.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Approaching Infinity - Save $7.00
Bronze - Save $7.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPWW2 > Mods
Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old December 3rd, 2017, 11:50 AM
oragus's Avatar

oragus oragus is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 326
Thanks: 39
Thanked 70 Times in 27 Posts
oragus is on a distinguished road
Default Re: US Heavy Tanks Icon set 1.0

Alright. Sorry, I was tired and had no right reading and trying to think when I responded. Lol
__________________
Feedback is welcome and encouraged!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old January 26th, 2018, 09:52 PM
MarkSheppard's Avatar

MarkSheppard MarkSheppard is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 851
Thanks: 62
Thanked 170 Times in 126 Posts
MarkSheppard is on a distinguished road
Default Re: US Heavy Tanks Icon set 1.0

Some information discovered in the National Archives:

The original proposal for the T28 heavy tank / T95 GMC in 1943 was:

75 gross tons
Frontal: 10" (254mm) basis
Sides: 8" (203mm) basis
Rear: 4¼" (107.95mm) basis
Roof & floor: 2" (50.8mm) thick

105mm Gun, 30 rounds
4 x M1919A4 MGs in external blisters (1,000 rds total)

So what caused the T28/T95 to bloat to 95-100 tons? (the exact weight is dependent on which reference you consult)

Well, they increased main gun stowage to 62 rounds of 105mm, and redesigned the armor scheme to provide frontal protection against tungsten carbide (HVAP / APCR) ammunition.

You'll love this next bit.

The Corps of Engineers were represented on the Ordnance Technical Committee; and assumed that the weight of the T28/T95 was to be 75-80 gross tons as in the original proposal; so they started to look at developing bridges to carry that amount of weight.

...Only nobody told them about the revised weight (95-100 tons) until the tanks were virtually complete.



EDIT: Added the crude photo of equally crude artwork included in the original 1943 proposal letter. You'll note that it's called just "A.T. Project".
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	AT_Project.jpg
Views:	22
Size:	89.1 KB
ID:	15154  

Last edited by MarkSheppard; January 26th, 2018 at 11:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MarkSheppard For This Useful Post:
  #53  
Old January 30th, 2018, 09:16 PM
MarkSheppard's Avatar

MarkSheppard MarkSheppard is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 851
Thanks: 62
Thanked 170 Times in 126 Posts
MarkSheppard is on a distinguished road
Default Re: US Heavy Tanks Icon set 1.0

From a book on British Tank production I recently finished reading:

Quote:
During the deteriorating military situation in France during June 1940, a French mission to the United States discussed the possible assembly of 12,000 French B1-Bis tanks under a production group headed by Baldwin Locomotive. While there was a lack of capacity for moulded armour plate, an impressive 10 tanks per day could be achieved by the end of 1940, if the American authorities gave priority for the necessary machine tools. These discussions were taken seriously as it was proposed that a few specialists and a complete B1-Bis tank be shipped from France to the United States for examination. British interest in this project was expressed with the hope that production tanks would be delivered on an equal basis between Britain and France.
To simulate entry of such a Char B1-Bis in a hypothetical scenario, buy the Char B1-Bis as a captured unit; and then use scenario editor to change the icon for them to 4336 ; which is close enough to "allied green".
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old February 8th, 2018, 10:23 PM
MarkSheppard's Avatar

MarkSheppard MarkSheppard is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 851
Thanks: 62
Thanked 170 Times in 126 Posts
MarkSheppard is on a distinguished road
Default Re: US Heavy Tanks Icon set 1.0

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(!)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	T28_Weight_Increase.jpg
Views:	12
Size:	84.4 KB
ID:	15185  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2018, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.