"Tank battle between land battleships?" Topic

If for argument's sake everyone had gone for things like the Vickers Independent, NBFZ, T-35, SMK and so on, or if indeed two armoured divisions equipped with these had met in battle while the normal tanks did their stuff elsewhere, how would it actually have gone?

How would you manoeuvre a division-sized force of SMKs against a force of Neubaufahrzeug, say?

I imagine something like a slap fight between large men wearing blindfolds.

These beasts were hard to maneuver, hard to see anything out of and hard to fight from.

Forward driver at ram speed!

Wolfhag

The interwar heavy tanks were more aimed at breaking trench lines (hence the long track runs and multi turrets). In a tan battle they'd have blown each other apart in short order as their armour was so thin, assuming the poor souls manning all those Independant turrets could actually acquire any targets.

If you were commanding a T35 and one of the 45mm or MG turrets was destroyed would you abandon the tank?

The few very heavy "Land Battleships" of WWII proved to be generally more trouble than they were worth. For a number of reasons.

If you were commanding a T35 and one of the 45mm or MG turrets was destroyed would you abandon the tank?

Not unless there is other damage/fire or the crew panics, IMO.

Out of commission, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time, become heroes.

Martin Rapier is right on the point.

These were not designed for tank to tank fights. They are slow moving mobile strong points. The guns are set to counter pillboxes, gun emplacements, and machine gun pits.
Not to engage other moving tanks.

If it were to have happened, it would have been like a demolition derby combine harvester.
YouTube link

If you were commanding a T35 and one of the 45mm or MG turrets was destroyed would you abandon the tank?

Not unless there is other damage/fire or the crew panics, IMO.

Well, if we ask in terms of "would you" (as in, would I), the answer is probably yes, I would abandon the tank.

Let us remember, as much as we describe these things as land battleships, there were very much just tanks. That means they were crewed by a few fellows crowded into a small space with lots of smells, even more noise, and not much light, that was also crowded with bunches and bunches of explosive stuff and gallons upon gallons of flammable liquids.

So put yourself in that place, bouncing and lurching in ways you can not anticipate (because you can't see much), your heart filled with the raw hope that the armor around you will prevent your working space from becoming your funeral pyre. You bounce and lurch around unpredictably while you try to do your job without falling to motion sickness (as no matter your role, you have only a very limited field of view that is NOT the driver's view, unless you are the driver of course). Suddenly and ear-shattering CLANG and a brief screem, and you are spattered with blood and body parts, you see sunlight where you shouldn't, you suddenly smell and/or have your vision blocked by far more smoke, and you maybe even saw a flash or see some flames.

Of course you are, in this time, going to spend a few moments assessing your risks and considering your political commissar's lecture about becoming a pillbox or a bunker, right? Well, maybe you are. But I expect most men would be OUT the nearest or most accessible hatch before they could even form a coherent thought.

I don't think it would be any different in a T-35 or a Neubaufahrzeug than it was in a Sherman or a Panther, in this regard. Perhaps if you take damage to your running gear, or even in the fire-walled off engine compartment (provided there is no evidence of actual active flames) you will hang around. Perhaps. But penetrations to the fighting compartment? No. Once your office has forced ventilation added, you seek a different workspace.

At least that's my expectation.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I get that these things weren't intended to fight each other. Things that aren't intended to happen do so all the time, however. Quite a few nations built tanks in the expectation that they would not fight other tanks, for example.

So the anti-infantry-in-trenches role would have lasted the proverbial 5 minutes after contact with the enemy. Hence I'm curious as to how you'd use such things against each other when the inevitable unplanned-for encounter occurred. Would you fire smoke from the big gun and AP from the little ones? Would you try to position the enemy on your T-35's starboard bow so as to fire all three of your guns at him simultaneously?

Well, if we ask in terms of "would you" (as in, would I), the answer is probably yes, I would abandon the tank.

I'd think it would depend on the crew/quality. But yes it wouldn't surprise me that some if not most would "jump ship".

I believe I've retold the story of a friend's relative who was a part of an M5 crew after the D-Day landings. When they were caught out in the open in the sights of a Tiger[but really could have been an other well armed German MBT/AFV!]. They knew they had no where to go and couldn't out run an 88 [75mm] round. Their 37mm would have little effect on Tiger[or Panther, etc.] They abandoned their Stuart and ran for cover. Very shortly after that their M5 was a burning wreck.

Would you fire smoke from the big gun and AP from the little ones? Would you try to position the enemy on your T-35's starboard bow so as to fire all three of your guns at him simultaneously?

Again it would depend on crew quality, motivation, etc.

I don't know how much control the commander had over the turrets. In the Vickers Independant the MG turrets were operated independantly, all the CO had was an indicator showing him which way they were facing. Obviously he could tell the 3pdr turret crew wher to shoot.

So, I guess every gun supplied with AP ammo would shoot at the enemy tanks. The T35s 76mm would also probably shoot at the enemy tanks as it didn't have anything better to do.

I wouldn't have thought any sensible tank commander would deliberately expose his side (and all that vulnerable running gear) to enemy fire. They are much bigger targets from the side too.

So fight it like a normal tank.

The interwar heavy tanks were more aimed at breaking trench lines (hence the long track runs and multi turrets). In a tan battle they'd have blown each other apart in short order as their armour was so thin, assuming the poor souls manning all those Independant turrets could actually acquire any targets.

True about the limited armour, but how good were their main guns at punching through armour? My understanding is that some of them would have been relatively low velocity.

Granted, some of them had high velocity secondary guns, such as the 37 mm gun on NBFZ and the two 45 mm guns on T-35.

So fight it like a normal tank.

Yes, as basically that is what they were. Albeit just probably not the best design …

My understanding is that some of them would have been relatively low velocity.

You can evaluate reading these :

link

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMK_tank

link

I think they all wisely were in very limited production …

Probably like the WWI tank battle I read about.

link

I had read a more detailed account earlier but can't find it now.

With the name "Land Battleship" applied it becomes natural to think of these behemoths as ships and in engagements would act like them. But they were far from it. I would imagine that engagements between them would be like punch drunk boxers staggering about. Some points to address some of the comments, use the T-35 for the example though much of what I mention applies to other models.

The T-35 had notoriously poor internal communications to begin with. The idea of the tank's commander, like the captain of a ship, directing 5 turrets while giving instructions to the driver simply was beyond capabilities.

The secondary turrets did appear to operate autonomously. Some of this would be due to the isolated nature of these turrets. The two machine gun turrets, for example, were accessed via the roof top hatch, there was no way to access from inside the tank.

While the idea of the T-35 unleashing a fearsome broadside from the 75 and the two 45s was, alas, not to be. With one 45 in the front right and one in the rear left diagrams showed they did not overlap hence the most that could be brought to bear was a single 45 and the 75.

Speaking of the 75 the idea of it firing on tanks because they had nothing better to do, while appealing, is not very likely. The standard load for the 75 was 48 HE and 48 shrapnel shells, no AP. AP could be carried but given the low velocity of the 75 the standard load did not envision the 75 engaging enemy tanks.

Of course there was nothing to stop the 75 from engaging enemy tanks and it may even have been a necessity. Due to the positioning of the 45s there were portions on either side that none of the 45s could bear on.

So I fall back on the vision of these tanks, never designed to engage other tanks as their primary role, staggering about. So the envisioned engagement likely to resemble more a goat rope :)

Another related issue are the tanks that a small gun in a turret and a bigger one in hull with limited traverse. Thus, for the hull gun to engage a target the driver would first need to orientate it so that the target would be roughly in front of the tank.

French had the Char B1 bis with a 47 mm gun in the turret, 75 mm gun in the hull and four man crew trying to run the show. They actually did quite well against German tanks in some engagements (heavy armour helped), and the Germans kept on using captured examples.

US had the M3 (Grant/Lee) Medium tank with a similar layout: 37 mm gun in the turret and 75 mm gun in the hull. Plus an additional MG cupola for the commander, in case he did not have enough things to keep him occupied. Employed by both the Brits and US in North Africa, and shipped to the Soviet Union as part of the lend-lease aid.

I am not aware of the two vehicles having ever met in battle, though it could make for an interesting what-if scenario. For example, a French garrison in North Africa resisting the Torch landings with mysteriously acquired B1 Bis, or Eastern front encounter pitting a battalion of German beutepanzer against a Soviet lend-lease tank brigade.

Well, if we ask in terms of "would you" (as in, would I), the answer is probably yes, I would abandon the tank.

I'd think it would depend on the crew/quality. But yes it wouldn't surprise me that some if not most would "jump ship".

My comments here are not meant as a criticism of the above perspective. I only wish to explore the scenario and perhaps understand it better.

That said … I don't get it. IF I were in a position to give thought to the issue (when it happened), which I think is a dubious proposition at best, here is my thought process:

1) We have been hit, and our armor has been penetrated.

2) Unless the weapon shooting at us is some great big monster gun (ie: a Russian 122mm howitzer, or some such), said gun will be ready to shoot again in less than 10 seconds.

3) Said gun is already layed on target. WE are that target.

4) The crew of said gun is going to look for indications of whether we are, or are not, a continuing threat. If we continue fighting our tank, we will self-identify as a continuing threat.

5) Therefore we should expect that in something less than 10 seconds we will again be struck by a projectile that is capable of penetrating our armor. This last time we were lucky enough that the 300lbs of ammunition and 2,000lbs of fuel we are carrying did not ignite. That's a rare result when a white-hot projectile and a hundred sparking fragments join us in our small enclosed space. More likely is a 4th of July (<-- replace with your favorite national holiday) fireworks show in MY FACE.

Even if I am wholly consumed by my patriotic fervor (and professional soldierly ethic), what purpose do I serve by staying in that tank? What will I achieve in the 6 or 8 more seconds before my tank is destroyed and my army permanently loses all of my experience and skill?

And so …

6) Once it is demonstrated conclusively that there is a weapon, on-target, that the tank's armor does not resist, it's time to GET OUT!

Now "get out" might mean get the tank out of the crosshairs -- IF the tank is fast and nimble, that's a reasonable thing to try to do. But did any of the land battleships we are talking about fall into that category? No.

Seriously, I don't see it as a matter of "crew quality" so much as simple common sense. How can you even hope to have high quality crews when your crews throw their lives away for no gain?

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

@ Mark

Good points but doesn't that presuppose a slightly wargamery view of how tanks use terrain, i.e. they don't? If it's a billiard table fine, they can't, but AIUI tanks do not ordinarily trundle along in plain view. They use the terrain as cover. Trees, irregularities in the ground, buildings…etc.

If you get hit in a machine gun turret that's separate from the rest of the tank would you necessarily abandon? How about if you were almost certain to be executed out of hand by your commissar if you abandoned but you only might get killed if you fought on?

I dunno. I'd do exactly as you outlined but then I'm 1/ a chicken and 2/ not a soldier.

> US had the M3 (Grant/Lee) Medium tank with a similar layout: 37 mm gun in the turret and 75 mm gun in the hull.

The M3 was strictly a stop-gap measure till the Sherman could be developed. Interestingly the MG Cupola was gone on the Sherman too. I don't know if that was the original plan on something learned from the M3 as being worthless.

Seriously, I don't see it as a matter of "crew quality" so much as simple common sense. How can you even hope to have high quality crews when your crews throw their lives away for no gain

Crew and it's leadership quality includes knowing when to stay and when to go. That comes with training and experience. And in many cases you may have seconds to make that decision. As in the example I stated with the M5 vs. a Panzer VI or V, etc.

That being said, "Living to fight another Day" is generally but not always the "correct" answer. Again as always it is generally situational. E.g. like charging into a close ambush, i.e. 20m or less away. You would probably take more losses trying to break contact than what some may consider a lack common sense. I.e. charging into the close range enemy with your guns blazing, etc.

Short answer – if the AFV is on fire – get out ! Fast ! But in some situations crews have abandoned a tank with little to know damage, etc.

Interestingly the MG Cupola was gone on the Sherman too. I don't know if that was the original plan on something learned from the M3 as being worthless.

Many of the tankers I have known started their carriers in M48 or M60 tanks. (Yes, I know, these are the OOOOOOooooooollllldddd timers now, but then I'm no spring chicken either).

I mention this because, well, there is some recurring evidence in the US Army line of tanks that someone, somewhere, thinks an MG in a mini-turret on top is a good idea. It has now even re-appeared in the M1A2 TUSK program.

All of that said … it is of course true that the commander's MG mini-turret disappeared between the M3 and the M4. Oddly, though, the fixed hull MGs didn't, at least not until after the first Medium Tank T6 prototypes (which were ultimately accepted for production as the Medium Tank M4) were built.

The US Army retained the popular pre-war perspective that it was all about machine guns, up until they had accumulated some actual combat experience. The many MG sub-turrets on foreign designs, including not just the land battleships but also the pre-war British cruiser tanks, and multi-turret medium and light tanks from several nations, and the sponson-mounted MGs festooning the US M2 Medium and early M3 Light tanks were a part of this same love-fest with the MG.

So also was the turret-rear MGs that were so popular with Soviet tanks right up through their late-war heavies.

In the US Army the view, up until real combat experience was amassed, was that taller was better, and MGs up in the taller part were better. The primary issue driving this perspective, as well as most of the land battleships and the Soviet rear-turret MGs, was the concept of the breakthrough role. In WW1 the British "heavy tanks" were remarkably successful in breaking through enemy entrenchments because of the tactic of parking the tank across the trench and firing down into the trench with MGs from both sides of the tank. Nobody stayed in the trenches to fight when the tanks got there, because the trench was entirely untenable the moment the tank crossed it.

And that was the issue most armies were obsessed with in the inter-war period: how to break through the trenches.

These tanks, and the land battleships in particular, were intended to wade into the enemy defenses and force the troops there to give ground.

So if you look at a Vickers Independent, a T-35, a NBFZ, a T-28, or even a KV-1, you will see a tank that is long enough to span any reasonable trench, and then fire MGs down into the trench on both sides.

The US Army took it one step further and said Hey, if I'm tall enough I don't even need to span the trench to fire down into it.

It was found, through combat experience, that it was a bit safer not to wade into the defenses alone, but instead to stand within the effective range of the tank's weapons and neutralize all return fire, so that the friendly infantry could get into the trenches. In that scenario the hull MG and the co-ax were enough, and could be operated from within the tank's heaviest armor, thereby reducing the vulnerability of the tank to return fire.

But when you did get into close contact, that extra MG in a small-arms proof mini-turret still had some value. Whether that was enough value to warrant the added height it made for the tank as a target for AT weapons -- well different armies came to different conclusions. But the re-emergence of the MG sub-turret (or armored / covered turret-top MG position) seems to indicate that it is still at least a reasonable interpretation of tank combat in close quarters.

Or so it would seem to me.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

"(…) and considering your political commissar's lecture about becoming a pillbox or a bunker (…)"

Assuming the commissar didn't order all the hatches locked from the outside to prevent such traitorous acts of fleeing… ;-)

IIRC the version of the M3 made for Britain deleted the MG cupola because it added even more height and wasn't useful. Even without it the standard M3 design came with two fixed hull machine guns, plus a tripod should the crew fancy unshipping one and fighting as infantry, and a couple of tommy guns for the crew.

How would you manoeuvre a division-sized force of SMKs against a force of Neubaufahrzeug, say?

Looking at the historical organisations circa 1939, I get the feeling that such tanks would not have been organised into divisions, capable of independent operation. Rather, being organised into brigades or even separate battalions that would cooperate with infantry divisions for assaulting enemy positions would seem more likely case.

For example, the Soviet T-28 and T-35 tanks at the time were organised into heavy tank brigades, each consisting of three battalions of three companies each, with ten tanks per company. These would be supported by additional reconnaissance (smaller tanks and armoured cars), engineering and logistics assets.

British army had similarly a tank brigade of three tank battalions, though this went to France with only two battalions of 50 infantry tanks each. This was the brigade thrown into the famous counterattach at Arras, where the infantry tanks may have been employed a bit differently than the pre-war theorists thought. Until the end of the war the British infantry tanks were organised into brigades of three battalions/regiments, though the number of tanks per battalion slightly increased.

US did not field any dedicated infantry or heavy tanks during the war, but there were separate tank battalions equipped with Shermans that were assigned to support infantry divisions. I presume that if the US had got out their own multi-turret monstrosities, they would have been similarly organised.

French military at least assigned their heavy tanks into nominal armoured divisions, mixed with lighter tanks. However, these divisions seem to have been relatively small, and my understanding is that they were more intended for cooperation with infantry divisions than for independent operations.

German precedent gets a bit complicated with all of the beutepanzer units, but already in the early war they had StuG units for infantry support, and then later on the Tigers can be seen organised into separate battalions (corps level assets), rather than assigned to panzer divisions.

As for Italians and Japanese, I am not really sure what could be used as a point of comparison.

So if you look at a Vickers Independent, a T-35, a NBFZ, a T-28, or even a KV-1, you will see a tank that is long enough to span any reasonable trench, and then fire MGs down into the trench on both sides.

The Churchill tank with its long tracks certainly looks like the trench-crossing ability had been considered in the specifications. However, it does not have extra MGs for firing down the sides, though at least the early models went for a combination of hull mounted 3" howitzer and turret mounted 2 pounder ATG (or vice versa for some models) for that extra boom!

US Army line of tanks that someone, somewhere, thinks an MG in a mini-turret on top is a good idea. It has now even re-appeared in the M1A2 TUSK program.

The TUSK [Tank Urban Survival Kit] link [vs the M1A2 ]link ] was designed to the M1 more survivable in an urban environment, obviously. That many US AFVs found themselves operating in deployed to Iraq. The additional MG in the added TUSK TC turret and on top of the main gun would be very useful with the close range insurgent infantry targets. And of course the .50 could chew thru brinks like peanut brittle.

They also should have added a small turret to HMMWV before it was deployed to Iraq. Not afterwards and many had to be "jerry rigged". For the M2 .50 cal. mounted on the roof of many versions of the HMMWV. Just like in Vietnam they had to design a small ACAV turret to protect the M113 TC manning the M2.

We learned this at the battle of Ap Bac in Vietnam in '63 … link The M113's TCs manning the M2 took very high losses. But it took a while before the Army came out with the ACAV Turret for the M113.

So we saw the same thing happen in Iraq with the HMMWV. If you don't study History … well you know the rest …

IIRC the version of the M3 made for Britain deleted the MG cupola because it added even more height and wasn't useful. Even without it the standard M3 design came with two fixed hull machine guns, plus a tripod should the crew fancy unshipping one and fighting as infantry, and a couple of tommy guns for the crew.

Yes, there was the M3 Lee, the US used – ghqmodels.com/store/us2.html & the UK M3 Grant ghqmodels.com/store/uk7.html

The Grant did not have the MG cupola and actually was a different turret design. The Grant turret with out MG cupola is actually shorter than the Lee's …

Actually Commonwealth forces used both models in North Africa.

I believe I heard that as well with the initial M3 Lees sent. Then later they received the Grants with the shorter profile.