Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,308

    Default U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Sometimes called the T-95,at others the T-29, I have not had my hands on this one, it's part of the old Patton Museum Stable, now located at the new Facility on Ft. Benning, Ga. It's truly huge, about 65 tons, and had a 105mm main gun, and 4 Machine guns. If I read correctly, two 50BMG's coaxially mounted, one 50BMG independantly mounted, and a .30 cal in the bow position. It had a 6 man crew, with two loaders. Perhaps it was originally intended to counter the German Tigers I, and II, but could have done well against the soviet IS models as well. This was a trials only project, and several others were also looked at, but none were ever built for use. I don't know much at all about it, but do have some images. Courtesy of Museum personnel.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	33932073.jpg 
Views:	146 
Size:	1.07 MB 
ID:	7693   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	13076820_1161891007184905_7311660760496586653_n.jpg 
Views:	119 
Size:	108.5 KB 
ID:	7694  
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 05-04-2016 at 09:38 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Guildford, England
    Posts
    1,423

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    I don't think the T-29 was called the T-95, pretty sure that T-95 was the alternate name for the T-28 MGC.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,308

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Could be, but that's what the Museum people call it, Correct on the T-28/95. I'm thinking the Military got their T's confused after awhile. Since these were all Trials vehicles, I was thinking re-use of T-designations might be the reason, but on line sources agree with you. They also were sloppy in using the dash in some nomenclature, T28 Vs. T-28 This may also add to confusion.
    At any rate, getting an inside shot of one of these doesn't happen that often, so I went with it .

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Guildford, England
    Posts
    1,423

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Ah, that's probably the case.

    Agreed, the interior is pretty worth it. Doesn't look comfortable.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,308

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    No argument there, they could have spent $3 for a seat cushion, and worse still, there's no bell on the handlebars..

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    I think there were a whole series of these vehicles and possibly dozens were produced as test mules. There was also a T-30 & T-34 and possibly others. They paves the way for the Pershing/Patton tanks that followed on. I think they were never seriously considered for deployment to combat unless of course the continental U.S. was invaded...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Who could be that idiot , wanted to invide the US?

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Wanted and being able too are two different things.

    The Germans and Japanese had a tentative plan to split the United States in half (roughly) at the Mississippi River....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    The Germans and Japanese had a tentative plan to split the United States in half (roughly) at the Mississippi River....
    A tentative plan? But the Germans never had enough ships to invide even the Britain, an japs never sailed further the Australia

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    A tentative plan? But the Germans never had enough ships to invide even the Britain, an japs never sailed further the Australia
    Of course it was a fantasy, based on the conquest of the USSR, capitulation of Britain and a whole host of unlikely events. I was just saying the only way these designs would see combat was if the war came to them...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,308

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    The heavy Tank programs were mostly just research, or proof of concept experiments. None were ever moved to any sort of production status beyond the one or two prototypes. Normally, these vehicles would be scrapped to deny anything of use to the espionage folks. not altogether the materials, or mechanical technology, but even to learn about how the U.S. or NATO thinks when developing equipment. For whatever reason these were given to Aberdeen Proving grounds, or some other such facility, to keep. The purpose of this particular vehicle was to counter German heavy / super heavy armor should it come to be made, and used. Also, to counter Soviet heavies, and whatever they might come up with later on. (You are a very clever People Chevan, so we had to keep an eye on you all. ) Once the MBT vehicles were provided with munitions such as Rigid Composite (arrowhead) Sabot, and Heat, it didn't much matter how much armor, or even how large the gun was, these two staple munitions made the old ways obsolete. The Range finder on the T-29 was interesting, and made its Turret looks more as though it had been lifted off a Warship, and plopped on the Tank Hull. But the range finder was an important step forward in fire control.
    The "T" designation for a U.S. Tank is used only during development, the "M" given after it is adopted as a final design and approved for production. I didn't want you to be confused by that Chevan since sometimes the numbers used are the same as those of Soviet military. (like the T-34) Pics of our T-34, and Soviet T-34
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	26099430_bd68fdd278_o.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	174.4 KB 
ID:	7695   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	t-34_early_41.jpg 
Views:	60 
Size:	58.6 KB 
ID:	7696  
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 05-06-2016 at 03:40 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,404

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    The heavy Tank programs were mostly just research, or proof of concept experiments. None were ever moved to any sort of production status beyond the one or two prototypes....
    I think there were more than few made, just the different configurations alone would indicate at least a dozen heavy tank prototypes. I think some were even used at War Bond events...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    Also, to counter Soviet heavies, and whatever they might come up with later on. (You are a very clever People Chevan, so we had to keep an eye on you all. )
    if we are clever- why are we telorate the Putin then? It's very complicated...
    The "T" designation for a U.S. Tank is used only during development, the "M" given after it is adopted as a final design and approved for production. I didn't want you to be confused by that Chevan since sometimes the numbers used are the same as those of Soviet military. (like the T-34) Pics of our T-34, and Soviet T-34
    There is no confuse mate The tank above was called the M-29. That is fully logically ,as it folows after the M-26

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Guildford, England
    Posts
    1,423

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Well, you're showing a base T-34, they did have the 85 and 100 models. Though I'm sure the 120 on the American '34 would make mincemeat of any Russian '34.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,308

    Default Re: U.S. T-29 Monster Tank

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Well, you're showing a base T-34, they did have the 85 and 100 models. Though I'm sure the 120 on the American '34 would make mincemeat of any Russian '34.
    The Soviet T-34 despite the later, better models was still a medium vehicle, I was only showing the possibility of mistaking one vehicle for another because of Nomenclature issues. Like the two items the military had that used the same nomenclature, the P-38. One was a can opener, the other an Aircraft. (Not to leave out the German pistol of the same name. ) Nomenclature, the modern Latin.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •