Supertanks?!?!

[LtStryker]

Does anyone have any info on an American, British, or Australian made heavy tank or mobile artillery. Same general shape as the Abrams, but at least 2.5 times larger. Same speed (looked that way). I saw what looked like a fricking huge tank when I was in Utah and one that looked similar in Alabama. One of my buddies also claims to have seen a similar tank in Australia. These tanks looked like they were at least 2.5 times the size of an Abrams, but with the same general shape. the cannon was not shaped the same however, and seemed to be too large. Both times that I saw it it was doing maneuvers with Abrams tanks. Does anyone know anything about it or was it just me seeing things?

 

[Yossarian]

Tiger ll Perhaps? One of the few remaining examples is kept in Bovington.

Still not British or American

Maus Tank Maybe? Only one non running example remains period, and it's in Russia I believe, also one of Hitler's dreamed super tanks... You would think he was trying to compensate for something....

Or maybe one of the itereations of the Stalin Tank?

Tell me where your friend saw one of these tanks? What muesum and maybe I can help you find your answer, as in many cases it could be a case of mistaken Identity. I have seen people mislabel a Jag Panther at the Patton muesum before an American tank, simply because it was in America, in all actually it was Captured by the U.S., not built by it.

Thing is, although there maybe large peices of hardware out there like maybe the M 109, which is a self propelled artillery piece.

The "big" or "heavy" tanks like these died out for a reason, take the Abrams or Challenger ll for example, which is the modern British and American MBT's.

Compared to these Behemoths, is that they lacked mobility and were difficult to delpoy, and often underpowered, which could severely limit their effectiveness and ability to respond to threats, as in the case of the Tiger ll, which if it wasn't swarmed by a unit of T 34's.

Allied Airpower or artillery could have made short work of them once spotted.


The thing is, although many modern armored battle tanks may have slightly different speed performance, but the priciple is the same in terms of mobility.

If a large hulking tank can't cross obsticles, or bridges or what not, it's not going to be very effective on a fast paced mechnized battlefield.

 

[LtStryker]

Thank you. Whatever it was it was most certainly active. My friend said that he saw it on some Australian military base. I saw it from Indian Mountain in west Utah, near Dugway AFB. I do not know whether it was a trick of the light or something real, but it was huge, fast, and looked well armored and armed.

 

[Yossarian]

Thank you. Whatever it was it was most certainly active. My friend said that he saw it on some Australian military base. I saw it from Indian Mountain in west Utah, near Dugway AFB. I do not know whether it was a trick of the light or something real, but it was huge, fast, and looked well armored and armed.

Maybe a tank recovering vehicle? Or other support vehicle?

Recovery vehicles in many militaries around the world, are not really the latest and greatest, like in the British armed forces for example, I believe for a while even with the New Challenger Chasis in service, they still used Centurion recovery vehicles.

Support and recovery vehicles are nor usually armed nor really used for combat roles so it's not really paramount to have the newest or most advanced chasis around to pull stuff out of ditches.

The term tank is often used out of context, many people often mislabel IFVs and tracked APCs or mobile artillery as "tanks", which I suppose in a loose sense the term is all in the eye of the beholder,

Unless you are like me and try to use the Webster definition for everything.

Also find one of our Austrailian members here who has served or is serving, they use American Abrams tanks I believe.

 

[hghlndr6]

M109 Paladin ??

Self-propelled 155mm Howitzer. Prototypes are now undergoing field testing. Limited production in 2013.

 

[Yossarian]

M109 Paladin ??

Self-propelled 155mm Howitzer. Prototypes are now undergoing field testing.

One company or another has been messing around with the idea of upgrading the gun on the M 109 for about a decade now, as far as project allocation Officials with the U.S. Army and their efforts to convince Congress to continue to foward funding is another story.

The reason I bring this up, is in regards to this thread, I am not sure if it will be up on the Export market, or in particular already is, and if Australia is already using these vehicles.

Maybe if so, is that what your friend claimed he saw?

Seeing the M 109 in person, I can say, It doesn't really look much larger in any aspect, other thatn the cross seciton than an Abrams,

But maybe the deminsions say otherwise.

 

[captiva303]

Australia has a tender out at the moment for self propelled AFATDS integrated artillery that is larger than anyone else currently uses (we want a 52 caliber gun rather than the standard 39 caliber you can get the gun easy enough but integrating the targeting system takes time...). It isn't in service yet it is mostly likely going to be a modified Korean as9 (which shares commonality with the abrams). As for tanks we use the same type of tanks as the US does Abrams tanks which we are currently upgrading to A2 standard.... Australia has nothing planned or in current service that matches the description that LtStryker suggests.

 

[KevinTheCynic]

Being a bit of a 'turret-head' I have a big interest in armoured vehicles, I can tell you that Australia has not manufactured any tanks in the last 50 years so there is no 'supertank' being made here.
From the description, is sounds like SP artillery. The Abrams is a large vehicle, the only other armoured vehicles I can think of that would be larger (and fitted with a gun) are self propelled arty.

 

[Congreve502]

Thanks a lot

 

[LtStryker]

Thank you guys, that helps

 

[brinktk]

The M109A6 Paladin has been in the US inventory since 1996. The only real modifications have been to the automated fire control system and they are currently being refitted to work on electric power as opposed to hydraulic power.

I can say that side by side with an Abrams, they are not nearly as wide. They are a bit taller and their guns definitely are more pronounced than the Abrams. A Paladin only weighs about 42 tons combat loaded as opposed to the Abrams 70 tons. It would make sense to see them with Abrams though. These vehicles are usually task organized together within Heavy Brigade Combat teams. If the tanks within the brigade areon maneuvers, than you could probably expect to see the Paladins out there with them practicing combined arms doctrine.

 

[Clinkerbuilt]

Maybe someone is still playing around with the Crusader? I haven't heard of any serious move for replacement of the Abrams at all; it's supposed to be in service until 2050 or so...and honestly, given the improvements to classes of ATGMs like the Javelin, I'm not exactly sure how long the MBT will remain viable on the battlefield, given its cost and complexity.....

 

[KevinTheCynic]

... I haven't heard of any serious move for replacement of the Abrams at all; it's supposed to be in service until 2050 or so...and honestly, given the improvements to classes of ATGMs like the Javelin, I'm not exactly sure how long the MBT will remain viable on the battlefield, given its cost and complexity.....

They've been saying that since the 1960s and each time the anti-armour weapons have advanced, so have the technologies behind armoured vehicles.
The same argument is also being waged over manned combat aircraft and even the aircraft carrier. It's an endless cycle of developing one system, then someone develops a counter to that system, then a counter to the counter-system is developed and so on and so on ad nauseum.

 

[Yossarian]

They've been saying that since the 1960s and each time the anti-armour weapons have advanced, so have the technologies behind armoured vehicles.
The same argument is also being waged over manned combat aircraft and even the aircraft carrier. It's an endless cycle of developing one system, then someone develops a counter to that system, then a counter to the counter-system is developed and so on and so on ad nauseum.

Thats the countinuing evolution of armed conflict istelf in terms of technology. I agree fully, plate armor and highly trained swordsmen used to be top of the line, and I am pretty sure only a handful of people then would have ever thought about something firing a small projectile using gunpowder would ever rewrite those rules.

With the rise of Active Protection systems, and their increased effectiveness , most systems without comprising the tanks mobility then the never ending race between protection and firepower will continue.

But certain concepts can and do die out, like the Battleship so has the Heavy or "Super" tank that the author here is asking about.

Bigger is not always better and history shows in the area of weapon developtment and technology if something is no longer at all useful it is abandoned.

For the author- Can you ask your friend again in more detail what he saw? Maybe can help narrow the field a tad bit more.

 

[Punisher]

Tiger ll Perhaps? One of the few remaining examples is kept in Bovington.

Still not British or American

Maus Tank Maybe? Only one non running example remains period, and it's in Russia I believe, also one of Hitler's dreamed super tanks... You would think he was trying to compensate for something....

Or maybe one of the itereations of the Stalin Tank?

Tell me where your friend saw one of these tanks? What muesum and maybe I can help you find your answer, as in many cases it could be a case of mistaken Identity. I have seen people mislabel a Jag Panther at the Patton muesum before an American tank, simply because it was in America, in all actually it was Captured by the U.S., not built by it.

Thing is, although there maybe large peices of hardware out there like maybe the M 109, which is a self propelled artillery piece.

The "big" or "heavy" tanks like these died out for a reason, take the Abrams or Challenger ll for example, which is the modern British and American MBT's.

Compared to these Behemoths, is that they lacked mobility and were difficult to delpoy, and often underpowered, which could severely limit their effectiveness and ability to respond to threats, as in the case of the Tiger ll, which if it wasn't swarmed by a unit of T 34's.

Allied Airpower or artillery could have made short work of them once spotted.


The thing is, although many modern armored battle tanks may have slightly different speed performance, but the priciple is the same in terms of mobility.

If a large hulking tank can't cross obsticles, or bridges or what not, it's not going to be very effective on a fast paced mechnized battlefield.

dude, u r very right at your point...

but before u make ur comments...i'd like to tell u that Tiger and Tiger 2's were still very mobile stated their weight. and secondly, the tiger 2 died out mostly bcoz it was a tank that was introduced straight into battle w/o any factory/field testing. they were rushed into battle....and every technology/or tank/anything has a period that is meant for testing and sorting out the teething problems. this was completely ignored with this unfortunate forgotten legend, as the tiger 2 was very powerful compared to its counterparts, if manned by an experienced crew.

 

[Yossarian]

dude, u r very right at your point...

but before u make ur comments...i'd like to tell u that Tiger and Tiger 2's were still very mobile stated their weight. and secondly, the tiger 2 died out mostly bcoz it was a tank that was introduced straight into battle w/o any factory/field testing. they were rushed into battle....and every technology/or tank/anything has a period that is meant for testing and sorting out the teething problems. this was completely ignored with this unfortunate forgotten legend, as the tiger 2 was very powerful compared to its counterparts, if manned by an experienced crew.

Right you are, serious engineering problems with the Tigers in the second WW.

Mainly from pressue to get the tanks into service as you stated as soon as possible. The reason many of today's modern MBT's are so capable are because of amply R&D time put behind them, also in Germany's case in the second WW.

The lack of trained crews as the war drew on really impacted the effectiveness of any super tank they deployed.

But another thread for another day.

 

[Korean Seaboy]

Hitler was fascinated with super-heavy tanks. I remember the two immense super-heavy tanks (actually, they're in another dimension from a normal siper-heavy tank) that were failed from the start: the Ratte and the Monster, otherwiae known as the Landkreuzers P2000 and P3000. I would have normally posted links, but I'm typing this in Tapatalk, so it's too difficult

 

[LeEnfield]

This is a super heavy British tank in the Bovington Tank Museum it weighs in around 80 tons and is equipped with a 3 inch gun. It was designed to hold key spots in Europe in case of a Russian invasion and was very heavily armoured so it could absorb a great deal of punishment. I must admit I can't remember its name.

 

[MontyB]

That is the British TOG II tank.

TOG-II Tank

This prototype British heavy tank was produced in the early years of World War II following the outdated military concepts and fears of trench warfare left over from The Great War.

The TOG designation literally stands for "The Old Gang" and is named after the British Special Vehicle Development Committee.

A TOG-I less heavy tank prototype was built first in 1939, but the 1940 requirement for a super heavy design resulted in the second prototype built by Foster's of Lincoln that kept many of the TOG-1 features but mounted a heavier 17 Pdr main gun (roughly 76mm) and weighed in at 80 tons by 1941. This was far heavier than the German Tigers that didn't start to appear until 1943.

The TOG-II was equipped with an electromechanical drive and torsion bar suspension. But although trialed successfully by May 1943 the concept was abandoned as impractical.

The surviving prototype ended up in the Bovington Tank Museum where it still can be viewed today.

Data:

Crew: 6

Weight: 80 tons

Length: 33 ft 3 in

Width: 10 ft 3 in

Height: 10 ft

Armor: 12-62mm

Powerplant: 600 hp diesel

Armament: 1x 17 Pdr

Speed: 8.5 mph

http://www.tankmuseum.org/ixbin/ind...scription=Please+enter&bov_main_utility_type=

 

[KevinTheCynic]

And to add a little more to the excellent information from MontyB, the two side-hinging doors you see in the photo from LeEnfield are not part of the final design. In keeping with The Old Gang's notions of warfare, there would be sponsons on the hull sides (where the doors are) to carry a light cannon in exactly the same manner as the British Mark I tank.

TOG II is a massive beast and two side mounted guns while not overly increasing its size, certainly would have added to the complexity of manoeuvring in close terrain. And despite its size, the crew compartment isn't particularly big considering how many tankers would be needed.

P.S. LeEnfield, I have a photo from Bovington of the TOG II from almost exactly the same angle. I was there in 2006 and I vaguely recall some talk about the museum making mock sponsons. Do you know if this has happened (it came up in some idle talk I had with another visitors so it's very much unreliable rumour)?