Jump to content


How Suitable was T29, Pt 2.


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

WulfeHound #41 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 03:22

    Major

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

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 21:18, said:

 

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.

 

I love how you still think everyone who disagrees with you is a troll.

stalkervision #42 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 03:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 69667 battles
  • 9,765
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
WH please come up with a actual cogent argument next time. You know something with facts and not childish personal assertions as usual.

stalkervision #43 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 03:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 69667 battles
  • 9,765
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

The Russian's have done a interesting thing here in dividing the category into two areas IMO. The BMPT appears to be a whole new category onto itself like the original BMP was. The Bradly was a catch up design to Russian innovations in the field. It appears to be being surpassed. Hope the American's have something in development I am not aware of yet.


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 28 2015 - 03:31.


WulfeHound #44 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 03:33

    Major

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

And there we go with the generic insults. And yes, I already stated my argument.

 

 

 



zloykrolik #45 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 03:45

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 37045 battles
  • 410
  • [RDTT2] RDTT2
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 17:58, 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.   

 

 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/

 

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 18:23, said:

WH please come up with a actual cogent argument next time. You know something with facts and not childish personal assertions as usual.

 

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 18:31, said:

The Russian's have done a interesting thing here in dividing the category into two areas IMO. The BMPT appears to be a whole new category onto itself like the original BMP was. The Bradly was a catch up design to Russian innovations in the field. It appears to be being surpassed. Hope the American's have something in development I am not aware of yet.

 

These post have nothing to do with the original topic, the T29. If you want to argue about the relative merits of the M113 vs the Bradley, take it to Modern Armored Vehicles. Stay on topic please.

stalkervision #46 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 69667 battles
  • 9,765
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

Neither did the moon landings but you had no trouble with that nor did W/H... Seriously ? It's only wrong when someone else does it in other words and FYI this is a heck of a lot closer and actually does have a logical ink to the topic at hand. You should really look at earlier postings that lead to the Bradly discussion before you speak.

 

 



stalkervision #47 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 69667 battles
  • 9,765
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

It is pretty had to even have a good discussion on the original topic when the lead researcher Hunnicutt, has been proven in error here by using faulty army ordinance data and no other confirming sources, requires one to buy his over priced info to do so. 

 

that is a shame


Edited by stalkervision, Oct 28 2015 - 04:14.


WulfeHound #48 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011
Unless someone publishes a book that corrects the errors that Hunnicutt has made, his books are one of the most reliable sources to use for American armor.

shapeshifter #49 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:35

    Major

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

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 22:13, said:

It is pretty had to even have a good discussion on the original topic when the lead researcher Hunnicutt, has been proven in error here by using faulty army ordinance data and no other confirming sources, requires one to buy his over priced info to do so. 

 

that is a shame

 

More the specs changed, it changed many times during construction. So it's not surprising different branches of the military will have different specs at different times.

 

As an example when I was researching the M6A2E1 turret (T29 turret)

 

M6A2E1 proposal August 14th 1944.

 

80" turret ring
Frontal turret 5" (127mm) to 7.5" (191mm) basis
Turret sides and rear 2.5" (63.5mm)
Roof 1" (25.4mm)
-10 to + 20 elevation
5 man crew

 

M6A2E1 canceled 22nd August 1944

16th September 1944 go ahead given to make a total of three turrets for testing. two to be mounted on tanks the third for ballistic testing.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

Wooden Mockup of T29 turret seen around October 1944

Enlarged version of the turret design used on the T26E1 heavy tank
80" turret ring
Breech face rearwards to the inside of turret ring is 32 inches
trunnions centers are 12 inches outboard of the inside face of the turret ring
Height of the turret from the bottom of the armour to the inside of the roof is 54 inches
Gunner on right of 105mm gun
twin equilibrators balancing gun one a coiled torsion spring housed below the cradle the other a compression spring above the cradle reacting on the turret roof.
-10 to +20 elevation
Massive external mantlet of approximately 8" armour protection the full width of the front plate.
105mm weighs 7000 lbs
equipped turret is expected to weigh 40,000 lbs
The nut and screw elevation gear proposed on right side of gun
Screw is anchored to the turret roof and elevating hand wheel is on the vertical plane facing gunner
Turret is very large and roomy
Fighting floor lies about 20" below the traverse ring level.
members of the crew are provided with seats slung from the turret walls.
Gunner alone has a small platform as well as his seat both being slung from the turret wall.
Unknown position for commander
one or two loaders still unknown

Frontal protection of turret approximately 8" (203.2mm)
Side walls 4" (101.6mm)
Bulge is similar to the M26E1 turret.
main shell round 41lbs complete overall weight 74lbs
Difficulty of loading with one man can be appreciated.
In view of the dimension of 32" from breech face to inside turret ring, it is necessary to tilt the round, shell downwards, with the base of the case elevated into the radio bulge for all angles of the gun from 20 deg elevation to probably up to some 5 deg of depression

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

November 1944 on the T29

 

The general design of the turret has had a number of changes made to save weight. The roof has been slopped down to the front and rear and the front of the turret is unchanged but the rear bulge has been increased in depth and the thickness lowered to 3" (76.2mm) This turret is being manufactured and will be mounted on M6A2E1.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

Unknown date published December 1944 (seems to be before Oct T29 turret mockup)

M6A2E1 turret      

80" turret ring
twin equilibrators needed to balance gun
Can mount 105mm or 155mm guns
min -5 depression and 15 elevation (-10 +20 if possible)
360 traverse by hand or power
2.5 inch sides (63.5mm)
1.5 inch top (38.1mm)
3.5 inch gun mount shield (89mm)
No turret basket but bulge and stowage similar to that of 90mm turret

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

February 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

A contract was placed for building of two actual pilot turret assemblies both of which together with their 80 in. turret ring became available in November than assembly of the equipment began.

A redesign however has been undertaken to produce a lighter and more practical turret. In the redesign the gun is being moved a further 12" inbound. A change made possible by the decision to go to separate loading ammunition.

 

This change may also eliminate the need for equilibration

 

(I suppose this means the Breech face rearwards to the inside of turret ring is now 20 inches, and no more needing to tilt rounds in to fit them)

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

January 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

Redesign of turret allows the installation of the 155mm T7 which is still in rough layout stage.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

March 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

It has been decided to increase the armour basis of the turret and gun mount shield. preliminary layout drawings provide for the stowage of 46 projectiles in the turret and 17 in the hull. Nine cartridge cases will be carried in the turret for use as ready round ammunition.

 

Drawings of the thickened turret, gun shield and elevating mechanism have been completed and released.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

April 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

Redesigned turret is based on a 4 man crew, commander will be located in turret bulge on center line.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

May 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

Reefers to earlier reports about thickened turret and gun shield redesign drawings. On completion of the turret assemblies for the two pilot vehicles it was found that trunnion bearing friction was excessive. it was found this was caused by bronze trunnion bruising and these are now being replaced by needle bearings before shipment of the turrets to Aberdeen for installation in the M6A2E1.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

August 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

Owing to introduction to various changes and improvements to design of the T29 turret before manufacture, the two turrets are now not strictly comparable.

 

 



stalkervision #50 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 69667 battles
  • 9,765
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Oct 27 2015 - 22:18, said:

Unless someone publishes a book that corrects the errors that Hunnicutt has made, his books are one of the most reliable sources to use for American armor.

 

  apparently this is true sad to say.   What I request of anyone that has this book please post the specific pages on the T-29 or if you have other more extensive sources please post them here.

 

I would LOVE to read more on the t-29 specifically and not have to buy a very limited generic source on all army heavy tanks in general to get it.



shapeshifter #51 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:37

    Major

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

And bonus T29 wooden mockup turret.

 



stalkervision #52 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 69667 battles
  • 9,765
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View Postshapeshifter, on Oct 27 2015 - 22:35, said:

 

More the specs changed, it changed many times during construction. So it's not surprising different branches of the military will have different specs at different times.

 

As an example when I was researching the M6A2E1 turret (T29 turret)

 

M6A2E1 proposal August 14th 1944.

 

80" turret ring
Frontal turret 5" (127mm) to 7.5" (191mm) basis
Turret sides and rear 2.5" (63.5mm)
Roof 1" (25.4mm)
-10 to + 20 elevation
5 man crew

 

M6A2E1 canceled 22nd August 1944

16th September 1944 go ahead given to make a total of three turrets for testing. two to be mounted on tanks the third for ballistic testing.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

Wooden Mockup of T29 turret seen around October 1944

Enlarged version of the turret design used on the T26E1 heavy tank
80" turret ring
Breech face rearwards to the inside of turret ring is 32 inches
trunnions centers are 12 inches outboard of the inside face of the turret ring
Height of the turret from the bottom of the armour to the inside of the roof is 54 inches
Gunner on right of 105mm gun
twin equilibrators balancing gun one a coiled torsion spring housed below the cradle the other a compression spring above the cradle reacting on the turret roof.
-10 to +20 elevation
Massive external mantlet of approximately 8" armour protection the full width of the front plate.
105mm weighs 7000 lbs
equipped turret is expected to weigh 40,000 lbs
The nut and screw elevation gear proposed on right side of gun
Screw is anchored to the turret roof and elevating hand wheel is on the vertical plane facing gunner
Turret is very large and roomy
Fighting floor lies about 20" below the traverse ring level.
members of the crew are provided with seats slung from the turret walls.
Gunner alone has a small platform as well as his seat both being slung from the turret wall.
Unknown position for commander
one or two loaders still unknown

Frontal protection of turret approximately 8" (203.2mm)
Side walls 4" (101.6mm)
Bulge is similar to the M26E1 turret.
main shell round 41lbs complete overall weight 74lbs
Difficulty of loading with one man can be appreciated.
In view of the dimension of 32" from breech face to inside turret ring, it is necessary to tilt the round, shell downwards, with the base of the case elevated into the radio bulge for all angles of the gun from 20 deg elevation to probably up to some 5 deg of depression

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

November 1944 on the T29

 

The general design of the turret has had a number of changes made to save weight. The roof has been slopped down to the front and rear and the front of the turret is unchanged but the rear bulge has been increased in depth and the thickness lowered to 3" (76.2mm) This turret is being manufactured and will be mounted on M6A2E1.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

Unknown date published December 1944 (seems to be before Oct T29 turret mockup)

M6A2E1 turret      

80" turret ring
twin equilibrators needed to balance gun
Can mount 105mm or 155mm guns
min -5 depression and 15 elevation (-10 +20 if possible)
360 traverse by hand or power
2.5 inch sides (63.5mm)
1.5 inch top (38.1mm)
3.5 inch gun mount shield (89mm)
No turret basket but bulge and stowage similar to that of 90mm turret

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

February 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

A contract was placed for building of two actual pilot turret assemblies both of which together with their 80 in. turret ring became available in November than assembly of the equipment began.

A redesign however has been undertaken to produce a lighter and more practical turret. In the redesign the gun is being moved a further 12" inbound. A change made possible by the decision to go to separate loading ammunition.

 

This change may also eliminate the need for equilibration

 

(I suppose this means the Breech face rearwards to the inside of turret ring is now 20 inches, and no more needing to tilt rounds in to fit them)

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

January 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

Redesign of turret allows the installation of the 155mm T7 which is still in rough layout stage.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

March 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

It has been decided to increase the armour basis of the turret and gun mount shield. preliminary layout drawings provide for the stowage of 46 projectiles in the turret and 17 in the hull. Nine cartridge cases will be carried in the turret for use as ready round ammunition.

 

Drawings of the thickened turret, gun shield and elevating mechanism have been completed and released.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

April 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

Redesigned turret is based on a 4 man crew, commander will be located in turret bulge on center line.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

May 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

Reefers to earlier reports about thickened turret and gun shield redesign drawings. On completion of the turret assemblies for the two pilot vehicles it was found that trunnion bearing friction was excessive. it was found this was caused by bronze trunnion bruising and these are now being replaced by needle bearings before shipment of the turrets to Aberdeen for installation in the M6A2E1.

 

 

British AFV Situation reports the following

 

August 1945 on the M6A2E1

 

Owing to introduction to various changes and improvements to design of the T29 turret before manufacture, the two turrets are now not strictly comparable.

 

 

 

I would LOVE to discuss this topic further with you buddy but have been advised it's "off topic" which it actually isn't.  Can you make a separate off topic posting about this for me and other's interested in the topic ? i will respond to it tomorrow as it is very late for me and my usual bad typing is getting even worse then it is which is pretty bad indeed. :)

shapeshifter #53 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17863 battles
  • 2,900
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
I wouldn't say it's off topic, the M6A2E1 turret was the prototype turret of the T29. In fact the last design that may have actually been mounted on the M6A2E1 at some point sounds very close to the final T29 turret.

Guest_Heldar_* #54 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:41

  • Guest

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 26 2015 - 11:02, 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.

 

That makes a lot of sense, and at least in my thinking is for the better.  The T29-34 really dont have much going for it other than comfortable gun elevation/depression, and ok gun and troll turret armor in game.  A 2 inch nerf to the turret would leave the entire series lacking for something worth commenting on in game.

stalkervision #55 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 69667 battles
  • 9,765
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View Postshapeshifter, on Oct 27 2015 - 22:37, said:

And bonus T29 wooden mockup turret.

 

 

Love the pictures pal. This tank fascinates me for some strange reason. :) 

stalkervision #56 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 69667 battles
  • 9,765
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View Postshapeshifter, on Oct 27 2015 - 22:41, said:

I wouldn't say it's off topic, the M6A2E1 turret was the prototype turret of the T29. In fact the last design that may have actually been mounted on the M6A2E1 at some point sounds very close to the final T29 turret.

 

Your absolutley right. I am too tired to see straight anymore ! LOL  Later dudes. :)

Edited by stalkervision, Oct 28 2015 - 04:44.


Mechanize #57 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:43

    Major

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

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 18:58, 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.   

 

 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/

 

....If 3 whole sentences is too convoluted for you that was literally nothing more then pointing out a direct contradiction in the very post you made, you may be even more dense and hopeless then I thought.

 

Also, I love the "Anyone who disagrees with me a IS A TROLL!" defense you always pull as usual (when in reality it's basically always you that comes into a thread, derails it and makes it unreadable every single time) when you're so consistently and laughably wrong all the time or making the most ridiculous claims possible that it's basically impossible for anyone in the "remotely sane and intelligent" category to not call you out for always being wrong on literally everything.


Edited by Mechanize, Oct 28 2015 - 22:06.


EnsignExpendable #58 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 23745 battles
  • 17,792
  • [SGLE] SGLE
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Oct 27 2015 - 22:13, said:

It is pretty had to even have a good discussion on the original topic when the lead researcher Hunnicutt, has been proven in error here by using faulty army ordinance data and no other confirming sources, requires one to buy his over priced info to do so. 

 

that is a shame

 

Hmm yes, internet forums poster and suspected Mike Sparks alter ego stalkervision versus renowned history author Hunnicutt, I wonder which of the two has more credibility. 

stalkervision #59 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 69667 battles
  • 9,765
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
and please talk about T-29 stalker trolls. :)

shapeshifter #60 Posted Oct 28 2015 - 04:46

    Major

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

Another interesting thing.

 

 

 

That turret looks very close to the description of the November 1944 changes to the M6/T29 turret. (My cruddy MS-Paint mockup below) Would love to some day find files on that proposal, willing to bet it was just tossing the current design of the T29 turret on it. (hence the same 80 inch turret ring)

 


Edited by shapeshifter, Oct 28 2015 - 04:47.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users