In my little Q&A session I mentioned that a major reason of the cancellation of the T110E5 were other, lighter vehicles that were being designed to fill the role of a Heavy Gun Tank(120 mm armed vehicle). The T96 project was one of the major reasons of the T110E5 cancellation. Today I want to dig a little deeper about the T96. The T96 originates from the TL-4 proposal from the Questionmark III Conference. The T96 was to be armed with a 105 mm smooth-bore weapon and be developed alongside the T95 90 mm gun tank(The T95E2 is to be in WoT AFAIK).
The T96 program was assigned to Ford while the T95 was assigned to Detroit Arsenal but they worked together to make most of the parts interchangeable. Ford proposed two variants of the T96 with more armor from the planned 3.8 inches at 60 degrees. The T96-1 variant had 4.1 inches and the T96-2 had 4.8 inches. However by the end of development the T96 was to have 3.2 inches at 65 degrees.
Looks Comfortable
The T96 turret was to be tested at first with the 105 mm smooth-bore on top of the T95 chassis. Soon other weapons such as the 120 mm T123E1 gun and later the lighter-weight T123E6 gun, a modified British 120 mm gun, variants of the smooth-bores, and other exotic weapons were proposed. The success of the more powerful weapons being able to be mounted in the T96 turret meant the T110E5 was redundant.
This shows the T95 mounting the T96 turret with the British 120 mm gun.
Soon testing on the T95 went underway in the late 50s. The need to test the T96 and its turret faded away as new requirements arose Soon the T96 only survived as being part of the development of the T95 turret. The variations of the T95 with the T96 turret were to be called the T95E4 which mounted a 105 mm smooth-bore, and the T95E6 which was planned to use the T123E6 120 mm gun. Only mock-ups of the T96 turret were built The T95 project, as a whole, led to the adoption of the M68 105 mm gun which was later the main gun for both the M60 Patton and the original M1 Abrams.
T95E6 with the T123E6 gun.
Now you might be thinking how does this relate to WoT? Well the T96 could very well be an alternate tier X for the American Heavy Branch. The T96-2 mounting the T123E6 would be a very mobile platform and should be CW viable. The T96-2's armor would be ~207 mm effective head on, this number would be increased by manual angling. Don't worry about composite armor, the T96 never had plans for it. The T96 turret would be extremely tough, it should be around ~300 mm of effective armor. The T96 turret was designed to be more protected than the M103 turret, especially against Soviet 100 mm shells. Depression for the gun would be a tasty -9 degrees. Speeds should be around ~50 km/h with good handling characteristics due to the low weight for a heavy tank(46t was the estimated weight I'd put it closer to 47-48 tons though) and a fairly powerful engine with original requirements stating the need for a ~750 hp engine which wasn't used for the T95.
Personally I think that the T96 concept would be a neat and interesting addition to WoT. I think the balancing of RoF, OTM accuracy, aim time, ground resistance, and others would play a vital role in making or breaking the T96 in WoT.
Sources:
Hunnicutt's Abrams: History of the American MBT
except, IRC, the T95/6 projects were medium tanks. It was at this point, with the T110e5 being redundant as a heavy tank, as the Med's under developement could undertake the role.
ReplyDeleteredwing6 (NA server)
The terms medium and heavy didn't apply. 120 mm Gun Tank was what the T110E5 was and what the T95E6/T96(with the T123) was as well.
DeleteHowever the T96 wasn't a true Heavy Tank, I understand your point.
DeleteWG might also put this as a Chinese mediums style tank for the a US medium line.
Delete"WG might also put this as a Chinese mediums style tank for the a US medium line."
DeleteHow do you mean it? Chinese mediums -> no gun depression, big alpha, goodish mobility. I don't see how this goes together with this and all american tanks.
Well in the way that mediums tanks having "heavy tank guns" aka big alpha. The gun depression will depends on how WG feels.
Delete"Well in the way that mediums tanks having "heavy tank guns" aka big alpha. The gun depression will depends on how WG feels."
DeleteWell as you can see they usually stay with historical gun depression and its american tank so I doubt they would make it bad.
As for damage, if you look at all the in game guns only the top russian and chinese 122mm guns have increased alpha of 440 damage. All the rest 120mm guns have 400 damage. All the rest of high tier mediums with 105mm guns have alpha of 390 (thats 10 damage less). So I really don't see how 10 more damage would be big alpha. So sorry, no chance on that unless its tier 8 medium (where 400 would actually would be big alpha for medium).
3.8 inches... that is like 239.2 °C, right?
ReplyDeleteCelsius?
DeleteThe 3.8 inches(96.5 mm) of armor at 60 degrees would be ~194 mm thick. It is less with normalization.
To find effective armor thickness mm/cos(degrees of slope (+/-normalization))
That 300mm turret sounds great: One of the big draws for me to US heavies was the absurdly good turret armor and I was a bit disappointed when I found out the M103 and T110 didn't follow that pattern (or at least they don't seem to, I don't have either so the numbers could just be misleading).
ReplyDeleteOn another note: Priory, could you imagine a way for the extended US light tank tree (M41, possibly the Sheridan)to link up to a medium tree sort of like how the German lights can lead to the leopard?
-AFAIK M103 and E5 have good turret front armor. M48 on the other hand is pretty meh.
Delete-search on this blog for "us light".
You could maybe link a light and a medium branch by using the T42: a medium tank based on an improved M24 hull. It has the same 90mm as the T69 minus the autoloader and the same turret as the M47 Patton. The problem would be tier placment tho.
DeleteI really wanna see this Tank appear but hopefully with a different turret than the M48
ReplyDeleteWould be nice to see alternative REAL heavy tank branch.
ReplyDeleteThe paragraph below the first picture is using inches, and not MM like the rest of the article.
ReplyDeleteUsually I convert inches(what my source uses) to mm, however I got lazy. Sorry.
DeleteThis tank would make the T110E5 redundant, just like in real life!
ReplyDeleteNot definitely. Hull armor could be worse but you have more gun depression and possibly better turret. Top speed and acceleration could be better, but for that they could make it with worse turning speed. Then they could work on gun, like have it bit more accurate while at the same time not as accurate on the move or with slower aim time. There are many ways you can balance tank (also turret traverse speed, dpm, size of the tank also matters, cammo value).
DeleteI am not saying this would work out, but you can have two seemingly alike tanks act rather differently on battlefield by managing their characteristics.
In which time period does this tank fits into?
ReplyDeleteMid 1950s, just like the T110E5. It was early than the Chinese tier X vehicles IIRC.
DeleteThen we should see this in the game.. nice :)
DeleteThe T95E6 looks awesome if it wasn't for that damn tumor on the turret. 8/10 would grind.
ReplyDelete-kariverson
The T95E6 looks great :)
ReplyDelete