Why America Only Built Two 100 Ton T28 Heavy Tanks

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Winston

Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,560
Reaction score
1,749
I'll bet I know why. Because it was as far too big, heavy, slow, and vulnerable?

Why America Only Built Two 100 Ton T28 Heavy Tanks
13 Jun 2020

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/why-america-only-built-two-100-ton-t28-heavy-tanks-162679
Here's What You Need To Remember: The T28 never saw combat. How would it have fared if it had? Its 105-millimeter cannon would have been sufficient to take out German pillboxes—and tanks as well. But more important for the U.S. Army in 1945, the T28’s foot-thick frontal armor would have rendered it proof against dreaded German antitank guns like the eighty-eight-millimeter.

When it comes to tanks, America can only hope that size isn’t everything.

During World War II, Germany had its armored giants, such as the 70-ton King Tiger, the 188-ton Maus or the never-built P.1000, a 1000-ton behemoth that waddled across the line between ambition and insanity. For their part, the Soviets fielded regiments of 56-ton JS-2 heavy tanks.

Yet it turns out that the United States did build a monster tank during World War II. The 95-ton T28 would have been the heaviest tank in American history.

Technically speaking—and we’ll be speaking of this later—the T28 was not a tank.

It was actually a self-propelled gun (also known as an assault gun). Instead of mounting the gun in a revolving turret as in a regular tank, the gun was stuck into the front hull, which meant it could only fire to the front.


T28_Aberdeen_1946%20%282%29.jpg
 
If nothing else, the Germans would have run out of clean underwear in a day.
 
An M1 Abrams weighs 61 tons. The biggest cargo plane we have can carry... one. And nothing like that existed in 1945. Given its size, even moving it by ship would be a challenge without redesigning a ship just for that, or purpose building one
 
An M1 Abrams weighs 61 tons. The biggest cargo plane we have can carry... one. And nothing like that existed in 1945. Given its size, even moving it by ship would be a challenge without redesigning a ship just for that, or purpose building one
Yep, and the King Tiger couldn't even cross most bridges in Europe, so this would have been even worse. An even more dumb project than the Atomic Cannon.
 
Yep, and the King Tiger couldn't even cross most bridges in Europe, so this would have been even worse. An even more dumb project than the Atomic Cannon.
Yes, but the atomic cannons on a battleship would have been awesome.
 
With Little ability to quickly adjust aiming (basically you have to drive your tank directly at the target) strategy for a smaller tank would be rush it and keep moving. Bigger isn’t always better.
 
An M1 Abrams weighs 61 tons. The biggest cargo plane we have can carry... one. And nothing like that existed in 1945. Given its size, even moving it by ship would be a challenge without redesigning a ship just for that, or purpose building one

Just an aside, Having spent much time with the C-5 years ago, we could carry 2 M-1 tanks. Just not very far because we could only carry a small amount of fuel. About 3.5 hours with IFR reserves. So either land every 3 hours or take along 3 KC-135s with you.

Ship it by boat, It's better.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top