Yes, except perhaps turret front armour on modern tanks. Think the the T-72B is stated to have 460mm fx. The newest western tanks have the equivalent of 1000mm rolled homogenous armour in the turret front, but then it consists of different materials, it´s probably calculated to the vertical, and overall material thickness isn´t 1m.
The T-28 was more of a single use assault gun to be used specifically against the Siegfried Line, and possibly against Japanese fortifications had Operation Downfall gone forward. The line was overrun faster than most predicted and work on the vehicle was abandoned as Sherman tanks did just fine against pillboxes and bunkers, and flamethrowers were probably more effective than giant, slow moving artillery magnets…
The model your looking at was found at an abandoned proving ground (Engineer Proving Grounds, or EPG) at a site I worked at last summer and coincidentally was stationed in the Army…
Apparently, it was left in the middle of the very thick wooded areas intact and was found by engineers or surveyors in 1974, where it was parked probably in the late 1940s. I think two were made…
I don’t know whether you’re specifically asking about US vehicles or more generally, but the Germans by the end of the war were considering enormous landship types of vehicle of upto 1500 tons, the 190 ton Maus reached prototype status along with the 140 ton E100.
http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/PANZERKAMPFWAGEN%20VIII%20MAUS.htm
Hi Eoin!
I was mainly thinking of armour thickness, not just total tonnage.
By all accounts the Maus max armour was the Gun Mantlet 250mm.
Don’t think E types reached T-28’s max armour of 300mm.
The T-28’s turretless design saved a lot of weight, which allowed much heavier armor to be fitted.
Some of those German designs were over the top weren’t they?
Guess when you have a man in charge who thinks bigger is better, you can end up with completely useless weapon systems.
Hi Ashes
I feel for the mod’s of this thread, it does have a trend of moving from the Pershing to other heavy weights in general :)…perhaps we should start a T28 and other super heavy tanks talk.
In terms of armour thickness the old T10 was over 250mm for the mantlet/turret front (50 tons), and the T62 was 240mm for the turret front but only 40 tons in weight, so relatively light elswhere. Then armour thickness can get complicated by the sloped angle of the armour, whether it’s a composite, spaced or applique. So for instance armour has a rating of comparison with “rolled homogenous steel” a thickness of 300mm composite might have a RHS comparison of over 1000mm but can vary for whether its figure is against kinetic or chemical warheads…sorry if that was teaching you to suck eggs to coin a good old English proverb. The newly upgraded Challenger 2 carring Dorechester level 2 package on the turret, hull front, skirts and belly, has a RHS equivalent of something like 1700mm or more for the turret front, and a combat weight approaching 80 tons.
That 1500 ton land ship was designed to carry an 800mm main gun, 2 150mm defence guns, 2 submarine engines, yet considering the Gustav 800mm rail gun had a crew of 250, plus 2500 to lay the tracks, a General in command and took 3 weeks to set up for firing, perhaps we should be grateful (if that’s the right word) that a meglomanic was in charge and not someone who really knew what they were doing (full scale production of panthers and Me262s in 1942!).
As you say, we are moving way off thread with the T-28 alone, without going on to modern ceramic armour capabilities.:o
Just that WW2 heavyweights were mentioned and I wondered what was the heaviest armoured vehicle built in WW2, although I probably threw you by not specifying WW2.
Think we should get back on thread.:mrgreen:
Was the 90/70 gun used in the “Super Pershing” used in any other US AFV´s (this would include postwar (sorry about that :rolleyes:) ??
Not that specific design. Other 90mm guns with increased power were installed on US tanks like the M46, M47, M48…
Bump!
one of the best tanks during world war 2. it came in to late to do alot of impact
Great thread on a excellent Tank, thanks for posting this thread with all the interesting details!
You’re very welcome. I’m glad you like it - there have been a lot of contributors to this thread. 
someone else may have posted this already but the T-28(T-95) is a gun, motor carriage, designed to be used to break the Sigfried line and allow the Allies an easier entry to Germany. Its neither a tank, nor tank destroyer, more of a mobile bunker. it could move about 8mph max. There are several threads, and lots of pics here, so search to find what you might need. I have been on the T-28, it is a huge machine, would have been something to see in action had it been used.
Maybe it’ll happen when aliens invade and try to kill everyone. Every vehicle with and without a weapon will be requisitioned, and the T-28’ll be the main bunker killer. I can only hope it doesn’t happen too soon…
Well, since the Aliens keep up with this site, they already know where you are, so you’ll be the first to know…I think Cartman from Southpark gave them your address…:mrgreen:
Aw… Nuts… Not him… He probably told them I was Jewish… <_<:mrgreen:
wow!!! great post george!!! thats alot of info on one vehicle.
George always seems to impress us, if he got the info, he’ll post it no matter if it is 1 sentence or 1,000 sentences.
wow… great info… anyone have tamiya rc pershing or HL rc pershing? i own a tamiya pershing. Need to learn some tank model decoration for experts like u all, example of camo, detailing etc… if got picture more best… Thx. :mrgreen:
I doubt they were much for paint scheme camouflage towards the end of WWII. Olive drab green would be the basic color. For details to kind of make it appear a bit more distinctive, you could add on small details by looking at pictures here and on Google of Pershings in actual combat.
I think there were some more intricate, distinctive camo schemes used during the Korean War…