Jump to content


T29 Family Production Numbers

What If?

  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

AllardLiao117 #1 Posted Mar 05 2019 - 14:30

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 7871 battles
  • 3
  • [DTC] DTC
  • Member since:
    08-31-2017
I was reading a story recently, and it got me thinking: What would the M- numbers for the T29 family of tanks (T29, T30, and T34) had they gone into production? As an aside, what would the numbers have been for the T28\95 and T32, as well?

GeorgePreddy #2 Posted Mar 05 2019 - 14:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 14345 battles
  • 11,906
  • Member since:
    04-11-2013

T-7 ?

 

M-39a ?

 

007 ?

 

B-52 ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



NutrientibusMeaGallus #3 Posted Mar 05 2019 - 16:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 22573 battles
  • 5,497
  • [FILOX] FILOX
  • Member since:
    10-26-2012
   Even better question..... what would they look and perform like if they were each used as the basis of a modern rebuild of these tanks?

fsdgsg #4 Posted Mar 06 2019 - 00:15

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 10125 battles
  • 124
  • [EATU] EATU
  • Member since:
    12-24-2016
M-29 M-30 M-34?

maxman1 #5 Posted Mar 06 2019 - 07:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 4640 battles
  • 2,299
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011
Since there was an M6 heavy, my guess is it would start at M7.

1lt_wert #6 Posted Mar 06 2019 - 17:16

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29834 battles
  • 810
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
The number for the t95/t28 was 2 and they never saw combat. They were made specifically to assault the Siegfried line that turned out to be a paper tiger. They were never intended for mass production.

maxman1 #7 Posted Mar 09 2019 - 09:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 4640 battles
  • 2,299
  • Member since:
    11-10-2011

View Post1lt_wert, on Mar 06 2019 - 11:16, said:

The number for the t95/t28 was 2 and they never saw combat. They were made specifically to assault the Siegfried line that turned out to be a paper tiger. They were never intended for mass production.

 

He meant theoretical M-designation. He just worded it weird.

1lt_wert #8 Posted Mar 10 2019 - 03:28

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29834 battles
  • 810
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View Postmaxman1, on Mar 09 2019 - 00:31, said:

 

He meant theoretical M-designation. He just worded it weird.

 

Oh sorry. The T26 was re-designated the M26, I would assume they would have just changed the T to M.







Also tagged with What If?

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users