Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How would you design a WWII SUPER-HEAVY tank?

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

  • How would you design a WWII SUPER-HEAVY tank?

    Not sure if it's an interesting question, but here's a follow-up:

    [insert mad leader of choice] has given you the task to design a glorious super-heavy tank, to be the crowning jewel for the armoured forces.

    Let's say it's 1942. Your wonderful leader expects the tank to be an absolute monstrosity: proof of fire in every direction and carrying the most powerful armament possible -- price and production is not an issue, neither does he care about the tactical need for such a tank; it's more of his personal toy than anything. Your task is to design a tank that live up to expectations as close as possible but still be practical enough to be worthy of being produced (and not be damned by logistical support/mechanics having to maintain the damn thing).

    Your country is watching you. Shoot.

  • #2
    It'd end up looking a lot like this:



    8" frontal hull armor sloped such that it's close to 15" thick as a surface, 11 - 12" of turret face armor, the sides are 4 - 5" thick. It totes a 105mm to 120mm gun that will blow any tank on the battlefield away at well over 1500 yards and take on most tanks at 3000 +. It'll kill a Tiger II and the Tiger II can't even penetrate the front of it pointblank with that puny 88 it has. The gun also fires a highly effective HE round and can fire a HEAT round that works well enough that if you can hit a target at whatever range it gets penetrated.

    It has a reasonably low ground pressure and sufficient automotive performance to do 20 mph on level ground. Weighing in at around 75 to 80 tons, it will dominate any battlefield. The reliability is reasonably good. It's one drawback is relatively short range as it is a fuel hog big time.

    Comment


    • #3
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        See the source image


        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  maxresdefault.jpg
                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A M6A2E1 type of tank may be feasible, but if the USA couldn't make the M26 reliable in 45, I doubt anything heavier would be reliable either.

                    https://i.imgur.com/jkJoMMZ.jpg
                    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Realistically the T29/T34 was the most viable (though those tanks had disproportionately weak hull armor and were underpowered). My favorite concept is the T32, preferably upgunned to carry a 105mm T5 as was on the T29.



                      This tank had better armor than the T29, was almost 11 tons lighter, and had a better engine with a lower profile. Furthermore, it was already available in prototype form in 1945.

                      The only drawback in this case is that its relatively low combat weight excludes it from being called a "super heavy."
                      Frontally, the armor profile of the T32E1 was:

                      - 298mm turret face
                      - UFP- 127mm at 58 degrees (240mm effective)
                      - LFP - 95.25mm at 59 degrees (185mm effective)

                      This is protection comparable with the Soviet T-10 heavy tank, all at about the same weight and with a higher specific power ratio.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I would rather start with an IS III and work from there.

                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          I would rather start with an IS III and work from there.

                          Then you're going to miss the war.
                          Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                          Prayers.

                          BoRG

                          http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Salinator View Post

                            Then you're going to miss the war.
                            Story of my life...
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Pah!!! The above all pathetic single gun, single turret mundane monstrosities from klout-kuckooland. Using available 1942 tech we start with the ingenious US M3 medium tank (Grant model). Single gun/turret tanks lacked imagination back in the war as they do today.

                              Widen and lengthen the hull. Add 2 x 17pdr AT guns in sponsons to the left and right front, 60 degrees of traverse to the outside, 30 degrees traverse to the inside (across the front arc). Add gyrostabilizers and stolen IR tech from the Germans

                              Centre front are 4 x .50 cal machine guns fired by the driver, 45 degrees of traverse as well as +30 degrees elevation, - 15 degrees depression.

                              Two turrets, in line rather than side by side, for and aft each mount a pair of 6 pdr AT guns fed by five round magazines, with co-axial dual.30 cal and a sub-turret with 20mm Oerlikon AA guns. Behind each turret are a trio of 3 in mortars with quick load feed tracks capable of adjusting range from 50 to 1500 meters. Add gyrostabilizers, etc.

                              Between the two 6 pdr turrets is a third AA turret mounting dual 40mm Bofors, coaxial to each 40mm is a pair of .50 cal; also has a single 20mm AA gun in a sub turret. Again,... add gyrostabilizers as needed.

                              Along each side is are two sets dual .30 cal machine guns in blister turrets capable of 80 degrees field of fire. Two AP mine/grenade dispensers/launchers also mounted along side hull.

                              Increase armour (300 mm sloped at 30 degrees to avoid issues of crew comfort), engines (diesel submarine,.. 2, 3 4, in pairs...whatever) and structure as required to deal with enemy tanks forecast through 1946. Top road speed to be 30 mph (50 kph), cross country speed 22-25 mph (35-40 kph), capable of climbing 40 degree slope and fording rivers up to 20 meters in depth. Ground pressure should not exceed that of a duck billed platypus or you average snowshoe Rabbit.

                              Internal stowage space for spare parts, ammunition, tools, built in crane, food, water, medical supplies, air and water purifiers.

                              Add trailer hitch to pull armoured trailer with 2 x spares, etc as above.

                              Design upgrades to be undertaken every 12 months with productions changes as required. Deploy by May 42 in time for Gazala battle. Berlin should fall in Sept (via Turkey, of course).

                              Can leap tall buildings and is more powerful than,... well,... let's face it, no locomotive would stand a chance.

                              This is a tank for all needs.

                              (sigh) If only I was in charge. (sigh)

                              The Purist

                              Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X