Originally Posted by FutureTank
A little history then.
The problem with divergent arguments about M1 is in three letters, MBT
Before and during WW2, MBT stood for Medium Battle Tank.
Actually, it didn't. the Acronym MBT didn't appear until the second-half of the 1950s. During WWII, Medium Tanks were just that, Medium Tanks which was abbreviated as Med.Tk.
Yes, correct What I meant was that before and during WW2 tanks were differentiated, and if anyone said MBT, they would be referring to a medium rather then the ‘main’ tank.Quote:
After WW2 the US and UK ABANDONED design of medium tanks, and (US) redesignated its HBT (heavy battle tank) the M26 Pershing as the Main Battle Tank.
Again, I believe you are wrong. The M26 was redesignated from a Heavy Tank to a Medium Tank after WWII..
Yes, this is what I said. AFTER WW2 the US redesignated the already existing M26 into a medium tank, however this was for a very brief period. Soon after the light tanks were also redesignated as airborne, and light tanks disappeared as a class of vehicle along with the medium tanks. As part of the redesignation the freshly mediumed M26 became ‘main’.
Quote:
In UK the A41 Centurion CRUISER tank was likewise redesignated.
The A41 Centurion was, I think you'll find, redesignated a Medium Tank, post-war. It was not designated a Main Battle Tank until the appearance of the Mark 5/2 in IIRC 1959, equipped with the L7 105mm gun.
Yes, the UK went along with the US on this because Churchill had already foreseen the need for an anti-Soviet alliance with Americans. The 50s were a weird time for dank development.
Quote:
(Cruiser was meant to be a cavalry tank, but at 51t it was the heaviest of cavalry although designed with same philosophy as the Soviet pre-WW2 BT series of fast tanks. In the UK the Centurion before NATO was to become the 'Universal' tank
In effect the post-WW2 Western Allied tank design philosophy went something like this:
Germans had heavy tanks which were superior to the Allied medium tanks. Medium tanks are good, but personnel are lost in copious amounts. Now it’s peacetime, so the Army can't loose too many tankers, so let’s build tanks like the Germans had, but more of them. The German WW2 Panther (one more encountered, and a more reliable design) became the starting point for all Western tank designs.
Now the Panther was built to counter the Soviet T-34. However at almost 45ton, it was substantially heavier then the T-34 (original 1941 model at about 31t), or even the later model with the 85mm gun. In fact the Panther replaced Pz-IV in production because although production of the medium Pz-IV didn't halt, the resources were siphoned to the Panther (and Tiger) production.
You're right that Pz.IV production was never halted, however you're wrong, I believe that resources were diverted to Panther and Tiger production.
They were, and in many ways. Experienced engineers, design team members working on different parts of the alternative subsystems, the ironing out of all the problems in testing, the creation of new production lines, the retraining of all the experienced production personnel (not to mention finding them in wartime), the actual steel (and it was a different steel manufacturing process to Pz-IV), the new engine, the training of new, and retraining of old crews. All this is hard enough in peacetime, but is a real headache in wartime even for the uber-organised Germans. It is one of the reasons neither the Soviets nor the Allies changed their primary tank designs despite Stalin being offered an alternative to T-34. Americans went so far as to even keep the same hull from a pre-war design!
Quote:
The Panther, although built to counter a MEDIUM Soviet tank, was in fact only 1.5t lighter then the IS-3 Soviet HEAVY tank.
This was a tactically demanded design trade-off because German command understood they were running out of troops and had to increase crew survival in fire-brigade operations (after 1942). They also needed a tank which would stand its ground when used (after 1942), rather then manoeuvre as was the doctrine before the T-34 was encountered. However this took a lot of designing, and even in the emergency conditions of the war the Panther did not appear until summer 1943 because it was not an evolutionary design, but a new one.
What the Allies encountered in France in 1944 was therefore a bi-product of fighting in the East of 1941. However Allied doctrine didn't change substantially in four years as it had for combatants in the East. Shermans were there to largely provide infantry support, and tank destroyers were there to deal with heavy German tanks only a few of which were encountered by the Allies in North Africa. The concept of assault guns and turretless tank destroyers was almost foreign to them because they had not been through the 'classroom' of the Eastern Front.
Bit simplistic but essentially correct. However, this is essentially AMERICA's design philosphy, not the UK's. Within the American doctrine, there was a division between specialised Tank-Destroyers and Tanks. Tanks were intended to be universal in their application, they were intended to be able to destroy both tanks and support infantry (through the use of HE), whereas Tank-Destroyers were intended to be specialist units who's primary function was to seek out and destroy the enemy's armour, hence an emphasis upon AP ammunition in their guns and HE was provided much as an afterthought.
In the UK, the division was, as you've already hinted at, between Infantry and Cruiser tanks. Infantry or "I" tanks were intended to follow infantry closely and support them in their advance over the battlefield to achieve a breakthrough of the enemy's defensive line. Cruiser tanks were, as you've suggested, akin to the Cavalry and were intended to exploit that breakthrough and harry and pursue the retreating enemy. However, in both, because of a belief in the use of Artillery as the primary means of support (and hence the provision of neutralising and destructive firepower) upon the battlefield as a result of experiences in WWI, British tanks were initially not provided with HE ammunition. The 2 Pdr gun was capable of firing HE and had a HE round (two were in fact developed, one in Australia which was base fused and one in the UK which was nose fused) but it was not widely issued until early 1944, when the use of the 2 Pdr was then limited to the SW Pacific (in Australian Mathildas and AT guns) and NW Europe (in Armoured Car Regiments). It had been superseded by 6 Pdr and 75mm guns, both which fired HE. In the UK's philosophy (doctrine is in many ways, too rigid a word), Tank-Destroyers were an aberration and while they were used, the units largely came under the control of the Royal Artillery, which saw them more as mobile, protected AT guns, rather than armoured units.
Rickshaw, please accept my apologies for the simplistic description but although I like to write things up, I also understand the forum is not for short essays.
Yes, the British philosophy/doctrine was different, but they were stuck with the Sherman from 1941. Doctrine is faster to type, and better defines the application of thinking about use of troops. The interesting thing is that US and UK both shared the belief in the infantry, hence the infantry support tanks that dominated the armoured fleet. What the UK doctrine never tried to address is how they would react to an enemy that failed to stand still for the infantry to engage.Quote:
Skip to 2006.
There are STILL light, medium and heavy tanks in the World. They are so designated not by the armies, but by the various cargo handling commercial and public load standards regulators as cargo classes.
Rubbish. Balderdash. Armies still use the designation Light, Medium, Heavy and Main to describe their tanks. It has absolutely nothing to do with their weight, it has in fact everything to do with both their armour and their intended function within a military's doctrine.
Main Battle Tank is how all armies refer to their tanks. For transportation they are load classed. The light tanks are sometimes known as reconnaissance vehicles. The load classes used in most armies do not refer to weight of tanks. Originally the reference was to the weight of the tank…which is of course the armour plating. I think the British had some thing like 5 armour classes that referred to the plating, but they were not termed as light or medium but had coding I think.Quote:
In the West all tanks are deceptively known as the Main Battle Tank because this is the only type of tank produced.
Again, rubbish. Light tanks were still produced until recently, with the Scorpion, Stingray and the Sheridan coming immediately to mind. Much of their role has however been overtaken by converted APCs, mounting light-tank like turrets.
Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) or, CVR (T) family. The full design name is Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Fire Support (Scorpion).
Stingray lacks a designation by the US Army. The M8 is known as a ‘gun system’ though.
M551 Sheridan was known as armored reconnaissance/airborne assault vehicle at various times, but only as a light tank by the manufacturer I think in the XM phase.
Even the Soviets dislike having light tanks, the PT-76 is an Amphibious tank.Quote:
The upgraded version of AMX-13 used by Singapore is an embarrassment to the concept since it is patently a light tank. (As a side note, I use a rough scale to determine ‘heaviness’ of a tank. Because a tank is a turreted AFV with AT capability, it is fairly difficult to design one under 15t. The medium tank is about 150% heavier as a general rule, and so comes out to 37.5t. I apply 175% to the heavy tank, which would make it 65.6t.)
An artificial division, I'd suggest based more upon your obviously mistaken and preconceived ideas on this matter. As I've said, the designation owes more to the amount of armour carried but ultimately, it depends upon where the vehicle sits in relation to doctrine and how it is employed by the military that owns it. Essentially, it’s all relative anyway and such designations tend to be far more fluid and non-rigid than your definition would have it.
It may be that I am "mistaken and preconceived in ideas", but they are not mine. Pre-WW2 the European armies viewed tank designs in very much the same way cavalry selected horses a century earlier. Nowhere is it easier to see then the Soviet Army which started WW2 with everything from multi-turreted monsters to light tankettes in its AFV fleet. In every doctrine in Europe there was a need for multiple types of AFVs to fill their niche in their complex still-in-development employment in battle. By the end of the war it was clear that one type of tank could do most of the work with the exception of reconnaissance. This design issue was never really solved.
No, designations are not fluid, the direction of design philosophy is. The designs try to satisfy the tactical demands and these are rigid. The multitude of different tanks in use during the pre-WW2 period supports this rigidity (this AFV does job X, and that AFV does Y), and for the UK even the separation of responsibility for different types of AFVs among the Corps. The selection of a single type after WW2 supports the fluidity in use of a single tank design. The words just reflect the change.
I think the semantics are on your behalf in regards to “amount of armour carried” since this is the major material of manufacture in the tank. However the designation of light, medium, heavy, cruiser, cavalry, etc., all relate to the speed rather then armour of the tanks. This, and not armour, was seen as the important factor since it was considered impossible to operate very large cannon in a moving tank (after stopping) with any accuracy before WW2. The designations in English were applied by former cavalry officers who had to give away their mounts. Trivial, but true.
Quote:
Main Battle Tanks are the only type of tank produced because the doctrine requires them to make a 'good show' with limited numbers and no replacement crews (the third war in Europe's 20th century would not have lasted long enough to train conscripts WW2 style) against substantially larger Warsaw Pact tank fleet.
Oh, look, if the balloon had really gone up in Europe, how many tanks a side had would have been immaterial 'cause they'd all be running around on a giant glass ashtray until their fuel ran out, anyway.
Are you suggesting NATO would have used nuclear weapons on their own troops? Of course not. Are you suggesting that the Soviets would have used nuclear weapons on the NATO forces? Of course not, because you know that the Soviet strategy was an overthrow of the capitalist regimes in Europe, and this meant the proletariat was not to be incinerated. For this purpose they had created an army of special forces with the express purpose of disabling NATO WMD stocks before they could be used. Would NATO use nuclear weapons on its own territory if it was being overrun? Would the UK and USA use nuclear weapons on Germany, or even Poland or Hungary? I doubt it, but I’m glad we will never find out.Quote:
The Soviet military is however of a different view on tank design. The T-34 was a success. Heavy tanks offer temporary tactical advantage, but encumber operational manoeuvre, which is what Soviets consider to have been the winning doctrine in their war with Germany. From the early 50s the heavy tank designs are abandoned, and only medium tank designs are used throughout.
This would explain why they continued to pursue heavy tank design until well into the 1960s, now would it? Furthermore, they put one or two more vehicles which they, themselves designed as "heavy tanks" into operational service in the early-mid-1950s (T-10). It would also explain why they kept the IS-2 and IS-3 in service into the 1960s as well. The role of the Heavy Tank has always been both inside and outside Russian doctrine as that of a "breakthrough tank" - one which could support the infantry in close assault of the heaviest enemy defences and help achieve a breakthrough. It is why the Soviet's chose the large, heavy calibre guns that they did, despite the limitations that using both split ammunition and such a large calibre, imposed on their vehicles. While Soviet doctrine emphasised manoeuvre operations, it also realised that on the relatively narrow frontages available in Northern Europe that before manouevre could be achieved, a breakthrough was necessary, hence the need for Heavy Tanks.
However, when NATO adopted the equivalent of a heavy tank gun, the L7 105mm on a medium tank chassis the "Main Battle Tank" became a popular way of describing it. At a stroke the Heavy Tank was basically rendered obsolete and started to fade from sight.
Not quite. You are correct in describing the Soviet post-WW2 doctrine, but in 1955 all heavy tank regiments were removed from tank divisions and reformed into eight heavy tank divisions. These existed until 1958 (the year T-55s received NBC system when Soviets realised the true effects of radiation). In early 1960s the recently mothballed heavy tanks were reassigned to the fortified regions, mostly along the Chinese border with four battalions of four companies each. Because there were insufficient heavy tanks, T-34-85s were also used. T-10 was the last of the ‘heavies’. However a very small number of independent heavy tank battalions were retained at Front level for dealing with ‘hard’ targets until the early 80s.
