Were heavy tanks worth the cost in WWII?

[Razgovory]

We haven't had a WWII discussion in a while so I figured I start one up.  Were the heavy tanks tanks built and fielded during the second world war worth the cost?


Also should British infantry tanks be considered heavy tanks?


EDIT: I am such a dumb fuck.

[derspiess]

Probably not in most cases, but hindsight is 20/20.  I don't fault any side for clinging to the idea, though the German plans for incrementally larger tanks (Maus, etc.) were flat-out stupid.

And there was psychological value to be found in having at least some heavy tanks-- I've read several accounts where inexperienced Allied troops panicked when they misidentified a Panzer IV as a Tiger.

[Syt]

And there was psychological value to be found in having at least some heavy tanks-- I've read several accounts where inexperienced Allied troops panicked when they misidentified a Panzer IV as a Tiger.

I can see that happen with a Pz-IV-G in sub-par visibility when they come straight at you:

[DGuller]

I think some heavy tanks were needed, I don't think that MBT concept would've worked in WW2.  I don't think it's good for the morale of the tankers to know that there are tanks out there on the other side that they can't do anything about, short of a costly flanking maneuver.  That said, I think that Germans at some point forgot that tanks don't exist just to fight other tanks, and that was a costly mistake.

[The Brain]

My impression is yes. Doesn't necessarily mean that every heavy tank was worth the cost though.

[Tamas]

I think some heavy tanks were needed, I don't think that MBT concept would've worked in WW2.  I don't think it's good for the morale of the tankers to know that there are tanks out there on the other side that they can't do anything about, short of a costly flanking maneuver.  That said, I think that Germans at some point forgot that tanks don't exist just to fight other tanks, and that was a costly mistake.

I imagine that from around 1943 onwards, their tankers did have their hands full fighting off hordes of Soviet tanks, so there is that.

[Viking]

Assuming by heavy tanks we mean tanks with 100mm armor and weighing 45 plus tons, basically bigger than the panther. So we're talking about Centurions, Tigers, Pershings and Iosef Stalins. The Tiger and the Tanks designed to survive against it.

Hell Yes. Give a tiger decent logistics, air cover and fire support and it it becomes a killing machine. Germany didn't have the logistics to field their heavy tanks properly so they were probably a bad idea resource wise for the germans. But, for the Brits, the Americans and Russians their heavy tanks were not really ready, but had they been they would have been worth while. They did get rused into the final months of the war. The IS's were the basis of the T-54 and T-55 tanks and served into the 1960s, the Centurions still serve in the israeli army and the Pershings were the basis for the M-48 Patton tank.

[DGuller]

Soviet MBTs descended from T-34, not IS.  The IS line eventually died out, along with heavy tanks in general.

[Malthus]

Hitler would have won if he'd made these!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landkreuzer_P._1000_Ratte

Well, maybe not. 

[mongers]

I don't accept Viking's criteria for heavy tanks, which seems to be only applicable to late 44-spring45.

In part it's a relative term, so Matilda Mk2 tanks were heavy compared to what they were going up against. And if you believe some reports, despite their small numbers, 30 odd in France May40, they did give some Germans a moment of panic.

On a tactical level, I'd think plenty of Germans worried when they came up against a Char1B, but training and the targets inherent weaknesses help overcome that. And meant they didn't add a whole lot more to the battlefield vs the resources invested in them. With hindsight better to have built more S35s or taken more seriously the prototype tank destroyers/other projects.

[Razgovory]

I do not think they were worth it.  The US didn't use any heavy tanks (though it temporarily classified the Pershing as a heavy tank for morale reasons), and did just fine.

Heavy tanks cost a lot more then then smaller medium or cruiser tanks and often had the disadvantage of not actually working.  Soviet KV tanks were so poorly made that they just didn't function a lot of time.  Tigers breakdown rates were also embarrassing.

[DGuller]

I do not think they were worth it.  The US didn't use any heavy tanks (though it temporarily classified the Pershing as a heavy tank for morale reasons), and did just fine.

Heavy tanks cost a lot more then then smaller medium or cruiser tanks and often had the disadvantage of not actually working.  Soviet KV tanks were so poorly made that they just didn't function a lot of time.  Tigers breakdown rates were also embarrassing.

The US didn't fight on the Eastern front.  As for KVs, they were indeed unreliable, but at the time they were used, so were T-34s.  IS-2s were used to great effect by the Soviets.

[Ideologue]

Not worthwhile, and I suspect the MBTs to come later were also not worthwhile.  How many real tank vs. tank engagements have we fought with MBTs?  Only one comes to mind.  How quickly did AT weapons render them of dubious value on even the prospective battlefield of West Germany?  Did we win the Cold War by building tanks?

I suppose there's the Arab-Israeli Wars where they did stuff, but that's someone else's conflict.

[Razgovory]

The US did fight on the Eastern Front.  Just against Japan though

[derspiess]

Soviet MBTs descended from T-34, not IS.  The IS line eventually died out, along with heavy tanks in general.

Not sure I'd totally agree with that.  The IS series had a lot of influence-- lower silhouette, turret design to name a couple things.  And the Soviets kept heavy tanks in service for most of the Cold War.