Heavy tank thread. MBT mongrels need not apply. Much like the

File: T10M.jpg (76KB, 877x657px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 877x657px

The last of the heavy tanks, props to the soviets for sticking with the concept longer than everyone else.

File: dmm103-1.jpg (32KB, 409x240px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 409x240px

Commies can eat shit.

File: dml3546reviewcs_1.jpg (108KB, 700x502px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 700x502px

>>33209657

File: heavytankkilla.jpg (82KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1280x960px

What's going on in this thread?

File: tonk.jpg (73KB, 902x702px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 902x702px

>60 tons
>enough power to run laps around the 40ton tanks of the day
>gun stronk enough to pen fuck anything

In essence the abrams is just a fast heavy

>>33209884
MBTs are just a hybrid of a medium and a heavy, the thick armor and large gun are just results of modern technology.

A modern heavy, if it were to be built would probably be in the 90 ton range, with a 150mm + gun and more armor coverage on the sides, as opposed to an MBTs super thick frontal armor and nonexistent side armor.

>>33209657
yeah, M103s are pretty sexy. More of a devensive "sniper" to use normie gaming terms compared to the breakthrough role envisioned for the IS series.

File: 1335010664256.jpg (225KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1000x1000px

>>33209884
>gun stronk enough to pen fuck anything

File: Icanonlygetsopissed.gif (400KB, 488x519px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 488x519px

>>33209970

NAME 5(FIVE) VEHICLES THAT A 120mm APDS ROUND CAN'T PEN

>>33209884
>MBT mongrels need not apply

americuck logic

>>33210003
Name 5 modern tanks that it can penetrate.

>>33210303
All of them from the side or rear

File: 1401082810562.jpg (663KB, 3539x2120px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 3539x2120px

Aww yeah. M103 is so cool.

>>33210364
Its the turret that makes it, I think. It's just so bulbous and alien-shaped. It's very distinctive.

>>33210419
Side armor? Whats that?

File: 1379482011001.png (20KB, 642x715px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 642x715px

>>33210348
>from the side or rear

>>33210447
He's not wrong

File: 243549966_2deb99332a_b.jpg (364KB, 1024x594px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1024x594px

>>33210414
Yeah, there's a really big overhang to the rear.
It looks odd, but very unique as you said. It also guarantees the driver can readily enter or exit the vehicle quickly, which is a nice thought.

>>33210208

The Abrams originally served in a role analogous to the heavy tank when it was first introduced: it was the heavy to the M60's medium during the Gulf War.

>>33210003

The Abrams itself, for one, and by extension the Challenger 2.

>>33211232
I don't think the 105mm qualifies as a heavy tank gun. The 120mm on the M103 would git that roll, but it had been long retired by the time the M1 appeared.
Then again the designations never really have a firm definition. The M26 was originally a heavy and then it was classed as a medium and then it became the M46.

>>33211432

Both the KV-1 and T-34 shared the same L-11 gun for a long time in service, with the difference being that the KV-1 was much heavier armored and thus more capable for the breakthrough role. When they were serving together, both the M60A3 and M1 used the L7, using the same nuances (Abrams significantly heavier and more capable of leading an assault).

That's why discussions about armor definitions are often a dead-end, it varies from nation and period.
Americans based their designations on vehicle weight, Soviets and British on role/mobility (Infantry and Cruiser tank) regardless of gun size, and Germans on gun caliber. Then there's oddities like the Swedish Strv 103 which to them is an MBT. The very phrase MBT makes the discussions harder because it's a nearly universal term for any modern tank used. Only other currently used class of tank are light tanks and those are also rare.

File: kwagen_3.jpg (39KB, 616x294px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 616x294px

Maus a shit

>The K-Wagen was to be armed with four 77 mm fortress guns and seven MG08 machine guns and had a crew of 27:
>27
>2
>7

27

>>33212504
I guess the K stood for "Kramped"

File: IS-7_Photo.jpg (56KB, 700x336px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 700x336px

good thing it had fixed machine guns on the hull that just shot forward

>>33212642
I like the ones in the front and rear of the turret.
That would be a fun tank. The driver and the gunner waggling both the hull and turret like spastics trying to hose things down with MGs

File: vehicle_iosifstalin2.jpg (229KB, 1280x787px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1280x787px

>>33208899
>>33208938
>>33212642
Damn I wish the Soviets stuck with the larger turret and long body designs. The whole T-series after the T-44 are just so boring. That reminds me, that fictional Soviet MBT from MGSV looked god damn beautiful for taking after the IS-pike nose.

File: mauser-1918-t-gewehr-500-17.jpg (40KB, 500x433px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x433px

>>33212483
Based af. The britbongs can go suck dicks with their Mark IV and V.

Special mention to Johnny Mc.Rapeface

File: 279-7.jpg (110KB, 968x602px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 968x602px

>60 tons
>1200hp engine
>sloped armor
>130mm gun
>60 kph

It would still suck irl, but boy is that thing sexy.

>>33209934
Hell, why is this not a thing? I've understood that most modern rounds aside from top attack munitions just barely penetrate MBTs, surely you could bolt on more armour to be impenetrable from the front by anything short of an AShM

File: C5Cf9mpWMAAo64p (1).jpg (143KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1200x800px

>>33208899
Heavy tank you say?

Where do I sign up?

File: 10-90_poitou_01_197.jpg (205KB, 1111x754px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1111x754px

>>33215259
That's not a heavy tank u stoopid.
Das is heavy.

>>33215281
I didn't realize how big the FCM was. Pretty impressive for the time.

File: Char_2C_FCM_transport.jpg (58KB, 900x579px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 900x579px

>>33215331
Still the heaviest french tank used to date (70 tons).
It's a big sweet boy, too bad we didn't get to use it.

>>33215281
>>33215347

It saw combat in the Second World war, also, it's a super heavy, not a heavy.

>>33215362
Well technically it didn't. We decided to move them to the south by train, and the railway got blown up. We scuffled half of them and the germans picked up the rest.
Technically it is a super-heavy indeed, but given it's weight, it is in the range of heavy tanks of late WWII soooo...meh.

File: Conqueror Ron Volstad.jpg (491KB, 1680x1050px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1680x1050px

>>33210419
Mah nigga

>>33215258
Too big to be practical. A 90 ton vehicle would destroy roads and be unable to cross the vast majority of bridges.
Can the mobile bridge layers even support a 90 ton vehicle?

Plus, how the hell are you gonna get that thing to the battlefield. The logistics would be a BITCH to deal with. We could do it, but it's so impractical I doubt it would ever get done. Especially since while it would be near impregnable to most anti tank rockets, it would probably still be vulnerable to the heaviest ATGMs and of course cruise missiles and Air to Ground munitions in general. Active protection has far more benefits than more armor does, and has far fewer cons to it.

>>33216300
No one cares if practical because its so kewl.

We should build cool things for people who will never use them to fap to.

File: 1398805_20131005123940(Jaka92).jpg (154KB, 972x648px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 972x648px

>>33215281
I'm sorry. I meant this pic

File: 1482589431734.jpg (45KB, 584x400px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 584x400px

>hurrr why aren't heavy tanks a thing?

1) You can't armor a tank enough to actually stop modern anti-tank weapons.

2) You don't need a bigger gun because modern guns already penetrate modern tanks just fine. See point 1

File: Char+FCM+2Cbis+big[1].jpg (144KB, 1501x898px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1501x898px

>>33215347
IIRC it's the heaviest tank put into service.

FCM 2C with a 155mm howitzer. I believe it's the "Normandie" tank, that had its engine and armor upgraded before ww2.

>>33217248
you might be actually retarded

>>33217248
Basically nobody has said they should be a thing in this thread. But you still somehow managed to use points that are completely wrong while defending something that everyone already knows.

1. Yes you can, MBTs are vulnerable because they put all armor to the front rather than the top and sides. The problem with this is unit cost and logistics.

2. No, modern MBTs probably cannot penetrate eachothers frontal armor, especially turret armor. The reason bigger rounds are not used is because you would need a massive main gun, with big shells and a slow reload, all for a rare situation (head to head engagements with technologically equivalent tanks) with plenty of cheaper solutions (like CAS)

>>33210003
That would be a function of range and effective energy on impact.

More or less any western MBT at 2000m +

>>33217248
Heavies can't go where smaller vehicles can go. Armorfags often ignore mobility.

The memoirs of Commies who used Lend-Lease Shermans didn't care for their high CG because rollovers but loved their ability in mud and exploited it to kill less mobile German armor.

Germans often had to capture and hold narrow roads and railroad beds to move their vehicles. Weight +terrain canalized their armor.

StuGs OTOH were light, mobile and capable while having a low silhouette. If we play alternate history the winning Wehrboo move would be to reject exotic designs and build reliable middleweight Panthers and StuGs with T-34 style suspension in fucking quantity.

Special snowflake shit is expensive and gobbles material, time, labor and logistics.

File: Edge-of-Tomorrow-Getting-out-of-PT-Death-3.jpg (94KB, 1265x522px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1265x522px

>>33215777
I first learned about them when they introduced them in WOT.
I was like "What the hell ware you stupid french fagots thinking?"
Insanely obsolete design with modern turret.

>>33217481
I don't think it would be a winning move, a much as it would be a "not get completely steamrolled" move and allow them to reach an armistice.

>>33217387
>>33217404
>>33217481

I'm still waiting for a counter-argument here.

Just saying "you are wrong" is not a counter-argument.

File: 1484656387226.jpg (286KB, 1024x746px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1024x746px

>>33209657
>>33209722
>>33210364
>>33210463
ugliest tank ever

File: dips bedora.gif (4MB, 630x354px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 630x354px

>>33217404
>modern MBTs probably cannot penetrate eachothers frontal armor

No, this is as stupid as thinking that body armor can stop rifle rounds. The level of force we're talking about here is enormous - anti-tank weapons overmatch tank armor by a huge margin, and always have.

The only time in history when tanks were having trouble penetrating each other's armor was in the early part of WW2, when they were still shooting what were basically infantry guns at each other.

Tanks don't have armor to stop other tanks from killing them. They have armor to stop everything that isn't an anti-tank weapon from killing them. Anti-tank weapons are much more effective than anyone seems willing to believe.

All you have to do to disprove my assertion is find some tanks that have shrugged off modern anti-tank weapons - but you can't, because they don't exist. The examples that people constantly repost as being "evidence" that modern tanks are immune to modern anti-tank weapons are always, in reality, tanks that were penetrated by those weapons (which means they're not immune, obviously) but didn't go up in a huge fireball because the jet only lopped off the driver's foot or something. For some reason, everybody thinks "penetrated but didn't explode (this time)" equals "cannot be penetrated".

File: TOW_fired_from_Jeep[1].jpg (64KB, 684x542px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 684x542px

>>33217931
As you wish, anon.
Following your logic, pic is the ultimate weapon platform, and armored vehicles shouldn't even exist.
>can destroy any tank
>no useless armour
>no useless big gun

>>33218030
Dude, educate yourself or don't speak at all.
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

/k/ has a decent proportion of knowledgeable people about military gear, you're not gonna impress anyone by sprouting memes and uninformed opinions.

>>33218030
Are you too stupid to read? I said FRONTAL armor. Post WWII designs sacrificed side, top and rear armor even further to beef up the front, specifically the turret.

ATGMs can and do knock out MBTs easily, they do so by NOT hitting the toughest armor.

File: IS3.jpg (113KB, 800x582px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 800x582px

>>33208899
Why are heavy tanks so aesthetic but mbt's so ugly?

>>33209952
>More of a devensive "sniper" to use normie gaming terms compared to the breakthrough role envisioned for the IS series.
Considering people say this exact thing about the Abrams(muh fuel consumption!) and the Strv 103(muh lack of turret!) and they're wrong in both cases...

you're probably wrong and I'm counting down the minutes until some other anon pops in with actual FMs showing that it was intended to be a fully-fledged tank including breakthrough and counterattack in depth roles, just like Abrams and Strv 103

>>33218251
>Dude, educate yourself or don't speak at all.
This is a recurring problem in /k/. Some people feel the need to be a know it all even when they don't actually know

>>33210462
Except the Chally 2 or the Abrams itself

File: CaptureCapture.png (114KB, 987x871px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 987x871px

>>33218447
>Some people feel the need to be a know it all even when they don't actually know
I'm pretty sure that's a reoccurring problem for humanity at large, anon

>>33218970
it's much worse around anything involving guns though