regarding this bit on the T28/T95:
....redesigned the armor scheme to provide frontal protection against tungsten carbide (HVAP / APCR) ammunition.
I found the paper on that today in the National Archives.
Quote:
WFBeasley/jk
6423
31 January 1945
CG, Office, Chief of Ordnance-Detroit
ATTN: SPOMD
Chief, Research & Development Service
Heavy Tank, T28
1. In view of the startling performance of the new Tungsten-Carbide ammunition, your layout drawing of Heavy Tank, T28, PF1001 dated 1 September 1944, has been studied critically in relation to the performance of this ammunition.
2. This study reveals that the front armor is vulnerable to our own ammunition at rather long ranges. Since it is expected that the enemy will have ammunition to approach or match our own, it appears that this tank design requires drastic revision as to frontal armor.
3. It is requested that you restudy the frontal armor with a view to providing a minimum of 12” basis regardless of the weight. An estimate of the weight increase to achieve this end is requested.
4. The Corps of Engineers is well along in the development of a bridge capable of transporting considerably more than an 80 ton tank load. This bridge is normally 150” between curbs or guard rails but provision is made for constructing it in widths up to 163”.
G.M. BARNES
Major General, Ordnance Department
Chief of Research & Development Service
|
This makes it clear(er) why the T28/T95 was so delayed -- they had to literally redraw everything from scratch starting in February 1945(!)
Re: US Heavy Tanks Icon set 1.0
Threaded Mode