On The Drawing Board Late World War II USA Tanks?

There was a monster called T28 (GMC T95). IIRC Verlinden did a resin kit.

Think of a huge Hetzer with twin tracks (that is 2 side-by side tracks on each side) and huge 105mm gun.

Then there was the T-29 heavy tank, looks like supersized Pershing on steroids.

I don't remember if that one was kitted.

The T28!

Cheers.

We had the T-28 super assault gun:

Pat

A friend of mine saw the inside of the thing; its huge on the outside, but inside it's pretty cramped. The British tried basically the same concept with their Tortoise. Accurate Armor makes 1/35th scale kits of both of them:

Does anyone know where the Tortoise was produced? I ask because I once lived next door to a Nuffield iron foundry which *I think* also produced the erstwhile anti-aircraft gun although the authorities are understandably coy about the subject. The factory was variously known as the "Morris Engine Works", "The Old Morris", or "The Nuffield Building" and was previously a Hotchkiss machine gun factory during WW1.

(kim)

sounds like the panther factory in cleckheaton....

There's more on it here:

Thanks. It was first suggested the anti-aircraft gun be pressed into the anti-tank role during the defence of Dunkirk in 1940 so why it took so long for the British to mount it in an AFV beats the hell out of me? Even when they finally succeeded it was next to useless in having extremely restricted traverse compared with the German 88 and Soviet 85mm tank conversions. Were British engineers really that dumb they couldn't find a way of mounting a AA gun in a fully traversing turret?

(kim)

Even with the way it was done the thing was described as too heavy and ungainly to be of much use and difficult to transport. By the time they stuck a turret on it, you might be in E100/Maus territory. That enclosed machine gun cupola atop it is interesting though; that would later show up on U.S. tank designs. The overall design though looks somewhat primitive, especially when compared to something like a Jagdpanther. Armor sloping is poor to nonexistent, and the whole thing looks way heavier than it needs be. It looks like it is to be used like a super assault gun, ala' the SU-152, than as a tank destroyer.

Pat

kim wrote: : : Thanks. It was first suggested the anti-aircraft gun be pressed into the : anti-tank role during the defence of Dunkirk in 1940 so why it took so long : for the British to mount it in an AFV beats the hell out of me? : If you really want to know, I suggest some light reading:

"Death By Design" "The New Excalibur" "Rude Mechanicals"

All of these books are authored by British authors, and all have a pretty scathing assessment of the Tank Board, the group of officers and gentlemen that were assigned the task of looking after tank development for His Majesty. : : Even when : they finally succeeded it was next to useless in having extremely restricted : traverse compared with the German 88 and Soviet 85mm tank conversions. Were : British engineers really that dumb they couldn't find a way of mounting a AA : gun in a fully traversing turret? : I think you knew the answer to that when you posted this. And, like most things, engineers have to design something to a fairly specific set of requirements, and not "build us the best tank that you can" type of requirements, either.

There was no requirement for the Tortoise to have a turret, so none was designed. Same for the US T-28/95 GMC.

Bruce

Check out two excellent books: The great tank scandal and Universal tank.

Both tell the story how the Brits "designed" their tanks.

H.G. Wells wanted in on the tank design process in WW I; if he'd had his way, the tanks might have been a tad larger than they were: