>>12172603>Why did the world abandon the Tiger tank design?A fascinating question. The Tiger 1 wasn't perfect but the Konigstiger (Tiger II) was a helluva tank.
It all really comes down to the moment the soviets revealed the IS-7 with it's impressive armour, high mobility and most importantly it's 130mm S-70 gun. It could kill anything but couldn't be killed by anything.
After that the idea of mobility as the most vital part of the triangle took root in western tank design, particularly in the UK (American tank design went retarded following the M103) with the Centurion, a well armed and armoured tank but more importantly a very fast one. The Leopard I followed a few year later which was even further in that direction.
The Challenger I introduce composite armour to the world, and the triangle shifted again. Now once a necessary minimum mobility was reached, and with the new Rheinmetal 120mm L/55 gun, armour and protection came back to the fore.
But with the development of better ATGMs and precision guided munitions, the emphasis shifted to active protection systems.
So it wasn't so much that heavy tanks were abandoned, it's that other ideas won out in the competition for limited peacetime resources.
But still, I look at the Churchill, the Konigstiger, the IS series, and I can't help but notice that "their speed will be their armour" never actually works out in practice. Eventually everyone wants the big one.
