What's Jow Forumss opinion of the t-35
Also, general big ww2 tanks
Big fucking tanks
Bentley Phillips
Parker Watson
It sucks
Aiden Long
These kind of WW1-inspired tanks are ultimately useless, but they look awe-inspiring IRL.
Caleb Fisher
Too big to be effective. Perfect bait for tankhunter aircraft.
Owen Lewis
The only situations a heavy tank would have been appropriate in WW2 were the Maginot Line and Sevastopol, and even then you'd want an SPG.
Henry Gray
It was a good parade tank.
Josiah Reed
Overly complex parade queen.
Dumping heavy tanks.
Henry Torres
Jaxon Sanders
Robert Long
Aiden Peterson
Nathan Baker
Ryder Parker
Jason Ramirez
Connor Williams
Jason Brown
Evan Ross
Lincoln Mitchell
Nolan King
Landon Brooks
Ryan Bennett
Samuel Reyes
Nathaniel Sanders
Nathan Garcia
Dominic Adams
Charles Evans
Nathan Myers
Carson Nelson
Chase Wood
Hunter Reyes
Jaxson Nguyen
Dominic Miller
David Long
Brayden Richardson
Bentley Torres
Camden Watson
Connor Stewart
Austin Wilson
Colton Gutierrez
Alexander Hall
Nicholas Ross
Jordan Morales
Matthew Reyes
Daniel Campbell
Charles Parker
Sebastian Ortiz
Ethan Torres
Levi Gonzalez
Luke Anderson
Blake Evans
Jeremiah Nelson
Jordan Green
Mason Anderson
Sebastian Wood
Brayden Butler
Jose Hill
Oliver Ortiz
Landon Adams
Thomas Foster
Dominic Williams
I don't see any cheese sandwiches
Chase King
>Gee Billovich, how come your momski lets you have a tank with FIVE turrets?
I, prersonally, like multi-turreted tanks. Yeah they're shit but the concept's just too awesome to ignore. My other favorites:
>T-28
>M3 Lee (not quite multi-turreted but whatever)
>SMK
>Two-turreted T-26
Jayden Collins
Based Noinposter. Have you a tank.
Ethan Evans
>post Noin
>receive tank
I... I'm amazed.
Samuel Reed
Best girl in that whole train wreck of a series.
Dylan Robinson
I still think this is probably the most viable multiple turret design.
Leo Jackson
I still think the turret-on-turret approach is better. A lot more complicated to build and operate, but it solves a lot of the issues of multi-turret tanks; excessive length, greater weight due to having to armor two turret structures, and limited traverse of turrets.
Adrian Morgan
Just for fun I'll dump the rest of these. KV-4 was a crazy fucking project.
Luke Robinson
Lincoln Lewis
Landon Ramirez
Always thought it was strange how some of these were relatively conventional heavy tanks, some are still well within the super-heavy tank archetype, and some are just insane by design. Say what you want about Soviet tank design, but it certainly wasn't lacking for imagination.
Lucas Torres
Joshua Adams
Aaron Ramirez
Joshua Lewis
And finally, file under the aforementioned "insane by design". Ammo storage in the turret wasn't uncommon, even in tanks without a bustle, but... well lining the inside of your fucktall heavy tank with ammo seems like a uniquely Soviet idea.
Carter Jenkins
Drive it in the middle of a city block, if they panzerfaust it and it blows up, it does more damage to the Germans than to the Soviets.
Andrew Gutierrez
Or a turret onto a casemate.. Like a Pz.II turret on top of a StuG / Panzerjager.
Caleb Bailey
Loved using it in Blitzkrieg II, where I just parked it at a crossroads, left it surrounded and watched how it (briefly) started slinging shells and MG fire in all directions before going out in a blaze of glory
But on the subject of Heavy tanks and "useless" tank posts, what are the criteria that seperate a functional heavy tank (IS-2) from impractical paperweights (Maus/E100)?
Samuel Collins
While she didn't do too good, she tried her best.
She was best girl, and beautiful too. Fact.
Joshua Bell
Classic Soviet engineering.
Potentially, although the Germans were pretty strict about what got called a "tank" in that respect. As you see above, the Soviets toyed around with that sort of idea with the KTTS and Shashmurin proposals, the French tried the turret-over-assault gun idea with the Char B1, the British with the Churchill I, etc. German tankers, however, did not like the idea of operating in assault guns; there's a whole history behind the StuG's development regarding different branches arguing over who would be in charge of these new assault gun units (because nobody wanted them.
Again, it depends on who's operating it, but in terms of what you'd want a heavy tank to do. There's always that balance of armor, firepower, mobility, and mechanical reliability and heavy tanks tend to see those taken to some extreme. However the key is generally in protection or firepower, depending on who you ask. The IS was the same weight and roughly equivalent in armor protection to a Panther, but with substantially more firepower, thus being designated a heavy tank. Likewise, the American Pershing hardly tipped the scales in terms of tanks operating in the ETO, but because of it's relatively thick armor (especially on the T26E1) and were thus considered heavy tanks by the Americans, despite being reclassified as medium tanks after the war.
Jackson Parker
Hunter Garcia
>what are the criteria that seperate a functional heavy tank (IS-2) from impractical paperweights (Maus/E100)?
>paperweights
Well you answered your own question. There's only so heavy you can make a tank before it becomes entirely impractical. There's a reason that the US and the Soviet Union, the two largest industrial powers in the world coming out of WWII, never built tanks much over the 60t mark. Europe is old; it's bridges and roads are old. Deserts are covered in soft sand. Jungles are hard to navigate in small tanks with good floatation, let alone something big. Cities had already proven to be deathtraps for huge, lumbering heavy tanks. The top military minds looked at these vehicles, then looked at the entire globe, and realized that most of the area of the planet open and flat enough to effectively operate these vehicles were at the bottoms of oceans or in the middle of the US or USSR.
Michael Hughes
It should also be added that man-portable shaped-charge munitions were making tanks with incredibly thick armor impractical unless those tanks were purpose designed to stay very far away from enemy infantry (M103, Conqueror, Chieftain). Automotive components had become much, much better after the war, but they still weren't capable of driving something as big and heavy as say, and Abrams, as fast as we might expect and Abrams to drive. Likewise, composite armor was still in its infancy, used almost entirely experimentally rather than operationally up until the mid 60s, and even then would have to wait some time before seeing combat use.
In short, there were a lot of evolution that took place between something like the Maus, and modern MBTs, over the course of which most tank designers realized that there was no reason to go back. Any modern MBT, and really any 2nd generation MBT or newer, would vastly out perform superheavy vehicles like the Maus, T28, or KV-4.
Ian Ramirez
it looks so much smaller without the second row of track
Ian Perez
I always thought it was strange how different it looks, yeah. I think a lot of it is conditioning from playing too much War Thunder and World of Tanks; seeing the T28 and T95 represented as two totally different vehicles for some reason, always with auxiliary tracks on and off, respectively.
John Cook
Cameron Garcia
Hudson Robinson
They were great for the years when tank warfare wasn't a real defined thing, but shit once the tank took shape.