History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSuper heavy tanks

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Husaria View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Husaria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 20:24
Ok give reasons why?
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 20:29
one of the major differences is that cavalry was rarely used independently or to make breakthroughs, unlike tanks, and i'm talking on a strategical level, not individual battles. another major reason is that the cavalries major weakness was vulnerability and lack of firepower, which is frankly exactly the opposite of a tank. another reason is that cavalry is rather flexible and independent, whereas tanks depend on maintennance, supplies and infrastructure which limits their scope compared to the full possibilites of cavalry.
Back to Top
Husaria View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 150
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Husaria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 20:52
Well most people go by the mobility aspect and the fact that a armored cavalry man was just as intimidating back than as a tank is now and maybe considered as armored because arrows are now bullets and swords are now assault rifles. But if you nitpick its easy to take apart that "role"
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 21:14
an elephant serves your argument much more but no one calls tanks as modern war elephants. mobility isn:t a factor here because as i mentioned cavalry was rarely used independently from the main army and thus had to adjust to the speed of the artillery/infantry respectively.
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2008 at 09:13
Temujin, that's quite an inconsistent argument from a person who praise horse archers. Cavalry was used for deep strike in the past. And they didn't always rely on support troops since pillage was an usual practice. So there are similarities between armored forces and the cavalry.
Back to Top
Greek Demiurge View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Greek Demiurge Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2008 at 20:01
Tanks ARE modern cavalry in a very important sense as an important, independent, penetrating arm of the military capable of break throughs and ground capture on it's own, all possible and desirable with traditional western cavalry.

Part of the problem with this question is the definition of "super heavy
". Depending on your definition, no true super heavy tank could have ever seen production, though prototypes may have seen battle, and then again, if you are loose enough, tanks as light as the King Tiger could be considered super heavy, and so too everything else in their weight class. You need to define clearly where you are drawing the line weight wise.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Oct-2008 at 19:40
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Temujin, that's quite an inconsistent argument from a person who praise horse archers. Cavalry was used for deep strike in the past. And they didn't always rely on support troops since pillage was an usual practice. So there are similarities between armored forces and the cavalry.


there is no inconsistency, those were armies that were entirely mounted in nature and tanks can't forage the same way cavalry can. cavalries of urban empires were limited in their scope, mostly only because of the doctrines fo those countries, i mean look at ww1. there was nothing that would have prevented an independent use of cavalry forces in the same way as in the ACW for example. urban empires didn't emphasized on firepower for cavalries and when they did the cavalries mostly fought dismounted as infantry (like again, ACW). compared to modern armies only Air Cavalry qualifies but more similar to motorized infantry. back then such huge cavalry corps had horse artillery but nothing comparable to the firepower of a contemporary infantry corps or even a tank corps. then they also lacked the defensive capability of tanks big time.

and again i'd like to point out that the actual speed of such armoured spearheads was heavily dependant on infrastructure as well as supply, unlike to what all-mounted forces of Asia were capable of.

at the end of the day, someone likening cavalry to tanks doesn't know either about the capabilities/disadvantages of cavalry, tanks or both.


Edited by Temujin - 03-Oct-2008 at 19:42
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 09:27
Originally posted by Temujin Temujin wrote:

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

Temujin, that's quite an inconsistent argument from a person who praise horse archers. Cavalry was used for deep strike in the past. And they didn't always rely on support troops since pillage was an usual practice. So there are similarities between armored forces and the cavalry.


there is no inconsistency, those were armies that were entirely mounted in nature and tanks can't forage the same way cavalry can. cavalries of urban empires were limited in their scope, mostly only because of the doctrines fo those countries, i mean look at ww1. there was nothing that would have prevented an independent use of cavalry forces in the same way as in the ACW for example. urban empires didn't emphasized on firepower for cavalries and when they did the cavalries mostly fought dismounted as infantry (like again, ACW). compared to modern armies only Air Cavalry qualifies but more similar to motorized infantry. back then such huge cavalry corps had horse artillery but nothing comparable to the firepower of a contemporary infantry corps or even a tank corps. then they also lacked the defensive capability of tanks big time.
May I quote you?
"one of the major differences is that cavalry was rarely used independently or to make breakthroughs, unlike tanks, and i'm talking on a strategical level, not individual battles. another major reason is that the cavalries major weakness was vulnerability and lack of firepower, which is frankly exactly the opposite of a tank. another reason is that cavalry is rather flexible and independent, whereas tanks depend on maintennance, supplies and infrastructure which limits their scope compared to the full possibilites of cavalry"
"an elephant serves your argument much more but no one calls tanks as modern war elephants. mobility isn:t a factor here because as i mentioned cavalry was rarely used independently from the main army and thus had to adjust to the speed of the artillery/infantry respectively."
"those were armies that were entirely mounted in nature"
"back then such huge cavalry corps had horse artillery but nothing comparable to the firepower of a contemporary infantry corps or even a tank corps"
So, cavalry was rarely used independently but there were armies that were entirely mounted in nature.
On the other hand, tanks depend on maintenance, supplies and infrastucture and cavalry was rarely used independently and thus has to adjust to the speed of other corps. I wonder why, maybe because they too needed supplies and couldn't rely solely on raidings? Also, didn't they feared being cut from the main army and become vulnerable to enemy attacks?
Firepower isn't an issue because tanks also face different firepower. A macedonian phalanx may look fearsome but what becomes of it when faced with a soldier wielding a flamethrower?
Cavalry wasn't designed for breaktrough? Maybe the knights or the polish hussars would not agree with you but they are dead so...
Quote
and again i'd like to point out that the actual speed of such armoured spearheads was heavily dependant on infrastructure as well as supply, unlike to what all-mounted forces of Asia were capable of.
Got it, the mounted forces of Asia were some dort of super warrriors. They fed on air they breath fire and were using cruise missiles to supress the enemy. They needed no supplies and were raiding on marshes, plains, mountains and on the sea. I'm so glad they are not around anymore
Quote

at the end of the day, someone likening cavalry to tanks doesn't know either about the capabilities/disadvantages of cavalry, tanks or both.
Fortunately we have you around to remind us to learn more. Maybe you failed to notice that I and others never stated that tanks are exactly like cavalry. Similar is not the same.
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 15:30
Each heavy Brigade Combat team has 1 squadron of cavalry (M1 and M3) that is used in the cavalry role.  The fact that they have similar equipment two the 2 "line" battalions may confuse people as to their role.  In addition, air assault (heli born) infantry also serves as cavalry.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 19:43
Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

So, cavalry was rarely used independently but there were armies that were entirely mounted in nature.


this was also an issue of cost, as well as socio-political factors (status). of course we can't compare Central Asia with Europe/US. the anaology tanks-cavalry is mostly a US thing, therefore i used "the west" as standard.

Quote On the other hand, tanks depend on maintenance, supplies and infrastucture and cavalry was rarely used independently and thus has to adjust to the speed of other corps.


this also had several less obvious reasons, as i already mentioned doctrine but also incompetence on the side of cavalry commanders. one of the main reasons cavalry rarely excelled in "western" countries was in fact the lack of able cavalry commanders, not of able cavalry. just compare the lackluster perfromance of Cossacks in the Crimean and Russo-Japanese War, aprticularly when compared to the Napoleonci Wars. many people also don't realize that it is a huge and difficult task to co-ordinate and lead cavalry, particularly compared to other branches.

Quote I wonder why, maybe because they too needed supplies and couldn't rely solely on raidings?


yes, one major difference is in horses. Steppe ponies resort to grazing while other "urban" breeds need supplies of fodder. this limited both the scope of expansion of the Central Asians as well as of urban empires which had to rely on depots. look for example at Napoleons Russian campaign which costed Napoleon more horses on the advance than the retreat.

Quote Also, didn't they feared being cut from the main army and become vulnerable to enemy attacks?


cavalry is essentially only vulnerable to other cavalry, it was more of a vulnerability of the "slow" elements (artillery/infantry), the main army, that prevented this.


Quote Firepower isn't an issue because tanks also face different firepower. A macedonian phalanx may look fearsome but what becomes of it when faced with a soldier wielding a flamethrower?



firepower is essential, of course tanks are not all-powerful all-around tools in warfare. but firepower allows you to kill more enemies than other way round. also range gives you an advantage over non-ranged enemies. for example Boers in South Africa. mounted Sharpshooters vs spear and hide-shield armed unarmoured warriors. not necessary to say even few Boers could deal with a significantly larger native force.

Quote Cavalry wasn't designed for breaktrough? Maybe the knights or the polish hussars would not agree with you but they are dead so...


what breakthrough do you mean? tactical or strategcial and which period? tactical breakthrough was the task of combined field guns followed by infantry attacks. cavalry was only to exploit gaps in the enemy formation. before field artillery usually most armies main element in medieval was primarily cavalry so you have no breakthrough anyways. in ancient (european) there were mostly infantry armies and cavalry was again only in a support role. so essetnially there either was no breakthrough or it was achieved by guns, guns such as those on tanks.

as for strategical, you won't find large independent cavalry forces until Napoleon and the ACW, then the concept of large independent cavalry forces more or less dissappeared as a matter of doctrine and the cavalry was "wasted" as toy of the infantry corps.

Quote Got it, the mounted forces of Asia were some dort of super warrriors. They fed on air they breath fire and were using cruise missiles to supress the enemy. They needed no supplies and were raiding on marshes, plains, mountains and on the sea. I'm so glad they are not around anymore


no need to become sarcastic, they were not super warriros but they were self-sufficient to a really great extent, see my note on their horses above.

Quote Fortunately we have you around to remind us to learn more. Maybe you failed to notice that I and others never stated that tanks are exactly like cavalry. Similar is not the same.


there isn't even a similarity. look at the development of cavalry on the east front in ww2, particularly Soviets but also Germans, that will open your eyes big time.

Edited by Temujin - 06-Oct-2008 at 19:44
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Oct-2008 at 19:52
Originally posted by IDonT IDonT wrote:

Each heavy Brigade Combat team has 1 squadron of cavalry (M1 and M3) that is used in the cavalry role.


well thats the first point. what is the role of cavalry in your opinion? Cezar said breakthrough but armoured cavalry is reconaissance... Wink


Quote The fact that they have similar equipment two the 2 "line" battalions may confuse people as to their role. 


infantry alone can also do reconaissance. jets can do reconaissance. branch of service doesn't automatically imply the role it performs. actually i could bring a dozen more arguments that cavalry is more like infantry than tanks, it's simply unnecessary and a watse to try to liken anything to cavalry which isn't cavalry.

Quote In addition, air assault (heli born) infantry also serves as cavalry.


horses transported by helis then? no, but again no breakthrough, instead we have mobile infantry which can be likened to classical American cavalry that fought dismounted (=in infantry role). but then we have the soc alled "true" cavalry that charges whith cold steel. is this anything like air cavalry? Disapprove
Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Oct-2008 at 16:02
Well then we have to define the role of cavalry first.  The role of cavalry before the gun powder era is different from that during the gun powder era. 
 
(Using very broad generalizations)
Before the gun powder era, the cavalry was the main fighting arm that use the infantry line as support.  During the gun powder era, the roles were reverse with the infantry being more dominant and the cavalry became the support arm. 
 
With this in mind, wikipedia summarizes the traditional role of cavalry, and I put its closest modern replacement.
  1. Scouting (UAV, Satellites, and Aircraft)
  2. skirmishing with enemy reconnaissance elements to deny them knowledge of own disposition of troops (Mounted Cavalry could be armored or humvee)
  3. forward security (mounted calvary)
  4. offensive reconnaisance by combat (mounted cavalry or attack helos)
  5. defensive screening of friendly forces during retrograde movement (mounted cavalry, attack helos, artillery)
  6. retreat (mounted cavalry, attack helos, artillery)
  7. Restoration of command and control (network Security, satellites)
  8. Deception (mounted calvary, attack helos, aircraft, artillery, armored forces)
  9. Battle handover and passage of lines (mounted cavalry, armored forces)
  10. Relief in place (mounted cavalry, armored forces)
  11. linked up (mounted calvary, armored forces)
  12. Break out operations (mounted cavalry, armored forces)
  13. Raiding (special forces, light infantry, mounted cavalry)
  14. Shock (mounted cavalry, armored forces)
In a mechanized force, it is true that the line between cavalry and infantry is blurred.  The difference between an cavalry squadron and an armored battalion is very not even worth mentioning.  The truth is tanks, armored fighting vehicles, and infantry requires each other's protectiong to function properly.  Tanks are excellent at taking open ground while infantry excel at clearing out build up areas.  Hence the adage: "Tanks take ground while infantry holds ground."
 
 
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2008 at 11:12
OK, Temujin can we agree that some people consider tanks to be in some ways the modern equivalent of old time cavalry? That this is only a simplified view which doesn't consider all that is about cavalry and tanks? And than when a proper analysis is done the differences are quite obvious so that Tanks=Cavalry remains only a simpplified opinion?
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 1114
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Oct-2008 at 17:01
Guys you're getting off topic


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
IDonT View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 28-Jun-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote IDonT Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Oct-2008 at 14:21
The super heavy tanks were a dead end in terms of development with only a few prototypes that were ever built.  The reason, it was impractical and unweildy in combat situations. 
 
Post WWII, the heavy tank class was discontinued.  The medium tank became the main battle tank and light tanks became the infantry fighting vehicles.
 
Modern western main battle tanks have weight at around 70 tons, in the low end of the super heavy tanks in WWII. 
 
Back to Top
nuvolari View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 263
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nuvolari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 15:26
Originally posted by Count Belisarius Count Belisarius wrote:

Cool. No I'm not talking about tank destroyers
 
With all due respect, do you know what a tank destroyer is ?     Generally speaking a main battle tank is not intended to attack enemy tanks. It is normally expected to support an advance by motorised infantry and in this role it will target strongpoints, machine gun nests and attacking infantry. The function of a tank destroyer is to do the job of killing enemy tanks, and in order to be able to do this it may well be better armoured and will certainly carry a heavier gun. Both the German and Russian armies in WW2 adopted a practice of using often obsolete tanks, removing their turrets and fitting them with redesigned armour that carried a heavy gun that had either little or no ability to traverse (ie. rotate ). These tank killers would often, therefore, ambush enemy tanks from pre-prepared hidden postions, fire off one or two shells and then withdraw to another location.
They were cheap and effective and killed many tanks and crews.
Back to Top
nuvolari View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 263
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nuvolari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Mar-2009 at 15:32
Originally posted by Count Belisarius Count Belisarius wrote:

Can anyone tell me anything about them?(please go into detail) and did any of them see action?

 
Most armies have used tanks of this type from time to time. All very heavy tanks come with major problems, though. These range from the difficulty of both transporting them and retreiving them when damaged or broken down. Even the British Army had a tank of this type post ww2 and it did see limited action in Suez . This was called the "Conqueror" and specimens do still exist.  A big problem is carrying these tanks on railway wagons since they protrude over the edge and cannot be taken throught tunnels.  Te USA had a tank that had two pairs of tracks (4 in total)fitted side by side and the outer pair would have to be removed when being carried on railway trucks.
Back to Top
Cryptic View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 05-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 901
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cryptic Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 14:56
Originally posted by Count Belisarius Count Belisarius wrote:

Can anyone tell me anything about them?(please go into detail) and did any of them see action?
Though not truly a super heavy tank, the Elephant was definetly approaching the definition. A small number of the 66 ton tank destroyers were used at Kursk. Their combat debut was a complete failure.  Most were lost either to Soviet infantry anti tank teams (the Elephant's effective cross country speed was a lumbering jog and they had only token machine guns) or they simply bogged down in the mud and had to be abandoned.
 
 
Back to Top
nuvolari View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 14-Jul-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 263
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote nuvolari Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 16:07
I confirm that the "Elefant" was NOT a tank of any kind, let alone a "super heavy tank". It was turretless, therefore it was a "tank killer".
The accepted definition of a tank is that it be a tracked vehicle with a rotating turret and a suitable main armament such as a gun capable of destroying concrete stronpoints and enemy tanks.  The "Elefant" had a superstructure that did not rotate and its main weapon was fixed in place with scope for little movement.  In common with most armoured vehicles be they tanks or tank killers, it only had a few machine guns, largely for its own defence.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Status: Offline
Points: 5237
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 20:01
Originally posted by nuvolari nuvolari wrote:

Generally speaking a main battle tank is not intended to attack enemy tanks.


that is not accurate, of course MBT are intended to engage tansk as well. the concept of an MBT is a multi-purpose tank while tank hunters are "just" designed with the aim of combatting tanks only.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.