Jump to content


How Suitable was T29, Pt 2.


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

stalkervision #21 Posted Oct 26 2015 - 22:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 68465 battles
  • 9,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostNK_33, on Oct 26 2015 - 15:52, said:

New T5/6/7 Premiums! :ohmy:

 

Sorry, couldn't resist. :hiding:

 

YES and actual accurately modeled one's TOO !  :)

The_Chieftain #22 Posted Oct 26 2015 - 22:34

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13328 battles
  • 9,899
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 26 2015 - 20:16, said:

 

Who was the company that produced it, the engineer's that worked on the project or the foundries that cast the turret  and gun mantlet? IMO Hunnicutt appears to take just one source here and use it as gospel.  As you already knows he was very far off. Pacific Car and Foundry apparently built the T-29 and that company turned into PACCAR in 1972. They might have further info on the tank then army ordnance.

 

In fairness, that one source is the US Army, which is usually pretty much on the ball when it comes to its estimates of its own equipment.

Blackhorse_Six_ #23 Posted Oct 26 2015 - 22:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 48421 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

Interesting photos on the Wikipedia page for PACCAR ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paccar#During_World_War_II



Phos09 #24 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 06:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6481 battles
  • 31
  • Member since:
    08-27-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 26 2015 - 17:02, said:

 

The game information was based off of what figures we had available. It turns out that the figures (From Hunnicutt, he got them from Ordnance Branch description forms) were wrong. But at this point, people aren't interested in a massive nerf to the T29/30/34 tanks dropping two inches of armor off the mantlet. Especially T34 drivers, who paid cash.

 

Personally I've thought the US tree was in need of a pretty large revision, but then again I'm the odd man out, in a sense, thinking that 10 tiers is too many to reasonably fill leading to weird tier stuffers like the T1/M6 being two different tanks.  For anyone curious, it's mostly removing the T20 and bringing everything above it down one tier with more historical loadouts firing APCR for silver, most of these APCR shells are overbuffed anyway and it at face value it looks like it works out rather well, with the M60A1 as the tier 10.  The US having a full heavy line almost seems misrepresentative.  The amount of make good such a change would (probably) need is out of line with Wargaming, though.  I also think a lot of overtiered tanks from other nations should be shifted down to better tiers so that they could have more representative loadouts.  Tiger 1 and Panther, T-44, those sorts of tanks.  This is getting off topic, but point is, I feel like the US tree could do with being rearranged a bit.  

 

More on topic, is there any similar report for the T32?  I imagine it was due to not being that much stronger than the pershing while possibly further complicating its teething issues, but it's always seemed like such an odd tank.  Was it just a competitor to the T29 and friends?  It's gun seems a bit weak if that's the case.  


Edited by Phos09, Oct 27 2015 - 06:41.


stalkervision #25 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 12:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 68465 battles
  • 9,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Oct 26 2015 - 16:39, said:

Interesting photos on the Wikipedia page for PACCAR ...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paccar#During_World_War_II

 

Very interesting company huh? Indeed it is. I don't know how much Hunnicutt ever used them as a resource because one has to purchase all his books at a substantial price. Army ordnance is hardly the most wonderful dept of the army. I have heard many boned headed things they have pulled. The development of the M-16 comes to mind. Gene Stonner had little good to say about them I can tell you that.

Edited by stalkervision, Oct 27 2015 - 12:01.


shapeshifter #26 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 12:04

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostPhos09, on Oct 27 2015 - 00:35, said:

 

Personally I've thought the US tree was in need of a pretty large revision, but then again I'm the odd man out, in a sense, thinking that 10 tiers is too many to reasonably fill leading to weird tier stuffers like the T1/M6 being two different tanks.  For anyone curious, it's mostly removing the T20 and bringing everything above it down one tier with more historical loadouts firing APCR for silver, most of these APCR shells are overbuffed anyway and it at face value it looks like it works out rather well, with the M60A1 as the tier 10.  The US having a full heavy line almost seems misrepresentative.  The amount of make good such a change would (probably) need is out of line with Wargaming, though.  I also think a lot of overtiered tanks from other nations should be shifted down to better tiers so that they could have more representative loadouts.  Tiger 1 and Panther, T-44, those sorts of tanks.  This is getting off topic, but point is, I feel like the US tree could do with being rearranged a bit.  

 

More on topic, is there any similar report for the T32?  I imagine it was due to not being that much stronger than the pershing while possibly further complicating its teething issues, but it's always seemed like such an odd tank.  Was it just a competitor to the T29 and friends?  It's gun seems a bit weak if that's the case.  

 

T1 to M6 were very different.

 

Some of the major things done, they redesigned the turret, the front hull, the engine compartment, the cooling system, the brakes, the side skirt armour.

 

It seems also the production M6's were to have an extra 9500 pounds of armour added to them at a later date (unknown if any ended up built with these specs)

 



stalkervision #27 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 12:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 68465 battles
  • 9,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

army ordnance.."The Pentagon Wars"  This story is TRUE. 

 

 https://www.youtube....h?v=iur-noEd4eA

 

I should just give you the book and video you have to purchase to see this but unlike Hunnycutt, living off the back of the government for his sources,  I'm not a greedy [edited]  JONES.  

 

If you want to purchase the book...

 

 http://www.barnesand...n=9781612513690


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 27 2015 - 12:50.


The_Chieftain #28 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 17:39

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13328 battles
  • 9,899
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
We're all familiar with the story, I think it's mandatory watching, that movie. That said, just because the Pentagon undergoes political machinations, or rigs the tests or whatever, does not mean that they outright lie in their reports. You just have to read the fine print. But on occasion, they sometimes also simply get it wrong.

Walter_Sobchak #29 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 18:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 06:44, said:

army ordnance.."The Pentagon Wars"  This story is TRUE. 

 

 https://www.youtube....h?v=iur-noEd4eA

 

I should just give you the book and video you have to purchase to see this but unlike Hunnycutt, living off the back of the government for his sources,  I'm not a greedy [edited]  JONES.  

 

If you want to purchase the book...

 

 http://www.barnesand...n=9781612513690

As much as Pentagon Wars is an amusing movie, it's hardly a trustworthy source of information regarding the development of the Bradley.  It's a much more complicated story than it's depicted in the film, and a good deal more thought went into the design than depicted by the film.



stalkervision #30 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 20:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 68465 battles
  • 9,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Oct 27 2015 - 12:39, said:

As much as Pentagon Wars is an amusing movie, it's hardly a trustworthy source of information regarding the development of the Bradley.  It's a much more complicated story than it's depicted in the film, and a good deal more thought went into the design than depicted by the film.

 

It comes from a book that is pretty accurate on all this. I suggest you buy it and see for yourself. I do not mind a bit of humor in what is otherwise a sobering subject. I was reading weekly reports in Aviation Week and Space technology about the development of these systems and the author pretty much got it right. 

 

Or you could look in the congressional hearing transcripts...

 

the movie doesn't have time to tell you the whole convoluted development story of the Bradley and I am very sure no one what sit through it if they did.  

 

The movie maker's use comedy to get their message across instead of a boring docudrama no one what sit through and IMO they have done pretty well with it.

 

The real scary thing about all this is this same procurement system is going on to this day with FAR less oversight.

 

 Look up the record of the developmental record of the V22 Osprey  for instance..

 

 http://www.bloomberg...sure-to-succeed


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 27 2015 - 20:24.


TornadoADV #31 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 20:57

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 26116 battles
  • 778
  • [ESC] ESC
  • Member since:
    01-05-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 13:10, said:

 

It comes from a book that is pretty accurate on all this. I suggest you buy it and see for yourself. I do not mind a bit of humor in what is otherwise a sobering subject. I was reading weekly reports in Aviation Week and Space technology about the development of these systems and the author pretty much got it right. 

 

Or you could look in the congressional hearing transcripts...

 

the movie doesn't have time to tell you the whole convoluted development story of the Bradley and I am very sure no one what sit through it if they did.  

 

The movie maker's use comedy to get their message across instead of a boring docudrama no one what sit through and IMO they have done pretty well with it.

 

The real scary thing about all this is this same procurement system is going on to this day with FAR less oversight.

 

 Look up the record of the developmental record of the V22 Osprey  for instance..

 

 http://www.bloomberg...sure-to-succeed

Yet the Bradley still turned out to be the forerunner of second generation IFV design and still performs at the front of the pack ability wise despite it being more then 30 years old. The Bradley suffered from feature creep and high command meddling, like the F-16 before it, that's nothing new in military circles.



stalkervision #32 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 22:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 68465 battles
  • 9,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostTornadoADV, on Oct 27 2015 - 14:57, said:

Yet the Bradley still turned out to be the forerunner of second generation IFV design and still performs at the front of the pack ability wise despite it being more then 30 years old. The Bradley suffered from feature creep and high command meddling, like the F-16 before it, that's nothing new in military circles.

 

the Bradly is FAR over cost, has crap armor that they had to increase substantially and carries very few soldiers to the front. IMO a new true infantry carrier is needed. Guess what TRUE infantry carrier has had a much longer life at a fraction of the cost and STILL is in service with tons of counties around the world including the US army I believe? :)

 

times up.. https://en.wikipedia...rsonnel_carrier


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 27 2015 - 22:17.


Walter_Sobchak #33 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 22:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 16:11, said:

 

the Bradly is FAR over cost, has crap armor that they had to increase substantially and carries very few soldiers to the front. IMO a new true infantry carrier is needed. Guess what TRUE infantry carrier has had a much longer life at a fraction of the cost and STILL is in service with tons of counties around the world including the US army I believe? :)

 

times up.. https://en.wikipedia...rsonnel_carrier

Oh hell, Stalkervision is Mike Sparks.



stalkervision #34 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 22:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 68465 battles
  • 9,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Oct 27 2015 - 16:24, said:

Oh hell, Stalkervision is Mike Sparks.

 

Damn, you found me out ! :ohmy:  LOL :)

stalkervision #35 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 22:34

    Major

  • Players
  • 68465 battles
  • 9,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

what is the most relevant in that movie is not the Bradly whatsoever but the revolving door that army officers use to get high paying jobs for the very defense companies they are checking on.

 

Of course congress does the very same thing.

 

and the heads of big government agencies like the EPA also


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 27 2015 - 22:36.


Mechanize #36 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 22:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 1428 battles
  • 2,844
  • Member since:
    08-04-2010

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 14:11, said:

 

the Bradly is FAR over cost, has crap armor that they had to increase substantially and carries very few soldiers to the front. IMO a new true infantry carrier is needed. Guess what TRUE infantry carrier has had a much longer life at a fraction of the cost and STILL is in service with tons of counties around the world including the US army I believe? :)

 

times up.. https://en.wikipedia...rsonnel_carrier

 

*Complains about crap armor*

 

*Brings up a trash APC that can literally be penetrated from any side by .50 Soviet API fire as demonstrated in Vietnam.*

 

About the same consistency as your usual posts I guess.



WulfeHound #37 Posted Oct 27 2015 - 23:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Oct 27 2015 - 16:24, said:

Oh hell, Stalkervision is Mike Sparks.

 

Well that explains everything

stalkervision #38 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 02:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 68465 battles
  • 9,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostMechanize, on Oct 27 2015 - 16:40, said:

 

*Complains about crap armor*

 

*Brings up a trash APC that can literally be penetrated from any side by .50 Soviet API fire as demonstrated in Vietnam.*

 

About the same consistency as your usual posts I guess.

 

Your convoluted post makes no sense whatsoever. It is obviously a childish troll post.  It is a fact that the m113 APC is in service around the world including the us army. It is and continues to be be a outstanding success.  I guess the forces that use, including the Israelis, don't have as much problem with it as you do. That is because it is performing the function it was designed for and FAR more then that at a much lower price then the hybrid designed six troop carrying overly complicated Bradly. What you seem not to realize was the Bradly's original function and what a convoluted series of revisions and huge increases in cost it went through to get to where it is. RPG's still destroy it BTW.   If it did meet later modernized low silhouette SOVIET BMP tanks manned by well trained SOVIET crews it would come off second best but that is my own personal opinion.   

 

 Here is just one example of Russian developments in this field. 

 http://www.military-...nks/bmpt_72.htm

 

 and..

 

 http://www.army-tech...projects/bmp-3/


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 28 2015 - 03:13.


WulfeHound #39 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 03:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 20:58, said:

 

Your convoluted post makes no sense whatsoever. It is obviously a childish troll post.  It is a fact that the m113 APC is in service around the world including the us army. It is and continues to be be a outstanding success.  I guess the forces that use, including the Israelis, don't have as much problem with it as you do. That is because it is performing the function it was designed for and FAR more then that at a much lower price then the hybrid designed six troop carrying overly complicated Bradly. What you seem not to realize was the Bradly's original function and what a convoluted series of revisions and huge increases in cost it went through to get to where it is. RPG's still destroy it BTW.   If it did meet later modernized low silhouette SOVIET BMP tanks manned by well trained SOVIET crews it would come off second best but that is my own personal opinion.   

 

Reading comprehension is still not your strong suit, I see. Nowhere in Mech's post is it hard to read or convoluted nor was it a troll post.

stalkervision #40 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 03:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 68465 battles
  • 9,662
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Oct 27 2015 - 21:04, said:

 

Reading comprehension is still not your strong suit, I see. Nowhere in Mech's post is it hard to read or convoluted nor was it a troll post.

 

Just saying it isn't so doesn't make it such.  Your objections are the very thing you lack except the troll part. Bird's of a feather and all that.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users