How Bad Were American Heavy Tanks?

When thinking about famous American vehicles, heavy tanks usually aren't the first thing that spring to mind. It seems like the US Army never had much interest in heavy tanks historically, but this isn't entirely true. The US experimented with them quite a lot during World War II. So were these tanks better or worse than their contemporaries? Today we'll be taking a quick look at the T29, T30, T34, T32, and M103.

Sources:
Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank by R.P. Hunnicutt
Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series by R.P. Hunnicutt
The Chieftain's Hatch: Testing T29, T30 by Nicholas Moran
M103 Heavy Tank 1950–74 by Kenneth Estes
American Tanks & AFVs of World War II by Michael Green

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

[MistahFox]

That's a cool heavy tank you got there... it would be a shame if someone put an OCEAN in between your factory and the frontlines!

[ThatOneMan]

Honestly that last bit is vital. A lot of people underestimate how difficult it is to engineer *ANYTHING, * let alone something meant for combat, *LET ALONE* something as complex as a tank, and even in this, they don’t think it’s super hard to get a heavy tank that works.

[dinocraftman]

M4 Shermans performed exceptionally well in the Pacific Theater compared to the Western front, and there was no real reason to introduce heavy tanks there if you have naval and air supremacy, using the island hopping strategy, and having almost no competition in terms of tank quality AND quantity.

All American heavy tanks would do is slow down the advance towards the Japanese archipelago. Slower moving, slower to transport, and a lack of existing spare parts compared to the M4.

[samuelhartmann]

Ultimately US commanders found any problem the Sherman's couldn't handle could simply be shelled to death by 155+ artillery guns already attached to infantry units or the purpose built td units.

[kyle]

The US being smart and not wasting money on producing a ton of heavies. Especially trying to cross the Atlantic with them.

[jackmino]

1:08 I shoot the Tiger 2's mantlet with L7 APDS and fail to pen it, spookston shoots the mantlet with a much bigger shell and the mantlet stops being modelled

[TheArklyte]

Imagine that instead of or together with IS-3 at Berlin Parade soviets would have unveiled T-44? Pershing might have gotten its "long 90mm" with fat case and also a reworked T32 inspired frontal armor section. Brits might have opted to equip modernized Centurion with 32-pounder(if 20 pounder was still ways off).
Meanwhile M103 and Conqueror would never be created. Or at least not in a shape and form we know them...

[ZETH_]

The T29/T30 seems to have the same situation as tanks like the T-34 and IS-3, where the specifications (gun, armour mobility) made it very good, but at the cost of things like Reliability, maintenance and fuel/ammo efficiency, which are not modelled in-game. Really cool video as always!

[Zorro]

1200 heavies? Imagine if the war dragged on another year, the tank battles would have been very interesting.

[andrews_lego_tanks_and_more]

US doctrine never really needed a heavy tank tough, so I wouldn't really say they were bad, just not built for the right country to use. Besides, after WWII heavies became rather obsolete.

[MASherman]

I always liked playing the U.S. heavies. They actually perform well and are fun to use. I always laugh when a Tiger II tries to penetrate my T32’s hull plate, and then I aim for his turret.

[afrikakorps]

2:38 You can see your barrel get disabled then re-enabled after the enemy dies, just look at the X-ray view in the bottom left.

[Canilash]

I really love the shape of the T29-T30 series. It just says "Tank" to me. It might be because I started playing PC games with command and conquer and the tanks in that game look similar.

[Cavemanjenkins]

I have to say my T30 in game is faster then the T34 and T29 I always wondered why but your video explained to me that the T30 has a better engine thank you Spookston!

[PitFriend]

It makes sense that the T29/30/32/34 hulls were very similar to the one of the M26 Pershing. When it was first fielded the Army classified the Pershing as a heavy tank so it was technically a heavy tank fielded by the US. So these newer heavy tank models were just building on an existing one. It was re-classified as a medium in 1946 after the war when they changed their definitions of what a heavy tank was.

[VivyX]

making a tank heavy is the easy part
getting it to work is a different story all together

[SilentButDudley]

To be quite fair the Abrams are the Heavy Tanks of the MBTs.

[infiniminer]

I have no idea how you manage to talk with such a straight tone and still keep my attention throughout the whole video, props to you

[Wyldecat]

Heavy tanks may be cumbersome and hard to field but you got to admit. The T29, T30, T34, and M6A2 make a line up that smacks in WT. the T32 used to be my bread and butter but now it doesn’t feel the same. I still remember slugging out with jadgpanthers, Tiger 2s, and Jadgtigers at 1, 200-1, 600m on the older version of Kursk and having nothing but fun.

[CMDRFandragon]

The M6 looks like it was a tank a kid would come up with when you ask them: Draw me a heavy tank.

So, they put way to many guns on it, entirely to big for what it is and just to much.

The M103, T29, T32 and those late and post war heavies are far more viable beasts.

The US figured out how to make big fat heavy tanks 30 years later in the M1 was still like 65 some odd tons and only got fatter from there lol.