Talk:Super-heavy tank

message: 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)
thread_title: Original research ?

message: 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)
replies: text: You're quite right.--MWAK 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older talk 

message: 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)
thread_title: particular points

message: 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)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Karl-Gerät

message: 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)
thread_title: IS-7 and Object 279

message: 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)
thread_title: Three Landkreuzer P. Designs?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Multi-turreted tanks. 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment. I will remove this sentence. --FlintTD (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The assumption that weapons development always beats armor / equal adversaries destroying any target 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On the Panzer X and XI Signal Designs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is a Super-Heavy Tank?