Jump to content


T28 vs T95


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Apr 08 2014 - 23:39

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 11420 battles
  • 9,811
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Last week's article on T28 generated a lot of confusion/misinformation on the forum and Facebook on the concept of what is T28 vs what is T95. Usually depending on the number of tracks visible. I've decided to take this week's Hatch and lay it out clearly for all to see. It's a ltitle basic by Hatch standards, but it probably needs clearing up.

First things first. Last week's article was an April Fool's thing. T28 was never sent to Korea, the photographs were of an LST loading test in Virginia in 1948.

OK. Let's sort out a few things.

This is a Super-Heavy Tank T28. See? It says T28 on the back of it.

This is also a Super-Heavy Tank T28. Note it says "T-28" on the side. Point to note: Unlike the previous photo, this vehicle only has one set of tracks, and no skirt.

 

As an aside, note the "-" in "T-28" in the photo above. Although the official nomenclature from Ordnance Committee did not use a "-", it was not uncommon for the "-" to appear in official documentation. The two formats, such as T28 and T-28 were used interchangeably. This was not confined only to T28, but appears on documentation for a number of vehicles.

Now, this is a 105mm Gun Motor Carriage T95, the drawing is from the operator's manual. It says "T95" on it. Twice.

Actually, I'm going to digress momentarily. Something else I keep seeing about the forum is the statement that  T95 is undersized in the game. "It's supposed to be as tall as a Jagtiger!" or something daft like that. That's because they go to Wiki and see 'T28 height" at 9'4", or 2.84m. That's to the top of the .50 cal. The vehicle roof is 6'9" off the ground. That's 2.12m, all of about 4" taller than me. By comparison, the turret roof of a Soviet T-54 is 2.4m, almost a foot higher. T95 is a low vehicle. Anyway, now that I've dealt with that problem here's a photo of GMC T95. See? It says "T95" on the skirt.


This also is a Gun Motor Carriage T95 picture from the manual.


Point to note. Only one set of tracks.

Here's what's going on.

They're the same vehicle. The vehicle was developed as a super-heavy tank designed to breach the Siegried Line fortifications, and so designated in the tank nomenclature, coming somewhere between T26 (Pershing), and T29 (the turreted 105mm tank eveyone at Tier VII loves). (T27 was taken by an armoured car and GMC). About 1945/46, I'd need to check, someone decided that the thing wasn't really a tank, and was more a self-propelled artillery piece. This it was redesignated to a Gun Motor Carriage, and the GMCs were way up the numbering list. T95 was available. Then, a year or so later, they decided that perhaps it actually was a tank after all, and renamed it back to T28. If anyone cares to look up the exact dates, the OCMs in question were OCM 27219 declaring it T95, and OCM 30958 turning it back into T28. Although both T28s and T95s built were identical, to have 12" or so of frontal armour, a number of hulls were cast with only 8" or so of armour. These were only ever called T28 castings, as the decision to build the complete vehicles with the thicker armour basis was done long before the GMC shennanigans started. There was no distinction in the armour basis/nomenclature, as there was in the heavy and lighter armoured tanks T25 and T26. The vehicle only ever carried a 105mm gun.

Now, T28/T95 may not have been a particularly tall vehicle, but it was a particularly wide vehicle. In order to get it onto flatcars, onto LCTs etc, they needed to make it narrower. It's not a unique problem, Tigers, for example, would have to take off the outer roadwheels and put on narrower tracks to go on flatcars.

The method was simple enough. Unbolt one set of outer tracks. Leave it standing, then go drive around the other side of it.

Whoever was in charge of this one wanted it very clear to all who saw it that this was T95 number 2! Heaven forbid they should be mistaken for those rejects in charge of Vehicle #1!

Bolt the two together, then disconnect the second outboard track from the vehicle. Move in front of them, and turn them into a trailer.

OK, so now that we have sorted that out, there remains a question. What the heck is this, that's a T28 in the game?

Compared to the real tank, it has VVSS suspension instead of HVSS, frontal drive-train, and an extended lower front hull.

Well, put frankly, we made it up. I speculate that the thinking was that the US rather gave up on the whole concept of heavy TDs and assault guns and didn't develop much which could survive at Tier VIII while remaining in the tech tree lineage. So, we had to fill in the gap a bit with a little creative license/speculation.



Daigensui #2 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 09:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 29417 battles
  • 29,974
  • [KANCO] KANCO
  • Member since:
    11-09-2012

So what I've been saying about T28/95's height was correct all along?

 

Wunderbar!



BAKATARE #3 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 16:43

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32947 battles
  • 99
  • [TOGS] TOGS
  • Member since:
    03-10-2013
Thanks, Chief!  So, WOT has us work the grind for the same tank in different tiers?  Darn, now I feel cheated!

Dabomb48 #4 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 16:59

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6839 battles
  • 809
  • Member since:
    10-10-2011

Pretty much the same tank. Basically in-game WG made the T28 as pretty much the T95 without the extra set of tracks and side skirts, while making the T95 the complete thing.

 

Ohhhh my the wonders WG does that fools many...



Ghost_of_Fail_Teams_Past #5 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 17:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32073 battles
  • 619
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011

Darn it! I was hoping that the T95 in Korea thing was actually true...

 

As for the T28 (in-game), although it is made up, I think the people who did so did do a nice job of creating a kind of T28/T95 prototype. The front armor is 203mm thick for the most part, the same as the 8-inch castings you mentioned, and since it has front drive, no extra tracks, and an earlier model of suspension, I envision it being a kind of early "napkin sketch" of what would become the T28 IRL. Of course, there is no historical data to prove this, and we know the WoT T28 is made up, but I do think it's made up within reason. Also, of course, in WoT the T28 is a great lead into the T95.

 

By the way, is there any way the T28/T95 could have mounted the 155mm gun it has in WoT, or is there simply not enough space for it?



a_Friendly #6 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 17:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 22657 battles
  • 2,449
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    04-23-2012
Please explain what manner of drunker stupor the Belarus dev team was in when they gave the T28 that chin.

NutrientibusMeaGallus #7 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 17:48

    Major

  • Players
  • 20571 battles
  • 5,046
  • [FILOX] FILOX
  • Member since:
    10-26-2012
 So the different look of the t-28 in front... Is that what the thinner cast body would have looked like or is it made up as well? That's the only thing I'm questioning after the article.

a_Friendly #8 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 17:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 22657 battles
  • 2,449
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    04-23-2012

View PostNutrientibusMeaGallus, on Apr 12 2014 - 09:48, said:

 So the different look of the t-28 in front... Is that what the thinner cast body would have looked like or is it made up as well? That's the only thing I'm questioning after the article.

 

It was a blueprint written on a napkin that mysteriously fell on Serb's lap



Hurk #9 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 17:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 52207 battles
  • 17,365
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostTimedParadox, on Apr 12 2014 - 09:30, said:

Please explain what manner of drunker stupor the Belarus dev team was in when they gave the T28 that chin.

try actually reading the article. the chin was to support legacy front drive train like almost all other american vehicles used at the time. 

View PostNutrientibusMeaGallus, on Apr 12 2014 - 09:48, said:

 So the different look of the t-28 in front... Is that what the thinner cast body would have looked like or is it made up as well? That's the only thing I'm questioning after the article.

the thinner body casting looked exactly the same. the gun would simply be 4" back since the nose would not be as thick. 


Edited by Hurk, Apr 12 2014 - 17:52.


dhread #10 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 17:52

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 16452 battles
  • 212
  • [T_K_M] T_K_M
  • Member since:
    03-23-2013


I admit I had to read the t28/t-95/t-28/t95 bit twice; but, the T28 is the sport version of the T95. LOL

 

So they actually drove that thing off of a landing vessel and it didn't just sink. That is an impressive engineering feat.

 



SovietSoldier9367 #11 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 17:57

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 4675 battles
  • 76
  • Member since:
    01-09-2013
It's a Doom Snail / Doom Turtle either way you slice it. I would have to say the T95 is better and more fun because the front plate can eat AP shells all day, though the resulting laughter may knock your hit rate for the match down lower than whale s#1t.

Flaksmith #12 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 17:59

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 17261 battles
  • 493
  • Member since:
    06-16-2013

View PostScorpion_Strike, on Apr 12 2014 - 13:31, said:

By the way, is there any way the T28/T95 could have mounted the 155mm gun it has in WoT, or is there simply not enough space for it?

Good question, I always wondered that too. Considering in real life it mounted a 105mm gun and required a second set of tracks due to the weight, there is also the possibility that it would not have had the load capacity to mount the 120mm gun also available in game.



a_Friendly #13 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 18:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 22657 battles
  • 2,449
  • [NTR] NTR
  • Member since:
    04-23-2012

View PostHurk, on Apr 12 2014 - 09:51, said:

try actually reading the article. the chin was to support legacy front drive train like almost all other american vehicles used at the time. 

 

 

"Compared to the real tank, it has VVSS suspension instead of HVSS, frontal drive-train, and an extended lower front hull."

 

[citation needed]



zephoid #14 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 18:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20263 battles
  • 1,223
  • Member since:
    03-13-2011
Always had hoped they would make the T95 its real size and put it at teir 10 rather than making up the silly E3. Maybe make up an engine, as the 500 hp engine it has would never have made the transition to a production tank when it was of that weight.

AutobotMech #15 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 18:17

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14362 battles
  • 210
  • [-BDS-] -BDS-
  • Member since:
    03-14-2011

Thanks  chief , the trailer concept  is a nifty thing to see.

 

Of course after seeing that,  I'm kind a thinking about  a transformer having the  T-28 as an alt mode, with  bolt on armor for T-95 mode , then in robot mode, the  trailer armor  adds a super mode...

Like a Tank version of Roadbuster.

 

What? don't judge me

 

^_*

 

Again great article sir. o7



xsoulbrothax #16 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 18:25

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 10615 battles
  • 106
  • [SHACK] SHACK
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011
These are *such* fun reads, especially with the references back to primary sources and exactly where the ideas for X or Y came from. Thank you!

ImSorryISukk #17 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 18:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23648 battles
  • 678
  • Member since:
    02-13-2011
Knew the in-game T28 was fake.

Trisania #18 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 18:30

    Private

  • Players
  • 23942 battles
  • 6
  • [KON] KON
  • Member since:
    11-12-2012

They were told along time ago this tank was wrong, so I am not even going there... just hope they fix the slow, inaccurate, easy tracking none hard hitting turtle. Its an embarrassment to the american tank division on there so-called guess work that makes most american tanks weak.

Call what i said rude?... not really they were told this months ago and why tanks are weak, but refused to listen and said its only a game.

Now, I guess its time to be banned for speaking the truth regardless whom the truth hurt.



The_Chieftain #19 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 18:31

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 11420 battles
  • 9,811
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Postzephoid, on Apr 12 2014 - 18:04, said:

Always had hoped they would make the T95 its real size and put it at teir 10 rather than making up the silly E3. Maybe make up an engine, as the 500 hp engine it has would never have made the transition to a production tank when it was of that weight.

 

Not sure where you're making that statement from. The vehicle is good to within a couple of inches in both width and height in the game.

 

105mm to 155mm doesn't seem too unlikely. They managed it between T29 to T30 well enough.



The_Chieftain #20 Posted Apr 12 2014 - 18:32

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 11420 battles
  • 9,811
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostTrisania, on Apr 12 2014 - 18:30, said:

They were told along time ago this tank was wrong, so I am not even going there... just hope they fix the slow, inaccurate, easy tracking none hard hitting turtle. Its an embarrassment to the american tank division on there so-called guess work that makes most american tanks weak.

Call what i said rude?... not really they were told this months ago and why tanks are weak, but refused to listen and said its only a game.

Now, I guess its time to be banned for speaking the truth regardless whom the truth hurt.

 

I've no idea what you're talking about. Sure, a little more speed wouldn't go amiss on the 'fun' side of things, but it's not as if I don't get a higher than my average winrate in the thing anyway.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users