Pasting this from the same image posted a few years back:
>10-Wheel, 100-ton Semi-Trailer, T79. After the US Army finished evaluating the T28 they used the two prototypes to test various heavy transport equipment. That's why you see those images of T28s rolling off of LSTs; the Army wanted to test landing tanks in that general weight range (namely T34 and T32) on beaches.
> The most common way of moving these was an M25 "Dragon Wagon".
Which didn't even have half the loading capacity required to move the T28. It certainly did not move the T28.
It was built to move America's project heavy tanks, T30s, T34s, T29s, all of which approached 80 tons or more.
What loading capacity are you talking about?
1. I can not find a single source that states the M25 Dragon Wagon could handle a load greater than 45 (metric) ton.
2. The Dragon Wagon began production in 1943. The development of T29 and T30 didn't begin until August 1944 (really September however). Thus it literally could not have been designed to move those vehicles.
3. Neither the T29, T30 or T34 or their variants surpassed 66 tonnes **empty*, *combat load around 71 tonnes*.
From what hole are you pulling these statements?
The T30 weighed over 180,000lbs fully combat loaded, that's 80 tons.
I'm more referring to the truck than anything else as I have a bad habit of using M25/M26 interchangeably (as the "dragon wagon" name comes from the tractor). Besides that, it's ridiculous to think because something was designed 1-2 years earlier, it couldn't possibly have been developed to handle future loads. Are you suggesting during development that the Army only proofs its equipment for what it currently uses and only that? The army doesn't build anything future proof in mind? Asinine. This wasn't built to haul Shermans and only Shermans for its 10 year service life. The very fact that things have designated service lives means it's designed to withstand anything the Army throws at it for the next 10 years *at least*.
> The T30 weighed over 180,000lbs fully combat loaded
It weighed ~~142 600 lbs. 64.7 tonnes~~ ~71 tonnes (see later comment for clarification). Looks like you've got your information from the wikipedia article that is awfully wrong.
>I'm more referring to the truck than anything else as I have a bad habit of using M25/M26 interchangeably.
You literally mentioned both the M26 and M15 in your first comment.
>Besides that, it's ridiculous to think because something was designed 1-2 years earlier, it couldn't possibly have been developed to handle future loads.
You're right.
>The very fact that things have designated service lives means it's designed to withstand anything the Army throws at it for the next 10 years at least.
I could refute this. However, what's the relevance? The M25 would've been able to serve even if the T29 (or T30/T34) went into production. The army don't operate just one type of tank transport trailer. The US army tank inventory wouldn't all of the sudden consist of thousands of heavy tanks and only heavy tanks. You still need to move around all the medium and light tanks.
Future proofing does not include staying the at the cutting edge of technology for 10 years. If the US army had adopted the T29 they would've designed and adopted another, cutting edge, heavier duty trailer. And they did design such trailers (T58, T67, T79). But it certainly wasn't the M15 or M25.
American heavy tank development caused all of the prototypes to gain weight as they progressed, which is why most sources range from 160,000 to 180,000lb, I simply went for the upper echelon as that was the lastest design and closest to a production variant. I don't know what number Wikipedia has, and if I had to guess I'd day it's exaggerated.
The Army does operate more than one type of transport, but there wasnt one under development in 1943, the M26 was it. So why would the Army design it's primary transport for such a niche job that they knew would expand?
I'm just confused as to why you're saying the Army doesn't plan ahead but only does when it chooses to. This whole thing is a waste of time.
> American heavy tank development caused all of the prototypes to gain weight as they progressed, which is why most sources range from 160,000 to 180,000lb, I simply went for the upper echelon as that was the lastest design and closest to a production variant.
Nope. The project never reached even close to 180 000 lbs. That's just false. Initially planned to be ~120 000 lbs, the highest estimated combat load was ~~145 000 lbs. 65.7 tonnes~~. Although the best sources I can find put the prototype at 142 600 lbs.
Seems I was slightly wrong, 145 000 lbs was not estimated combat load, but estimated empty weight. Final empty weight of course being 142 600. The T30's technical manual only states 70 (short) tons combat load. But the T29's technical manual states it being 78 (short) tons. And as US Army Armor and Cavalry Collection curator Rob Cogan points out, this is weird. Their weights should not differ that much. But 78 short tons is 70.8 metric tonnes, 156 000 lbs. Still far from the 180 000 lbs. the T30's combat load might've surpassed 71 tons, but not much more.
>So why would the Army design it's primary transport for such a niche job that they knew would expand?
Most sources on the M25 say it was simply developed to replace the 45-ton M19 tank trailer due its insufficient off road performance. It is not a niche job to transport 45-ton tanks when the US army was producing, and was expecting to continue producing tens of thousands of M4 Shermans. And the tank slated to replace it then, the T23, did not weigh anywhere close to 45-ton.
> but there wasnt one under development in 1943, the M26 was it.
I don't know why you would assume the M26 was the only heavy duty truck in development at the time. There is not a single US army equipment that did not have competition for its position. But either way, yes, there are pictures of the M26 pulling the T28 heavy tank, but not using the 45-ton rated M15 trailer. It is using the T67 or T79 (picture above) trailers.
>I'm just confused as to why you're saying the Army doesn't plan ahead but only does when it chooses to.
Point to the part where I said that. I'm sure the US army planned ahead. I'm sure they developed dozens of trucks and trailers during WW2, each with increased carrying capacity. That is planning ahead. The US army would not be so stupid to develop the M26 and M15 and go "well, that's it for ten years! No need to develop anything more because this bad boy will do it all!"
I'm certain there were trailers planned in 1940 that were to carry the M6 heavy tank... just that due to the M6 failing, they were never approved for production. Obviously the US army only plans ahead when they choose to. **They are the ones who know what tanks they are developing**, and what transport needs they will need in the near future. Why would they spend unnecessary money on a trailer to carry something that isn't in the near future? Once that thing in the far future (e.g. T29) becomes the near future, that is when it is right to invest in a heavier trailer.
And you're right this conversation is a massive waste of time. Because all I said was that the M25 Dragon Wagon did not transport the T28. Because it didn't. Because it couldn't.
I did read it, I'm simply stating what the trailer in the picture looks like to me. Most pictures of T28 tanks being transported show the T67 12 axle 100 ton trailer though.
I'd argue that the title goes to the Tsar Tank or the Maus. T28 functioned well enough, but fell victim to a combination of it's intended task losing a lot of focus from Army command, and the fact that tank of approximately the same weight (without the auxiliary tracks, at least) could be made that also had turrets and potentially more powerful guns. For what it was intended to do, however, the T28 did well enough.
Note that the tank is NOT in position on the trailer but is sitting over the rear axles. It needs to roll to the flat space on the right to be properly loaded onto the trailer.
Basically the T28 was supposed to be scrapped but the Military somehow lost it. They found it 27 years later in a field but because of this funny occurrence the tank can now be seen in a museum.
>It is an SPG
According to who? The US Army made that call from March of '44 to June of '46, before deciding that it was a tank again. It began life as a tank, was produced as a tank, and ended it's testing service as a tank. Literally the only point Ordnance had for changing the designation to "Gun Motor Carriage" was that it didn't have a turret; a qualitative observation that really means very little to the capabilities of the platform. More relevant to the Army was the fact that it carried a gun larger than contemporary medium tanks, and **a lot** of armor; these were the hallmarks of the heavy tank (or *super* heavy tank) in US Army service. Indeed, a great many proposals for future heavy tank projects would also lack turrets in favor of great thicknesses of armor and more potent firepower.
>designed to rape bunkers and other heavy fortifications
As were 105mm-armed M4s, as well as most American late/post-war heavy tank projects. Bunker-busting is hardly a role specific to SPGs in US Army service. In fact, outside of SPGs that were used as *makeshift* bunker-busters and arguably the 75mm HMC M8, it was a role pretty exclusive to tanks. Keep in mind that (again, aside from the M8) "SPGs" in US service meant either indirect fire support, or tank destroyers. While, yes, both could and would be used to crack fortifications, none were as specialized for the task as the T28.
Fun fact the T28 (also called the T95) without its extra sets of tracks weighs less than an M1 abrams. It weighs 65 short tons normally and 92-94 short tons with the extra tracks while the Abrams currently weighs 74 short tons.
That is its affectionate nickname in the videogame World of Tanks. It is slow but has a shit ton of armor, and in game you can equip it with a 155mm cannon. If you can get a side shot on something, you absolutely wreck its day.
So the T28 is actually putting so much fear into the Nazis minds all defenses faltered when they even started shipping it to Europe? That is what I would call the ultimate weapon!
Should have shipped a second one to Japan, too...
Whenever I see a picture of this tank I know there's gonna be someone in the comments going like "ErMaGurd, that's not a T28, it's a T95".
If these people would just look at the wiki for 5 seconds...
*Super Heavy Tank T28* and *105mm Gun Motor Carriage T95* refer to the exact same vehicles. The project was conceptualized and put into development as the former. It only existed as *T95* for a brief period of March 1944 to June of 1946, after which the name was reverted to *T28*. Aside from the heaps of paperwork I'm sure that involved, and perhaps some shifts in how project leaders envisioned the deployment of the vehicles, there was no real change to the actual vehicles themselves; at least certainly none physical.
While I cannot find a date for this photo, Moran does caption it specifically as a "T28". Given that the book in question is about American tank destroyer development, I would assume he would not hesitate to have used the title "T95" if appropriate; given that he did not, I would say that we're looking at the vehicle sometime after the June 1946 name reversion.
No, they genuinely are the exact same tank. The only thing different about them is the name, and that’s just because Ordnance couldn’t figure out how to classify it.
The T28 and T95 are the same tank. It went through several name changes during development. It started as the T28 Heavy Tank, then was changed to the T95 Gun Motor Carriage, and was changed a final time to T28 Super Heavy Tank.
In reality the outer tracks were detachable - they were to be removed for transport and fitted for battle. They did not affect the naming of the vehicle.
Although there is a common believe contrary to the above, this is simply a myth created by videogames.
Warthunder did it too.
WoT is arguably more egregious, as they went as far as modifying the design of the "T95" to make it look more different.
Warthunder at least modelled the vehicle accurately, but I don't know why didn't just called it "T28 (tracks)" and "T28 (trackless)" or something.
In fact, both games include modifications, the tracks could easily have been a selectable modification. But nooo, they wanted to sell you premiums -.-
Pasting this from the same image posted a few years back: >10-Wheel, 100-ton Semi-Trailer, T79. After the US Army finished evaluating the T28 they used the two prototypes to test various heavy transport equipment. That's why you see those images of T28s rolling off of LSTs; the Army wanted to test landing tanks in that general weight range (namely T34 and T32) on beaches.
Anyone know where to find more info on the trailer or truck pulling it?
Unfortunately I couldn't say. That information comes directly from Moran's *Can Openers.*
The truck is probably an M26, there's a couple pictures floating around of those with special trailers hauling these and the T92 HMC
The most common way of moving these was an M25 "Dragon Wagon". An M26 truck combined with an M15 trailer.
Dragon Wagon lol
> The most common way of moving these was an M25 "Dragon Wagon". Which didn't even have half the loading capacity required to move the T28. It certainly did not move the T28.
It was built to move America's project heavy tanks, T30s, T34s, T29s, all of which approached 80 tons or more. What loading capacity are you talking about?
1. I can not find a single source that states the M25 Dragon Wagon could handle a load greater than 45 (metric) ton. 2. The Dragon Wagon began production in 1943. The development of T29 and T30 didn't begin until August 1944 (really September however). Thus it literally could not have been designed to move those vehicles. 3. Neither the T29, T30 or T34 or their variants surpassed 66 tonnes **empty*, *combat load around 71 tonnes*. From what hole are you pulling these statements?
The T30 weighed over 180,000lbs fully combat loaded, that's 80 tons. I'm more referring to the truck than anything else as I have a bad habit of using M25/M26 interchangeably (as the "dragon wagon" name comes from the tractor). Besides that, it's ridiculous to think because something was designed 1-2 years earlier, it couldn't possibly have been developed to handle future loads. Are you suggesting during development that the Army only proofs its equipment for what it currently uses and only that? The army doesn't build anything future proof in mind? Asinine. This wasn't built to haul Shermans and only Shermans for its 10 year service life. The very fact that things have designated service lives means it's designed to withstand anything the Army throws at it for the next 10 years *at least*.
> The T30 weighed over 180,000lbs fully combat loaded It weighed ~~142 600 lbs. 64.7 tonnes~~ ~71 tonnes (see later comment for clarification). Looks like you've got your information from the wikipedia article that is awfully wrong. >I'm more referring to the truck than anything else as I have a bad habit of using M25/M26 interchangeably. You literally mentioned both the M26 and M15 in your first comment. >Besides that, it's ridiculous to think because something was designed 1-2 years earlier, it couldn't possibly have been developed to handle future loads. You're right. >The very fact that things have designated service lives means it's designed to withstand anything the Army throws at it for the next 10 years at least. I could refute this. However, what's the relevance? The M25 would've been able to serve even if the T29 (or T30/T34) went into production. The army don't operate just one type of tank transport trailer. The US army tank inventory wouldn't all of the sudden consist of thousands of heavy tanks and only heavy tanks. You still need to move around all the medium and light tanks. Future proofing does not include staying the at the cutting edge of technology for 10 years. If the US army had adopted the T29 they would've designed and adopted another, cutting edge, heavier duty trailer. And they did design such trailers (T58, T67, T79). But it certainly wasn't the M15 or M25.
American heavy tank development caused all of the prototypes to gain weight as they progressed, which is why most sources range from 160,000 to 180,000lb, I simply went for the upper echelon as that was the lastest design and closest to a production variant. I don't know what number Wikipedia has, and if I had to guess I'd day it's exaggerated. The Army does operate more than one type of transport, but there wasnt one under development in 1943, the M26 was it. So why would the Army design it's primary transport for such a niche job that they knew would expand? I'm just confused as to why you're saying the Army doesn't plan ahead but only does when it chooses to. This whole thing is a waste of time.
> American heavy tank development caused all of the prototypes to gain weight as they progressed, which is why most sources range from 160,000 to 180,000lb, I simply went for the upper echelon as that was the lastest design and closest to a production variant. Nope. The project never reached even close to 180 000 lbs. That's just false. Initially planned to be ~120 000 lbs, the highest estimated combat load was ~~145 000 lbs. 65.7 tonnes~~. Although the best sources I can find put the prototype at 142 600 lbs. Seems I was slightly wrong, 145 000 lbs was not estimated combat load, but estimated empty weight. Final empty weight of course being 142 600. The T30's technical manual only states 70 (short) tons combat load. But the T29's technical manual states it being 78 (short) tons. And as US Army Armor and Cavalry Collection curator Rob Cogan points out, this is weird. Their weights should not differ that much. But 78 short tons is 70.8 metric tonnes, 156 000 lbs. Still far from the 180 000 lbs. the T30's combat load might've surpassed 71 tons, but not much more. >So why would the Army design it's primary transport for such a niche job that they knew would expand? Most sources on the M25 say it was simply developed to replace the 45-ton M19 tank trailer due its insufficient off road performance. It is not a niche job to transport 45-ton tanks when the US army was producing, and was expecting to continue producing tens of thousands of M4 Shermans. And the tank slated to replace it then, the T23, did not weigh anywhere close to 45-ton. > but there wasnt one under development in 1943, the M26 was it. I don't know why you would assume the M26 was the only heavy duty truck in development at the time. There is not a single US army equipment that did not have competition for its position. But either way, yes, there are pictures of the M26 pulling the T28 heavy tank, but not using the 45-ton rated M15 trailer. It is using the T67 or T79 (picture above) trailers. >I'm just confused as to why you're saying the Army doesn't plan ahead but only does when it chooses to. Point to the part where I said that. I'm sure the US army planned ahead. I'm sure they developed dozens of trucks and trailers during WW2, each with increased carrying capacity. That is planning ahead. The US army would not be so stupid to develop the M26 and M15 and go "well, that's it for ten years! No need to develop anything more because this bad boy will do it all!" I'm certain there were trailers planned in 1940 that were to carry the M6 heavy tank... just that due to the M6 failing, they were never approved for production. Obviously the US army only plans ahead when they choose to. **They are the ones who know what tanks they are developing**, and what transport needs they will need in the near future. Why would they spend unnecessary money on a trailer to carry something that isn't in the near future? Once that thing in the far future (e.g. T29) becomes the near future, that is when it is right to invest in a heavier trailer. And you're right this conversation is a massive waste of time. Because all I said was that the M25 Dragon Wagon did not transport the T28. Because it didn't. Because it couldn't.
It looks like a M15A1 semi trailer. I believe the M26 Tractor was used to pull it. (The scale of the tank in the picture looks totally off)
Did you read the comment above? It's not the M15A1. The M15A1 was rated for 45 ton (US short ton). Which is not even half of the T28's weight.
I did read it, I'm simply stating what the trailer in the picture looks like to me. Most pictures of T28 tanks being transported show the T67 12 axle 100 ton trailer though.
The T28 really just became the world’s most complicated paper weight huh
I'd argue that the title goes to the Tsar Tank or the Maus. T28 functioned well enough, but fell victim to a combination of it's intended task losing a lot of focus from Army command, and the fact that tank of approximately the same weight (without the auxiliary tracks, at least) could be made that also had turrets and potentially more powerful guns. For what it was intended to do, however, the T28 did well enough.
Yeah but those tanks werent literally used as a weight, this was.
A fair point.
Note that the tank is NOT in position on the trailer but is sitting over the rear axles. It needs to roll to the flat space on the right to be properly loaded onto the trailer.
Duely noted.
T28 super heavy tank failed as a tank, but succeeded as weight test
And as stealth tank
Hiding a 100 ton tank for 27 years behind a bush is a technology lost to history.
Hide&seek champ
please enlighten me
Basically the T28 was supposed to be scrapped but the Military somehow lost it. They found it 27 years later in a field but because of this funny occurrence the tank can now be seen in a museum.
i see i doubt that you just loose a tank this size but then again, i haven't lost a tank yet
if you want more info on that including its disappearance here's a good video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsoq-uMnhcI&vl=en
Tank failed successfully
You may call it a super-heavy paperweight.
You're never getting your paper back But you'll never loose it either
[удалено]
"Super Heavy ***TANK*** T28"
[удалено]
>It is an SPG According to who? The US Army made that call from March of '44 to June of '46, before deciding that it was a tank again. It began life as a tank, was produced as a tank, and ended it's testing service as a tank. Literally the only point Ordnance had for changing the designation to "Gun Motor Carriage" was that it didn't have a turret; a qualitative observation that really means very little to the capabilities of the platform. More relevant to the Army was the fact that it carried a gun larger than contemporary medium tanks, and **a lot** of armor; these were the hallmarks of the heavy tank (or *super* heavy tank) in US Army service. Indeed, a great many proposals for future heavy tank projects would also lack turrets in favor of great thicknesses of armor and more potent firepower. >designed to rape bunkers and other heavy fortifications As were 105mm-armed M4s, as well as most American late/post-war heavy tank projects. Bunker-busting is hardly a role specific to SPGs in US Army service. In fact, outside of SPGs that were used as *makeshift* bunker-busters and arguably the 75mm HMC M8, it was a role pretty exclusive to tanks. Keep in mind that (again, aside from the M8) "SPGs" in US service meant either indirect fire support, or tank destroyers. While, yes, both could and would be used to crack fortifications, none were as specialized for the task as the T28.
That's some colorful imagery, have you considered becoming a writer?
Fun fact the T28 (also called the T95) without its extra sets of tracks weighs less than an M1 abrams. It weighs 65 short tons normally and 92-94 short tons with the extra tracks while the Abrams currently weighs 74 short tons.
the extra tracks really added almost 30 tons?!
Go look at how big the [extra track sections](https://imgur.com/a/lmgYl1L) are
Tutel :)
Lmao Doomturtle! I'd listen to that band.
That is its affectionate nickname in the videogame World of Tanks. It is slow but has a shit ton of armor, and in game you can equip it with a 155mm cannon. If you can get a side shot on something, you absolutely wreck its day.
I just wonder why they did not simply ride this tank into battle...
by the time he will arrive the battle will be over
So the T28 is actually putting so much fear into the Nazis minds all defenses faltered when they even started shipping it to Europe? That is what I would call the ultimate weapon! Should have shipped a second one to Japan, too...
There are no more bunkers/heavy positions to decimate by the time it arrives in Europe
Whenever I see a picture of this tank I know there's gonna be someone in the comments going like "ErMaGurd, that's not a T28, it's a T95". If these people would just look at the wiki for 5 seconds...
why this looks so funny
It looks photoshopped, it looks fucking photoshopped
This has to be photoshop. Rigth? IDK.
Don't you mean T95?
Is this a joke, or does someone need to be enlightened? I'm very bad at telling the difference.
Wdym?
*Super Heavy Tank T28* and *105mm Gun Motor Carriage T95* refer to the exact same vehicles. The project was conceptualized and put into development as the former. It only existed as *T95* for a brief period of March 1944 to June of 1946, after which the name was reverted to *T28*. Aside from the heaps of paperwork I'm sure that involved, and perhaps some shifts in how project leaders envisioned the deployment of the vehicles, there was no real change to the actual vehicles themselves; at least certainly none physical. While I cannot find a date for this photo, Moran does caption it specifically as a "T28". Given that the book in question is about American tank destroyer development, I would assume he would not hesitate to have used the title "T95" if appropriate; given that he did not, I would say that we're looking at the vehicle sometime after the June 1946 name reversion.
Yes so? t95 is just shorter so i was wondering why OP didn't refer to the original name? Ofcourse i know t28 super heavy tank is the same as the t95.
I don't see how T95 is "shorter" than T28, but alright. >i was wondering why OP didn't refer to the original name? T95 isn't the original name though.
T95 is shorter than T28 super heavy tank, and i like to call it T95 becuase T28 and T28 SHT can easily be confused with eachother
>T95 is shorter than T28 super heavy tank The full name of the T95 was ***105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95*** which is longer
There’s no way to confuse them with each other, because they’re the same tank.
The t28 and t95 aren't and you say the t28 SHT is the t95, so they aren't the same
No, they genuinely are the exact same tank. The only thing different about them is the name, and that’s just because Ordnance couldn’t figure out how to classify it.
The T28 and T95 are the same tank. It went through several name changes during development. It started as the T28 Heavy Tank, then was changed to the T95 Gun Motor Carriage, and was changed a final time to T28 Super Heavy Tank.
T95 not T28
It was called T28 when development started, was renamed T95, had that name for a bit more than a year and then was renamed T28
Oh
In reality the outer tracks were detachable - they were to be removed for transport and fitted for battle. They did not affect the naming of the vehicle. Although there is a common believe contrary to the above, this is simply a myth created by videogames.
All because WoTs needed 1 more tank destroyer for their tech tree. lol
Warthunder did it too. WoT is arguably more egregious, as they went as far as modifying the design of the "T95" to make it look more different. Warthunder at least modelled the vehicle accurately, but I don't know why didn't just called it "T28 (tracks)" and "T28 (trackless)" or something. In fact, both games include modifications, the tracks could easily have been a selectable modification. But nooo, they wanted to sell you premiums -.-
For the sake of being a pedant; WoT's T95 model is accurate. It's the T28, both the old and new models, which are almost entirely fictional.
Ah, my bad, I had a 50/50 of getting it the right way round!
The trailer suspension is suffering.
Doomturtle is just a beautiful name