Why Heavy Tanks Are A Bad Idea

[@Spookston]

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.

[@Theanimeisforme]

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.

[@Spookston]

@@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.

[@Theanimeisforme]

@@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.

[@vikingsoftomorrow4038]

@@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

[@Frenchfrys17]

@@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.

[@CN7810-X]

ok but they look cool and i can't imagine this world without them.

[@Shadow-yq8wg]

they look cool LOL

[@CN7810-X]

@@Shadow-yq8wg ok

[@juliannestingray5948]

knew it's sarcasm but we're already lived in that world

[@Gloverfield]

@@Shadow-yq8wg yes they do!

[@technopriest6708]

Absolutely

[@n147258noah]

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.

[@MaxRavenclaw]

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.

[@jockc0ck]

Well said

[@LeMeowAu]

@@MaxRavenclaw and dogshit sides and paper thin rears

[@horus228]

@@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.

[@gibthegrey2214]

@@LeMeowAu 90% of the time you've got someone watching your rear

[@KingTigerGuy]

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.

[@kajmak64bit76]

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

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

@@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?

[@kajmak64bit76]

@@MichaelDavis-mk4me heavy armor usually equals to armor and weight tho

[@marcogenovesi8570]

@@MichaelDavis-mk4me didn't you watch the video? Heavy tanks have better armor but same guns than medium

[@marcogenovesi8570]

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.

[@shortfuse4138]

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

[@Phantom-bh5ru]

Except all modern MBTs are the weight of heavy tanks…

[@shortfuse4138]

@@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

[@LordOfChaos.x]

@@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

[@VKK-cr1uk]

IS-2 didn't have engine or transmission issues but I see your point

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@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.

[@anthonysantilo928]

The way I see it, the mbt is a combination of both the medium and heavy, combining the best aspects of both.

[@pogchamp6459]

Tell me now spookston, OPINION ON A SHERMAN BULLDOZER IN WARTHUNDER OR NOT? And reason for doing so

[@ImWallace799]

1:43 first footage of one of spookston's enemies not being blind

[@andyfriederichsen]

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.

[@Elthenar]

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.

[@hyperdimensionbliss]

Simple: armour doesn't matter.

[@tigerbesteverything]

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.

[@MichaelDavis-mk4me]

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.

[@tigerbesteverything]

@@MichaelDavis-mk4me armor isn't the main factor for a heavy tank classification, weight is. That's what he meant i believe.

[@Daedae-yo9ow]

​@@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

[@BiohazardPL]

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.

[@digitaal_boog]

0:39 Cold

[@Snivy_Films]

Yeah, I need a coat to protect myself from the Cold shells

[@Jezza_One]

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.

[@RedShocktrooperRST]

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.

[@Shore1985]

Well given the weight of some MBTs they are quite close to actually being a heavy tank. Just with some mobility to it.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

weight is relative, early ww2 heavy tanks were the weight of late ww2 medium tanks.

[@ryanc00p3r3]

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.

[@richardgaldos6901]

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"

[@ryanc00p3r3]

@@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

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@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)

[@theduke7539]

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.

[@whyjnot420]

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)

[@benwebb3705]

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.

[@Matt.71]

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

[@vaultboye]

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.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

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)

[@vaultboye]

​@@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.

[@daysofthunder6110]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 bro do you feel the need to reply to every comment that disagrees with you

[@curtisbrown547]

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..

[@alphateam3326]

“Why heavy tanks are a bad idea” The thumbnail has a super heavy tank

[@nedreiss5639]

Why not a heavy tank with lots of thick ERA

[@Frenchfrys17]

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.

[@michael-kx5hy]

How does tank classifications work

[@jintsuubest9331]

It is arbitrary.

[@cmsIGauffahrgestellPanzerkampf]

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.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@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.

[@bryankohn8545]

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

[@matthewowens455]

Heavy tank: shit they got a medium and a heavy. We’re fucked

[@62growupon]

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!

[@josephcraig2702]

I'm sorry did you say the survivability onion?

[@Wastelandman7000]

Wow, I'm getting to comment sometime not 4 months on after you post a video LOL

[@edxcal84]

We ended up in a round together again. Seems to happen a lot.

[@spacecase13]

I must not be average, the first thing that came to mind when you said "tank" was the Maus...

[@bjrneirikstrkersen1021]

Its a better understanding of what leads to the tank and its crew surviving and being able to carry out their mission that leads to the modern tanks. First of all, there's the protection onion, where not being penetrated and not being killed are the innermost layers - the last resorts if all else fails. Not being shot at or hit are far more important. Second part is that no matter how big and well protected a tank is, there will be a weapon that will render it useless. Basically, as soon as nukes were developed, there became a threshold of how much protection it was necessary to put on a tank. And thats just the last resort weapon - many other weapon systems exists that can ruin any tank. And finally, economics. The larger and heavier a tank is, the more expensive it is to make, maintain, repair and fuel, limiting its effectiveness. Not to mention that they have to be able to actually move in mud, on sand or frozen waters without getting stuck. Modern tanks are just the natural development of the technological limitations imposed upon them by the world.

[@BOTmaster15]

I guess tank design will change after what is going on in Ukraine. Javelin launcher doesnt give sh*t about t72 or t80. I wonder if there will be anything more than light tanks.

[@pirotechnika3914]

I don't think of tigers or sth like that ,but yeah I still think of iron giants .

[@fallen_saint6939]

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?

[@Papa_Nurgle]

Perfect as always.

[@victorrassnoff7351]

Another great video. All historians can admit that heavy tanks are the coolest

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

naa. light tanks are the coolest

[@victorrassnoff7351]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 True for me its the M 18 hellcat

[@connorgormly3236]

Design a modern heavy tank something that would be unstoppable and carry an unstoppable weapon with a larger but not unusable sacrifice to speed when compared to modern MBT’s

[@racismceo797]

Great idea

[@jenniferstewarts4851]

Its strange, while no, most MBT's are not "Heavies" there are actually a few that are. An example is the M1, the base M1 is an MBT... But, later versions with added on armor to the front, sides, turret, longer main gun, shifting from a 105 to a 120. And we see something different, where it does sacrafice some of its speed for enhanced protection packages. then you get the Merkava. Its designed to do the job of a heavy, to take hits head on. Its job is to do the break through, to draw the fire, to defeate missiles with the trophy system, and fix the enemy... then the "lighter" IFV's and hunter vehicles will moves for flanking shots. The US does the same thing at times with the M1's, using Bradley IFV's as the light tanks, especially in the US marine expeditionary force. This kind of combat becomes critical when air support is simply unavailable, which happened alot during the 1st and 2nd iraq wars. Sand storms, oil fires, etc, blocked helicopters and jets.

[@romainvicta2742]

Just came home to see this I’m home with a smile

[@DUODUDE8]

I will admit, I took the M109 in top tier US and took more punishment then my abrams ever has and survived

[@falk.r.h8963]

firpower and mobility has always been a better combo than armor and firepower

[@whateverprecisely]

I love the survivability onion

[@NYG5]

I figured they were too slow and vulnerable to aircraft too, as well as being slow and clumsy in any situation where infantry could get close.

[@_draco_7300]

Heavy tanks are equivalent of a absolutely badass looking armour with horribly shitty stats

[@vladcadar8557]

good video 👍

[@derteekessel]

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?

[@mozuesolympian2988]

This one I completely agree with playing the American heavies at 7.0 or 7.9 shows this well

[@FontaineLovers]

now this is some funny looking tank

[@oceanhome2023]

Tanks are going the way of the Battleship Extinct !

[@guiheathnope9765]

With the doctrine combined arms warfare of Germanie lot of Heavy Tanks were destroyed in France and Russia by air force or artillery hence the presence of radio on all the German tanks especially the captures.

[@ricolives1166]

But but but I love my tigers. Give us artillery for maximum fun

[@ZETH_27]

I think the title should be rephrased as: Why Heavy Tanks Are No Longer A Good Idea.

[@7gmeister]

I mean, most modern MBTs weigh more than heavy tanks anyways.. Namely the Abrams which is in the 70 tons range while a tiger 1 was only 57 tons which is probably lighter than the original Abrams. Most Western tanks are over 60 tons while the Russians have managed to keep there’s under 50 most of the time

[@modest_spice6083]

Most modern MBTs also have power plants that can support that weight, while the German heavy tanks absolutely can't. Also, heavy tanks in WW2 are more of breakthrough tanks able to destroy defensive areas while shrugging off fire, while medium and light tanks are more of the exploitation type designed to widen a gap. It was usual to see exploitation tanks not being able to contend one on one with a breakthrough tank in the initial phases of the war, but the latter became increasingly more obsolete as power plants, armor and gun technology enabled medium tanks to effectively destroy heavy tanks. To this logic, MBTs were the the successors of those medium tanks who gained enough firepower to kill heavy tanks. And to supplement that logic, weight is only a part of why WW2 tanks are heavy or not, their role is as much of a distinction as well. The Centurion for example, the world's first MBT, is first called the universal tank because it merges the role of a breakthrough and exploitation tank, and no, it was not derived from the British infantry tanks which are their version of heavy, breakthrough tanks, but it was derived from their cruiser tank designs, their exploitation tanks.

[@7gmeister]

@@modest_spice6083but that’s not necessarily true. While, yes they do have more power one of the reasons cited for the retirement of the Abrams is because it’s getting too heavy and the Russian MBTs especially the T-90 are considered under powered and it’s one of their biggest flaws. I can’t comment on European ranks because I don’t know a whole lot about them accept that they got creamed by drones and mines pretty quickly in Ukraine. Weight is weight at the end of the day and the amount of horsepower you have isn’t going to help you when you’re sinking in the mud. I’m not slamming MBTs for weight. I’m just saying your argument has flaws and back to my original comment that basically MBTs accomplished accidentally what heavy tanks were trying to achieve on purpose. They are far more effective that the German heavy tanks and for that matter apparently none of the American ones were all that great either for various reasons we couldn’t seem to get it right until the M-60 just went way past being obsolete

[@modest_spice6083]

@@7gmeisterLol no. Abrams isn't being retired. Not sure where you got that news, but certainly not from official government sources. In fact, the next generation Abrams tank is being developed as of now, albeit you are right in one account that it is being lightened. Also, if you are putting vehicles directly through the mud in a warzone, you'd be a dolt. We've all seen the footages of Russian and Ukrainian armor being savaged while disabled in the mud or even in uneven terrain, and it doesn't matter if it's an MBT or a scout vehicle. Key knowledge is, don't get your equipment stuck somewhere your enemy can see. And for the record, the medium tanks at the end of WW2 have ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED what heavy tanks were aiming for, which is survivability AND the ability to destroy fortified positions. Hence why MBTs were derived from medium tanks, while heavy tanks became obsolete.

[@henrique2456]

1:44 - 2:00 rare footage of French bias

[@grantmccoy6739]

I don't think heavy tanks are worthless, and I don't think that heat is effective against them. I honestly think it's a gentlemans agreement that they don't want tanks to keep getting bigger to the point where nothing can destroy them. It's pretty loose, but what else would it be? Logistics? Or weapons technology is just too good? Maybe it's just too difficult to repair or scuttle a heavy tank in the battlefield? Imagine a heavy tank that is basically indestructible, and it gets trapped and abandoned by it's crew. Now the enemy has a heavy tank that you can't destroy. It's basically a understanding that becoming too powerful is too dangerous. Besides, nuclear weapons basically make them redundant anyways. Just my 2 cents honestly. I don't know if there is any one reason.

[@fukyu5290]

Bruh... what are you like 12 years old?

[@mansikkamies9146]

Cool but heat does not care about how you feel

[@stijnVDA1994]

I also think defence strategies became different as a whole, look at for example the vietnam war: most of the war was either being fought on foot or in the air thus the tanks were not in their element and so not really used in real offence because there wasn't really any forts that required it nor any other tanks..

[@alexandergeorge2063]

Okay sure, but what about SUPER-heavy tanks?

[@darnit1944]

If logistics and practicality allows it, sure.

[@utchiaRaven]

Just to point out yes your are right but is not a bit wrong sens new mobil heavy artillery is coming back in to fashion and also sens the period is shifting to heavy-duty personality carrier

[@Mazzymight]

day 1 of asking Spookston to play the su76m

[@HEATSEEKR]

What I'm hearing is, "why the T95 is based"

[@TheMumbles]

T4 hvap and m3 apcr rounds were not the same round*

[@huaquansphere5512]

Most heavy tanks in the 50s were either impractical, expensive as hell or had reliability issues.

[@nateriver5936]

tiger just look so dam beautiful..

[@footballbasketball182hi5]

Nah it looks like a cardboard box

[@someonestolemyname]

Just like how naval people mourning the loss of battleships.

[@AevisPrime]

Why heavy tanks are *now* a bad idea. Early on, they served a legitimate purpose while armoured doctrine was still seperate from infantry.

[@calebdean2440]

Did heavy tanks actually go away or do we just call them MBTs now? The Nato MBTs all weigh more than the heavy tanks they replaced. I would argue that MBTs took over the majority of medium-heavy tanks and than IFVs have taken over the roll of light-medium tanks. So much like the idea if a tank destroyer, the classification of light, medium, heavy tanks has all but gone away and now we just have IFVs and MBTs

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

MBTs don't do heavy tank roles, only medium tank (and rarely light tank) roles. its not a heavy tank in the slightest. "but weight" so is the sherman a heavy tank? it weighs more than a char B1 heavy infantry it replaced in the french army? ofcaurse not. you can't compare the weights of previous generations of tanks.

[@edi9892]

Technically, the Abrams is a heavy tank, but also an MBT... Nearly the entire turret is heavily armoured and it's heavier than a king tiger...

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

so? the sherman was heavier than a char B1. does that make a sherman a heavy tank? nope. a tank is not a heavy tank just because it weighs as much as an earlier generation heavy tank.

[@foxymetroid]

It's heavy, but it's not a "heavy tank". Since WWII tank designations had more to do with the tank's intended role than their weight (heavy tanks were heavy because the job called for more armor, medium tanks were lighter because the job called for more reliability and mobility, etc.), it's closer to being a "pretty heavy medium tank".

[@edi9892]

@@foxymetroid You're right. My main point was that it weighs more than other MBTs, or more than many designated heavy tanks. Ironically, when you look at Tiger II for instance, it clearly prioritises certain armour elements, similar to most modern MBTs, whereas Abrams and Merkava are more similar to earlier heavy tanks in that they offer more protection all around. This clearly stems from their intended role where e.g. German and Soviet tanks expected long range field battles, but also put a limit to weight for multiple reasons. Some other MBTs do significantly better in urban combat although no tank is truly up to the task...

[@foxymetroid]

@@edi9892 For urban areas, little has actually changed from WWII. How successful a tank is in a city boils down to how well it's supported. Modern tanks are getting creamed in cities primarily because they aren't being well supported by the infantry. Back then, tanks that weren't well supported in cities could expect a fairly short life expectancy too. A poor tank with great support will fair far better than an amazing tank with poor support. It's just the nature of battle.

[@blitzy1273]

Poor heavies 😔

[@MrLeovdmeer]

They just changed the name from " heavy tank" to " main battle tank" Because there are no other tanks around.

[@foxymetroid]

Or they changed the names because the names became meaningless. And MBTs are basically medium tanks that grew heavier without losing their main jobs.

[@evan6898]

ok

[@rrclassics9530]

Only good for static defence and artillery use.

[@EcchiRevenge]

They're not bad idea. Heavy tank doesn't necessarily mean slow, and it certainly doesn't necessarily mean invulnerable to tank guns from the side. The often-overweight MBT are the heavy tanks.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

no they are medium tanks. they are developed from medium tanks, and they do medium tank roles. and sometimes light tank roles. but never heavy tank roles. 'but the weight' so you think a sherman is a heavy tank because it weighed more than a char B1? you don't classify tanks by the previous generation's weights, let alone multiple generations previous.

[@EcchiRevenge]

@@matthiuskoenig3378 "akshually" fail Breakthrough, nuffsaid.

[@peterkolesar4020]

I would say modern MBTs are basically heavy tanks 🤷

[@gusto4308]

but heavy tanks give us thiccness of steel

[@xpusostomos]

Errrm.... what is a heavy tank? Greater than X tons or what?

[@agentkaos1768]

Weight classifications of tanks is both the role and weight of the tank. The Panther and Pershing is an apt example for this, both are "heavy" but classified as Mediums, the former because of Germans using it as Medium and the Pershing is reclassified as a medium after the war but was classified as a Heavy for morale boost.

[@wojtek1582]

Well, one can claim that all current tanks (at least Western) are heavy :)

[@Nalothisal]

"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.

[@LordOfChaos.x]

technically they are heavy tanks on steroids with super engines

[@exo068]

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.

[@gareththompson2708]

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".

[@coaxill4059]

@@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.

[@philmybutup4759]

@@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

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

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.

[@GalacticaonYT]

@@Etaoinshrdlu69 They were barely found by Tigers sooo.

[@DefinitelyNotEmma]

@@GalacticaonYT I don't like the Tiger because they were not symmetrical. The Jagdtiger was amazing though, big love.

[@tonny8881]

@@GalacticaonYT Tiger 1 was obsolete by 44'

[@killerkraut9179]

are not many modern mbt,s not ended as heavy Tanks ?

[@flamepanzer1767]

@@killerkraut9179 what

[@LuigianoMariano]

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.

[@thorveim1174]

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.

[@coolchrisable]

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.

[@seasuper3402]

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

[@tigerbesteverything]

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.

[@warbrain1053]

Now we could talk about medium/heavy mbts. Russian mbts are medium weight and west ones are the heavy ones

[@ethangellman4563]

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.

[@jordansmith4040]

@@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.

[@ethangellman4563]

Jordan Smith that’s true, also every country has different ways of doing classification which makes it even more complex

[@jordansmith4040]

@@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

[@digitaal_boog]

Mashed potatoes

[@Ethan-kp4vz]

Mashed potatoes

[@lordofkeebs8424]

Fried Potatoe?

[@jarlathquinn2628]

Potato potato

[@swarnankaroy7706]

Boiled potatoes

[@merucrypoison296]

All vaild trans poc queens above me

[@HouseOnFireHelp]

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.

[@burger_person115]

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

[@Saltygravy117]

I like heavy tanks because they make me feel good about myself

[@jeremyshiu]

True, they're very relatable to my irl physique.

[@darnit1944]

@@jeremyshiu They are heavy for sure, but they are powerful and deadly. ...are you powerful and deadly tho?

[@jeremyshiu]

@@darnit1944 my shits are powerful and deadly, does that count?

[@kanestalin7246]

@@jeremyshiu i think you should get that checked out

[@Geniusinventor]

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.

[@Geniusinventor]

@Electro3 Strike hi bro I see you everywhere. 😃

[@Geniusinventor]

@Electro3 Strike 😃😃

[@cmsIGauffahrgestellPanzerkampf]

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.

[@lunatic_nebula9542]

if we are imagining something like the ratte they would probably launch missles instead of navy artillery

[@LordOfChaos.x]

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

[@darnit1944]

@@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.

[@Zorro9129]

It would have a CIWS system on the back to shoot down bombs and missiles.

[@burger_person115]

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

[@seraph3264]

Something else possibly worth mentioning is that most modern MBTs are of similar weights to cold war era heavies (the 50-70 tonne range).

[@Zorro9129]

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.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

*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.

[@Zorro9129]

@@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.

[@HolyknightVader999]

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.

[@darnit1944]

Heavy tank is a bitch to modern anti tank weapons. The best protection nowadays is simply not getting hit in the first place.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

@@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

[@LeRoux027]

Heavy tanks are like Mechs. Expensive, slow, obsolete but man do they look cool conceptually.

[@warfarelooselet]

Ever tried playing dcs?

[@terseclover5651]

Tiger go boooooom

[@IceAxe1940]

Transmission failure

[@lordmilchreis1885]

@@IceAxe1940 but boom ;-;

[@Ampex_]

Spookston defended himself with 2 crew while being *on fire* against 4 tanks and thought we wouldn’t notice 🥶

[@jaf8016]

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.

[@darnit1944]

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).

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

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.

[@oaschloch7951]

So medium Tanks became MBTs and heavies learned to fly and became helicopters?

[@jordansmith4040]

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.

[@darnit1944]

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.

[@jordansmith4040]

@@darnit1944 this was a mixup between short and long tons, my mistake. Still, the weight of "impracticaly heavy" tanks is now normal

[@darnit1944]

@@jordansmith4040 Short ton, long tons, metric tons, jeez so many different measurement.

[@jordansmith4040]

@@darnit1944 yeah, there's a ton of different measurements - sorry.

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

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.

[@Spoozie26]

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.