Jump to content


If the T110 or T95 had entered service...


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

collimatrix #1 Posted Jan 21 2015 - 04:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011
What would their M numbers have been?

PajamaMan #2 Posted Jan 21 2015 - 04:40

    Captain

  • Players
  • 21321 battles
  • 1,785
  • [SRSLY] SRSLY
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Well, I think so.

Hoboshoes #3 Posted Jan 21 2015 - 04:44

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5110 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
M110? M155 ??? idk,

TwixOps #4 Posted Jan 21 2015 - 04:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 51637 battles
  • 4,545
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011

View PostThe_Alecto, on Jan 21 2015 - 04:44, said:

M110? M155 ??? idk,

There is no way to predict what model number they would have been assigned.  

 



Strv74 #5 Posted Jan 21 2015 - 04:58

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15925 battles
  • 1,520
  • [REALM] REALM
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

No idea. However, consider this. 

 

The heavy tank was dead. The T110E3 and T110E4 are basically WG fakes, as the real ones were with 120mm guns and look nothing like what is in game. The E5 never left the drawing board even to a wooden model stage. Heavies were dead. 



Hoboshoes #6 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 03:55

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 5110 battles
  • 86
  • Member since:
    09-25-2012
The M4 sherman was designated as "T6" when it was being tested

EmberTheDragoness #7 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 16:02

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6617 battles
  • 589
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011
The T95 would have been classified as the DT

The_Chieftain #8 Posted Jan 22 2015 - 18:14

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14382 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
If I had to guess, you'd be looking at M28 for the T28 super-heavy tank, and M103 for the T110E5. The only reason the E5 development was started was due to lack of confidence that the T43 project would enter service.

collimatrix #9 Posted Jan 24 2015 - 10:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

I was thinking of the T95 medium, I realize I did not specify.

 

View PostStrv74, on Jan 21 2015 - 04:58, said:

No idea. However, consider this. 

 

The heavy tank was dead. The T110E3 and T110E4 are basically WG fakes, as the real ones were with 120mm guns and look nothing like what is in game. The E5 never left the drawing board even to a wooden model stage. Heavies were dead. 

 

Except for Chieftain, which had size, mass and power to weight very similar to a tiger, M103, which as The_Chieftain pointed out was a parallel development and did see service, Conqueror, which was even heavier, T-10, of which only a few thousand were made and which stayed on the duty rosters well into the 1970s, and modernized IS-3s, which saw combat in 1973.

 

Yes, aside from that, heavies were dead.  And that's not counting a half-dozen Soviet and French prototypes, or the fact that current-generation MBTs are just as heavy, and frequently heavier than WWII heavies.

 

If you're going to derail a conversation with an irrelevant, pedantic tangent to attempt to appear intelligent, it works better if you don't talk rubbish.



cwjian90 #10 Posted Jan 24 2015 - 15:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 10404 battles
  • 8,026
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012
Oh, and by the way, the T110E3 ingame is basically identical to the fourth Chrysler T110 proposal except for buffed armour and the 155 mm gun

Dominatus #11 Posted Jan 24 2015 - 16:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,790
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
I have to wonder what the convention for designating tanks was for the US anyways. Up until roughly M10, everything's successive, but then everything goes odd.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users