Mr King Posted September 16, 2016 Share Posted September 16, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr King Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 Is that reactive armor on the M1's turret? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vphyobeiLZg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 IIRC they are OPFOR so most probably just a vismod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 Indeed it's a VISMOD, 11th ACR is the last US Army unit using M1A1SA's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogDodger Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 Holy cow, that announcer. "...11th Army Cavalry Regiment." "The M1A1 is named after General Criton Adams..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted September 18, 2016 Share Posted September 18, 2016 Good find, Mr King. Must be the rediscovery of the surviving T28 on a range at Ft Belvoir, 1974. Any notes for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr King Posted September 19, 2016 Share Posted September 19, 2016 No sorry Ken, the title just stated "it was found by a farmer behind some bushes in Virginia in 1974". I seem to remember a user here on Tanknet who was involved with the Fort Knox Patton Museum posting photos and info on this AFV before. Maybe he will see it and chime in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Never seen this T28. Abandoned american Jagdpanzer project from WW2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) Assault guns intended to breech the Siegfried Line, Atlantic Wall and any surprises. Only two were built, completed in Dec45/Jan46. Postwar they became testbeds for heavy tank suspension projects, landing craft/ship capacity and so forth. One was lost to a fire at Yuma and scrapped there, the other was 'lost' and presumed scrapped in the Korean War scrap drive, until it was found at Ft Belvoir, VA by a Lt taking inventory of ranges he had to sign for in 1974. It was brought to Ft Knox and restored by the maintenance facility there [i saw it in 1979 all opened up]. It's now at Ft Benning, awaiting the building of the National Armor and Cavalry Museum. The similar British Tortoise might have become a substitute Jagdpanzer in use, because of its seven-man crew and several machine guns in addition to a 32pdr cannon. However the T28 had only four men a 105mm gun and an AA .50 so was clearly not intended for close combat duty. Accordingly, the Chief of Ordnance redesignated it from T28 superheavy tank to T95 gun motor carriage because of its lack of a turret and secondary armament. In the unending imagination of WoT it is gamed as a tank destroyer. Thanks Mr King, the 'farmer' tale might have been real, as those bases frequently leased some of their land to civilian cultivation. Edited September 20, 2016 by Ken Estes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Where else to put it than the TD tree? It was designated a GMC like the other TDs. So not totally off imho, although I guess the gun was more a howitzer shooting HE than a high pressure AT gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) No, it was high velocity. IIRC ~900m/s with AP. Edited September 20, 2016 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzermann Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 No, it was high velocity. IIRC ~900m/s with AP.Then it definitely makes sense to put it in the TD tree. Although without turret it is a very odd duck for US Army AFVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelm Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 105mm T5E1 cannon. 65 calibers bore length. 67.3 or so calibers measured to breach. Could fire a variety of rounds. T13 APC-HE 40 lbs 900 m/sT37 AP 39 lbs 914 m/sT32 APC 39 lbs 914 m/sT29 HVAP 24.6 lbs 1128 m/sT30 HE 33.5 lbs 945 m/s Later when they were working on the T140 gun program (a lighter T5 basically) they folded ammo development for the T5 into the same program and used them in testing it's new rounds, so they could fire them as well. Powder was improved and they seem to have been able to fire the T29 rounds at 1220 m/s or more, more modern rounds like a 13.6 lb HVAPDS 1554 m/s from the T140 as well. There was plans/talk of putting the 120mm or the 155mm in the T95 as well. Originally they were going to make something like 5 of them, So I imagine if that had of happened they would have had 3 with the 105 and the last two to test out the other guns. They talked about sticking the Long tom 155 in it, not the shorter T7 155mm that ended up on the T30 heavy. Plans changed fast numerous times on it and the armour scheme changed a few times, things like 8 inches frontal, 10 inches frontal and the final 12 inches it was built on (may have actually been 12.5 inches if the firing test was anything to go by) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) They talked about sticking the Long tom 155 in it, not the shorter T7 155mm that ended up on the T30 heavy. "Long Tom" was L/39, what was T7, L/35 IIRC? Ammo was interchangeable anyway, and T7 used same ammo as "Long Tom" AFAIK. Edited September 20, 2016 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 (edited) Four man crew, no MGs other than .50 sky mount? Whats the rate of fire, etc. No, this was an other-than procurement [25 vehicles] at the same time that the Ord Dept was ordering 500 T30s and 1500 T29 for fighting other German tanks. BTW, it was later re-reclassified the T28 superheavy tank, because of its weight. Edited September 20, 2016 by Ken Estes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelm Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Hunnicutt has the M6A2E1 with one loader doing 6 rounds per min with the T5E1, the T29 with a two loader crew doing 6 rounds per min and the T95 with one loader doing 4 rounds per min. I suppose the inside of the T95 was more cramped then the turret? The T8 105mm (basically a towed T5) was stated as 6 rpm as well (aimed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelm Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 They talked about sticking the Long tom 155 in it, not the shorter T7 155mm that ended up on the T30 heavy. "Long Tom" was L/39, what was T7, L/35 IIRC? Ammo was interchangeable anyway, and T7 used same ammo as "Long Tom" AFAIK. 40 calibers on the T7, long tom was 45? velocity/performance was better on the long tom. As far as I know they only ended up using HE for the T7, they did develop a HVAP round that worked in it but it had poor performance (compared to the T5 105mm) the AP round from the long tom would work in it as well but again poor performance. M112 AP in the long tom @ 2774 ft/sec (836 m/s)M112 AP in the T7 @ 2200 ft/sec (670 m/s) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFiveMike Posted September 20, 2016 Share Posted September 20, 2016 Long Tom was L/45. S/F....Ken M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Yeah, my bad, mixed it with 155mm M1918/GPF... Soviets got about 203mm@30deg/2km from 152mm BL-8/BL-10 L/48 gun with V0~900m/s. Any data for US 155mm T7 or Long Tom with M112 AP? Edited September 21, 2016 by bojan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Assault guns intended to breech the Siegfried Line, Atlantic Wall and any surprises. Only two were built, completed in Dec45/Jan46. Postwar they became testbeds for heavy tank suspension projects, landing craft/ship capacity and so forth. One was lost to a fire at Yuma and scrapped there, the other was 'lost' and presumed scrapped in the Korean War scrap drive, until it was found at Ft Belvoir, VA by a Lt taking inventory of ranges he had to sign for in 1974. It was brought to Ft Knox and restored by the maintenance facility there [i saw it in 1979 all opened up]. It's now at Ft Benning, awaiting the building of the National Armor and Cavalry Museum. The similar British Tortoise might have become a substitute Jagdpanzer in use, because of its seven-man crew and several machine guns in addition to a 32pdr cannon. However the T28 had only four men a 105mm gun and an AA .50 so was clearly not intended for close combat duty. Accordingly, the Chief of Ordnance redesignated it from T28 superheavy tank to T95 gun motor carriage because of its lack of a turret and secondary armament. In the unending imagination of WoT it is gamed as a tank destroyer. Thanks Mr King, the 'farmer' tale might have been real, as those bases frequently leased some of their land to civilian cultivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelm Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Yeah, my bad, mixed it with 155mm M1918/GPF... Soviets got about 203mm@30deg/2km from 152mm BL-8/BL-10 L/48 gun with V0~900m/s. Any data for US 155mm T7 or Long Tom with M112 AP?Haven't seen any actual testing data. an early estimation was about 150mm for 30 deg at 2000 yards* with full naval complete penetration for the long tom. T7 was 122mm under the same conditions. Seems they had experimental APFSDS rounds for the 155mm but I have no idea on it's name or any data on it. you can see them fire on below https://youtu.be/AGOGLvInOmQ?t=1178 Edited September 21, 2016 by whelm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) OK, see for yourself: Speed was 8 mph max [normally 5-6mph in service]. Had the same engine as T26, which had less than half its weight.4 man crew, so the single loader might be able to load 4 rpm (max) as listed by Hunnicutt, but I'll wager that falls each minute to 2 rpm max - semi-fixed ammunition with stowage for 62 rounds being rather cramped, wouldn't you say. So, as Tank Destroyer Command was reaching the end of its service, you would offer them a 6 mph, 2 rpm behemoth? I'd say no takers existed for that one. Nobody had ever asked for such a machine! The planned 25 vehicle run that Ordnance wanted was quickly reduced by Army Ground Forces to 5 pilot vehicles in 1944. The max frontal armor was 12 in./305mm, raised from 7 in. in mid-1944 when Gen. Barnes received word of German use of tungsten-core ammo and its performance in the 88mm gun that T28 was supposed to resist. Ironically in mid-1944 Hitler had ordered all tungsten reserved for machine tools except for two calibers, not including the 88. Further use of the last T28 was terminated in late 1947 when the War Dept terminated all development of tanks in the 100 ton class [no idea what that might have been!]. How it came from APG to Ft Belvoir must be a good story. The Engineers might have wanted to use it for explosives testing, but perhaps it broke down before reaching the impact area, with no way to attempt recovery [my WAG]. I'd say it was pure speculation what might have been done with them viz. other armament; certainly there was nothing in Ordnance Tech Cmte notes about any such thing, so there was nothing official about that. Edited September 21, 2016 by Ken Estes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 (edited) Armor penetration for Long Tom in M40 SP: M112B1 [APBC/HE] vs. homogeneous armor @ 30 degrees: 500 yds 160mm 1000 yds 152mm vs. face-hardened armor @ 30 degrees: 135mm 130mm vs. reinforced concrete @ 0 degrees 1000 yds 6.6 feet 3000 yds 4.6 feet 10,000 yds 3.0 ft. Hunnicutt, Sherman, 570. ---------------- ETA: The T30 heavy tank was intended to be a 155mm HE shooter. The same gun [T7 series] would later be specified for the T58 155mm gun tank, but in that case (1951), was intended to use HEAT and HEP/HESH ammo. T57/T58 were intended to be backups in the event that the T43 [M103] proved unsatisfactory, and were quickly cancelled when M103 became type standard as the US heavy tank. Edited September 21, 2016 by Ken Estes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 On topic, nice pic of sectioned 155mm M112 APLegend - "Armour piercing round AP M112, fuse BD M60, for 155mm gun M2" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelm Posted September 22, 2016 Share Posted September 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now