Jump to content


T32 Test Report


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
31 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted May 18 2013 - 06:34

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14030 battles
  • 9,920
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Posted Image


Since we've got a US on-track event going on right now which covers it, this is as good a time as any to do a Hatch on this tank.

T32 is my favourite tank in the game. Not just my favourite Tier VIII, but the aweeomest, funnest, hoot to play period. The thing can do anything I ask of it, in all weather, terrain, or framerates. Except underwater, it hasn't figured that bit out yet. It is to my lasting regret that none have been preserved, and all we have left are the photographs and documents.

Of course, even if it's awesome in the game, this doesn't necessarily translate to the thing having been any use in real life. After all, if it was so great, they'd have built more of them, right? So what did the US Army actually think of the vehicle?

Below are scans of a test report which I happened to come across in some of my archive digging. Alas, the appendices referred to are no longer co-located with the report, and may not even exist at all. But it may still be of some interest. Click spoiler to expand.

Comfort (the important bit) is paragraph III, B, 1, u.  III, B, 1, f could be a problem, though. No page 3. (Sorry, Sun readers)

Spoiler                     


Priory_of_Sion #2 Posted May 18 2013 - 23:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 14866 battles
  • 6,761
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
"The main weapon has only 5 degrees of depression instead of 10 degrees, as specified in OCM 26880."



ramp4ge #3 Posted May 18 2013 - 23:50

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,870
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
I still don't understand why the turret would have less depression than the T26E1/E4, considering T32 had essentially the same turret with thicker castings and the same gun.

quetch #4 Posted May 19 2013 - 00:40

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9924 battles
  • 579
  • Member since:
    06-20-2011
t32 is a good tank with a strong turret but its gun lets you down in some cases.

collimatrix #5 Posted May 19 2013 - 02:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,794
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011
Interesting that they credit it with only a 18 MPH top speed, while the tiger II, with an inferior P/W is generally credited as going faster.

PzKpfwlII #6 Posted May 19 2013 - 03:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 29335 battles
  • 12
  • [-FEB-] -FEB-
  • Member since:
    10-27-2012
So uh what to say... I already saw many ppls complaing about the T32 because its weak gun, but before you guys look for turn it better... I guess you should look back for the german tanks, wich in game they are much worse than the real they was. (I think i dont need to say more)

Pumakid #7 Posted May 19 2013 - 03:22

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14358 battles
  • 52
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 18 2013 - 06:34, said:

(Sorry, Sun readers)

I see what you did there  :teethhappy:

The_Chieftain #8 Posted May 19 2013 - 03:26

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14030 battles
  • 9,920
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostPumakid, on May 19 2013 - 03:22, said:

I see what you did there  :teethhappy:

Can you imagine how many soldiers would actually seek out these reports?

GavinMcStine #9 Posted May 19 2013 - 03:34

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 33096 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    02-23-2011
Thanks for the read, very informative and a good inside source to what testing is conducted on tanks before they are submitted to major production.
Can someone provide me with a link, or even do the same on the M4 Sherman? I would like to know how the tank did on the tests because of Patton ( I believe ) pushing it.

The_Chieftain #10 Posted May 19 2013 - 03:44

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14030 battles
  • 9,920
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
There is no reason to believe that Patton had anything to do with the development of M4.

FaustianQ #11 Posted May 19 2013 - 04:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18727 battles
  • 7,726
  • Member since:
    07-13-2010
I'm slightly confused, the T32 was apparently acceptable and most of the issues associated with were solvable by 1948, '49 at the latest. Was a 90mm or 105mm seen as poor armament by 1949 for a heavy tank? I could see the 69" turret ring presenting problems for upgunning beyond a 105mm, but that doesn't seem to be a huge obstacle. Would the T54 90mm fit inside a T32?

Further, the original T43 was extremely similar to the T32, and the the 75 short ton post war demand basically asks for a uniformly armored T32/T26 based heavy tank. US heavy tank development is extremely confusing, and it's not like the Army really wanted them either.

VRMoran #12 Posted May 19 2013 - 06:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 19405 battles
  • 2,255
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
Thanks for this Chieftan! This was a task I've tried to find info on, to no avail.

View PostFaustianQ, on May 19 2013 - 04:25, said:

I'm slightly confused, the T32 was apparently acceptable and most of the issues associated with were solvable by 1948, '49 at the latest. Was a 90mm or 105mm seen as poor armament by 1949 for a heavy tank? I could see the 69" turret ring presenting problems for upgunning beyond a 105mm, but that doesn't seem to be a huge obstacle. Would the T54 90mm fit inside a T32?

I think it may have something to do with the fact that they were pushing for a 120mm gun on the heavy tanks, hence why they put the M103 into service. The T32 was essentially using the same weapon on the Patton, but on a bigger and slower chassis. But that's just conjecture on my part.

TheRonmasteh #13 Posted May 19 2013 - 06:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 51430 battles
  • 4,967
  • Member since:
    04-07-2011
Missing Page Nº 3. Did Valve touched the T32 Files at some point or something???

PD: Nice find. Thanks for sharing, Chieftain. Good to know Driver was very comfy.

ApplesauceBandit #14 Posted May 19 2013 - 07:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 27242 battles
  • 5,994
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    05-17-2011
My guess for the reason that there were only 5° of comfort is someone forgot to not put the mini-fridge above the breach.

GeneralMech #15 Posted May 19 2013 - 07:31

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 14660 battles
  • 50
  • [425] 425
  • Member since:
    02-23-2013
I love the T32 as well but the gun is horrible!! Allot of T6 have 120mm guns like KV1S that do the job so I believe the 105mm gun with its small penn is what makes an awesome tank a flop in my book. Of course if they put the T34 premiums gun on the T32 I would hang pics of it over my wall but then WG would not be able to collect all that money on the T34 because it would lose its appeal. I am about to sell my T32 due to its gun personally as 198 penn is not enough for the tier!!

Bonesaw1o1 #16 Posted May 19 2013 - 09:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13295 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    06-27-2011

View PostVRMoran, on May 19 2013 - 06:01, said:

Thanks for this Chieftan! This was a task I've tried to find info on, to no avail.



I think it may have something to do with the fact that they were pushing for a 120mm gun on the heavy tanks, hence why they put the M103 into service. The T32 was essentially using the same weapon on the Patton, but on a bigger and slower chassis. But that's just conjecture on my part.

all of the above points are perfectly acceptable pieces of conjecture. i would also add this however.
the end of WW2 saw the end of development for a lot of projects that had been started in the war years, i think with the T32 its fair to say that it was probbably axed due to a percieved lack of need or a perception that it was already outdated in the wake of the whole JS-3 panic, like with plenty of other US tank developments in the 40s. hence why the US millitary expressed concern in the korean war when they still had M4s and M26s going up against newer soviet designs.
i think based on events that occured with British tank development (such as the charioteer and conqueror) it was a case of 'the T32 is good, but not good enough for what will be needed'

once again all conjecture, but without any conclusive evidence what else can we do  :harp:

ramp4ge #17 Posted May 19 2013 - 09:14

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,870
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010

View PostGeneralMech, on May 19 2013 - 07:31, said:

I love the T32 as well but the gun is horrible!! Allot of T6 have 120mm guns like KV1S that do the job so I believe the 105mm gun with its small penn is what makes an awesome tank a flop in my book. Of course if they put the T34 premiums gun on the T32 I would hang pics of it over my wall but then WG would not be able to collect all that money on the T34 because it would lose its appeal. I am about to sell my T32 due to its gun personally as 198 penn is not enough for the tier!!

I think they should just scrap the 105 on it all together and give it a 90mm that's equal in penetration and accuracy to the 20lbr but keeps it's 240 alpha and doesn't cost 680 a shell..

GavinMcStine #18 Posted May 19 2013 - 14:09

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 33096 battles
  • 437
  • Member since:
    02-23-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on May 19 2013 - 03:44, said:

There is no reason to believe that Patton had anything to do with the development of M4.

I wasn't referring to the development but the pushing for a tank that was quite poor on the battlefield. Although the other tank choices might have been just as bad. Also some things as weight and size might have been a major factor.

SmithWinston_655321 #19 Posted May 19 2013 - 16:08

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 42657 battles
  • 95
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011
I really enjoyed the T32.  Who wouldn't like a T29 that can actually move?

It gets crapped on all the time, but I excelled with it.  I may buy it back.

UncleDaddy #20 Posted May 20 2013 - 07:37

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12000 battles
  • 470
  • Member since:
    07-24-2011
I hated the T32, for its tier its gun is horrible. But then you get the m103 and it makes everything all better :D




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users