What was the thinking behind..............

The fact that Japan considered heavy tanks but did not build them is in line with what I said about it not being a need for them. This could be why they chose not to fight Russia when Germany invaded.

In the 30's Russian armor was not what it was in the 40's. Also early in the war the tank was seen as an offensive only weapon, and if Japan was only worried about defense they would not have pursued a heavy tank with any vigor.

The Japanese did posses several respectable AT pieces.

Bridges:
We need to remember as well that these lager tanks were designed to be able to ford certain depths of water and that smaller streams and the like would most likely been forded to avoid the question of needing a strong enough bridge.

 

If no suitable fording point was already established the time taken in finding one, potentially under fire, might just as well have been spent in building a direct bridge.
Wading's also a very hazardous business, near every account I read of it seems to involve at least one vehicle needing later recovery. The big ones sometimes had fairly rapid wade capability but the 'lesser' vehicles (other than schwimmers) either didn't, or required quite a bit of preparation to do so. not much point sending an isolated handful of Tigers across a river without schleppers and other vehicles to support them. From riding in a 251 I'd guess it's wading capability was 'heavy showers' .

Curiosity got the better of me, anyone know what this means? :

From SdKfz.251, wouldn't 2 metres be over the top of the thing?

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Nothing is perfect I suppose.

 

A movie that I saw once, there was an incident where a small group with just bazookas detected a pair of Tigers approaching. The group fell back to a bridge crossing where they managed to mark the weight capacity down. The Tigers forded the stream, only to be taken out by the bazookas when their underbelly was exposed coming up the slope. Often art imitates life, so I suspect that this was based on an actual event.

I have always felt that it is rare that there is a weapon that cannot be beaten. The problem is finding the weakness in time to exploit it.

 

Thanks Za.
It seemed to me the closer the US got to their homeland, they'd need "something" to counter american armor. On the islands, they were dug in and did'nt need armor but an homeland invasion is another thing.

 

That was the Jagdpanzer IV/70 which collapsed the Petit-Spai bridge, between Stavelot and Trois-Ponts.

The larger European bridges in WWII had posted loadings, but the many thousands of older/smaller bridges, some of which had stood for centuries, didn't.I suppose that under the stress of combat, tank crews would attempt the impossible.....

 

On bridges: If you know you are going to field tanks (or vehicles) of a certain weight then it makes sense to put into place a logistical train that can support those vehicles. This includes ARV, bridging equipment and other engineering assets that allow these vehicles to function.
To point out the US equipage on this: A standard US tank battalion has an ARV in each company plus several at battalion along with several wreckers. In non-divisional battalions a bulldozer tank or two is in ever company.
This last would have been an absolute godsend to the Germans. Need a ford? Make one! Need to clear a road of obstacles, bulldoze it! Even after the Germans saw (by mid 44 at the latest) such equipment in US use they did not adopt such a device themselves. An amazing oversight.

 

Perhaps they wanted to, but the manufactoring side could no longer respond in suffcient quantity?

 

Just to further illustrate that AFV's and bridging can be a dangerous combination regardless of nationality, relative 'heaviness' or even era.:

Easy 8:


KV(?)


Korea:


WW1:

(Afraid I can't remember where the first 3 images are from, but the last WW1 tank is from here, good site).

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Not so sure those fellas in the Korean pic should be standing there. The bridge looks like it's ready to come down.

 

I'd been thinking "What happened next?" as well.:eh:



Just been reading on the British tank board's 1943 specific order of tank design priorities as formed during their 'Universal tank' thinking.

1. Reliability.
2. Gun.
3. Speed.
4. Endurance.
5. Armour.

The list's interesting as it goes against many peoples obsession with the particularly heavy plate fitted to German vehicles. (and places at number one a factor that many almost totally neglect when casually denigrating the Sherman, put a firefly against that list and it fits rather nicely)

I find myself wondering what the German list would have looked like, and feel it certainly wouldn't have lead to the exceptionally successful Centurion, more likely irrelevances like the Tortoise and T28.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/pics/panzer-schurzen-stug-iii-kursk-waffenss.jpg

You could put the StuGs on that list,although not truly a tank. The Pz MKIII and IV were good tanks. Maybe their reasoning for the heavies was that they could take more hits and keep on running.
Less tank crews and more troops on the field. I'm just speculating though.

 

The thing is that, in the end, the German doctrine of 'the bigger, the stronger, the more advanced equals to the better' didn't work out. Not only they did not build the best weaponry, they couldn't build enough (and not only because the deteriorating state of its industry, also because of waste of resources, lack of co-ordination, bureaucracy and the caothic Nazi organisation).

Prussian war theory (Von Clausewitz), turned into boxing, means having a tall (blond, of course!), muscled guy with iron fists and killer hooks that is suppossed to knock out its opponent in the first or second rounds. No leg game, no cardio-vascular condition, no breathing, no condition to engage an opponent for more than 3 rounds... Therefore, if such a boxer is facing a taller, stronger guy or with better physical condition who can drag him into the 10th round...

 

Well put in terms of long-time planning.