Why Heavy Tanks Are A Bad Idea

Heavy tanks embody the common understanding of what a tank is; a big metal box with a big gun that rolls right at the enemy. It's no wonder, then, that heavy tanks are some of the most popular vehicles, even in the armored fighting vehicle enthusiast community. But when you look at tank history, heavy tanks were only popular for a couple of decades. What happened to them, and why don't armored forces revive the concept?

Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.

Songs used (in order from first to last):
Subnautica - Into the Unknown
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)

Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)

Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.

#warthunder​​​​​​​​​​​​ #tanks​​​​​​​​​​​​ #tankhistory

[Spookston]

For everyone saying that heavy tanks evolved into MBTs, that simply isn't true. If you trace the development of every major nation's MBT development, whether that be the US, Germany, Britain, or Russia, MBTs evolved directly from medium tanks. Certain Western MBTs weighing a lot doesn't automatically make them heavy tanks. Medium tanks were getting progressively heavier and well armed as time went on, eventually being rebranded to MBTs once the classic "light, medium, heavy" class structure was abandoned. Furthermore, Western nations with heavier MBTs are looking to drastically reduce weight with their next generation MBTs.

[nnoah]

Another good addition: Pretty soon after WW2, the 'tank triangle' of firepower, maneuverability, and armor was becoming increasingly blurred. You could get a medium with firepower that could compete with a heavy, while still maintaining its relative position in terms of being a genuine medium tank with regards to protection and speed. Engine power increases, better tank cannons, and better designs lead to mediums and light tanks benefitting the most. Heavies gained precious little from WW2, besides armor thickness that was difficult to offset even with new engines.

[Nalothisal]

"So why did they disappear?" Same answer as to why we don't see many Medium Tanks anymore. The Main Battle Tank came along and replaced both of them, because an MBT is a great jack of all trades when it comes to fire support, breakthrough and siege warfare, as well as highly mobile warfare. Course by WW2 modern standards, most MBTs today could be categorized as heavy tanks just by their sheer weight alone.

[CN-X]

ok but they look cool and i can't imagine this world without them.

[DefinitelyNotEmma]

I take this away beforehand: we all know they have much more drawbacks than upsides.

But let's be honest, they look awesome and very imposing. Especially the last generation like the FV214 Conqueror, M103 or T-10.

[LuigianoMariano]

The Heavy Tank is a product of the Ironclad Mentality which is to respond to any threat in the foreseeable future with more armor.
The Maus is the perfect example of why the heavy tank became a developmental dead-end: The amount of regular "steel plate" armor that you need to withstand at least two or three direct hits from something like an ATGM would lead to a tank that is too heavy to move under its own power, too big to hide from plain sight, and too expensive to even build in the first place.

[seasuper]

My main understanding of why heavies went extinct was mainly 3 reasons
1. Performance heavies are large and heavy leading to much more stress on components and much slower
2. Cost heavies are giant hunks of metal meaning they cost tons to make, transport and use
3. Technology with better ammunition and anti-tank weapons being made the armour of heavies became essentially useless unless if you had a massive plate that would make the first 2 problems even worse and even then the anti-tank weapons would quickly become more powerful to compensate
Heavies are popular because it's the whole opinion people had with tanks, massive indestructible machines that bring destruction to their enemies

[KingTigerGuy]

I mean, most modern MBTs are technically heavy tanks, just with proper engine power to get zoomin.
Now there is an interesting thing between the 50s and mid 80s where MBTs moved from being on the medium tank side to being more on the heavy tank side, and its largely due to new ways of creating armour alongside new tech allowing for better space usage and less crew to do the same work. So now we have MBTs doing a mix of the old medium and heavy tank role, with IFVs doing the light, TD and in some cases SPG style role, though we still got some neato artillery vehicles.
At least SPAA has just simply got tech modernizations with the role staying about the same.

[tigerbesteverything]

I don't think heavies disappeared, juste that the tank itself is the heavy, and other plateform such as ifvs are accomplishing the mlight and medium roles. Just look at the occidental designs, they all exceed 50T. A heavy tank is only classified heavy because there is lighter tanks to compare it with.

[anthonysantilo]

The way I see it, the mbt is a combination of both the medium and heavy, combining the best aspects of both.

[shortfuse]

Reliability is also probably a factor, usually heavy weight means more stress on the drivetrain, and they tend to break a lot and need more maintenance. It’s almost impossible to find a heavy tank without engine or transmission problems

[seraph]

Something else possibly worth mentioning is that most modern MBTs are of similar weights to cold war era heavies (the 50-70 tonne range).

[HouseOnFireHelp]

Personally, I prefer the term for modern MBT's to be one coined in WOT: "Heavy-Mediums" or "Heaviums"

This was used to describe the fast heavies of the Soviet Union which are often described (and as I've personally done), played as MBTs.

Sticking with traditional WW2 descriptors:
A medium tank is a tank that should be balanced in terms of firepower, armor, and mobility.
A heavy tank is a tank that should be emphasizing armor and firepower at the cost of mobility.
A "Heavium" tank is a tank that emphasizes armor, firepower, AND mobility with little compromise for either of the three. Only restricted by logistics rather than design.

An MBT is just what it is: The (M)ain (B)attle (T)ank of a given nation. The Olefant tank of South Africa is considered an MBT... Of South Africa. What it is can be boiled down to an adaptation of a really supped-up Centurion tank, which was listed as a medium tank by the Brits.

You could make the claim that the Perishing (or Pattons of which were largely based off the Perishing) was a MBT or Medium in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc. But in WW2 it was designed as a heavy tank.

"Heavium" in WOT is used to describe fast (but still armored) heavy tanks or strongly armored (but still mobile) medium tanks and in my honest opinion is a better descriptor than MBT, which should be used to describe the main service tank of a nation, which can literally be anything that fits the description of a tank.

[Ampex_]

Spookston defended himself with 2 crew while being *on fire* against 4 tanks and thought we wouldn’t notice 🥶

[ImWallace]

1:43 first footage of one of spookston's enemies not being blind

[Turbo.F]

hey man, i loved the Somua gameplay. I really got distracted by how good of a tank it is but all in all, great video!

[Christian-tzti]

Another thing is why produce Heavy tanks costing millions of dollars for each when one javelin costing 170k would destroy it or produce a faster lighter tank with less armor and costing way less. Both would die to an atm but one cost less and faster.

[brandoncrooks]

Waking up to a spookston video is always nice

[Geniusinventor]

Man, I don't think we need heavy tanks nowadays. But the WW2 heavy tanks are masterpieces they are so beautiful they are like art. I can't live without them.

[Zorro]

The modern concept of the MBT blends the protection and firepower of a heavy tank with the mobility of a medium tank, such that dividing tank concepts into those two categories isn't applicable. Just look at the Abrams, Leopard 2 or Challenger 2. In WW2 heavy tanks were hit-and-miss due to their execution, but the Tiger, KV series (and later the IS series), and the Churchill were instrumental during the war. The only major countries not to field large numbers of heavy tanks were Japan and the USA, mainly because of difficulties in shipping.

So no, I wouldn't say that heavy tanks were a dead end, they just evolved into the MBTs we know and love today.