Jump to content

History Of Us Army Afvs


Nikolas93TS

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 973
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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 by Ken Estes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/s

T37 AP 39 lbs 914 m/s

T32 APC 39 lbs 914 m/s

T29 HVAP 24.6 lbs 1128 m/s

T30 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

 

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 by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Ken Estes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

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

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 by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by whelm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Ken Estes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Ken Estes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On topic, nice pic of sectioned 155mm M112 AP

Legend - "Armour piercing round AP M112, fuse BD M60, for 155mm gun M2"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...