T28 Super Heavy Tank | A Failure or Wasted Potential? #4

Join this channel to get access to perks:

[richardbradley]

I think this class of super heavy tank can all be lumped under 'Magnificent failure!' - at least to me!

[magger]

As David Fletcher put it: "I know you're not supposed to say nasty things about German vehicles but this occasion (Jagdtiger) I'm making the exception". I would say that they all fall into the same category (jagdtiger, tortoise, T28) just a plain bad idea to make these! XD If I should pick a favorite one I'd say Tortoise.

[outlaw]

"It amounted to nothing at all" The tank was a literally huge success in testing the load capacity of logistic vehicles and testing navy landing vessels, pretty far cry from a failure. It didn't get a chance to bully the siegfried line but I think what actually happened to it was very interesting and weirdly more useful.

[MrChainsawAardvark]

I'd say the big problem was that the vehicle was unnecessary. The US could call in fighter bombers or artillery to deal with heavy fortifications, and most Shermans were meant for infantry support with a 75mm gun (76 had better penetration, but less explosive). If they didn't control the skies, then a support vehicle might be needed.

Another oddity - the Sherman was built around a radial engine, and there were tanks being designed with a version of the Merlin aircraft engine as well. Considering the US had a good supply of high-power radials they could have given it an engine far more inline with the weight.

Finding a way to modify an M3 Lee/Grant into a TD with a bigger gun and a bit more armor, while eliminating the anemic 37mm turret seems like a better idea to me.

[jamesevans]

Hitler is often mocked in modern documentaries for his preoccupation with monster tanks. However, it created a fad among the allies to produce answers to them. Hitler, being aware of this possibility, issued the decree that every year, the fire power and protection of German tank design must double. Unlike Germany, the allies were capable of mass production of their monster tanks. Thankfully, seeing how quickly the Germans were losing the war and how much badly needed resources these monsters were consuming would quicken the end of the war. So the allies cancelled their monster tanks, seeing no real use for them. Using the nomenclature of the day, the T-28 was an assault gun, and the British Tortoise was a tank destroyer or tank hunter. While the Maus, regardless of its ridiculous weight, was a tank.

[dougstubbs]

5:05 pity the photograph wasn’t in reverse order. The Locust would look like a dingy behind a Yacht.

[davidk]

T28/T95 versus the British Tortoise would have been a battle of the turret-less allied heavyweights.

[TheMilwaukeeMark]

Probably would've been a nice piece of equipment for siege warfare or being used for static defense. Other than those two, it would've more of a logistical nightmare than anything. Imagine having to replace the inside track, or if it got stuck and had to be towed, it would've (more than likely) taken AT LEAST two recovery vehicles to move.

[Firebird]

Failure I think, just use a similar caliber anti tank gun or bomb it with aircraft. Impractical. The amx 13 would be a good idea for a video as you listed at the start. I d try a few different ideas like you mentioned about the majino line ( and yes I butchered the spelling on that lol) and see if you attract a wider audience, doesn’t hurt to try . Thanks for the video

[paoloviti]

Despite being rather well thought out with a low silhouette and including a crane to lift or lower the outer tracks one but one of great failure was installing the 500hp Ford GAA engine, that powered the Sherman but absolutely insufficient to move the 86 metric tons beast with a power/weight of 5.8 hp/tonne to really demonstrate the capability of this prototype and perhaps should have installed the 120 mm gun similar to that used on the IS-2 called the smasher by its

[retepeyahaled]

That a tank can be too heavy and too big, apparently is a lesson to be learnt. Maybe the Allies saw that the Germans came up with always heavier tanks and no one knew where this was going to end. As long as no party found out that there is a limit, they just kept trying to come up with the biggest tank. And one by one they found out where this ends, by trial and error. Just one model for testing hardly is a waste of money.

[hungusthefungus]

Too Big, Too Heavy- at least the Americans knew when to Stop.

[angelmontoy]

It funny how they lost it for so many years in the forest

[michaelnaven]

Great big heavy waste of steel just as the Maus and E-100 was.

[ottovonbismarck]

Now we're really talking wasted time and effort. IMHO, this is the same league as the Maus and Jagdtiger, albeit the US could afford to materialize some brain farts and Germany could not.

And here we are again in the rabbit hole of AFV designation 😁. The "T" inidicates that it is a prototype undergoing trials; it's not an abbreviation for tank or TD. The number behind might also change, i.e. T6 medium tank became "Medium Tank M-4 Sherman".
Technically, T28 is an assault gun, emphasis on destroying (concrete) fortifications, much like KV-2. Anyway, if the US decide to call it "super heavy tank", it is a super heavy tank. If the Swedes call the S-103 a tank, it's a tank, although everybody else would say it's a TD.


Although being armored to withstand anything apart from a 12, 8cm PAK, a hit on the tracks would immobilize it. AT gunners aren't stupid; when you can't penetrate the armor, aim for the tracks.
And how thick was the side armor ?

I'm very curious a) how they worked on the tracks at all with that heavy side armor, b) how they worked on the inner tracks in particular and c) if the vehicle could run on just two or three tracks, in case one or two break or get shot off ? I assume track tension was not a problem and the vehicle probably wouldn't do much cross-country anyway. I only know of one other AFV with multiple tracks per side, and that also didn't make it past prototype ... Wasn't there an earlier T28 version with only a single narrow track ? That might explain it to a degree; probably bolting on another (already existing) running gear was quicker and cheaper than developing a new one ? Probably the US would have adopted a single wide track per side if the vehicle had gone any further.

I don't know if the US recognized the stupity of the vehicle; it was just that the events overtook it. The Westwall was already penetrated in autumn 1944, so the thing became obsolete.
Also, the Westwall wasn't even close to the Maginot Line.😁