Feasability of a 120mm gun armed tank in WW2?

burmafrd

Banned
The 105MM gun was a very good weapon. It was replaced when testing concluded that it had reached the limit of its effectiveness and we needed more punch to counter the soviet tanks. Not to mention reactive armor and chobham armor was also being looked at. That is why the move went to the 120 which is pretty much the standard world wide now. Its just like in WW2 we went from the 37 to the 75 and then got stupid and did not push for the 90MM or the Pershing. A lot of good men died in Shermans that would not have had they been in pershings.
 
Would it have been possible for the United States to build a heavy tank armed with a version of the M1 120mm AA gun during World War 2? Not whether it would have been a good idea or a sensible use of resources but simply could such a vehicle have been built to the level where it could have taken to the battlefield. By tank I mean a vehicle with a gun in a rotating turret, not a fixed, limited traverse mantlet like the one fitted to the T28.

Mmmm... Sure, for a sufficiently enormous expenditure of resources. The real question is why in hell anyone would -want- to, honestly?
 
Top