WI: U.S. T-28 Super Heavy Tank Deployed In 1944

What If U.S. T-28 Super Heavy Tank Deployed In 1944

305px-T-28-1.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank

Bit of a long shot but interesting. So the United States recognizes earlier the need for a heavy self propelled gun and by summer 1944 has deployed the T-28 in significant numbers in both theaters of war. How would the T-28 preform in Normandy and against the Siegfried Line? How would it have fared in the Pacific and would it have preformed well during an Invasion of Japan scenario?
 
What If U.S. T-28 Super Heavy Tank Deployed In 1944

305px-T-28-1.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank

Bit of a long shot but interesting. So the United States recognizes earlier the need for a heavy self propelled gun and by summer 1944 has deployed the T-28 in significant numbers in both theaters of war. How would the T-28 preform in Normandy and against the Siegfried Line? How would it have fared in the Pacific and would it have preformed well during an Invasion of Japan scenario?

I am looking at this thing for my timeline too.....the big problem, I don't think it will fit on any available landing craft and I am not sure anything smaller than an LST can bring it ashore. Plus it would take up a lot of shipping space. Plus there is the whole bridging equipment issue (I don't believe a Bailey bridge could handle its weight)

So curious about the replies you get on this topic
 
Well it might of inticed the Germans into converting all tank production to Maus or Landkreuzen compketely screwing up their production. War is over Feb 1, 45
 
b
I am looking at this thing for my timeline too.....the big problem, I don't think it will fit on any available landing craft and I am not sure anything smaller than an LST can bring it ashore. Plus it would take up a lot of shipping space. Plus there is the whole bridging equipment issue (I don't believe a Bailey bridge could handle its weight)

So curious about the replies you get on this topic

looking over them the T29 looks more promising, as does the Super Pershing but none would be ready for Normandy
 
It's hard to imagine the T28 being ready in time without some major change that would pressure the US Army into demanding such a weapon as the T28 by 1944. Look at the trouble the ordnance had convincing the units in the field of a need for a more heavily gunned Sherman.

Further, for the vehicle to see service, the army T28 would need to address the issue of the T28 mobility--or lack thereof.

A first step for making PACCAR's monster a realistic vehicle would be installing the Ford 775 h.p. GAC V-12 in lieu of the Ford 525 h.p. GAA V-8. This might allow the beast to rocket along at 11 m.p.h. instead of topping out at 8 m.p.h.--assuming the transmission could handle the extra power. More importantly, the increase in power would greatly increase its ability to handle obstacles.

Weight, of course, is the biggest impediment. It's hard to imagine how the U.S. would transport the 195,000 pound vehicle to the Siegfried. Special rail cars would be needed. I imagine that some sort reinforcing of the rail bridges would also be needed. I supposed some sort dual tractor version of the Dragon Wagon with some sort of a special trailer/semi-trailer could be constructed. Still even with extra wheels, I would think few roads in France, Germany, and Japan could support such a load.

Assuming the T28 could be transported and placed in position, the T28 would be effective weapon in certain situations, such as attacked fixed fortifications under fire. The gun was very powerful and the armor very thick. With a better engine, it would be a more practical weapon than the Maus--though this a pretty low bar.

Given the combined arms model the U.S. employed, the disadvantages of the t28's limited mobility would appear to exceed the advantages of its firepower and protection. Most of what it could do could be accomplished by employing the M12 Gun Motor Carriage or a similar weapon with proper support when a "door knocker"was needed to destroy a strong point with direct fire. And again, if a weapon like the T-28 was needed, but SU-152 demonstrated there was cheaper way to do it.

Still, should the U.S. want an armored assault weapon and we are using actual US designs, then the T29 and its brethren, the T30 and T34 seem more practical than T28. The Chieftains hatch as a two part series on this appropriately titled as How Suitable Was the T29, Part 1 and How Suitable Was the T29, Part 2, as well as this entry on testing the T29 and T30.
What If U.S. T-28 Super Heavy Tank Deployed In 1944

305px-T-28-1.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank

Bit of a long shot but interesting. So the United States recognizes earlier the need for a heavy self propelled gun and by summer 1944 has deployed the T-28 in significant numbers in both theaters of war. How would the T-28 preform in Normandy and against the Siegfried Line? How would it have fared in the Pacific and would it have preformed well during an Invasion of Japan scenario?
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I am looking at this thing for my timeline too.....the big problem, I don't think it will fit on any available landing craft and I am not sure anything smaller than an LST can bring it ashore. Plus it would take up a lot of shipping space. Plus there is the whole bridging equipment issue (I don't believe a Bailey bridge could handle its weight)

So curious about the replies you get on this topic
Even an LST couldn't manage it without a massive redesign. The T-28 was ~15 feet wide. Bow opening on a LST was 14' wide. Only way to get it onto shore would be via cranes in a port or via a specially designed lighter.

Going to need a megaton of combat engineers to rebuild every bridge in Europe.
 
after review I am thinking that the M4A3E9105 does everything you want a infantry assault tank to do while using existing tech and is a hell of a lot easier to move. The M4A3E876 does fine for most of your medium tank jobs, while the M26 is the option for the medium heavy mission

Which is what the US Army decided post war

For bunker busting, the SP 155 (the M12 and later M40) are just about perfect as they can blast apart bunkers at 2,000 yards (which the Germans generally considered highly unsporting)
 

Driftless

Donor
Going to need a megaton of combat engineers to rebuild every bridge in Europe.

What's the average distance between bridges on any road in northern France, or the low countries for that matter? A kilometer? Back then, what's the average/standard load capacity of most of those bridges?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What's the average distance between bridges on any road in northern France, or the low countries for that matter? A kilometer? Back then, what's the average/standard load capacity of most of those bridges?
I obviously don't know the specifics for every bridge, but the Heer had to actively work to strengthen bridges to handle the Jadtiger which was 25 tons lighter then the T-28
 

Driftless

Donor
I obviously don't know the specifics for every bridge, but the Heer had to actively work to strengthen bridges to handle the Jadtiger which was 25 tons lighter then the T-28

I would think for most of the country roads back then that width of the bridge might be an issue as well - maybe height too, if there were overhead structural steel. Travel even on a transporter might be restricted to larger highways even for tanks in the relatively modest range.
 
Just as important as the bridge issue are the railways. At 15' wide few to none of the French railways can move this thing. Meaning that it must move itself across France. The dash across France in august 11944 created a massive demand for replacement tracks, transmission & other drive train parts. For each of these you send 2x its weight and cube in ship and railway transport will be required for spare parts to move the SOB across France.

If a super heavy tank is wanted several of the solutions based on the M4 are practical. Other alternatives might be the T14 or the M6, either with a 90mm gun. Of course the M36 TD put a 90mm gun on the US battle front, with a much more sustainable and nimble vehicle.
 
What's the average distance between bridges on any road in northern France, or the low countries for that matter? A kilometer? Back then, what's the average/standard load capacity of most of those bridges?

Maybe ten km between bridges, perhaps as little as five. Streams in that country are deeply silted meanders, with soft ground - "water meadows" flanking much of the stream banks. Even the major highways are going to suffer damage from many of these passing by.

You could take a look at the considerations for moving the dozen odd battalions of the US 240mm howitzers across France. Those were designed for road movement and the US Army had 25+ years experience with them & they still were a serious pain.
 
How would it have fared in the Pacific ...

The sheer absurdity of using this thing in a Pacific island-hopping campaign is pleasing, but I imagine it would bring nothing but misery to everyone involved - friends, enemies, crews, transport and logistics staff... everyone.
 
The T-28 would have to be delivered in a port that was captured by the allies since it would need cranes to lift it. That would probably mean that it would have to travel to southern France. The Vehicle was designed to smash its way through fortification such as the West Wall. However, there would be loads of problems besides those already mentioned it would consume fuel like crazy at a time when the allies had a gasoline shortage.
 
Top