Talk:Super-heavy tank

Original research ?
Most of this article appears to be OR, at least with the current state of citations. Can those who created this article please cite some sources for some of the claims made? In particular of course the idea that the Jagdtiger is a "super heavy" AFV, but the Tiger II isn't, seems unlikely to me. The only source being cited here is Zaloga, and the work being cited is on Soviet AFV design. Yet most of the article is about non-Soviet vehicles.

We also have the odd problem of the KV-2 being listed in some articles as a super-heavy despite weighing far less than some of the AFVs that are not called super-heavies. Thanks. DMorpheus 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Older talk
Last time I checked, the Soviets were on the "Allied" team. Header ideas?


 * The article was written with a WWII-only slant, but neither Soviet example was designed while they were Allies. Needs a little refactoring. —Michael Z. 2006-11-12 05:56 Z 

I changed the slant of the article, you were quite right, should the KV2 be added as a Russian Super-hreavy? Simon


 * Does it qualify? At 52 tonnes it was significantly heavier than the KV-1 heavy tank, but that's still 5 tonnes less than the German Tiger of 1942.  It was really meant as more of an infantry support gun than a general-purpose tank. —Michael Z. 2006-12-05 00:06 Z 

-I suppose not, I suggested it merley as i have seen it mentioned as such elsewhere. Simon


 * I'm not sure. I think it is the heaviest Soviet production tank ever, and it was 10 tonnes heavier than the normal heavy tank of the time.  It's just hard to call it a super-heavy when Soviet tanks tended to be lighter than other countries' tanks.  Maybe it bears mentioning it here.  If you can cite a good source that calls it a super-heavy, then I think it belongs. —Michael Z. 2006-12-05 17:54 Z 

I think the article made the judgment based mainly on the huge 152mm gun; so I'll leave it. Simon

Heaviest soviet tank

The heaviest soviet tank was experimental IS-7 with it`s 68 tonnes. Weight of King-Tiger, but much tougher than Maus.

Should the K Panzerkampfwagen be added to the list of German tanks? It appears to significantly predate the other tanks on this page, but its weight, especially for its time period, would appear to justify inclusion. - Occasional Reader 17:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're quite right.--MWAK 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Grotte tank"?
Is there any evidence to back that up? It's uncited info at the moment. It seems suspiciously like a chatroom myth, and a quick google doesn't really reveal anything.


 * "In 1930, the OKMO in Leningrad began design studies of a heavy tank. Barykov divided the staff into two teams, one headed by the German engineer Grotte, and the other by N. Tsiets. The Grotte design, called TG-5 or T-42, was reputedly a 100-ton tank armed with a 107mm gun and having four subturrets, using pneumatic servo-mechanisms for engine control, and a pneumatic suspension, but it is doubtful whether the prototype was completed." —Zaloga (1984:85)


 * On p 80, Zaloga also mentions Grotte's TG-1 (Tank Grotte-1, army designation T-22) and TG-3 (T-29). —Michael Z. 2007-02-16 21:55 Z 

Merge to super-heavy tank
[note from talk:ultra-heavy tank —MZ]

The merge tag has been here for over a month, and was flagged as having no references on May 19. I have seen no source that differentiates super-heavy and ultra-heavy tanks so clearly. Even if it were so, the topic of very heavy tanks hasn't outgrown a single article. I'll be merging these shortly. —Michael Z. 2007-07-05 18:39 Z 

Here's the complete text from ultra-heavy tank:

An 'Ultra-heavy tank' is a tank that is even of greater mass than a Super Heavy Tank. The only tanks to be considered as "ultra-heavy tanks" were the two WWII German designs, the 'Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte' and the 'Landkreuzer P. 1500 Monster'. The latter was effectively a gigantic self-propelled artillery platform whereas the Ratte was simply an enormous and unconventional tank. Neither of these tanks were built or even considered as Albert Speer quickly put an end to these behemoth fantasies. It is doubtful that these vehicles would have been successful, however if these were to have hit the battlefield they truly would have been fearsome. They would also attract the same problems that super heavy tanks suffered from being that they are : too heavy, too slow, and generally unpractical.

Move to super-heavy armoured vehicle?
I've noticed that many of the listed vehicles aren't actually tanks: there's a number of assault guns [Jagdtiger, T-28] and at least one self-propelled gun [the P-1000] but other units like the Karl Mortars are excluded. Ted Van Gruder 11:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At first glance, I don't think I would agree. It's hard to apply standard categories like tank or self-propelled gun when something gets to a fantastical size, and sometimes colourful names are applied like land cruiser or land battleship, and most of them seem to have been called tanks now and then.  I rather like the current title, and it is very easy to understand.
 * But are there any references which use the term?
 * I don't think the Mörser Karl was an armoured vehicle, was it? The article doesn't mention armour, and it appears to be simply an open artillery piece on a tracked carriage.  I think they are superguns. —Michael Z. 2007-10-09 02:34 Z 
 * Right, the karl was simply a self-propelled mortar (sort of...it needed to be moved by rail any significant distance) and was unarmored. DMorpheus 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO the whole article seems like OR right now, with some really arbitrary definitions. For example, what makes the Jagdtiger a super-heavy tank? It wasn't a tank at all, and it is only slightly heavier than the tank it was based on. Of course weight went up as WW2's gun-and-firepower race developed. There is nothing fundamentally different about the Jagdtiger than puts it in this category. I've added the appropriate tags. DMorpheus 19:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On the subject of names plucked from thin air: "supergun" is only a defined concept when it comes to the Supergun affair of the 1990s, otherwise it is just a woolly and vague use of a "super-" prefix. The concept with a definition is large-calibre artillery.  Uncle G (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
I agree with removing the list of pros and cons. Something like that ought to have a citation. I think it would be acceptable to mention verifiable advantages and disadvantages of particular tanks—for example, I'm sure we can cite a source that says the super-heavy Maus would have been very slow, and suffered because it couldn't travel by rail and over bridges.

But I don't mind the way the adjective "ultra-heavy" was used in describing these fantasy tanks. It wasn't proposing some particular classification. It is merely a simple English phrase indicating that we're now talking about something still heavier than the super-heavy tanks already mentioned. —Michael Z. 2007-10-09 02:18 Z 


 * The trouble is, it implies a division where one doesn't actually exist. Giant tracked quarry excavators aren't called ultra-heavy, and even Games Workshop didn't use the term when describing their cityblock sized supertanks. Ted Van Gruder 05:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Ultra" is a plain English prefix meaning "1 extreme(ly), excessive(ly).... 2 going beyond what is usual or ordinary; extreme." Saying "ultra-heavy tanks" means we are about to start writing about tanks which are even heavier than the "super-heavy" ones we already mentioned.


 * Of course it implies a division, in the organization of the article, between the extremely heavy tanks which were designed or built, and the fantastical unrealized concepts. But it doesn't impose some special dictionary definition of "Ultra-Heavy Tank". —Michael Z. 2007-10-09 16:58 Z 


 * The thing is, the original 'ultra heavy tank' article was created specifically to imply that there was a point where super-heavy ends and ultra-heavy begins, with the P-1000 and P-1500 articles both stating them as specifically 'ultra-heavy' instead of 'super-heavy.' Since I'm not aware of any official use of the term 'ultra-heavy' let alone a specific weight class being applied to it, it's more correct to use 'super-heavy' to refer to all outsize armour, and non-outsize armour when the term has been specifically applied to it [as with the relatively light Objekt 279]. Ted Van Gruder 05:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That article is now gone—how does that affect this? The debate there was an arbitrary classification implied by having two separate articles.


 * What do you mean "official use"?—are you aware of official use of the term super-heavy? On what do you base "it's more correct to use 'super-heavy'"?  Again you are applying arbitrary classifications with no basis.  There is no "official" classification of super-heavy tank, any more than there is another of ultra-heavy tank.  This is simply an article about unusually heavy armoured fighting vehicles, and these plain English words are being used to describe and compare, not to apply some "official label".


 * It's plain English, man. But if you have a bee about "ultra-heavy", then I'll change the text to read "still heavier". —Michael Z. 2007-10-10 17:34 Z 


 * Actually, the Objekt 279 really was called 'Troyanov Super Heavy Tank,' so there is at least one official use of the term. However, what I object to is the addition of a term where it's not needed. A million ton tank is a super heavy tank, and requires no pointless additions as to how 'outrageous' that figure might be considered by some. Ted Van Gruder 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought опытный тяжелый танк translated as "advanced heavy tank." This seems to be the most common name cited for Object 279, but I don't know if it's official.  Scanning through the tank articles linked, I can find no indication that any of these were officially named super-heavy anything.


 * There's no point in two separate articles, as if super-heavy and ultra-heavy were two fundamentally different classifications. But super-heavy is conventional English meaning "beyond heavy," and ultra-heavy means excessively heavy.  This isn't the "addition of a term where it's not needed." In fact it's a very easy-to-understand and economical way of introducing this paragraph in the article, and certainly much more functional than the poetic flourish about "fearsome but fantastical behemoths" at the end of it. —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 02:58 Z 


 * My mistake: опытный тяжелый танк translates as ‘experimental heavy tank.’ Have you seen a reference for the name "Troyanov Super Heavy Tank?" —Michael Z. 2007-10-13 22:02 Z 


 * More than just a little late, but yes, Kubinka Tank Museum calls it that: http://www.tankmuseum.ru/p1.html Herr Gruber (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why does the paragraph need any such introduction? Ted Van Gruder 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Paragraph writing 101: "the topic sentence introduces the main idea of the paragraph. It is the most general sentence in a paragraph." —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 19:01 Z 


 * Why does the paragraph in question need any more introduction than it has, captain pedantry? Boris Norris 09:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

References for super-heavy designation
As a start, try a search at http://books.google.com/. It looks like authors have referred to various things using the description "super-heavy tank," including the Tiger II, Porsche's 185-ton tank of 1944, the TOG 1 and 2, and Adler's E 100. The KV-1 and KV-2 were also called super-heavy, but this appears to be from the point of view of German field reports in June 1941, when they had no guns which could penetrate the KV tanks' armour. Also, the  KV-4 and KV-5 design projects.

The designation is relative, and means different things when in different periods and textual contexts. I see no evidence that this is some "official" category. It is simply a plain English description of very heavy tanks, as "ultra-heavy tank" is a description of still heavier tanks. And there's no problem with this article about such tanks, as long as all of the statements are supportable by references. —Michael Z. 2007-10-23 02:57 Z 

particular points
That heavy tanks reached technical limitations needs citing, or the sentence needs reconstruction if it superheavy that is being referred. Some of the language is unencyclopaedic - "stunning effectiveness", "behemoth" but we still need a recognised authority for the phrase "super-heavy". GraemeLeggett 11:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"One exception"
The article states that only a few prototypes for a few of these models were produced, and that none of them saw combat with "one exception." I'm way too lazy to read everything - what is this exception? Grahamdubya (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe there is an exception. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Found this http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-viii-maus-porsche-typ-205-tiger-iip.htm#high_1 "The popular version states that V2 prototype was blown up by the personnel at proving grounds in Kummersdorf, while some sources state that actually V2 saw combat while defending the facility at Kummersdorf. When war ended, almost finished V1 turret and third hull were found at Krupp facilities in Essen." Could possibly be that one V2 actually saw combat. Kevincio - 22 August 2008


 * Could be but no one seems to know. The other possible exception, if you want to call it that, is the French Army's use of the Char lourd 2C in 1940. They were all destroyed on their train while being moved. I've read conflicting accounts that they were either destroyed by German aircraft or scuttled by their crews to prevent capture. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
I have reverted the addition of an infobox. The information added to it wasn't helpful as the range of Super Heavy tanks in the article body are very varied. Giving unknown dates is worthless, not all Super Heavy tanks use torsion bar suspension, etc. So despite what the template documentation might say in encouraging to use it for generic articles, it doesn;t fit well with this one. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Karl-Gerät
I've added the Karl-Gerät self-propelled gun, since other entries on the list are SPGs, but I'm not sure if it is technically a tank. Feel free to remove it if you think it doesn't qualify. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The T-28 was later designated a super heavy tank, the Karl-Gerät is a siege mortar which was never designated a tank. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

IS-7 and Object 279
These tanks only weighed 68(65 for the model 1946) and 60 metric tons. On the Russian article they are not listed, nor are they considered super heavy tanks on their Russian articles. Because of this I think they should be removed. User:Pharoahjared 19 October 2013‎.


 * Updated the article to fix that issue. GMRE (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Three Landkreuzer P. Designs?
I found some information on many sources that the Germans drew up plans for Three different Landkreuzer P. types. All I was able to dig up was their the names: Landkreuzer P. 1000 "Ratte", Landkreuzer P. 1500 "Monster", and the Landkreuzer P. 2000 "Gott".VoVillia 23:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vovillia (talk • contribs)

Multi-turreted tanks.
Should some of the larger tanks with multiple turrets be included in this list? A substantial number of the definitive Super-Heavies listed have more than one turret, and while there are assuredly multi-turreted tanks that aren't big enough, like the T-26, examples like the T-35 or T-100 might be worth at least looking into. The House Always Wins VIII (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If any multi-turreted tanks exist, which are notably heavier than the heavy tanks produced during the same time period, then they are super-heavy tanks and should be added. Multi-turreted designs are not automatically more or less fit to be considered super-heavy, at least by the current definition provided by this article. --FlintTD (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The assumption that weapons development always beats armor / equal adversaries destroying any target
I do not think this section under Post Cold War is strictly accurate: "At the same time the weapon development allows for any equal adversary to destroy any target detected and tracked by the wide array of different sensors available." MBT frontal arc armor is generally strong enough to stop another MBTs projectiles effectively, especially with the cumulative armor upgrades or redesigns happening to all modern tanks in use. In Iraq, for example, coalition troops tried to scuttle an M1 tank to prevent its capture. This turned out to be difficult, and they used this "chance" to test the armor, shooting the disabled tank point blank into the turret front with APFSDS with another M1. It did not penetrate even under these fairly ideal conditions. As such I think it would be more accurate to say armor protection has always been a trade-off. Complete protection is never feasible, but you can protect reliably against even the heaviest weapons from a few directions at least, if so desired. 92.193.217.253 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment. I will remove this sentence. --FlintTD (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

On the Panzer X and XI Signal Designs
I don't see any reason as to why the two Signal designs must be kept in this article, as they were never serious or real projects, only existing to fool allied intelligence. 2603:8001:A900:B9B2:502C:12F9:5777:30FE (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I am also somewhat perplexed by the inclusion of the Signal designs. I made an edit to explicitly call out the fact they were fake designs, but have not yet removed them. I would second a vote for their removal from this article. --FlintTD (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

What is a Super-Heavy Tank?
I feel as though this article fails to precisely define a super-heavy tank. Specifically, which tanks qualify and which do not?

Our current descriptors are "any tank that is notably beyond the standard of the class heavy tank in either size or weight relative to contemporary vehicles" and "an extremely resilient vehicle for penetrating enemy formations without fear of being destroyed in combat".

I understand that AFV classification can often be quite complex, however I do think that we need some additional boundaries outlined on this article for what does and does not qualify. By our current definition, the Tiger II and T30 should qualify as super-heavy tanks. FlintTD (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)