🤙 guppies

Yeeee boii

Thats a bad anime

@@lurtzy_ oh no Anyway

@@lurtzy_ i respect your opinion but, it's not correct.

Highest credibility out of any other sources.

The finest source there is

Still more credible than wikipedia.

Girls und panzer has a autoloading karl gerat and a drifting bt-42 🤦‍♂️ so wouldn't use it for reserch, a anime wiki is the last place i would search for informaton about tanks i would use something better such as tank encycopedia

I mean i'm not shitting on the anime i watched it and it's kinda mid the historical references make it a tad bit better but still the realism out of the window didn't make me like it that much, plus the oversexualization of the characters.

lol 😂

Lol, the Maus literally couldn't cross any bridge at all because they'd collapse under it's weight. Probably why it was never produced tbf

That's why they have tracks silly goose

​@@yaboianz needed to lose some weight 😂😂😂

​@@yaboianzIt was produced, just not mass-produced. There were about five made, I think.

**DENY** wait why doesnt it work?! **deny** **deny** **deny** HEELPPP

Artillery Barrage : Did someone say *Super Heavy*

Lol

P-47 (A-10's namesake): Hey yo!

@Hernando Malinche A heavy artilery piece does effective nothing if the shell doesn't direct impact or land right next to the tank. But if it does, oh boy. The shots is going to esentially pulverize the tank. I've seen photos where arty just straight up flipped a tank on it's side

No, the Maus is what you get when tanks are massively increasing in capability every year and you're worried the Soviets might be spamming IS-3s at you c. 1943. And then of course when everyone has settled on T-34s and upgraded Pz IVs and half your factories have become rubble, it gets built anyway despite being cancelled because Porsche go brrr.

@@mysss29 Porsche go brrrr is still a motto we germans operate under. Only reason we still have no speed limit.

@@mysss29 no offense but I think you mean kv series tank the maus was being designed in 1942 ,2 years before the is -3 was even designed and 3years before it was unveiled to the world

@@sethneall5705 the IS series is already under development, also Panthers and Tingers are made to counter the KV

The T28 was for invading Japan.

Or crossing Rivers. Never underestimate rivers

Not a real issue. The Tiger 1 had lower ground pressure than the M4 Sherman because of it's wider treads.

​@@accelerationquanta5816that extra weight did not help the poor transmission.

​@@vondantalingtingThis is a myth, the Tiger I was as reliable as a Panzer IV

​@@dmitripetrenko4999Well that's not true But TIGER 1 certainly wasnt uncapable as many say.. It stats say alot.

Yeah exactly what the US found out with the T95, T28 Prototype, T29(and it's variants T30/32/34), and M103(along with it's upgraded brother the T57 Heavy) all failed. M6 became the T29 which ultimately was doomed for being too heavy, and the T14 never made it out of testing with only 1 surviving at Tank Museaum Bovington known as "Excelsior". The M26 Pershing is the only "heavy" tank to actually see combat and be effective, and even then the M26 was really more of a heavily armored medium like the Jumbo than it was a designated "heavy" tank. Still more than capable of dealing with Tiger, Tiger II, Panther, STUG, and Hetzer.

@@soulessshadow5356 Yep, and the even then it was discovering that transporting these things across the sea is even more difficult and honestly it was a smart move to focus more on the Sherman then their well...other failed projects isn't that right Germany?

Now THAT is a tank, 11 barrels of hell, and the size of a house, what more could you ask for?

"IT IS THE BANEBLADE!"

"A BANEBLANE!!!"

Everything the Ratte wishes it would have been if it was built

The Baneblade goes barely any faster than the Maus did.

The most trustworthy and unbiased source

@@Armadurapersonal true

@@Armadurapersonal facts

Better than "trust me bro" source

This mans is actually just watching anime made for simps for his information

Yeah but they’re about 4 to 5 times faster on average

@@alexhohl8530 wouldn't day 4-5x. If we're talking top speed they're around 2x as fast, if we're talking power 3x

@@alexhohl8530 Speed isnt what determines the class of the tank, there are many light tanks that are slow as hell such as the French Renault FT.

I think time/era also has a thing in this. Back in 40's 50-60 ton tanks were no doubt heavy but people's insanity was making them to build further heavy tanks as they thought more mass= more armour = more chance of winning leading to some unbelievable shit like p1000 and etc. Today we know it isn't true and that's why every nation makes a tank which got to be both heavy and agile at the same time. And especially with all the computers and other stuffs on board the tank typically weights in around 70 tons but not more than that. Maybe that's why we don't call them as "heavy tanks" since heavy tanks were made on simple idea of taking damage and steamrolling the enemy which is not true for a MBT.

It's important to keep in mind that the anti-tank armament has advanced tremendously since then. Heavy tanks were meant to be nearly invincible. Modern tank crews are keenly aware of just how vulnerable their tin box is, and use them accordingly. In a sense, the MBT role is more similar to light and medium tanks than heavy ones

I can still hear all those transmissions crying from here

_NOW_ is the era of heavy tanks though. Tiger 2, M1A2 and Challenger 2 all weigh in at about 70 tons. Combat Weight of a modern T-80 is about 50 tons.

@JamesNeave1978 Tbf, an MBT is the speed of a Medium tank. It's a Medium tank Armored and armed like a Heavy.

@@thebighurt2495 Not really. It's a medium tank armed and armored like a medium tank. Heavy tanks are designed to sacrifice some mobility for armor and firepower. So if your "heavy tank" is highly mobile, that means that if you still want it to be a heavy tank, you need to put a bigger gun and thicker armor on it. Tanks in general get better over time so one generation's heavy thank may have its armor and firepower matched by the next generation's medium tank, but the medium is still not a heavy. The T-54 had drastically more armor and firepower than the older KV-1 heavy tank, but that doesn't mean it had "the armor and firepower of a heavy tank", because it existed at the same time as the T-10 heavy, which was much more powerful.

I myself would think a “heavy tank” is one the cannot be penetrated easily by common calibers of their respective era. Not just that it weighs a lot (reduced mobility) or has bigger gun than anything else. It would be an honor to have a weapon caliber or types designed to specifically penetrate my tank. UwU.

Yeah

I use Azur Lane for sources on Naval History lmao

@@kingwolf9447 my cultured fellow 😂

This is a bit of a confusing statement if you know anything about war Because in truth, even back in World War II air power was hugely important. Just like you had light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, super heavy tanks, half-tracks, tank-hunters, and gun carriers. You also had the different classification of aircraft, fighter aircraft, dive bombers, tactical bombers, strategic aircraft, attack planes, what have you If you lost air superiority this means that essentially everyone was vulnerable to being bombed. The real cost of superheavy tanks was raw materials.

Put respect on the TOG II

​@@wisemankugelmemicus1701 not just raw materials but logistics as a whole. Everything from fuel to spare parts and repairs was just way way harder on super heavy tanks. And that doesn't even mentions stuff like rivers getting in your way

"Decently" is the important word here. Because while heavies are decent, mediums can perform their jobs better

Wasn’t that, it was mobility and weight. Was very difficult to get them anywhere in any numbers.

He is obviously a man of culture.

What the fuck is that

@@OnGuardYT Japanese anime about high school girls who compete in a sport that conduct "war" games with tanks. It is a slice of life anime with tanks. The title is obviously German: Girls und (and) panzer (tanks). I watched it, and it is a cute change of pace.

@@Tempestan Oh, I'm not a fan of anime or cute things but cool I guess.

@@OnGuardYT To each their own. If you ever get tired of what the main stream US entertainment companies are pushing as entertainment, give anime a try. So much more than cute stuff to pick from. If you are a horror fan, a small warning, Japanese horror is on a different level than Western horror, you have been warned...

Any dive bombers would have a field day with Super Heavy Tanks

Both in the Wallet and Points.

A Leman Russ can do *all* the jobs. Infantry? Punisher Vehicles? Annihilator BIG Vehicles? Vindicator Buildings? Demolisher The Old Girl's got you covered

and yet, even in Horus Heresy, as part of the death guard legion, I really want to field a Baneblade

i feel like the baneblade is more of a MBT than a super heavy tank. It can move quite fast.... althought that was in DoW, not sure bout the table

even as a marine enjoyer, it’s like “move, let me get my FELLBLADE SUPER HEAVY TANK AND SHOVE IT UP THEUR RECTUM.”

And the pershing that people can never decide if its a medium or heavy tank.

@@robertharris6092 well it was a medium but it had variants later on that where heavy’s so it’s a medium overall

Not entirely accurate. Russian MBT’s resemble medium tanks much more than heavy tanks. They are designed to be fast and agile with less armor like T-90 or T-62

@@derblah9006 except they are slower than western mbts

@@Old_user123 only the ones with gas turbine engines. Which don't do good in cold, requires expensive high grade fuel, and burns through much faster. Diesel engines are much cheaper, reliable and economical.

Bruh

more like people who say heavy tanks are good play hoi4 too much

​@@anegg9057 dont most people prefer medium tank divisions though

TOG-II is most epic swag 2016 compilations (*not click bait!!!*) tonk

Tog armor😳 I like grille 15

That's a log

*THE P-1000 RÄTTE AND P-1500 MONSTER HAVE ENTERED THE CHAT*

@@tankythemagnorite9855 Easily the most batshit, useless designs conjured up by the nazbois

I'd say casemate TDs were actually pretty worthwhile for nations that lacked a strong economy like Cold War era Sweden or WW2 Germany

​@@wokedog1799Sweden and Germany never had a big fleet of TDs. Sweden went in deep with the MBT idea, yes the STRV103 was designated a MBT by Sweden. Germany had a lot of Stugs, but Stugs aren't TDs.

Which started out as Assault Guns like the Stug intended to provide direct HE Fire support to the infantry.

Lmao I laughed why he used gup wiki

I thought that is T95 not T28

@@ZaKaizar T95 and T28 GMC are both meant for the same vehicle

@@feivellazuardi1867 wait really?

@@ZaKaizar yes, at first it's named T95, but after 1946 it's renamed into T28

I can still not wrap my head around how you lose an 85t tank in a field.

@@harmdallmeyer6449 85?? That number is way too low, you gotta bump that number up.

The jumbos, kv1s and super Pershing’s were a similar thing the only ones that were really ineffective were superheavies

@@justyourdad4469 yeah the Pershing's were pretty good heavies, but the KVs had TERRIBLE transmission problems, and it was much less mobile than his cousin the IS-2, the jumbo on the other hand was a good tank but came too late to the war, and it's ground pressure was much higher and the extra armor put a lot more stress on the transmission, and it also had a lower limit of gas and millage

If IS-2 doesn't have very TERRIBLE gun depression, then its a good tank. But the IS-2 has -3° of gun depression.

@@fatcat7481 The Pershing is a medium tank... the Super Pershing is a Heavy.

@@deutschespanzer-iv-ausf.g8374 sorry my bad, then I meant aone of the heavy T 26s

my personal favorites are the Carro Veloce L3/33 and the TKS. Interesting and pretty little pieces

Imagine being shot at while your head is in the renault’s «dome hatch thing» lol

@@tlshortyshorty5810 Mine are L3/33 and Weasel.

Tankettes were very useful and still are very useful. You need to remember that infantry is a very large part or an army and machine guns are very efficient at getting rid of infantry.

Not if the enemy has tanks 😂

@@warlock-jr-2545 Definitely fucked when your forces couldn't hold the line, but it's a blessing if they are in urban warfare

@@xenomorph9114 tanks suck in urban warfare.

I knew someone would have mentioned the inability of most infrastructure to handle them. Roads, tunnels, and bridges meant mostly for domestic traffic could be way too narrow or even too weak to handle the largest tanks.

@@nickverbree Ignore all of that even, how could they ship them? Everyone that developed super heavy tanks realized that they can't be shipped anywhere on any standard transport. The T95/T28 had sort of considered this when making the outer tracks be able to come off, but everyone else? Nah.

@@volatile100 Exactly. Then there are the tactical limitations if you somehow managed to wave a magic wand and teleport them to the battlefield. There goes all the speed of an attack, and it's not like you're going to have an easy time hiding one.

So, basically, they cost a fortune to build and maintain, and then you have to blow another couple squillion dollars/rubles/whatevers just getting them _to_ the fight since nothing not purpose-built to the task could convey them there? Sounds like they weren't even close to worth the cost of fielding them.

It still was part of the equation, but yes, they were less reliable and mobile, which is at odds with the favoring of mobile doctrines, they were logistical nightmares too as you mentioned

mbts just got heavier over time due to armies needing to cram more technology into them. Also unlike the king tiger modern mbts are actually maneuverable and pretty fast.

@@iampurechaos depends on where you're looking really, Russia started off with medium tanks into that turned into a MBT while Britain had heavy tanks that turned into an MBT. America is pretty split. The M26 was first designated as a heavy tank but was redesigned as a medium tank.

@@leovang3425 Most western MBTs seem more like heavy tanks while eastern MBTs seem to be closer to medium tanks.

Heavy or not. MBT are designed around being both fast and versitile. An heavy armored will always be outgunned by heavy cannons. That why MBT was designed to rely on maneuverality instead of armor to survive. This is so much true in modern world with the advent of automatic missile targeting system and drones

More like a combination of the best traits of the Medium and heavy.

Ikr

He used the Girls und Panzer wiki as a source and I love it

I mean, he also used his rifle, only used the 1911 because he got charged at while out of ammo. Alvin York later said "I think God was looking out for me that day", to which the officer in charge of deciding whether 300+ germans captured in ome action were enough for a MoH answered "i'm starting to think you're right".

I mean, ww1 went from no tank to tank, that's a pretty big development right there

“Arguably” means that the topic can be argued and won 100% of the time lol not that there was an argument to be made against

@@Shloomy_Shloms well you are arguably wrong

War thunder, not WOT. It’s a meme in our community, and WOT doesn’t have modern tanks

@@alexvicario835 we had what 3 leaks by now? something about the challengers 2 armor, Chinese ammo and what else?

@@iampurechaos 4 leaks actually (probably not in order) tiger airframe leak , Leclerc turret traverse leak , Challenger layout and armour? leak, and the Ztz ammo leak.

Thank you. If anything, the American insistence that medium tanks could do everything on their own is what was proved foolish. They suffered so badly from their lack of a heavy tank that they ended up just welding armor plates to the front of a Sherman to make an ersatz substitute, the little known but heavily used "Jumbo Sherman".

Expect they suck logistically, gotta have engineering vehicles to tow them back for repairs and such if they get damaged in battle, strong enough bridges and spare parts so when they break down you won't have to cannibalize other tanks for parts. This is why the Sherman did so well (along with most Medium's).

@@dark7element What do you mean the M4 Sherman sucked so bad? The Sherman did all of its jobs extremely well, and could take care of most tanks the Germans had. The Jumbo wasn’t even made until 1944 and that’s when the Sherman had a nice two year service which was relatively good.

@@robertoroberto9798 Main problem with the Sherman is it just wasn't heavily armored enough (PaK 40 cut right through it and the FlaK 88 could kill it from way beyond the Sherman's gun range) and couldn't deal with Tigers or Panthers. And Panthers weren't THAT rare, either. Which means the US didn't have something to do what heavy tanks do: spearhead concentrated attacks against heavy defenses. It's like not having a large-size wrench in your toolbox, and justifying that by saying "but I was able to afford FIVE mid-size wrenches instead!" If the Sherman was perfectly adequate why did they field the Jumbo as a stop-gap until the M26 Pershing could be rushed over? There was no good reason for the US army not to have a heavy tank in its inventory for D-Day and they definitely felt the pain of lacking one.

@@dark7element Panthers were in 1943, and were mainly used on the Eastern Front before Normandy. Pak-40s and 8.8cm Flak can pierce through the Sherman’s frontal armour at long range, but good luck trying to get that long range when you can’t see anything past 700 meters because of French Hedgerows. It could deal with Panthers and Tigers, mainly by flanking them and using the good maneuverability and visibility given to the crew to attack the side armour. Even then, there was only two reported attacks by Shermans against Tigers on the Western Front, and Shermans won both of them. By that wrench analogy, the US came with the reasoning of why have one big wrench that can do the biggest of tasks, when you can have 5 medium wrenches that do everything well and if one breaks, you got 4 other wrenches. The Americans fielded the Jumbo because there was some shortcomings for the armour, the Sherman itself was still adequate against most enemies it faced. There was also a good reason for not servicing a heavy tank. They were fighting a war across a thousand miles, and shipping heavy tanks would complicate supply lines with the M6 being barely any better than the M4.

Obj-279 moon rover better ;)

Tonk-10Mačo

Didnt they try to train dogs to go under tanks with bombs? Think it was dropped because the dogs would just run under their own tanks when testing it.

@@giovanni4470 that was one of the projects, but there were multiple. Another one was strapping explosives to bats.

@@meatball.9710 Jesus whoever had that idea must have been crazy. Maybe its a myth but heard that the romans used to light pigs on fire to scare the phoenicians Elephants and it apparently worked pretty well.

@@giovanni4470 FIRE PIGS, that must have been something.

You just reminded me of the pigeon missiles. Lmao

Yes, the maus, tortoise, doom turtle (not actual name but post-war internet nickname) were all super heavies, however, the baneblade i feel would come under a different classification in real life due to it being more of a moving fortress.

@@StrakanDocrusReakal not to mention titans, gargants, revenant titans, etc

Trade offer. You recive: a P-1000 Rätte. I recive: 2,613,839.28 reichmarks.

I think the classification is the same still and MBTs would be heavy tanks and the speed is just what came with engine improvements like with planes between WWI and WWII

well, in british and french tank doctrine prior to and during WW2 they distinguished between cruiser tanks and infantry tanks, cruiser tanks being fast tanks to punch through and disrupt enemy lines, and infantry tanks to support the main battle forces. however, once militaries realized that wasn't very effective (and saw how useful multi-purpose tanks like the sherman or t-34 were) the concept of the "main battle tank" became for favorable as tank doctrine instead, leading to, for example, the centurion tank in 1945. i realize after typing all this that it might not be that relevant to the question, but fuck it i'm not deleting it after all that work.

That actually raises a good question: how different are historical medium tanks and contemporary MBTs in terms of mobility? Have advances in suspension, track, and drivetrain entirely compensated for in some cases doubling their weight? If their battlefield mobility is comparable, then they could be tactically treated as very powerful medium tanks. But regardless, in terms of them reaching the battle via the infrastructure of the time, they would still very much be heavy or super-heavies. I think in the big picture, the surrounding support requirements like truck and mobile crane capacity, dockyard crane and ship capacity, factory crane capacity, fuel transport capability, and electronic complexity have just all increased since WWII so much that any MBT of even the 1970s or 80s would force armies of the time to consider them super-heavy tanks that could seldom be used to their full potential.

@@skele3310 I do believe it was AN awnser at least. The French and British would have called it a cruiser.

Russian ones are medium and american ones count as heavy

True that, always funny to watch them cope on how "Waaa the Sherman sucked and the *Insert German tank of choice* was so much better!"