break through
What’s the vehicle being used in this gameplay?
So medium Tanks became MBTs and heavies learned to fly and became helicopters?
1) Medium tanks are sufficient and are less costly and cumbersome.
2) Heavy tanks are a bitch to repair when they break down
3) Heavy tanks are a bitch to drive in city streets.
Heavy tank is a bitch to modern anti tank weapons.
The best protection nowadays is simply not getting hit in the first place.
@@darnit1944 the best protection was always not getting hit, and the best way of doing that is to shoot first. the best defense is a good FCS