Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Largest tank ever to be deployed?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Largest tank ever to be deployed?

    It was the French Char 2C as far as I know.


    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Hell of a nice picture, thanks for putting that up!

    I think the T-35 has that beat, and not just in tonnage, but volume as well.

    And what about that giant tank that the USMC had back in the 1950s, the monster with the 120mm gun?
    Last edited by The Exorcist; 04 Nov 07, 12:35.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Exorcist View Post

      And what about that giant tank that the USMC had back in the 1950s, the monster with the 120mm gun?
      Never heard about it...

      "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
      --Frederick II, King of Prussia

      Comment


      • #4
        T-35/Char 2C

        Just to give people a comparison between the two tanks in question!

        T-35

        Weight 45 tonnes
        Length 9.72 m
        Width 3.20 m
        Height 3.43 m
        Crew 11



        Char 2C

        Weight 69 metric tons
        Length 10.27 m
        Width 3 m
        Height 4.09 m
        Crew 12

        "In modern war... you will die like a dog for no good reason."
        Ernest Hemingway.

        Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?

        Comment


        • #5
          The French tank must have been slow as hell but that was probably a good thing because as far as I know it didn't have any suspension-only rigid rollers. Higher speed could have injured the crew.

          "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
          --Frederick II, King of Prussia

          Comment


          • #6
            Char 2 was 69 tons?!?
            I guess its a winner, Tiger IIs only weighed 68!
            Last edited by The Exorcist; 04 Nov 07, 16:25.

            Comment


            • #7
              A crew of 12?
              I see 4 gun stations plus a turret large enough for three. Add to that a driver and a mechanic, and I have to wonder where teh other three men sat...

              any information on the armor thickness on those beasts?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                any information on the armor thickness on those beasts?
                Of course boiler plate thickness meaning armor piercing .50 cal rounds could penetrate a variety of places. Because the volume of the hull is so enormous all you can do is install armor that protects from shell splinters. Anything thicker will immobilize the tank due to the weight. T-35 was very easy to penetrate as well.

                The French tank is so enormous it could be probably converted to an inhabitable, trailer-like domicile.
                Last edited by MonsterZero; 04 Nov 07, 20:41.

                "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                  Char 2 was 69 tons?!?
                  I guess its a winner, Tiger IIs only weighed 68!
                  Ummm

                  Maus is larger, or anyone of the modern era tanks weighs more. Look at the latest versions of the M1 for real heavy tanks. For volume check out the size of a Bradley or an M60.
                  Winnie says
                  ---------------------------------
                  "He fell out of a Gestapo car, over a bridge, and onto a railway line. Then was run over by the Berlin Express.

                  It was an Accident."
                  Herr Flick.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                    Hell of a nice picture, thanks for putting that up!

                    I think the T-35 has that beat, and not just in tonnage, but volume as well.

                    And what about that giant tank that the USMC had back in the 1950s, the monster with the 120mm gun?
                    Could you be talking about the T28/95 experimental tank?
                    "You can tell a lot about a fella's character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful." -explaining why Reagan liked to have a jar of jelly beans on hand for important meetings

                    CO for 1st S.INC Shock Security Troop

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Not quite as heavy

                      Originally posted by Exorcist View Post
                      Hell of a nice picture, thanks for putting that up!

                      I think the T-35 has that beat, and not just in tonnage, but volume as well.

                      And what about that giant tank that the USMC had back in the 1950s, the monster with the 120mm gun?
                      M103 Heavy Tank

                      http://battletanks.com/m103_heavy_t_.htm

                      What about the British heavy, "Conqueror"? Conqueror Heavy Gun Tank (FV. 214)
                      Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                      Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        While we're sharing M103 links...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yeah, that was the one, the M-103

                          Awfuly damn big... and I heard about that gun. On the range, they would fire it at an old Sherman, and the round went in the front, blew teh entire engine out the backside, the shell went on to the hill behind the tank and then exploded.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In one side and out the other . . .

                            I don't doubt it. But I got to thinking after I posted that, struggling with separate-loading ammo in the middle of a tank duel had to a questionable idea.
                            Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

                            Questions about our site? See the FAQ.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There were some M103s at Fort Knox when I was there back in the 70s. I don't recall them being all that big, altho' they were larger than the M60s we had in those days. I think the comment that these giant tanks are comparable to today's modern tanks is spot on.

                              How about the PzKw V and VI that the Germans didn't buy in mass, but used the prototypes in Norway in 1940? The so-called Naubaufahrzeug NbFz.A/B (PzKw V/VI) experimental 'land battleship'. See them at http://www.achtungpanzer.com/neu.htm (towards the bottom of the page). At about 25 tons, they're a little lighter than these other tanks, but still impressive.
                              Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                              Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                              "Never pet a burning dog."

                              RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                              http://www.mormon.org
                              http://www.sca.org
                              http://www.scv.org/
                              http://www.scouting.org/

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X