W.I US T29 heavy tank moved into production

SCOUT 5249

W.I? The T29 heavy tank was moved into production and accepted into service as the new mediu while the T30 and T34 were used as test beds and such. M29 and it's 105mm gun is given fixed ammunition and refined throughout the years until it's replaced by the 120mm cannon.

Note:The M29 is gradually replaced by the M48 Patton but the gun is transferred to it

How effective would it have been in the Korean war?
How much more developed could the 105mm be?
Would it have been fitted into the M48 and M60?
What country would have purchased the M29 tanks?
How would the M29 and the 105mm have compared to its rivals like the centurion, T55 and leopard 1?
 
Not James Stockdale

Not James Stockdale

The T29 was well over the 50 ton limit at which existing gas or diesel engines in the 800hp range could provide adequate mobility. It would have been used as a heavy tank like the M103 more than add some sort of supplement to the Pershing and Patton mediums. The 105mm T5 ammunition would have been too heavy to be fixed, which was why separate ammunition was used for guns of this size at the time. The gun also weighs twice as much as the L7, so there would have been no appreciable future in the 1960s. As for the Korean War, I doubt it would see any significant service because of weight and mobility issues.
 
Simon

Simon

Much swearing is heard from the maintenance and logistics units that will have to keep the things operational, likewise the naval types having to ship them across the Atlantic and then the English Channel. Considering its weight would it have been able to use the assault bridges and Bailey bridges? If not that's going to limit its use a fair amount.
 

SCOUT 5249

Simon said:
Much swearing is heard from the maintenance and logistics units that will have to keep the things operational, likewise the naval types having to ship them across the Atlantic and then the English Channel. Considering its weight would it have been able to use the assault bridges and Bailey bridges? If not that's going to limit its use a fair amount.
Click to expand...

They are an M46 medium with a bigger gun and turret not that much of a nightmare.
 
Last edited:
Not James Stockdale

Not James Stockdale

SCOUT 5249 said:
They could be used at Europe much like the M103
Click to expand...
The M103 required a huge amount of new logistics and support equipment to even work, and it and the Conqueror were severely restricted in the areas in which they could fight because they had to stay with the Corps-level units that could support them.
 
Not James Stockdale

Not James Stockdale

SCOUT 5249 said:
As for the gun they could be changed for the T140 gun. That would lessen the weight.
Click to expand...
If all you want is the 105 mm gun, that probably be possible by about 1950 on a seven-wheel Patton hull with M46/M47/M48 levels of armor at about 50 to 55 tons. It would end up being very similar to the T32 heavy tank, but trading some armor, probably on the sides, for a bigger gun. The T29 went to 65 tons because it was designed with heavy tank armor to counter the Tiger II.
Cryhavoc101 said:
I would have thought that in 1944 a T29 does not need anything more powerful than the 90mm M3 gun?
Click to expand...
The Super Pershing's L/73 gun was needed to match the Tiger II's 88 mm in velocity. The US 90 mm M3 fired at a significantly lower velocity, but it was lighter and easier to handle. The T-series heavy tanks were far more heavily armored than German Tigers because of how front-drive increased the size of German vehicles. The Super Pershing also had applique armor to match the Tiger II's frontal armor, so the T29 was not strictly required to match the Tiger II.
 
Last edited:

SCOUT 5249

Cryhavoc101 said:
I would have thought that in 1944 a T29 does not need anything more powerful than the 90mm M3 gun?
Click to expand...

It was built to counter the tiger 1 and 2 in Normandy it was kind of slowed due to the tank destroyer doctrine and the m26 wasn't available yet by the time of Normandy it's only main rival was the 122mm armies Stalin tank.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Cryhavoc101 said:
I would have thought that in 1944 a T29 does not need anything more powerful than the 90mm M3 gun?
Click to expand...
The 90mm M3 generally was the same power level as the 17pdr or German 88mm, that didn't have much margin of error for dealing with the very heavy armor units appearing in 1944.

Now the Armor Board believed the lies that Ordnance were spreading on the 76mm being a wonder gun against armor, so the 105 and 120mm were on a slower track as anti fortification weapon, and a more powerful 90mm languished: while the 90mm M3 was already though to be overkill for France.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
SCOUT 5249 said:
It was built to counter the tiger 1 and 2 in Normandy it was kind of slowed due to the tank destroyer doctrine and the m26 wasn't available yet by the time of Normandy it's only main rival was the 122mm armies Stalin tank.
Click to expand...
The basic T20 hull that became the T26, was around in 1943. Only real difference was thicker armor on the Front. An T25/T26 could have easily been ready for D Day.
 

SCOUT 5249

marathag said:
Generally, Gen. Devers, who wanted some heavier Tanks with better guns, lost every battle against McNair from 1941 till he got blown up by 8thAF
Click to expand...

Unfortunate friendly fire

McNair while he did make a considerable difference in the us military including combined arms he did do some controversial matter too.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
SCOUT 5249 said:
Unfortunate friendly fire

McNair while he did make a considerable difference in the us military including combined arms he did do some controversial matter too.
Click to expand...
Overall, I consider him a net negative. He was a big fan of towed Anti-tank guns, vs SPG-- he spiked a number of GMCs that would have been useful, vs the overly heavy towed 3" and underpowered 57mm that struggled in Italy and France.Then his whole incorrect take on Tank Destroyers.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
SCOUT 5249 said:
It would have worked in 1939 to mid 41 in France and north Africa but not when America entered the war and the game had changed considerably. Should have been one step ahead of the competition.
Click to expand...
His idea with towed AT was retrograde, that they should also charge towards the sound of the guns in Napoleonic fashion to setup would-be killboxes, towed either by lightly armored halftracks or high speed tractors.

One of the reasons US ATG units had such high casualties in Italy and France.

These tactics worked in the 1941 maneuvers against Devers, due to rules in place, that ATguns could only be destroyed by overruns, not by simulated HE or MG fire. Germans didn't play by those rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top