Jump to content


T28/T95 Historicity?

T28 T95 World of Tanks Wiki

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

blueribbon #1 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 08:55

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12863 battles
  • 195
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013

Just wondering about something - I was checking out the T95's page on the World of Tanks Wiki, and I noticed that someone had changed the Historical Accuracy section in regards to the guns. Previously it was listed that the 120mm and 155mm configurations were fake, but now it said that they were planned. I'll just quote what it says there right now.

 

"* The T95's only primary armament is the 105 mm AT Gun T5E1 which it still carries today. The 120 mm was planned but never put actually mounted. 155 mm T7 gun configurations was never planned or proposed, what was proposed was the 155mm M2 Long Tom."

 
This was the first time I'd heard of that, so I'm just wondering if that's true or not or if the person who made that edit was mistaken somehow.


_DangerNoodle #2 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 09:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 15869 battles
  • 2,206
  • Member since:
    12-22-2011
I believe it was planned and at least one prototype was built with the 105, I have not heard of the 120 or 155 being planned or proposed.

blueribbon #3 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 09:03

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12863 battles
  • 195
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013
Yeah, that's what I had thought too. I was planning on changing the wiki page back since if no one else could verify that.

_DangerNoodle #4 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 09:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 15869 battles
  • 2,206
  • Member since:
    12-22-2011
WG is known for stretching the truth and/or making crapup in the name of balance, money grab schemes, etc.

blueribbon #5 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 09:09

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12863 battles
  • 195
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013
Oh yeah, we all know that, but I'm not blaming Wargaming in this case. I'm asking about if that edit about the guns on the Historical Accuracy section on the T95's wiki page is true or not.

SpectreHD #6 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 09:16

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16303 battles
  • 15,267
  • [TT] TT
  • Member since:
    07-12-2010
Lol... Reading about the M2 155mm Long Tom, it was fitted onto the M4 Sherman and then became the M40 arty ingame.

Legiondude #7 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 09:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,947
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postblueribbon, on Mar 02 2017 - 02:09, said:

Oh yeah, we all know that, but I'm not blaming Wargaming in this case. I'm asking about if that edit about the guns on the Historical Accuracy section on the T95's wiki page is true or not.

I could have sworn I heard The_Chieftain mention in some past conversation that a gun mount for using the 155mm T7 was designed



caramel #8 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 13:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 7990 battles
  • 3,650
  • [MLPVA] MLPVA
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View PostLegiondude, on Mar 02 2017 - 00:38, said:

I could have sworn I heard The_Chieftain mention in some past conversation that a gun mount for using the 155mm T7 was designed

 

Pretty sure the only tank in the US arsenal to ever think about mounting the 155MM as far as tanks go, was the T30 heavy tank {TD in this game}, it required a special mount and could only be loaded while the gun was at certain elevations.

Legiondude #9 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 14:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 22,947
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View Postcaramel, on Mar 02 2017 - 06:32, said:

it required a special mount and could only be loaded while the gun was at certain elevations.

Most guns given a certain form factor they have to operate within are given a specific gun mount, regardless of if it's different guns or the same barrel. So it's "special" in that it's "different" from the T29's mount, but that doesn't really count for much or make it particularly distinguished in any examination. And when the modifications for the T30E1 iteration came around, the gun mount also got an "E1" attached to it(T124E1) to attest to changes with the loading setup. The elevation limitation was a quirk due adding several loading assistance mechanisms inside the turret to help with handling the heavy rounds, which once completed could weight in the ballpark of 135 pounds



Life_In_Black #10 Posted Mar 02 2017 - 14:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 23111 battles
  • 10,658
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011
IIRC, is it actually true that a 120mm and the 155mm Long Tom were considered for the T28/T95. A forum poster by the name of shapeshifter would be the one to ask, as I think he was the one who mentioned it based on US Army documents he had. He's also the one who got Wargaming to correct the model of the Mutant M6, so he's not a random or unknown person when it comes to this sort of thing.

blueribbon #11 Posted Mar 03 2017 - 08:20

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12863 battles
  • 195
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013
Thanks for the replies, I'll try asking shapeshifter if there are any links or photos I can put up on the T95 wiki page.

The_Chieftain #12 Posted Mar 05 2017 - 08:51

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,452
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

I don't recall ever coming across anything of that nature.

 

The M6 model was in Hunnicutt, I'm not sure what additional information was required.



Life_In_Black #13 Posted Mar 06 2017 - 01:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 23111 battles
  • 10,658
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Mar 05 2017 - 02:51, said:

I don't recall ever coming across anything of that nature.

 

The M6 model was in Hunnicutt, I'm not sure what additional information was required.

 

Your memory is either really terrible Chieftain, or you're deliberately being deceitful: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/432936-m6a2e1-issues/page__st__20__pid__8925839#entry8925839

 

Given the thread he links to seems to be conveniently gone, I'm going to go with the latter.



shapeshifter #14 Posted Mar 06 2017 - 01:44

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17861 battles
  • 2,862
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

 


 

 



shapeshifter #15 Posted Mar 06 2017 - 01:49

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17861 battles
  • 2,862
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View Postcaramel, on Mar 02 2017 - 07:32, said:

 

Pretty sure the only tank in the US arsenal to ever think about mounting the 155MM as far as tanks go, was the T30 heavy tank {TD in this game}, it required a special mount and could only be loaded while the gun was at certain elevations.

 

Plans for the 155mm T7 on the M6A2E1 as well at one point.

Avalon304 #16 Posted Mar 06 2017 - 05:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 15729 battles
  • 5,711
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

View Postshapeshifter, on Mar 05 2017 - 16:49, said:

 

Plans for the 155mm T7 on the M6A2E1 as well at one point.

 

It would probably be broken... but I kinda want to see this...

blueribbon #17 Posted Mar 06 2017 - 09:28

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 12863 battles
  • 195
  • Member since:
    01-10-2013

Thank you for the response and images shapeshifter.

 

Also Life in Black, why are you mad at the Chieftain? I feel like I'm missing something there



Life_In_Black #18 Posted Mar 06 2017 - 14:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 23111 battles
  • 10,658
  • [KGS] KGS
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

View Postblueribbon, on Mar 06 2017 - 03:28, said:

Thank you for the response and images shapeshifter.

 

Also Life in Black, why are you mad at the Chieftain? I feel like I'm missing something there

 

There is some other stuff that isn't really known, but this has to do with him outright claiming the M6A2E1 was fixed all by Wargaming's lonesome even though Minsk themselves mentioned the process was made easier with shapeshifter's help. Seems disingenuous especially when the thread shapeshifter created to talk about the M6A2E1, vanished into the night without a trace. I'm not derailing the thread or anything with other stuff, as it's neither here nor there and wouldn't solve anything.

 

I should also add, that shapeshifter has asked The_Chieftain numerous times about the US archives and where materials may be located, so The_Chieftain is definitely familiar with shapeshifter's work.


Edited by Life_In_Black, Mar 06 2017 - 14:26.


RayWendy #19 Posted Mar 06 2017 - 21:09

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 23355 battles
  • 705
  • [SBN-N] SBN-N
  • Member since:
    05-15-2014

View Postblueribbon, on Mar 03 2017 - 01:20, said:

Thanks for the replies, I'll try asking shapeshifter if there are any links or photos I can put up on the T95 wiki page.

 

There are a few here use them as you wish:
http://raywen.org/mi...ges/foto27.html

Edited by RayWendy, Mar 06 2017 - 21:09.


The_Chieftain #20 Posted Mar 09 2017 - 22:42

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 9526 battles
  • 9,452
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostLife_In_Black, on Mar 06 2017 - 00:07, said:

 

Your memory is either really terrible Chieftain, or you're deliberately being deceitful: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/432936-m6a2e1-issues/page__st__20__pid__8925839#entry8925839

 

Given the thread he links to seems to be conveniently gone, I'm going to go with the latter.

 

I sit corrected. Thought this was referring to the revised hull design.

 

The thread is in the archives, together with some 50,000 other threads from several years ago. You really think there have been only 400 pages of "General Discussion" in five years of this forum?







Also tagged with T28, T95, World of Tanks Wiki

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users