Jump to content


M110 and M103 hull armor


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
213 replies to this topic

ramp4ge #81 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 19:12

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010
Lol. I remember the dev comment that the Maus and IS-7 would have better armor then the T110, which is completely asinine since the T110 used composite armor that would've been vastly superior to the cast and RHA armor on the Maus and IS-7..

That just leaves me to believe they'll pretend the T110 didn't have composite armor and make it just like everything else in the game.

VirgilHilts #82 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 20:06

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostCmd_Storm, on Oct 11 2011 - 18:45, said:

Why is this its role? Who said?

I know we all say US are support but why? They wernt support only tanks in RL....Make the Ruskis support tanks and us the Lightning fast attackers with great armor for once.

If anything the T110 was an all out attack tank with great experimental armor based on one of the best attackers ever the M60, with away bigger gun, for all intents and purpses it was the 1st Abrams, Designed with heavy Armor that was lightweight, and small structure with a previously heavies Gun that could pen anything in game easily....Thats a shark not a support tank.

Wrong. U.S. tank doctrine was for the heavy tank to lag back and support the mediums, with accurate large hard hitting weapons. That is exactly why U.S. heavy tanks have mediocre hull armor, and good turret armor. They are not assault tanks. They have thick turrets to allow them to hull down and still be protected. They have mediocre hull armor to allow them to be light enough to be mobile so they can rapidly move to support the mediums. They have large, accurate cannons in order to take out the biggest threat with one shot at a distance. That is the U.S. tank doctrine of the period, when there were mediums and heavies, as opposed to just main battle tanks supported by armored fighting vehicles. The T110 was no real precursor to the Abrams. If it were, the U.S. would never have waited nearly 20 years to replace M60 Patton tanks with the Abrams, as the T110 would have been a main battle tank before the M60 Patton entered production.

Their reasoning behind the M60 Patton not being in the game is that development on the M60 Patton began in late 1956 after the Hungarians gave the British a new Russian T-54 tank. In 1957, the M60 Patton prototypes were built on M48 hulls, the contract was issued in 1958, and the first M60 Patton tanks were delivered in late 1958 and early 1959. The M60 Patton is nothing more than a continuation of and the final version of the M26/M46/M47/M48 Pershing/Patton line.

If the T110 were based on the M60 Patton, the T110 would never be in the game, since the service date for the M60 Patton comes after the time limit they've already set. The T110, to have been based on the M60 Patton, would not have even been on the design boards until at least late 1958 or 1959. Far after the cut off date of 1955 the developers have set.

LokiLiesmith #83 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 20:22

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 2 battles
  • 33
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 11 2011 - 20:06, said:

Wrong. U.S. tank doctrine was for the heavy tank to lag back and support the mediums, with accurate large hard hitting weapons. That is exactly why U.S. heavy tanks have mediocre hull armor, and good turret armor. They are not assault tanks. They have thick turrets to allow them to hull down and still be protected. They have mediocre hull armor to allow them to be light enough to be mobile so they can rapidly move to support the mediums. They have large, accurate cannons in order to take out the biggest threat with one shot at a distance. That is the U.S. tank doctrine of the period, when there were mediums and heavies, as opposed to just main battle tanks supported by armored fighting vehicles. The T110 was no real precursor to the Abrams. If it were, the U.S. would never have waited nearly 20 years to replace M60 Patton tanks with the Abrams, as the T110 would have been a main battle tank before the M60 Patton entered production.

Their reasoning behind the M60 Patton not being in the game is that development on the M60 Patton began in late 1956 after the Hungarians gave the British a new Russian T-54 tank. In 1957, the M60 Patton prototypes were built on M48 hulls, the contract was issued in 1958, and the first M60 Patton tanks were delivered in late 1958 and early 1959. The M60 Patton is nothing more than a continuation of and the final version of the M26/M46/M47/M48 Pershing/Patton line.

If the T110 were based on the M60 Patton, the T110 would never be in the game, since the service date for the M60 Patton comes after the time limit they've already set. The T110, to have been based on the M60 Patton, would not have even been on the design boards until at least late 1958 or 1959. Far after the cut off date of 1955 the developers have set.
tl;dr

Quote

American tank designers have Russian bias


SFC_Storm #84 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 20:29

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 11 2011 - 20:06, said:

Wrong. U.S. tank doctrine was for the heavy tank to lag back and support the mediums, with accurate large hard hitting weapons. That is exactly why U.S. heavy tanks have mediocre hull armor, and good turret armor. They are not assault tanks. They have thick turrets to allow them to hull down and still be protected. They have mediocre hull armor to allow them to be light enough to be mobile so they can rapidly move to support the mediums. They have large, accurate cannons in order to take out the biggest threat with one shot at a distance. That is the U.S. tank doctrine of the period, when there were mediums and heavies, as opposed to just main battle tanks supported by armored fighting vehicles. The T110 was no real precursor to the Abrams. If it were, the U.S. would never have waited nearly 20 years to replace M60 Patton tanks with the Abrams, as the T110 would have been a main battle tank before the M60 Patton entered production.

Their reasoning behind the M60 Patton not being in the game is that development on the M60 Patton began in late 1956 after the Hungarians gave the British a new Russian T-54 tank. In 1957, the M60 Patton prototypes were built on M48 hulls, the contract was issued in 1958, and the first M60 Patton tanks were delivered in late 1958 and early 1959. The M60 Patton is nothing more than a continuation of and the final version of the M26/M46/M47/M48 Pershing/Patton line.

If the T110 were based on the M60 Patton, the T110 would never be in the game, since the service date for the M60 Patton comes after the time limit they've already set. The T110, to have been based on the M60 Patton, would not have even been on the design boards until at least late 1958 or 1959. Far after the cut off date of 1955 the developers have set.


With the older US doctrine yes heavies sat back and sniped but the T110 was supposed to break the mold, It really to our definition was a MBT more than a "Heavy Tank" its just it had extreme Armor and the best Gun, US engineers realised they could use "Heavy Armor" "Heavy Guns" on a Medium fast Body.

The Abrams is the ultimate Assault tank as is all MBT`s but the Abrams father wasnt the M60 but rather the Idea of the T110 so to say it wasnt an assault tank is stupid.

And your arguments about 1957 and the M60 are null IMO since the ingame T54 is really a Upgunned T55 who has 1960`s parts.

The T110 was a advanced version hybrid of the M48 and what engineers decided was the future, But it had the same turret that later went on the M60, so in reality its design was the M60 with silica Armor a differant tranny and a quad turbo setup, It was never made because by the time they figured out silica armor, they realised they could start adding more materials like Ceramic plating,silica etc and they made the Ahbrams.

Remember they were still toying with the m103 till 1970`s.

Yes it was the father of the Abrams in almost every way, US didnt swap out M48`s because the cost, we had a great tank that kept up with our new doctrine but visionaries saw it hitting a dead end using the sameish Tech that was old, They new they would have to go another route, they did Lightweight super strong differant mass armors.

The T110 was the first to have layers of Armor that had total diff properties, 210 BHN steel is great vs Heat rounds but weaker verse solid tungsten the T54`s 280 BHN was super weak to Sabot rounds and shattered its Armor so they decided lets have different layers of laminate armor....The M60 didnt have this but the Abrams does....The idea came from the T110 design, therefore if you made a tech tree the M26-m60 wouldnt even be in the same line where as the T110 would, it doesnt have same armor blend true but it was blended armor which none others had.

Lastly it had a 120mm and was smaller than the other heavies.....HMMM Fast Lightweight with huge Armor and 120mm gun....sounds familiar oh yeah its just like an Abrams.


Also Gen Westmooreland and other staff was the one who wanted an upgrade from the M48, he wanted tanks incase we fought russia so it was easier to refit the M48 into an M60 than design and create an entirely new Tank.

So yes it is a true assault tank.

Also the "year cut off" is crap they pick and chose whatever they want...WHy didnt they give us the M48 then? Sorry doesnt fly.

thor66 #85 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 20:32

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 41223 battles
  • 477
  • Member since:
    03-14-2011

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 11 2011 - 20:06, said:

Wrong. U.S. tank doctrine was for the heavy tank to lag back and support the mediums, with accurate large hard hitting weapons. That is exactly why U.S. heavy tanks have mediocre hull armor, and good turret armor. They are not assault tanks. They have thick turrets to allow them to hull down and still be protected. They have mediocre hull armor to allow them to be light enough to be mobile so they can rapidly move to support the mediums. They have large, accurate cannons in order to take out the biggest threat with one shot at a distance. That is the U.S. tank doctrine of the period, when there were mediums and heavies, as opposed to just main battle tanks supported by armored fighting vehicles. The T110 was no real precursor to the Abrams. If it were, the U.S. would never have waited nearly 20 years to replace M60 Patton tanks with the Abrams, as the T110 would have been a main battle tank before the M60 Patton entered production.

Their reasoning behind the M60 Patton not being in the game is that development on the M60 Patton began in late 1956 after the Hungarians gave the British a new Russian T-54 tank. In 1957, the M60 Patton prototypes were built on M48 hulls, the contract was issued in 1958, and the first M60 Patton tanks were delivered in late 1958 and early 1959. The M60 Patton is nothing more than a continuation of and the final version of the M26/M46/M47/M48 Pershing/Patton line.

If the T110 were based on the M60 Patton, the T110 would never be in the game, since the service date for the M60 Patton comes after the time limit they've already set. The T110, to have been based on the M60 Patton, would not have even been on the design boards until at least late 1958 or 1959. Far after the cut off date of 1955 the developers have set.

But this is the problem with support tanks. The american tanks have the worst accuracy of all the heavies. The russian either have better or equal to americans with germans having the best.

VirgilHilts #86 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 20:39

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Postthor66, on Oct 11 2011 - 20:32, said:

But this is the problem with support tanks. The american tanks have the worst accuracy of all the heavies. The russian either have better or equal to americans with germans having the best.


I'm not making the argument that WoT gets the U.S. tanks right, so that they can do their job as designers intended. Yes, the U.S. heavy tanks lack accuracy and penetration, and it prevents them from being proper suuport tanks as they were designed to be.

What I was saying is that the person I replied to was wrong in his assumption that the T110 was based on the M60 Patton, and wrong in his assumption that a U.S. heavy tank would ever be an assault tank.

VirgilHilts #87 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 21:10

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostCmd_Storm, on Oct 11 2011 - 20:29, said:

With the older US doctrine yes heavies sat back and sniped but the T110 was supposed to break the mold, It really to our definition was a MBT more than a "Heavy Tank" its just it had extreme Armor and the best Gun, US engineers realised they could use "Heavy Armor" "Heavy Guns" on a Medium fast Body.

The Abrams is the ultimate Assault tank as is all MBT`s but the Abrams father wasnt the M60 but rather the Idea of the T110 so to say it wasnt an assault tank is stupid.

And your arguments about 1957 and the M60 are null IMO since the ingame T54 is really a Upgunned T55 who has 1960`s parts.

The T110 was a advanced version hybrid of the M48 and what engineers decided was the future, But it had the same turret that later went on the M60, so in reality its design was the M60 with silica Armor a differant tranny and a quad turbo setup, It was never made because by the time they figured out silica armor, they realised they could start adding more materials like Ceramic plating,silica etc and they made the Ahbrams.

Remember they were still toying with the m103 till 1970`s.

Yes it was the father of the Abrams in almost every way, US didnt swap out M48`s because the cost, we had a great tank that kept up with our new doctrine but visionaries saw it hitting a dead end using the sameish Tech that was old, They new they would have to go another route, they did Lightweight super strong differant mass armors.

The T110 was the first to have layers of Armor that had total diff properties, 210 BHN steel is great vs Heat rounds but weaker verse solid tungsten the T54`s 280 BHN was super weak to Sabot rounds and shattered its Armor so they decided lets have different layers of laminate armor....The M60 didnt have this but the Abrams does....The idea came from the T110 design, therefore if you made a tech tree the M26-m60 wouldnt even be in the same line where as the T110 would, it doesnt have same armor blend true but it was blended armor which none others had.

Lastly it had a 120mm and was smaller than the other heavies.....HMMM Fast Lightweight with huge Armor and 120mm gun....sounds familiar oh yeah its just like an Abrams.


Also Gen Westmooreland and other staff was the one who wanted an upgrade from the M48, he wanted tanks incase we fought russia so it was easier to refit the M48 into an M60 than design and create an entirely new Tank.

So yes it is a true assault tank.

Also the "year cut off" is crap they pick and chose whatever they want...WHy didnt they give us the M48 then? Sorry doesnt fly.


That the T-54 is a Frankenstein tank is irrelevant, and not even remotely related to the subject at hand. But, if you want to go there, the original T-54 is from the 1940's.

I never said the M60 was the "father" of the M1 Abrams. No idea where you got that idea. You said the M60 was the "father" to the T110, and that the M60 was an assault tank. The M60 was the closest production tank to being a "precursor" to the main battle tank philosophy, but it was still just a medium tank, and the final version of the Pershing, as every "new" medium tank the U.S. put into large scale production after 1944 was based on the Pershing design. The M60 Patton is an excellent final version of the Pershing design, and served well for decades. That's a tribute to the original Pershing design, and the adaptability found in it. Yes, we still had M48 Patton tanks in service, nearly 20 some odd years after production for them ended. But those were rebuilt and upgraded, because we gave M60 Patton tanks to Israel to replace their losses.

The M103 was only being "played with" by the Marine Corps, it was abandoned by the army for the most part with the introduction of the M60 Patton. The Marine Corps honestly have never been huge tank users, they keep a few, but tanks themselves do not fit in well with their battle philosophy.

The M60 was upgraded instead of replaced because it was considered to be more than adequate to defeat the T-54 and T-55, and competitive with the later Soviet tanks, the M48 was a second line reserve unit tank that was considered acceptable, and later upgraded to a better cannon.

You speak of the T110 as though it were some battle hardened veteran, when in fact it was never really considered good enough for production. It had maybe a 7-10 year development program, and after that, studies were done. It remains a "T" series prototype tank, not an "M" series production tank. Yes, much of the T110 remains "secret", mostly because of the armor studies. By the time the U.S. was absolutely convinced of the need to stream line the armored force with a main battle tank that was a hybrid of the heavy and medium lines, the T110 was considered to be obsolete, and work began on the MBT 70 program. There really is nothing to back up your contention that the T110 was some sort of world beating super assault tank. Had it been that big a success as an advance in technology, some version would have seen production.

It is a decent design, an advancement over the T29/T30/T34 tanks, certainly, but if you think it is so well armored and agile that it will be able to assault positions held by E-100 or IS-4 (once it makes it to tier X) tanks and be overwhelmingly successful, as your posts seem to allude to, I'm pretty sure you're going to be very disappointed and unhappy.

crnivuk #88 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 21:31

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 0 battles
  • 1,307
  • Member since:
    12-05-2010
I would not expect to see the T110 in clan wars.

Dands #89 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 21:43

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 11235 battles
  • 903
  • Member since:
    08-03-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 11 2011 - 21:10, said:


It is a decent design, an advancement over the T29/T30/T34 tanks, certainly, but if you think it is so well armored and agile that it will be able to assault positions held by E-100 or IS-4 (once it makes it to tier X) tanks and be overwhelmingly successful, as your posts seem to allude to, I'm pretty sure you're going to be very disappointed and unhappy.


This refers to zero coordinated strategy matches which is pretty much all pugs.

And here is the crux of it. If the game is historical and 'realistic' then be prepared to get slaughtered in any US tank if you aren't in the perfect fighting position. Which I think is pretty much minimal in this game. How long can you hold a hull down position in this game?

It's like driving a TD. You know as soon as an enemy tank gets beside you you're toast. They just sit there and pound away until you die.

So you either play the country you prefer, the tank you prefer and live with getting nailed hard and often, or you research the strongest hardest hitting tank available and sloth your way slaying all those before you. If you don't have a tank that can sit on the open, or face to face and withstand what your 1 v 1 enemy throws at you and your own firepower to destroy him then you are at a disadvantage. Why do you think clan wars are now 95% E-100s.

Whilst I like the look of the US tanks and will probably get to the T-30, be prepared to get hurt as par for the course.

VirgilHilts #90 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 21:46

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Postcrnivuk, on Oct 11 2011 - 21:31, said:

I would not expect to see the T110 in clan wars.


I don't know. I would not expect it to be an assault tank, in any event.

However, if the 120MM does get the high rate of fire they allude to, and it gets a really good "gold" type ammunition, it might just be a good clan war vehicle. Relatively small profile, relatively agile, and a relatively fast firing cannon with very effective "gold" ammunition, sounds like a tier X clan war possibility.

It does of course also depend upon aim time and accuracy. But a relatively light cannon should aim fairly quickly, and the high velocity relatively modern ammunition and barrel should be accurate. If it gets 2.7-3.2 second aim time, and .35-.37 accuracy, with the on the move dispersion penalty as was recently inflicted upon the T30, it'll suck, and be useless.

If it is agile and mobile, can "stand off at range", fire 2-3 round fairly quickly, with good accuracy, then it has potential. It would really need 275-300MM penetration , 0.32M @ 100M accuracy, relatively low on the move dispersion, 420-470 damage, and 7.5 rounds per minute rate of fire. I seriously doubt it will be that good, and you can bet it will not have "super" armor protection. If it is anywhere near as lacking in power as the M103 actually was, it won't be agile and mobile enough, either.

thor66 #91 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 21:47

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 41223 battles
  • 477
  • Member since:
    03-14-2011

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 11 2011 - 20:39, said:

I'm not making the argument that WoT gets the U.S. tanks right, so that they can do their job as designers intended. Yes, the U.S. heavy tanks lack accuracy and penetration, and it prevents them from being proper suuport tanks as they were designed to be.

What I was saying is that the person I replied to was wrong in his assumption that the T110 was based on the M60 Patton, and wrong in his assumption that a U.S. heavy tank would ever be an assault tank.

Not trying to say anthing about what you said but to make point that devs give americans worst accuracy when russians should have worst hands down.

Minds_Eye #92 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 21:55

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 15351 battles
  • 1,579
  • Member since:
    10-10-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 11 2011 - 21:46, said:

I don't know. I would not expect it to be an assault tank, in any event.

However, if the 120MM does get the high rate of fire they allude to, and it gets a really good "gold" type ammunition, it might just be a good clan war vehicle. Relatively small profile, relatively agile, and a relatively fast firing cannon with very effective "gold" ammunition, sounds like a tier X clan war possibility.

It does of course also depend upon aim time and accuracy. But a relatively light cannon should aim fairly quickly, and the high velocity relatively modern ammunition and barrel should be accurate. If it gets 2.7-3.2 second aim time, and .35-.37 accuracy, with the on the move dispersion penalty as was recently inflicted upon the T30, it'll suck, and be useless.

If it is agile and mobile, can "stand off at range", fire 2-3 round fairly quickly, with good accuracy, then it has potential. It would really need 275-300MM penetration , 0.32M @ 100M accuracy, relatively low on the move dispersion, 420-470 damage, and 7.5 rounds per minute rate of fire. I seriously doubt it will be that good, and you can bet it will not have "super" armor protection. If it is anywhere near as lacking in power as the M103 actually was, it won't be agile and mobile enough, either.

For most of those, it's just too early to call. I'd bet it would be used in conjunction with IS-7s, in mostly the same groups, with them splitting up only when one tank can use an advantage the other cannot. I'll bet that it gets used in CW.

But yeah, I can see how the gun alone would really define the play style for this tank.

VirgilHilts #93 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 21:57

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Postthor66, on Oct 11 2011 - 21:47, said:

Not trying to say anthing about what you said but to make point that devs give americans worst accuracy when russians should have worst hands down.


I'm not making any rash assumptions. I'll wait and see. I'm not getting my hopes way up. The M58 120MM looks really decent in real life, and on paper, we'll just have to see what they do to it. Honestly, as a modern 120MM, it should be a lot more accurate than the T7 155MM on the T30, and the added velocity should reduce the bounces.

My biggest fear, honestly, is that if the M58 is pretty good, they'll nerf it, and in the process, it will get really screwed up, as the T5E1 105MM is now.

VirgilHilts #94 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 22:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View PostFRUMindsEye, on Oct 11 2011 - 21:55, said:

For most of those, it's just too early to call. I'd bet it would be used in conjunction with IS-7s, in mostly the same groups, with them splitting up only when one tank can use an advantage the other cannot. I'll bet that it gets used in CW.

But yeah, I can see how the gun alone would really define the play style for this tank.

I agree, it's too early to say what it will be. We should get a decent idea of the capabilities of the M58 120MM in December when we get the M103. That is actually one reason I'm going to go ahead and suffer through making the T34 elite, I want to try the M58 120MM on the M103 early, to see how it is.

Yes, that was my point. WoT does not tend to give "super armor" to anything but a few tanks, none of them U.S. heavies. So the cannon will define the M103 and the T110.

ramp4ge #95 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 22:15

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010

Quote

You speak of the T110 as though it were some battle hardened veteran, when in fact it was never really considered good enough for production

I'd hardly say it wasn't good enough for production, the world was just moving away from heavy tanks at that point toward more mobile warfare. The Soviets ditched their heavies in favor of MBTs, and so did the US. MUCH of the T95/T110 program found it's way into the MBT-70 which eventually found it's way into the M1 Abrams. T110 and T95 were world-leading in their armor, world-leading in their range-finders (First to use laser designation and ranging), world leading in their hydro-pneumatic suspensions..

These vehicles were, in many many ways, akin to modern vehicles and were vastly ahead of their time. It's not uncommon at all for a unit that's ahead of it's time to be rejected in favor of more conventional units. See the YB-49 vs the B-47.

VirgilHilts #96 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 22:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 16650 battles
  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-31-2010

View Postramp4ge, on Oct 11 2011 - 22:15, said:

I'd hardly say it wasn't good enough for production, the world was just moving away from heavy tanks at that point toward more mobile warfare. The Soviets ditched their heavies in favor of MBTs, and so did the US. MUCH of the T95/T110 program found it's way into the MBT-70 which eventually found it's way into the M1 Abrams. T110 and T95 were world-leading in their armor, world-leading in their range-finders (First to use laser designation and ranging), world leading in their hydro-pneumatic suspensions..

These vehicles were, in many many ways, akin to modern vehicles and were vastly ahead of their time. It's not uncommon at all for a unit that's ahead of it's time to be rejected in favor of more conventional units. See the YB-49 vs the B-47.


The T110 was not really a heavy tank sized vehicle, it was a lot closer to a medium, making it something of hybrid medium heavy, and as such, at least something of a precursor to the main battle tank, but not making it a super armored beast with an all powerful cannon. Clearly, it had potential, otherwise parts of the development would not remain classified.

However, if the T110 was that advanced, and that all conquering, it would have seen production. While even the military understands that "perfection is the enemy of good enough", even they would be falling all over themselves to get the T110 into production if, in the time period in question, it were everything that is claimed.

The main objective of the U.S. tank program of the era was to produce enough tanks of sufficient quality to stop overwhelming hordes of Russian tanks in Europe. The idea was to produce tanks capable of defeating several Soviet tanks quickly, in order to overcome overwhelming numerical superiority. For example, if one M48 could defeat 4-5 T-54 tanks, and that was good enough to get the M48 produced, if the T110 were everything it was being made out to be, it could have defeated as many as 10 T-54/T-55 tanks. That would have been good enough to get it produced. The Russians had such great numerical superiority that the military felt they'd never be able to win on armor v. armor combat alone, and resorted to developing air assets to deal effectively with enemy armor in large numbers, another lesson learned from World War II.

Evidently, the T110 program never reached the point where they felt they had such a world beater on their hands. If it had, they'd have produced it, as they recognized if they could defeat significantly more Russian tanks with significantly fewer tanks and fewer crews, they'd have had to do it. One thing the military did learn from World War II is that soldiers are more difficult and expensive to find and train than vehicles are to build. As such, putting a well trained crew in a tank so supposedly superior as the T110 has been made out to be in this thread, was the best possible use of their resources. That's exactly why the Abrams did get produced. However, until the Abrams came along, they were never convinced they had their world beater yet.

ramp4ge #97 Posted Oct 11 2011 - 23:59

    Major

  • Special Beta Testers
  • 333 battles
  • 9,868
  • Member since:
    06-16-2010

Quote

However, if the T110 was that advanced, and that all conquering, it would have seen production

Again, see my example of the B-36 vs the YB-49.

The YB-49 was faster, had a better payload, had more range, and was stealthy to boot, despite them not knowing it back then. It was in every way the better bomber, yet the B-36 was adopted because it was more conventional. The same was said about the M60 and the T95. The T95 was TOO new and TOO fancy--that didn't sit well with the brass. The M60 was proven technology that was basically an evolution of an existing design. So it was adopted.

That's not taking anything away from the sophistication and technological advancements of the T95 and T110. They were simply ahead of their time. And as I said, it's not uncommon at all for a unit that's ahead of it's time to be deemed TOO revolutionary and TOO advanced and be passed over for a more conventional design.

We'll never know how the T95 and T110 would've performed in combat because they never made it that far. We do know they were some of the most advanced AFVs in the world in their time and they paved the road to the Abrams in a way the M60 never could. Both T95 and T110 had features in common with modern MBTs that the M60, and that was 50 years ago. Just like it took 50 years for the advancements the YB-49 brought to the game to be realized in the B-2.

The sad part is, we'll never, ever see any of their innovations in-game. Laser target designation and hydro-pneumatic suspensions aren't likely something we'll see (Unless the T110 has amazing aim times and on-the-move accuracy), but the one we CAN see in-game is the emulation of the composite armor, and I'd really like to see what they're going to do with that. Either really nice homogenization. But they have said it's armor will be inferior to Maus and IS-7 (and in that case, likely E-100), which tells me they're going to ignore the composite armor entirely.

Drive_Me_Closer #98 Posted Oct 12 2011 - 00:07

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 7300 battles
  • 639
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 11 2011 - 22:34, said:

The T110 was not really a heavy tank sized vehicle, it was a lot closer to a medium, making it something of hybrid medium heavy, and as such, at least something of a precursor to the main battle tank, but not making it a super armored beast with an all powerful cannon. Clearly, it had potential, otherwise parts of the development would not remain classified.

However, if the T110 was that advanced, and that all conquering, it would have seen production. While even the military understands that "perfection is the enemy of good enough", even they would be falling all over themselves to get the T110 into production if, in the time period in question, it were everything that is claimed.

I disagree.  There are numerous reasons why a technologically advanced design would lose out in favor of another, or not be produced at all.  For our purposes in game there are also numerous factors that don't matter but did in real life.  Numerous changes to the T110 design occurred to meet tunnel size requirements, fit everything together, and meet the 50 ton limit.  These changes delayed the program long enough for the Army to lose interest in favor of the MBT concept.  The end concept however was still very modern and a forerunner of the MBT.  

It had ammunition stored in the turret, a 120 mm gun, optical range finder and reduced weight from the heavy M103 while keeping the same protection.  It even used individually powered wheels, much like some hybrid cars today.  Had this tank been deployed, it would have been able to quickly engage and destroy multiple T-54s, IS3s and IS7s from range.  

I really wish they added its successor, the hunter, to the US TD line.  Make the T30 a Tier 8, and add the hunter in as the tier 9 Devs, please?

SFC_Storm #99 Posted Oct 12 2011 - 01:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostVirgilHilts, on Oct 11 2011 - 21:10, said:

That the T-54 is a Frankenstein tank is irrelevant, and not even remotely related to the subject at hand. But, if you want to go there, the original T-54 is from the 1940's.

I never said the M60 was the "father" of the M1 Abrams. No idea where you got that idea. You said the M60 was the "father" to the T110, and that the M60 was an assault tank. The M60 was the closest production tank to being a "precursor" to the main battle tank philosophy, but it was still just a medium tank, and the final version of the Pershing, as every "new" medium tank the U.S. put into large scale production after 1944 was based on the Pershing design. The M60 Patton is an excellent final version of the Pershing design, and served well for decades. That's a tribute to the original Pershing design, and the adaptability found in it. Yes, we still had M48 Patton tanks in service, nearly 20 some odd years after production for them ended. But those were rebuilt and upgraded, because we gave M60 Patton tanks to Israel to replace their losses.

The M103 was only being "played with" by the Marine Corps, it was abandoned by the army for the most part with the introduction of the M60 Patton. The Marine Corps honestly have never been huge tank users, they keep a few, but tanks themselves do not fit in well with their battle philosophy.

The M60 was upgraded instead of replaced because it was considered to be more than adequate to defeat the T-54 and T-55, and competitive with the later Soviet tanks, the M48 was a second line reserve unit tank that was considered acceptable, and later upgraded to a better cannon.

You speak of the T110 as though it were some battle hardened veteran, when in fact it was never really considered good enough for production. It had maybe a 7-10 year development program, and after that, studies were done. It remains a "T" series prototype tank, not an "M" series production tank. Yes, much of the T110 remains "secret", mostly because of the armor studies. By the time the U.S. was absolutely convinced of the need to stream line the armored force with a main battle tank that was a hybrid of the heavy and medium lines, the T110 was considered to be obsolete, and work began on the MBT 70 program. There really is nothing to back up your contention that the T110 was some sort of world beating super assault tank. Had it been that big a success as an advance in technology, some version would have seen production.

It is a decent design, an advancement over the T29/T30/T34 tanks, certainly, but if you think it is so well armored and agile that it will be able to assault positions held by E-100 or IS-4 (once it makes it to tier X) tanks and be overwhelmingly successful, as your posts seem to allude to, I'm pretty sure you're going to be very disappointed and unhappy.


No I speak of the T110 as though it was a tank designed to be lightning fast with great armor and a huge gun...IT was simple as that.

Would it have been? Maybe not maybe so but I do know it was amazing Tech to the point where it inspired other designs that used its layered Armor and its massive gun.

I never said you said M60 was Abrams father, I said the T110 was basically its Dad, made or not made it was the new direction to go, to say it was support is ridiculous, the US tank command realized how badly the "Infantry Support Role" was in WW2 and learned, in Korea Pershings were basically wild childs able to push without infantry as far as they wanted.

The concepts the T110 Pioneered in theory are the same as the M1abrams just alot more advanced. So Abrams is the Brain CHild of the T110.

By definition the MBT was an Assault tank, and the T110 was a MBT possibly the first real design for one, so there is no way it was a support tank.

No it wasnt made, because its cost and R and D hours they decided to keep making bigger tanks with M48 Chassis, and it was way cheaper to upgrade them to M60`s.

Lol you are so wrong about it not being good enough to design, It cost to much for each unit and when they compared it to others its 30% more combat effectiveness vs say upgunning 10 M60`s wasnt worth it, We thought we were gonna fight the Soviets in Germany and we knew they would out number us 5 to 1 so they decided to keep tanks that we were already tooled to build and we learned from the germans that numbers beats quality...Had absolutely 0 to do with it not being good enough, at the time Layered Armor cost fortunes, and our metal work was very costly to mold with other Ceramics and Glass layers.

The T110 broke the mold of the previous US doctrine of support. It was plain and simply to advanced and the Gv was worried about 10 T54`s shooting it at once and losing a huge amount of money.

Even a pack of Dogs can kill a lion :)

Sorry but on paper in theory it was the ultimate Assault tank, Autoloader with a massive Gun in which could kill any enemy and Armor way way ahead of its time+a Quad Turbo no lag 920 HP engine and great Tranny= A super fast,tough lethal tank...Period the father of the Gen 3 tanks.

The best analogy is the F22 vs F35....The F22 can kill any enemy and is far superior to everything but the F35 can field 10 for the same price, so the Gov has stopped its main funding for the F22 and focused on the conventional F35 and F15 jets, does that make them bad? LOL hell no so you are dead wrong about that.

Im saying what the tank should be based on designs BTW have just as much credit as the E tanks since they wernt built, I dont thing WG will do it justice but it should be a heavy armored Hull`d Paton with a super Hi ROF with 280mm+ Pen, If they dont do it justice I wont be suprised, but that doesnt mean it wasnt an assault tank or a great one.

SFC_Storm #100 Posted Oct 12 2011 - 02:01

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postramp4ge, on Oct 11 2011 - 23:59, said:

Again, see my example of the B-36 vs the YB-49.

The YB-49 was faster, had a better payload, had more range, and was stealthy to boot, despite them not knowing it back then. It was in every way the better bomber, yet the B-36 was adopted because it was more conventional. The same was said about the M60 and the T95. The T95 was TOO new and TOO fancy--that didn't sit well with the brass. The M60 was proven technology that was basically an evolution of an existing design. So it was adopted.

That's not taking anything away from the sophistication and technological advancements of the T95 and T110. They were simply ahead of their time. And as I said, it's not uncommon at all for a unit that's ahead of it's time to be deemed TOO revolutionary and TOO advanced and be passed over for a more conventional design.

We'll never know how the T95 and T110 would've performed in combat because they never made it that far. We do know they were some of the most advanced AFVs in the world in their time and they paved the road to the Abrams in a way the M60 never could. Both T95 and T110 had features in common with modern MBTs that the M60, and that was 50 years ago. Just like it took 50 years for the advancements the YB-49 brought to the game to be realized in the B-2.

The sad part is, we'll never, ever see any of their innovations in-game. Laser target designation and hydro-pneumatic suspensions aren't likely something we'll see (Unless the T110 has amazing aim times and on-the-move accuracy), but the one we CAN see in-game is the emulation of the composite armor, and I'd really like to see what they're going to do with that. Either really nice homogenization. But they have said it's armor will be inferior to Maus and IS-7 (and in that case, likely E-100), which tells me they're going to ignore the composite armor entirely.

Perfectly said...IDK what virgil is trying to say?

The same guys who denied the T20 Program because it would "Encourage tank vs tank fighting" [But would have helped a ton more kill the Panthers etc] Cancelled the T110 and it was because cost, plain and simple, a very weak argument to say it was canceled because it was bad.

On paper it was the best tank in the world at the time, also the war dept thought training on Autoloaders made crews lazy. There are millions of reasons to cancel a project and throughout history the best stuff often was denied.

It was better than EVERYTANK IN THE WORLD AT THE TIME ON PAPER, but we knew that 50k T54`s and T60`s would need something more, TBH we spent way way more in that period in Jets and the New CHoppers to counter tanks, we wernt gona fight the Ruski`s with there Strengths, so we built missiles and choppers instead.

And without a doubt the T110 was the M1a1`s father no question




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users