Jump to content


Archive Oddities


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 02:56

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 19313 battles
  • 10,015
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
The forum is being a bit strange, so to read this one for now, you need to hop over to this link.

venomjoe #2 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 18:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 11072 battles
  • 2,659
  • [5IB] 5IB
  • Member since:
    08-31-2012
Neat photos  :Smile_great:

naktora #3 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 18:50

    Private

  • Players
  • 4226 battles
  • 4
  • [1SHOT] 1SHOT
  • Member since:
    03-29-2011
the last pic looks like the t29 not the t28

Xlucine #4 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 19:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
Hehehe, didn't they hear about the problems with the unsprung rototrailer?

cRommels #5 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 19:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23489 battles
  • 1,540
  • Member since:
    08-23-2011
Wow special cage made for T95 transport. Dat monster!

markodash #6 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 19:16

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28047 battles
  • 505
  • [G_W_S] G_W_S
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
imagine if there had been T28/95s rumbling ashore in Normandy.

SolDust #7 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 19:16

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14673 battles
  • 1,163
  • [XEDGE] XEDGE
  • Member since:
    03-09-2011

View Postnaktora, on Jan 12 2013 - 18:50, said:

the last pic looks like the t29 not the t28

they are the same tank really. the second set of tracks was removeable for ease of transport if i remember right.  the T28 in the game is more of a historical based make beleve to help progress the teirs better.

that said, this is some cool stuff and I would love to see some more hatches with funky junk in them.
also...the mono wheel fuel tank could be a good idea for a posible picce of new eqipment...

Marseille #8 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 20:01

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11037 battles
  • 542
  • [COD] COD
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostSolDust, on Jan 12 2013 - 19:16, said:

also...the mono wheel fuel tank could be a good idea for a posible picce of new eqipment...

Why would anyone want to use something that's completely useless - and even detrimental to performance - in combat? I can only imagine what would happen if an HE shell hits that thing...

Killertomato #9 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 20:24

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 4500 battles
  • 772
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
WWII production levels were a hell of a thing. "Will accept 1340 in place of similar number M4."  :Smile_ohmy:

fsjd #10 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 20:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 11808 battles
  • 5,243
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

View PostMarseille, on Jan 12 2013 - 20:01, said:

Why would anyone want to use something that's completely useless - and even detrimental to performance - in combat? I can only imagine what would happen if an HE shell hits that thing...

it reminds me of the churchill crocodile fuel trailer more than anything

according to the american test of the british trailer, simple fuel drums would have been somewhat better in terms of jettisison/recovery than the trailer, but for long distance travel, it appeared to work well.

Edited by fsjd, Jan 12 2013 - 20:29.


Fr33Th1nk3r #11 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 20:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 30634 battles
  • 1,412
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011
Yea, the U.S. wasn't all that into tanks in the war. That's why we wen't all out infantry and air power. We still do it and probably always will.

IndygoEEI #12 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 21:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 78593 battles
  • 7,867
  • [_WOO_] _WOO_
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012
Well those are nice little oddities Chief until you go into the patent office see the
weird stuff inventors cam up with in the patent office.  Like a Tank made out of
an actual Water Tank.

SolDust #13 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 21:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14673 battles
  • 1,163
  • [XEDGE] XEDGE
  • Member since:
    03-09-2011

View PostMarseille, on Jan 12 2013 - 20:01, said:

Why would anyone want to use something that's completely useless - and even detrimental to performance - in combat? I can only imagine what would happen if an HE shell hits that thing...
well seing how its a game im sure something creative can be thought up...I just though it looked cool

Mermaid_Witch #14 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 21:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 15668 battles
  • 15,056
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
I like that first picture of the T28 nestled in the front of the LST.  The entire picture just screams "We're taking this beach whether you like it or not".  Assuming the dang thing didn't get stuck in the sand, landing that thing in the Normandy invasion would have given nightmares to the German defenders.

Edited by Mini_Bolo, Jan 12 2013 - 21:34.


whitedragonking #15 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 22:46

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22964 battles
  • 818
  • Member since:
    03-15-2011
ITs so sad a T95-28 never saw combat i would love to see it in Real action.
Atleast fire a damn round for us to see.


lol Americans cheating off the British test of there project lol

Scolopax #16 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 23:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 8642 battles
  • 2,757
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
Don't see why the west just didn't carry extra fuel tanks on their tanks like the Russians did and still do.  Is there some doctrine against doing such a thing?

Feel free to post anything and everything you find odd or interesting in the archives Chief (especially any photos of a particular full-sized mock-up of a US heavy that no one can find.)

badperson #17 Posted Jan 12 2013 - 23:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 46790 battles
  • 1,221
  • Member since:
    05-19-2012
I'm sorry, but you didn't know about the Arty ammo shortages in the Western Front?  A subject that has been discussed to death in all sorts of BBS, forums, professionally produced documentaries, et cetera?  No offense, but perhaps you should consider resigning...

Edited by badperson, Jan 13 2013 - 00:02.


CreightonPatton #18 Posted Jan 13 2013 - 00:15

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 42306 battles
  • 41
  • [FISH-] FISH-
  • Member since:
    05-25-2011
Sure, a T95/T28 "storming" the beaches at Normandy.   Looks like it took a company of engineers just to prep it to get the beast off the beach.

I can hardly imagine the tactical doctrine that would have envisioned that as an assault gun.  Well, maybe for direct frontal assault.  Much like the SU-152 and ISU-152 it was really more of a direct firt SPG than a TD.

Xlucine #19 Posted Jan 13 2013 - 00:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostScolopax, on Jan 12 2013 - 23:31, said:

Don't see why the west just didn't carry extra fuel tanks on their tanks like the Russians did and still do.  Is there some doctrine against doing such a thing?

Dunno why they didn't then, but they do now

View PostCreightonPatton, on Jan 13 2013 - 00:15, said:

I can hardly imagine the tactical doctrine that would have envisioned that as an assault gun.  Well, maybe for direct frontal assault.  Much like the SU-152 and ISU-152 it was really more of a direct firt SPG than a TD.

Yes, you've just described the role of an assault gun.

Killertomato #20 Posted Jan 13 2013 - 00:26

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 4500 battles
  • 772
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostCreightonPatton, on Jan 13 2013 - 00:15, said:

I can hardly imagine the tactical doctrine that would have envisioned that as an assault gun.  Well, maybe for direct frontal assault.  Much like the SU-152 and ISU-152 it was really more of a direct firt SPG than a TD.

I thought that was what it had always been for- I just thought the US expected to use it on the way into Japan, not France.  :Smile-hiding:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users