120mm gun tank T110

120mm gun tank T110

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

120mm gun tank T110

The 120mm gun tank T110 was a series of designs for a heavy tank armed with a hull mounted main gun, developed as an alternative to the Heavy Tank T43 and its long term replacements.

The T110 emerged from the Question Mark III conference of June 1954, one of a series of meeting between tank users and designers that were meant to identify the type of tanks that would be needed in the future. Six possible designs for heavy tanks were discussed at this conference - four short term projects and two long term projects.

One of the short term projects was for the TS-31. This would carry a 120mm gun T123E1 in a gimbal mount with a limited traverse, carried in the front of the vehicle's superstructure. Models and drawings show a five man vehicle with the driver in the nose (below the gun barrel) and the gunner, loaders and commander in a fighting compartment in the middle of the tank. It would have five large road wheels and a flat track suspension system, in which the return run of the track ran along the top of the large road wheels.

The TS-31 was elected for further development, for use either as an assault model, or as a backup in case the Heavy Tank T43E2 or the long term TL-4/ 105mm gun tank T96 failed. Chrysler was given the contract to development the T110.

The first design was provided by the Detroit Arsenal. The superstructure had a curved front and sloped sides. The commander's cupola was on the front-right of the fighting compartment, and would be topped by a fully rotating machine gun turret. Power was to be provided by a Continental AV-1790 engine carried at the back of the vehicle, and powering an XTG-500 transmission in the front of the vehicle. It was to be armed with a 120mm gun T123E1 in a rigid mount - this eliminated the complex recoil mechanisms used in existing tanks, and used the weight of the vehicle to absorb the recoil forces.

The main problem with this design was that it was too large for the standard European railway loading gauge, agreed at a conference in Berne, Switzerland, in 1912 and that went into force in 1914. This specified a width of 10ft 4in, a height of 10ft 5in at the sides and of 14ft 1in in the centre. Some sources refer to this as the 'Berne International Tunnel', but in fact it relates to all aspects of railways, including bridges and station platforms.

Chrysler came up with a series of alternative designs. In their first design the cab was reduced in width and the commander was moved to the centre-rear. This meant that his cupola would fit under the high point at the centre of the Berne standard. The drive was moved from the hull front to the cabin front. The drive was on the front right, with the gunner on the front left. The loaders were on either side of the breech, and the commander was behind and above the. The number of road wheels rose to five. The tracks and cupola periscope would both have to be removed for rail transport. The new driver's position allowed the nose to be used to store fuel, and made the controls easier to link to the transmission.

The Detroit Arsenal objected to the new layout. Chrysler produced a second design, with the driver back in the hull front, on the front left. The gunner moved to the front left of the cab. The loaders and commander remained in their existing positions. The nose was shortened to improve its ability to cross obstacles, and the front idlers and road wheels adjusted. The fuel storage had to be removed from the hull front.

The Detroit Arsenal then produced a new basic design. This time the transmission was moved to the rear. The commander's cupola was moved to the right, meaning that the entire thing would have had to be removed for railway clearance. The flat track suspension was to be replaced with a more conventional type with return rollers. A new Continental AOI-1490 air-cooled fuel injected engine, capable of providing 700hp at 2,800rpm was specified. A large fuel tank was located in the nose, to the front and right of the driver.

Chrysler produced a third design in response to the Arsenal's second design. This soon ran into problems. The engine and transmission would be below and to the left of the commander, and would have been difficult to maintain. In an attempt to solve this problem they were placed on rails, and could slide out of the vehicle through a rear hatch. This weakened the vehicle and made it hard to keep the transmission lined up with the final drive. It also reduced the amount of space available for cooling grills.

Chrysler came up with a four design, which solved the engine problems and also reduced the height of the vehicle enough to make sure that only the tracks would have had to be removed for railway clearance. The fighting compartment was moved forward and the rear of the tank was lengthened. The engine and transmission could thus be installed into a more conventional engine compartment, with a flat roof behind and below the back of the fighting compartment. The exhaust gases could be mixed with cool air to try and reduce the infrared signature of the vehicle. The transmission and cooling problems would thus be eliminated. The crew reverted to similar positions to Chrysler's first design, with all five in the superstructure. This time the driver was on the front right and the gunner on the front left. The loaders were behind them, and the commander was above and between the loaders. The 120mm gun was mounted behind a 9in thick two ton gun shield, and has a traverse of 15 degrees on either side and an elevation range of +20 to -10 degrees. The gunner's seat would have moved with the gun. The driver would have been rather squeezed into a corner when the gun was traversed fully to the left (when the section inside the mount would have swung right). There would be six large road wheels, and a raised front idler and rear drive wheel. A pulsed light range finder would have been installed in the cupola.

By this point Chrysler was no longer convinced that the superstructure mounted gun offered any advantages. Their fifth design was thus for a far more conventional assault tank, carrying the same 120mm gun in a fully rotating turret. Their design drawings show a vehicle that kept much of the basic hull of the fourth design, including the suspension system and the engine and transmission system and rear drive wheel. The superstructure was eliminated and a large turret on the 85in turret ring used on the Heavy Tank M103 was installed instead. The driver returned to the front of the hull. The driver and commander sat to the left of the gun, the single loader on the right. A power rammer was added to make up for the removal of the second loader. This design was expected to weight less than the 50 ton limit for the T110, it would use standard tank components, and the turret made it more flexible than the limited traverse of the earlier designs.

A full scale model of this fifth design was actually built at the Detroit Arsenal, but by now interest in the T110 was fading. The Heavy Tank T43E2 project had been successful, but at the same time the heavy tank was going out of favour. Future projects would carry heavy guns on lighter vehicles than the T110.

120mm gun tank T110 - History

This article does not contain any citations or references. Please improve this article by adding a reference. For information about how to add references, see Template:Citation.

The T110 Tank was a cancelled heavy tank project from the 1950s, which was due to replace the M103 heavy tank. Restrictions were placed on the vehicle sizing as the tank was supposed to pass through the narrow tunnels of the Bernese Alps, none of which actually met the restrictions, but did not enter service due to the redundancy [ Clarification needed ]

The tank was planned to be powered by a Continental Motors, Inc. AV-1790-3 engine powerplant delivering around 875 hp.

T110 Tank
Type heavy tank
Place of origin United States
Service history
In service Proposed, and 1 mock-up built
Used by United States Army
Production history
Designer Chrysler Motors Army Tank Plant
Manufacturer Detroit Arsenal Army Tank Plant
Number built 1 prototype ( T110E5 mock up)
Variants T110E1, T110E2, T110E3, T110E4, and T110E5
Weight 50 Tons
Crew 4 (Commander, Gunner, Driver, and Loader)(E5) - 5 (Commander, Gunner, Driver, and 2 Loaders)(in E1, E2, E3, and E4)






Compatible Equipment

Compatible Consumables

Player Opinion

Pros and Cons

  • Good alpha damage and increased penetration over the T30's 155mm variant.
  • Has a mounted turret.
  • Decent mobility and top speed.
  • Acceptable frontal armor.
  • Very large weakspots on turret and hull. Gun mantlet its only 254mm of armor.
  • Mediocre -6 degrees of gun depression also limits hulldown tactics.
  • The turret has limited traverse, only 90° each side, making it very vulnerable to flanking
  • Weak sides below the tracks and lowglacis, and a large rear engine mount are easily penetrated. Unreliable at sidescraping.
  • The ammo rack is very weak, and gets damaged often when hit.


The T110E4 is everything players wished the T30 could be on maps with flat ground, but their play styles are totally different: T30 has strong turret with -10° of gun depression, a decent side hull, but bad frontal hull armor that means is perfect for play it in hull down and sidescraping positions The T110E4 trades armor on the turret and gun depression in favor of a thicker frontal hull that can be used to bait shoots on corners so don´t try to play like a T30 or you will go back to the garage really soon. The good news is your improved firepower in your gun: all kind of shells have a huge armor penetration and big alpha damage, allowing you to penetrate almost everything in front of you. However, the price of this power is the terrible gun handling, low dpm and the poor gun angles mentioned before.

With all these characteristics the T110E4 is half tank destroyer/ half heavy tank: not really good as tank destroyer as well as a heavy tank, it´s just a mix, so its play style depends strongly on the maps which is played. In the open maps, it´s better to play like a sniper support (your armor at long range works well, the only problem is your gun handling) while in close combats it´s better to play like a heavy support. Remember, you are a support tank, enemies will flank and destroy you easily if you try to fight alone.

The best way to play T110E4 is in corners, baiting shoots with its good upper hull armor. Sidescraping may work with some adjustments: you have a lot of weak spots and your turret can´t sustain well the enemy fire because is flat, so you've to be very careful not to over expose them.

This T110E4 is challenging to play, but if you are smart, the T110E4 can be a versatile and rewarding machine.

Suggested Equipment

External Reviews and Opinions


Historical Info

Initiated on December 3, 1954, the T110 120mm heavy tank project began (Estes). Prior work had begun on October 30 for cannons to be used in this project, the T204 and T179, 120mm cannons. On September 18, 1956 the project would be canceled in light of the success of the T43 project which would lead to the M103 (Estes). The T110 began life as concept TS-31 and was given to Chrysler Corporation with their proposal being the 120mm gun tank T110 (Hunnicutt). There were multiple versions of the T110 that were proposed. The initial proposal was rejected as its dimensions would of prohibited the vehicles passage through the Berne International Tunnel, a requirement for the project (Hunnicutt). A further requirement was that the vehicle have a 50 ton weight limit (Hunnicutt). As design progressed the T123E1 was selected as the cannon (Hunnicutt). In total there were five T110 designs (Hunnicutt). The names Chrysler and Detroit Arsenal should be considered interchangeable when reading on the development of this tank. To be clear the Detroit Arsenal, or Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant (DATP) was established by Chrysler but owned and by the United States government and alternately would be Army operated or contractor operated (“Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant”). Chrysler operated the facility during the development of the T110 having regained it from the Army in 1952 (“Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant”).

The T110E4 represents the 4th proposal for the T110 project. The T110E4 was Chrysler’s response to the problems in their T110E3 design(power pack issues). Note that the Chrysler T110E3 proposal was almost identical to the T110E4 save for being slightly shorter due to a worse powerpack, and is not to be confused with the Detroit T110E3. The T110E4 was planned with an AOI-1490 engine located in the rear of the hull along with the transmission. The rear section of the hull was to be covered with infrared shielding. The main weapon of the T110 series (the T123 120 mm gun, prototype to the M58) was to be mounted in a gimbal ring mount.This arrangement gave the T110E4 15 degrees of movement either left or right and -10 to +20 degrees of depression/elevation. The gun mantlet was to weight

230 mm thick without any curvature being taken into consideration. The rest of the T110E4′s hull was to be protected by 127 mm of armor sloped at 60 degrees(254 mm of effective armor). There was to be 4 crew members with the driver and gunner being located uncomfortably in the front of the vehicle wedged against 127 mm of armor. The cupola was to have a .30 caliber MG and was to use an OPTAR rangefinder using pulsed light.(Hunnicutt)

1. Estes, Kenneth W. M103 Heavy Tank 1950-74. Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2012. eBook.

2. Hunnicutt, R. P. Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank. Presidio, 86, 130, 172 – 176. Print.


120mm gun tank T110 - History

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.

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.

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.

120mm Gun Tank T 110 - Detroit's Wooden Tank

I am against the T-110 being in game. Unless it's made out of wood.

I like the final design, it's like a sleeker M103. The article says the T110 was a project for an improvement over the M103, was the tank supposed to have improved armor and firepower over the M103?

It was designed as an "improvement", but in what way I'm not really sure. It had comparable armor and the same gun. They probably intended to improve other aspects. The fact that it never even reached the prototype stage probably indicates that it wasn't much of an improvement.

I also like that the one constraint on the design was to fit through a certain specification of tunnel, but not a single one of the proposals even came close to that.

The T110 sixth proposal is in World of Tanks. It's a pretty good looking tank. In that game they interpreted it as basically a slightly improved M103, with slightly better mobility and slightly improved armor.


World War II Edit

Dedicated anti-tank vehicles made their first major appearance in the Second World War as combatants developed effective armored vehicles and tactics. Some were little more than stopgap solutions, mounting an anti-tank gun on a tracked vehicle to give mobility, while others were more sophisticated designs. An example of the development of tank destroyer technology throughout the war are the Marder III and Jagdpanzer 38 vehicle, that were very different in spite of being based on the same chassis: Marder was straightforwardly an anti-tank gun on tracks whereas the Jagdpanzer 38 traded some firepower (its Pak 39, designed to operate within the confines of a fully armored fighting compartment, fires the same projectiles from a reduced propellant charge compared to Marder's Pak 40) for better armor protection and ease of concealment on the battlefield.

Except for most American designs, tank destroyers were all turretless and had fixed or casemate superstructures. When a tank destroyer was used against enemy tanks from a defensive position such as by ambush, the common lack of a rotating turret was not particularly critical, while the lower silhouette was highly desirable. The turretless design allowed accommodation of a more powerful gun, typically a dedicated anti-tank gun (in lieu of a regular tank's general-purpose main gun that fired both anti-tank and high explosive ammunition) that had a longer barrel than could be mounted in a turreted tank on the same chassis. The lack of a turret increased the vehicle's internal volume, allowing for increased ammunition stowage and crew comfort. [2] Eliminating the turret let the vehicle carry thicker armor, and also let this armour be concentrated in the hull. Sometimes there was no armored roof (only a weather cover) to keep the overall weight down to the limit that the chassis could bear. The absence of a turret meant that tank destroyers could be manufactured significantly cheaper, faster, and more easily than the tanks on which they were based, and they found particular favor when production resources were lacking. After hard lessons early in the war, machine guns were mounted for use against infantry, but the limited traverse of the mounting meant that they were still less effective than those used on turreted tanks. [ citation needed ]

Major combatants Edit

Germany Edit

The first German tank destroyers were the Panzerjäger ("tank hunters"), which mounted an existing anti-tank gun on a convenient chassis for mobility, usually with just a three-sided gun shield for crew protection. For instance, 202 obsolete Panzer I light tanks were modified by removing the turret and were rebuilt as the Panzerjäger I self-propelled 4.7 cm PaK(t). Similarly, Panzer II tanks were used on the eastern front. Captured Soviet 76.2 mm anti-tank guns were mounted on modified Panzer II chassis, producing the Marder II self-propelled anti-tank gun. The most common mounting was a German 75 mm anti-tank gun on the Czech Panzer 38(t) chassis to produce the Marder III. The Panzer 38(t) chassis was also used to make the Jagdpanzer 38 casemate style tank destroyer. The Panzerjäger series continued up to the 88 mm equipped Nashorn.

German tank destroyers based on the Panzer III and later German tanks were unique in that they had more armor than their tank counterparts. One of the more successful German tank destroyers was actually designed as a self-propelled artillery gun, the Sturmgeschütz III. Based on the Panzer III tank chassis, the Sturmgeschütz III was originally fitted with a low-velocity gun, and was assigned to the artillery arm for infantry fire support. Later, after encountering Soviet tanks, it was refitted with a comparatively short-barreled high-velocity anti-tank gun, usually with a muzzle brake, enabling it to function as a tank destroyer. The Sturmgeschütz III from its 1938 origin used a new casemate-style superstructure with an integrated design, similar to the later Jagdpanzer vehicle designs' superstructure, to completely enclose the crew. It was employed in infantry support and offensive armored operations as well as in the defensive anti-tank role. The StuG III assault gun was Germany's most-produced fully tracked armoured fighting vehicle during World War II, and second-most produced German armored combat vehicle of any type after the Sd.Kfz. 251 half-track.

Although the early German Panzerjäger carried more effective weapons than the tanks on which they were based, they were generally lacking in protection for the crew, having thinly armored open-topped superstructures. The "open-topped" design format of the Panzerjäger vehicles was succeeded by the Jagdpanzer ("hunting tanks"), which mounted the gun in true casemate-style superstructures, completely enclosing the crew compartment in armor that was usually integral to the hull. The first of these Jagdpanzers was the 70-ton Ferdinand (later renamed Elefant), based on the chassis, hulls, and drive systems of ninety-one Porsche VK4501 (P) heavy tanks, mounting a long-barreled 88 mm cannon in an added casemate, more like the earlier Panzerjägers had with their added-on armor shielding for the gun crew, but in the Ferdinand completely enclosing the gun and firing crew in the added casemate, as the later purpose-built Jagdpanzers would. However, the Ferdinand was mechanically unreliable and difficult to maneuver, and once all ninety-one unturreted "Porsche Tiger" hulls/drive systems were converted, no more were built. The German Army had more success with the Jagdpanther. Introduced in mid-1944, the Jagdpanther, of which some 415 examples were produced, was considered the best of the casemate-design Jagdpanzer designs. [3] It featured the same powerful PaK 43 88 mm cannon used on the unwieldy Elefant, now fitted to the chassis of the medium Panther tank, providing greatly improved armor-penetrating capability in a medium-weight vehicle.

Facing an increasingly defensive war, the German Army turned to larger and more powerfully armed Jagdpanzer designs, and in July 1944 the first Jagdtiger rolled off the production line it was the heaviest German armored fighting vehicle to go into active service. [3] The Jagdtiger featured a huge 128 mm PaK 44 cannon and heavy armor protection. Only 88 Jagdtiger vehicles were produced, barely matching the total number of the earlier Ferdinand/Elefant vehicles. They were first deployed to combat units in September 1944.

The decision of German armored vehicle designers to use a casemate-style superstructure for all tank destroyers had the advantage of a reduced silhouette, allowing the crew to more frequently fire from defilade ambush positions. Such designs were also easier and faster to manufacture and offered good crew protection from artillery fire and shell splinters. However, the lack of a rotating turret limited the gun's traverse to a few degrees. This meant that the driver normally had to turn the entire tank onto its target, a much slower process than simply rotating a powered turret. [4] If the vehicle became immobilized due to engine failure or track damage, it could not rotate its gun to counter opposing tanks, making it highly vulnerable to counterfire. [5] This vulnerability was later exploited by opposing tank forces. Even the largest and most powerful of German tank destroyers were found abandoned on the field after a battle, having been immobilized by one or more hits by high explosive (HE) or armor-piercing (AP) shells to the track or front drive sprocket. [6]

Italy Edit

The most famous Italian tank destroyer of the Second World War was technically not a tank destroyer, but self-propelled artillery. The Semovente da 75/18, based on the M13/40 frame, was developed to support front-line infantry, and therefore has fixed armament: a 75 mm gun in casemate. However, thanks to its low height (185 cm) and the caliber of its gun the 75/18 also had good results in anti-tank combat, fighting against British and American (but not Soviet) units. After the Armistice of 1943, the 75/18 remained in use by German forces.

Built on the same frame, the Semovente da 105/25 was equipped with a 105 mm gun and known as "bassotto" (Italian for dachshund) due to its lower height. As manufacturing began in 1943, the 105/25 was used by German forces. A further development was the Semovente da 75/46, which had a longer gun than the 75/18 and inclined armour 100 mm thick, making it similar to Sturmgeschütz III. Only 11 of these were manufactured.

Before the Semovente da 75/18, the L40, built on an L6/40 frame, saw action in Africa and in Russia, but with disappointing results.

Soviet Union Edit

As with the Germans of 1943, most of the Soviet designs mounted anti-tank guns, with limited traverse in casemate-style turretless hulls, in a general design format looking much like the Germans' own Jagdpanzer vehicles. The results were smaller, lighter, and simpler to build weapons that could carry larger guns than any contemporary tank, including the King Tiger. The Soviets produced high numbers of the 85 mm SU-85 and 100 mm SU-100 self-propelled guns based on the same chassis as the T-34 medium tank the heavier-duty powertrain and hull of the IS-2 heavy tank were instead used to produce the heavier-hitting 122 mm -armed ISU-122 and 152 mm -armed ISU-152, both of which had impressive anti-tank capabilities earning each of them the Russian nickname Zveroboy ("beast killer") for their ability to destroy German Tigers, Panthers and Elefants. The predecessor of the ISU 152 was the SU-152, built on the KV-1s chassis and shared many similarities (including its gun) with the ISU-152. The ISU-152 built as a heavy assault gun, relied on the weight of the shell fired from its M-1937/43 howitzer to defeat tanks. [7] In 1943, the Soviets also shifted all production of light tanks like the T-70 to much simpler and better-armed SU-76 self-propelled guns, which used the same drive train. The SU-76 was originally designed as an anti-tank vehicle, but was soon relegated to the infantry-support role. [8]

United States Edit

U.S. Army and counterpart British designs were very different in conception. U.S. doctrine was based, in light of the fall of France, on the perceived need to defeat German blitzkrieg tactics, and U.S. units expected to face large numbers of German tanks, attacking on relatively narrow fronts. These were expected to break through a thin screen of anti-tank guns, hence the decision that the main anti-tank units—the Tank Destroyer (TD) battalions—should be concentrated and very mobile. In practice, such German attacks rarely happened. Throughout the war, only one battalion ever fought in an engagement like that originally envisaged (the 601st, at the Battle of El Guettar). The Tank Destroyer Command eventually numbered over 100,000 men and 80 battalions each equipped with 36 self-propelled tank destroyers or towed guns.

Only a few shots were expected to be fired from any firing position. Strong reconnaissance elements were provided so that TDs could use pre-arranged firing positions to best advantage. Flanking fire by TDs was emphasized, both to penetrate thinner enemy side armor, and to reduce the likelihood of accurate enemy return fire.

All American tank destroyers were officially known by exactly the same collective term used for American self-propelled artillery ordnance, gun motor carriage. The designs were intended to be very mobile and heavily armed. Most of the tank-hull based designs used special open-topped turrets of a differing design to the original tank it was based on, which was meant to both save weight and to accommodate a larger gun. The earliest expedient design was an M3 Half-track mounting an M1897 75 mm gun in a limited-traverse mount, and called the 75 mm Gun Motor Carriage M3. Another, considerably less successful, early design mounted a 37-mm anti-tank gun in the bed of a Dodge 3/4-ton truck—the 37-mm GMC M6. By far the most common US design, and the first that was fully tracked and turreted (which became the American hallmark of World War II "tank destroyer" design) was the 3in Gun Motor Carriage M10, later supplemented by the 90 mm Gun Motor Carriage M36—both based on the M4 Sherman hull and powertrain—and the 76 mm Gun Motor Carriage M18 (Hellcat), based on a unique hull and powertrain design, with a slight visual resemblance to what was used for the later M24 Chaffee light tank. The M18 came closest to the US ideal the vehicle was very fast, small, and mounted a 76 mm gun in a roofless open turret. The M36 Jackson GMC possessed the only American-origin operational gun that could rival the vaunted 88 mm German anti-tank ordnance, the 90 mm M3 gun, and the M36 remained in service well after World War II. The only dedicated American-origin, casemate hull design fighting vehicle of any type built during the war, that resembled the German and Soviet tank destroyers in hull and general gun mounting design, was the experimental T28 Super Heavy Tank, which mounted a 105 mm T5E1 long-barrel cannon, which had a maximum firing range of 12 miles (20 km), and was originally designed as a self-propelled assault gun to breach Germany's Siegfried Line defenses.

Of these tank destroyers, only the 90 mm gun of the M36 proved effective against the frontal armor of Germans' larger armored vehicles at long range. [9] The open top and light armor made these tank destroyers vulnerable to anything greater than small-arms fire. As the number of German tanks encountered by American forces steadily decreased throughout the war, most battalions were split up and assigned to infantry units as supporting arms, fighting as assault guns or being used essentially as tanks. In this sense they were an alternative to the Independent tank battalions that were attached to various Infantry Divisions.

The expectation that German tanks would be engaged in mass formation was a failed assumption. In reality, German attacks effectively used combined arms on the ground, fighting cohesively. American tank destroyer battalions comprised three tank destroyer companies supported by nine security sections. The single-purpose tactics of the tank destroyer battalion failed to account for non-tank threats. [10]

In the 1950s the goal of providing airborne forces with a parachute-capable self-propelled anti-tank weapon led to the deployment of the M56 Scorpion and M50 Ontos. The concept later led to the M551 Sheridan light tank of the mid-1960s.

United Kingdom Edit

British tanks in the early years of the war, both infantry tanks and cruiser tanks, were (with the exception of the pre-war Matilda I design) equipped with a gun capable of use against contemporary enemy tanks—the 40 mm Ordnance QF 2 pounder. This was replaced with the 57 mm Ordnance QF 6 pounder when that became available. There was extra impetus given to the development of anti-tank weaponry, which culminated in the 76mm Ordnance QF 17 pounder, widely considered one of the best anti-tank guns of the war. [11]

Towed anti-tank guns were the domain of the Royal Artillery and vehicles adapted to mount artillery, including anti-tank self-propelled guns such as the Deacon (6pdr on an armoured wheeled truck chassis) and Archer (17pdr on tracked chassis) and US-supplied vehicles, were their preserve rather than the Royal Armoured Corps..

The self-propelled guns that were built in the "tank destroyer" mould came about through the desire to field the QF 17 pounder anti-tank gun and simultaneous lack of suitable standard tanks to carry it. As a result, they were of a somewhat extemporized nature. Mounting the gun on the Valentine tank chassis in a fixed superstructure gave the Archer, looking somewhat like the light-chassis German Marder III in appearance. The 17 pounder was also used to re-equip the US-supplied M10 Tank Destroyer, replacing the American 3-inch gun to produce the 17pdr SP Achilles.

In 1942 the General Staff agreed on investigating self-propelled mountings of the 6-pounder, 17-pounder, 3-inch 20cwt guns and the 25-pounder field gun/howitzer on the Matilda II, Valentine , Crusader and Cavalier (Cruiser Mark VII) tank chassis. In October 1942 it was decided to progress using the Valentine chassis with a 17-pdr (which would become Archer) and 25-pdr (which entered service as Bishop) [12]

While there was a general move to a general purpose gun that was usable against both tanks and in supporting infantry, there was a need to put the 17 pdr into a tank for use against the enemy's heavy tanks. The Cruiser Mk VIII Challenger was a project to bring a 17 pdr tank into use to support the Cromwell cruiser tank. Delays led to it being outnumbered in use by the Sherman Firefly—but a derivative of Challenger was the more or less open-topped variant Avenger, which was delayed until post war before entering service. A cut-down 17 pdr, the 77mmHV was used to equip the Comet tank in the last year of the war.

The closest the British came to developing an armored tank destroyer in the vein of the German Jagdpanzers or Soviet ISU series was the Churchill 3-inch Gun Carrier—a Churchill tank chassis with a boxy superstructure in place of the turret and mounting a 3-inch anti-aircraft gun. Although a number were ordered and fifty delivered in 1942, [13] they were not put into service as the immediate threat passed. The design was rejected in favor of developing a 17 pounder armed Cromwell tank variant, ultimately leading to the Comet tank. The Tortoise "heavy assault tank", intended for use in breaking through fixed defensive lines, was well armoured and had a very powerful 32-pounder (94 mm) gun, but did not reach service use.

By 1944, a number of the Shermans in British use were being converted to Sherman Fireflies by adding the QF 17 pounder gun. Initially this gave each troop (platoon) of Shermans one powerfully armed tank. By war's end—through the production of more Fireflies and the replacement of Shermans by British tanks—about 50% of Shermans in British service were Fireflies.

Other combatants Edit

Romania Edit

Having faced big problems against Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks on the Eastern Front, the Romanian army leadership sought for ways to improve its anti-tank capabilites. The initial plan was the creation of a tank comparable in characteristics to the T-34 [14] instead, Romania went for a number of tank destroyers, since they were more adequate for its industry.

The Mareșal is probably the best known Romanian AFV from the war historians Steven Zaloga and Mark Axworthy state that it inspired the design of the later German Hetzer. [15] [16] Standing at only around 1.5 m tall, which would have made it very difficult to hit for its enemies, the Mareșal was a lightly armored, but highly mobile vehicle. It was armed with the Romanian 75 mm Reșița M1943 anti-tank gun, which proved to be among the best of its class during World War II. During tests, the Mareșal proved to be superior in many aspects to the StuG III G, against which it competed. Those facts suggest that the Mareșal would have been a very effective tank destroyer, had it been deployed into combat. However, it never saw action because the invading Soviet army had stopped its production. [17]

Other Romanian tank destroyers include the TACAM R-2 and TACAM T-60, which were converted from R-2 and T-60 light tanks respectively. Both of them saw action. One TACAM R-2 survives today and is displayed at the National Military Museum in Bucharest. [18] Another conversion was the VDC R-35, Romania's only turreted tank destroyer. Two other proposed tank destroyers existed: the TACAM R-1 and TACAM T-38. [19]

Poland Edit

Variants of the Polish TKS and TK-3 tankettes up-armed with 20 mm gun (23–26 vehicles) were operationally deployed in the invasion of Poland. [20] They were used as an anti-tank component of the reconnaissance units. There were also 37 mm armed TKS-D (2 experimental vehicles) and 45 mm armed TKD (4 experimental vehicles). It is not certain whether they were used operationally at all.

France Edit

Due to the quick defeat of France, few French vehicles were built. The Laffly W15 TCC (Chasseur de char) was an attempt to quickly build a light tank destroyer by mounting a 47 mm SA37 anti-tank gun onto a lightly armored Laffly W15T artillery tractor. Other French tank destroyers were being developed, including the SOMUA SAu-40, ARL V39 and various ad hoc conversions of the Lorraine 37L. [ citation needed ]

Post-World War II Edit

In the face of the Warsaw Pact, a general need for extra firepower was identified. In the late 1960s, West Germany developed the Kanonenjagdpanzer, essentially a modernized World War II Jagdpanzer mounting a 90 mm gun. As Soviet designs became more heavily armored, the 90 mm gun became ineffective and the Kanonenjagdpanzers were retrofitted for different roles or retired. Some provisions were made for the fitting of a 105 mm cannon, and many of the vehicles were modified to fire HOT or TOW missiles in place of a main gun. These upgraded variants remained in service into the 1990s. [21]

With the development of flexible anti-tank missiles, which were capable of installation on almost any vehicle in the 1960s, the concept of the tank destroyer has morphed into light vehicles with missiles. With the weight of main battle tanks growing to the forty to seventy-tonne range, airborne forces were unable to deploy reasonable anti-tank forces. The result was a number of attempts to make a light vehicle, including the conventional ASU-85, the recoilless rifle-armed Ontos, and missile-armed Hornet Malkara armored car and Sheridan light assault vehicle. The latest entry into that category is the 2S25 Sprut-SD, armed with a current-issue 125 mm tank gun that is also capable of launching missiles like the 9M119 Svir.

Many forces' infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) carry anti-tank missiles in every infantry platoon, and attack helicopters have also added anti-tank capability to the modern battlefield. But there are still dedicated anti-tank vehicles with very heavy long-range missiles, and ones intended for airborne use.

There have also been dedicated anti-tank vehicles built on ordinary armored personnel carrier or armored car chassis. Examples include the U.S. M901 ITV (Improved TOW Vehicle) and the Norwegian NM142, both on an M113 chassis, several Soviet ATGM launchers based on the BRDM reconnaissance car, the British FV438 Swingfire and FV102 Striker and the German Raketenjagdpanzer series built on the chassis of the HS 30 and Marder IFV.

A US Army combined arms battalion has two infantry companies with TOW missile-armed Bradley IFVs and can bring a large concentration of accurate and lethal fire to bear on an attacking enemy unit that uses AFVs. They can be complemented by mobile units of AH-64 Apache helicopters armed with Hellfire antitank missiles.

Missile carrying vehicles however are referred to as anti-tank missile carriers instead of tank destroyers.

Some gun-armed tank destroyers remain in use. China has developed the tracked PTZ89 and the wheeled PTL02 tank destroyers. The PTZ89 is armed with a 120 mm smoothbore cannon while the PTL02, developed by NORINCO for the PLA's new light (rapid reaction) mechanized infantry divisions, carries a 100 mm one (a version armed with a 105 mm rifled gun is available for export). The PTL02 is built on the 6×6 wheeled chassis of the WZ551 APC.

Italy and Spain use the Italian-built Centauro, a wheeled tank destroyer with a 105 mm cannon.

T110 – New Peak of American Tank Building

Recently World of Tanks developers team has announced the replacement of T30 (American Heavy Tank, 10 level) with the unknown T110 tank. The exchange of this high-level military vehicle is quite a remarkable affair therefore, we''ve decided to devote the article to this tank’s history.

Realization of TS-31 project was laid on Chrysler Corp., and its blueprint was called “tank T110 with 120-mm cannon”. The progress of work on this war machine is a visual evidence of the vitality of “classic” design.

Firstly, the U.S. Army rejected the T110 project due to its size, which caused inability to pass a standard tunnel, and bad commander''s turret deployment. Then the corporation offered another variant of layout, where the turret was moved to the middle of the hull, but then transmission problem turned out - the mechanician''s cab was placed in the combat. This was inappropriate for the military and that change remained undone. After coordinating the project with Detroit tank arsenal, the engineers’ team moved the transmission to rear arrangement. Now it was necessary to leave behind the idea of implementing the commander''s turret in order to save the proper size of the tank. Besides that, it was demanded to use air cooling engine AOI-1490, 700 h.p., instead of common AV-1790, using same XTG-500 transmission. And the 120-mm cannon was replaced by a rigid structure. Right after that some new problems with the power plant service appeared – it was almost impossible to get to it. Thus, it was decided to wheel the engine out through the hatch in the stern using special rails, but this construction lowered rigidity of the hull significantly.

In the end, Chrysler presented the fourth variant of the project. Now the engine AOI1490 with transmission XTG-510 was put into the stern section of the hull. Although the length of the vehicle increased, many power plant problems disappeared. The 120-mm cannon was installed inflexibly in a mask that provided 15° horizontal firing angles and inclination angles from +20° to – 10°. This way, one of the problems of the project was the mask design. It had to be 230 mm thick and its weight was 2 tons. The front plate and the chart house had 127 mm armor inclined at the angle of 60°. Auxiliary armament consisted on a 7.62 mm machinegun coupled with the cannon and on 12.7 machine-gun in the commander''s turret. The telescopic sight Т156 was used for firing and as a subsidiary one there was М16А1 periscopical sight. The commander was supposed to have a range finder Т53 Optar on the roof of the chart house. That device was an optical range finder that used light impulses for ascertaining distances. Obviously, the thing being invented before laser couldn''t do its job well, for it suffered greatly from sunlight patches.

The driver''s seat was moved in this variant to the left side of the combat section – right to the cannon. This kind of driver''s and gun layer''s placement made designers avoid implying big angle of the front plate inclination. Therefore, it was necessary to increase thickness of the front armor. That became the main shortcoming of the stationary chart house usage instead of a common turret on a tank.

The next logical decision was to replace the chart house with a turret and it revealed to be totally possible considering the planned 50-tons mass of the tank. As a result, a new blueprint appeared of a classically arranged vehicle that included some already produced components. The project was very easy and cheap to produce. That escort tank became the fifth variant of Chrysler''s project. The 120 mm cannon was inflexibly fastened to the turret''s mask that had a standard 2.15 m base like tank M103. The main difference between that variant and standard arrangement was gun layer''s and commander''s placement – to the left from the cannon. One of loaders left the crew being replaced with a mechanical rammer thus, the crew was cut up to four. The range finder Optar T53 was expected to be installed on the left wall of the turret to allow both commander and gun layer to use it. In comparison with previous variants, T110 managed better with firing and provided more efficient aimed bombardment. The project finally came to the final state when the mockup of the tank was produced and was presented to Detroit arsenal specialists. Yet by that time the project of heavy Т43 - Т43Е2 tank modernization had been approved later on, it led to the cancellation of all works on T110.

Tank M60A1 on this photo looks very much like T110 which we will meet in the game

Opinions of Experienced Players

GoHa.Ru : Probably, the most important change for clan’s battles is the replacement of T30 with T110. What was the motivation of this change, in your opinion?

Moonkiss [RED] :
Maybe developers are trying to reanimate the Tank Destroyer (TD) tree with this move. The main disadvantage of TD so far was the absence of turrets. If developers will say that now T-30 belongs to TD tree, this will make TD much more appealing.
_Pastor_ [Steel alliance] :
Design faults at launch of top American Heavy Tanks Tree. It is not a secret that in 0.6.3patch, which introduced American tanks to the game, all tech tree of heavy tanks from T29 to T30 was, to put it mildly, mixed up. Reason for this is obvious – all these tanks are similar, with differences only in form of turret and installed cannon.
After the launch of the patch people started playing, bugs were fixed, and players were satisfied. But after that developers faced the dilemma – either they should leave everything as it is and forget about historical accuracy, or they should move T30 to its proper place among American tank destroyers, with T110 taking his place in the heavy tanks tree. The latter is obviously going to be implemented in the next patch 0.6.5, which, according to developers, will be launched in June.

GoHa.Ru: Many players are anxious about the 120mm cannon of T110, since it will be the smallest cannon caliber among currently existing level 10 heavy tanks. What do you think, how the developers are going to compensate this deficiency? Maybe, with a very high rate of fire or with additional precision?

Moonkiss [RED] : American cannons are known for their high DPS values and this one will not be an exception. Besides, skill is more important than the caliber. I am sure that a smaller caliber will allow higher speed of a shell, which should increase accuracy. Moreover, the high “arc” of T-30 will be absent.
You can also compare it to ST-9. The caliber of it is even smaller, but overall DPS is higher and the shooting is easier to handle.

_Pastor_ [Steel alliance] : Most likely with both. Currently, German cannons are undisputed leaders in rate of fire and accuracy, but a heavy American tank (taking into account wishes of European and American players) should be ranked higher among his Soviet and German counterparts.
Same to medium tanks, T110 should take place of a “support tank”, “tank of second breakthrough line”. For this reason it will be given a cannon with good precision, rate of fire, armor piercing… but with lower damage.

GoHa.Ru : Along with the small caliber cannon, the armor of T110 is also not really impressive. Moreover, released screenshots show a commander’s cupola on the turret, which, as we know, means a spot of practically 100% probability of piercing. Do you think that a smaller cannon and weaker armor can compensate for these weaknesses?

Moonkiss [RED] : First of all, the cannon’s elevation angle. American tanks can shoot from the top of a hill, while positioning themselves so that only a turret is visible. In this way, a “soft” body is hidden. If DPS of T110 is compared to that of the current T-30, it will be a good tank for a city rush. The enemy tanks will be popping up, unable to produce sufficient damage to stop the rush. In this scenario a cannon with higher rate of fire will be much more effective than the slower counterparts, since the 120mm gun can make at least two shots while the cannons of enemies are recharging.
Taking into account the significant advantage in DPS, the armor of attacking tanks doesn’t really matter. Another positive moment is that with the higher rate of cannon fire it will be much easier to knock down the enemy tank, there will be no wasted DPS that went into the almost dead tank.

_Pastor_ [Steel alliance] : One can draw the analogy with the medium tanks tree. What is the advantage and peculiarity of M26 Pershing in comparison to T54 or Panther 2?
Its mobility. Its ability to cause damage and disappear immediately, avoiding the retaliation. Yes, face-to- face against Maus or IS-7 T110 will be most likely defeated (due to ricochets from the first one and due to weaker armor of the second one). Again – these are only suppositions. But taking into account more hit points than in M26 Pershing, and adding good rate of fire and good mobility, we see the tank that will be indispensable in clan wars as a “base defender” or a “support tank”.
On the other hand, it is well-known, that developers may add something special to this tank. And it will turn out only at 0.6.5 patch launch. (T110 will appear after the patch 6.5., Pastor has mistaken here)

GoHa.Ru : What is your opinion on running performance of T110? Speed and maneuverability are often as important as big cannon and thick armor.

Moonkiss [RED] : Here one needs to take into account not only running performance of the tank, but also turning speed of the turret. For example, it is very hard to go-round a T30 on a middle tank. I think American tanks will be left with good acceleration on plain ground and maneuverability problems on rough terrain. I do not think the maximum speed will reach or exceed the speed of IS-7, but it would be nice.

_Pastor_ [Steel alliance] : As I have already said earlier – it will be on par with other American tanks. This means the maneuverability of T110 will be highest of all level10 HTs, but speed is lower in comparison with IS-7.

GoHa.Ru : Will the smaller size of T110 in comparison with other heavy tanks play any role?

Moonkiss [RED] : This is definitely a plus – it makes him harder to hit and allows him to use a cover efficiently .

_Pastor_ [Steel alliance] : Yes, of course. Other HT, for example, Maus, are very hard to hide from artillery fire or tank destroyers, especially on open maps. T110 has all chances to stop the sad tradition of heavy tanks being an “artillery training target”.

GoHa.Ru : Do you like the appearance of this pinnacle of American Tank designing? Many think its proportions are skewed.

Moonkiss [RED] : Well, the phrase “A tank is a tower on tracks” describes precisely the American style of tank designing, both in appearance and in characteristics. T110 only reinforces this impression.

_Pastor_ [Steel alliance] : Proportions may be skewed, but battle efficiency will be top notch. The turret is almost in the middle of the tank, plus high maneuverability, plus high turret rotation speed. This means that any tank, aiming at its front (and, in my opinion, sides as well), will not be able to pierce it or will ricochet away.
The battle efficiency must be high –T110 will not need a lot of place for maneuver, targeting and shooting are also fast. And as a result, you get burning tanks of its enemies. And the appearance is really of secondary importance. Many players dislike the look of Maus, ob.212, etc., but this does not make them less efficient than others.
Similar situation is with М4А3Е8 in the middle tanks tree. Good skills provided, this paper-thin vehicle will pierce all enemies of same level without problems. That’s what I expect here as well.

Screen of Т110 with different turrets (on the left is the one currently in consideration)

GoHa.Ru : Probably, the most important change for clan’s battles is the replacement of T30 with T110. What has motivated you to make this change?

SerB : The reason is that in game T30 plays like anti-tank SPG, therefore we decided to move this vehicle to the Tank Destroyers Tree and exchange it with T110 tank in the Heavy Tanks Tree. At the same time, we remove T34 from the American Tree, and make it a premium tank. Its place within heavy tanks tree will be occupied by the famous M103.

GoHa.Ru : Many players are anxious about the 120mm cannon of T110, since it will be the smallest cannon caliber within currently existing level 10 heavy tanks. How the developers are going to compensate this deficiency? Maybe, with a very high rate of fire or with additional precision?

SerB :
As far as the 120mm cannon is concerned, this is a rather modern weapon with very good characteristics, including high armor piercing. The parameters of this cannon will be more than adequate.

GoHa.Ru : Along with the small caliber cannon, the armor of T110 is also not really impressive. Moreover, released screenshots show a commander’s cupola on the turret, which, as we know, means a spot of practically 100% probability of piercing. What do you think, will a smaller cannon and weaker armor compensate for these weaknesses?

SerB : Well, T110 is, actually, very similar to M103. Americans tried to make it smaller and equip it with better armor. New USA top heavy tank will be well armed, since it will possess no longer that hellish uber-cannon, but it will be better armored significantly. In short, now it will be a tank, not an SPG.
As far as the cupola is concerned, Americans liked to play with vehicle gun defense on tanks. But a similar cupola can be found on KV-5, for example. There is nothing we can do, we can only advise players to be very careful with it in battle.

GoHa.Ru : Will the running performance of T110 be good in the game? Speed and maneuverability are often as important as a big cannon and thick armor.

SerB : It will be very good, since, as I said earlier, it will be a smaller M103. Generally speaking, the handling of this vehicle will resemble that of IS-7 – it will be a relatively compact, mobile tank with solid armor.

GoHa.Ru : Will the smaller size of T110 in comparison to other heavy tanks play any role?

SerB : Without a doubt. Smaller vehicles are much harder to hit, therefore T110 will definitely be a much harder target than the current American top heavy tank.

GoHa.Ru : Do you like the appearance of this pinnacle of American Tank designing? Many think its proportions are skewed.

SerB : The tank looks rather awkward with M103 turret, but with its own turret it looks OK. Most likely, we will make that turret the only choice for T110.

The last one looks very good :D

Jesus, M1A1 on tier 7 tank…

but it’s the same m1a1? or with a better pen like they tried with the t44-85?

I’m not aware of any different M1A1, we’ll see… I mean, it might work with good ROF, mobility and limited MM…

But cheap ammo.. I like that

According to Tank Inspector, here are the stats of the gun:
18.961 round/min
0.384 acc
2.21 s aim time
AP 115/128
APCR 110/177
HE 185/38

If that’s correct, it’s pretty much the same thing as M1A2 on Easy 8.

if they would simply make APCR the standard-ammo for the t23 there wouldnt be any problems :)

If it has a good mobility, it might be ok

13.88 hp/ton
40°/s traverse speed
56,3 km/h (forward and reverse)
Terrain Resistance:
Hard: 0.575
Med: 0.671
Soft: 1.055

Mobility may compare to the T-62A. A pair of awesome tracks with low terrain resistance would compensate the lack of horse power. Would expect it to be a fine t7 med if it gets limited MM

I guess so. Even if the specs don’t seem like much, I can see it being alright with the limited MM.

My Bad, its a Shit med tank

My sentiments exactly – that gun is fine for Tier5, getting to quite bad at Tier6.. but in Tier7!? Even on premium tank? Rly? :-O
Do devs not remember the not so far history with premium T44 tank?

Wow the turret looks awesome on the T95E6, but oh wait! Theres again the tumor in the size of a house!

Stats for T95E6 please? I have Tank Inspector but I will not download the CT anytime soon.

According to tank inspector:
6.518 round/min
0.384 acc
2.21 s aim time
+20/-9 elevation
36°/s turret traverse
AP 400/258
HEAT 400/340
HE 515/60

traverse 46°/s
Max speed 56.3 km/h

Like a clumsier M48 + actual turret armor, much needed extra speed and 10 damage more. Still, unfortunately, better than M48/M60.

What is the effective armor VS AP on the upper glacis plate?

Up-left and Up-right of UFP: Up to

230mm or autobounce because of the side-slopping armor.

Those supertesters must have absolutely crappy computer, to run the game on such a low settings.

Supertester vehicles aren’t fully optimised graphics wise.

Those pictures are taken from Tank Viewer, not in-game…

Look at Grosstraktor’s HP.
Thats insane.

And T95′s gun mantle. 390mm. And turret front 342.
Imagine that 342mm armor behind that mantle. HOLY SHIT 730MM OF ARMOR? T92 will do NO DAMAGE TO IT. 11111oneone111one

There is nothing behind the mantlet.

USA reward tank my fucking ass.
After making sure that my generation cannot get the tank we served in (M60), those two words, ‘reward tank’ just goat me. I know we are not the largest and most numeros of the playerbase, but it is our generation that are willing to spend a lot of $.

Apart from a few of the super iconic WW2 tanks, the M60 is probably the tank the are most desired by my generation (EU and NA servers ofc).
Why are they shooting them self in the foot this way, making sure that we can newer spend money on M60.
Think of all those american family fathers age 50-70, they all remember the good old M60 and they all want it.

More than 5300 M60 are still in service around the world, and at least 15 countries are still using M60 as their front line MBT.

so what your saying is WG should put the m60 on sale and let everyone buy it even those that have 500-1000 battles?

Yep, and IIRC they kept saying nooo, M60 can not be put after M46 (when T10 mediums were just to be introduced), it is too modern. Then people told them that it will be a bad idea to make it as a reward tank. Now they keep saying they regret making it so. It is such a pity.

Not really, I have M48 which is esentially the same. But M48 in game being so similiar make me only feel more sorry that they did not put that iconic M60 at least next to it. It feels right to have ‘M60′ on top of the tree, fighting T62s and Leopard 1s. It would work the same way as does T62s and its copies in game. Like when you have Obj140 and still you buy T62 because it is T62 and it just feels right to have it at the end of a line. And if real life tanks would dominate T10 battles would make me quite happy. Having M48, M60, T62, Leopards, Centurions and other around and against me would make me enjoy it more than all those prototype german VKs, Es, US Ts, Russian Objs, UK FVs…. they are all nice and everything, but you get what I mean….

I think you’re thinking of the M60A1 or A3. Ingame the M60 is really just an M48A5 with modified hull and fat ass.

The current M48 in game doesn’t have the 90mm gun, making it the A5 variant as well.

So what I’m saying is there is little difference between the M48 and 60 ingame both visually and gameplay-wise, and the M60 resembles the M48A5 more than the M60A1. So if you want an actual M60 (not an A1 variant) get the M48.

Keep seeing tanks that are in the 1970s… keep those up WG and we might add a M1 Abrams to counter 1945 maus.

1961 is the unofficial time limit if you exclude Chinese vehicles, who only began modifying and producing own tanks after 1955.

What tanks from 1970? Maybe you need a pair of glasses because the most modern tank in game is STB-1 from 1968 with the Leopard 1 at 1965

That is two tanks among the hundreds available in-game.

Dunno why you’re complaining here, but the T95E6 was a late 50s tank

“T95E6 – tier 10 USA reward tank, it has T110′s 120mm gun”

That gun doesn’t look like M103′s or T110E5′s gun.

It’s T123E6, the “E”:part is specific to minor redesigns to fit different vehicles, but basically the gun T123 is the prototype of the M58

so wait, grosstraktor’s a prem??

i want Multi turret Mechanism for the Großtracktor:D

That grosstraktor back gun better work so you can shoot enemies who come behind or turn yourself sideways to make full broadside fire ) liht ship of the lines

of course it cant, what an idiotic wop….

Like on WOT I don’t get banned for my language

So these tanks will come out when 8.11 goes live? I really want the Grosstraktor :)

no. supertester!! are you a supertester? no! so none of these for you

I am sure I am not the only one found the rear turret on Gross tractor.

You know, it’s unfortunate that American tank designers didn’t factor World of Tanks into their designs when they stuck those huge cupolas on their early Cold War tanks. -_-

neonxmoose99 on January 25, 2014 at 1:34 am said:

I like how the thickest part of the Grosstracktor is the gun

And second strongest are tracks. :-) Is thist tank really going to be labeled as “heavy”?

Design and Development

The original project of T110 was rejected by the military because of its excessive size (it wouldn’t fit in the standard tunnel) and a poorly allocated commander tower, placed on the left. The company suggested another variant – the tower was placed at the center of the body, but, to solve the issue with fitting in the transmission, the driver-mechanic’s place was placed in the combat compartment. The latter was also ill received by the military and the driver’s was returned to the original place. When endorsing the project with the Detroit tank arsenal, the drive layout was decided to be remade into rear-wheeled. Now it was necessary to remove the commander tower altogether to keep the size in check. In addition, according to the order, instead of the AV-1790 engine, they had to use an air-cooled AOI-1490 with the power of 700 HP and the same XTG-500 transmission. The 120-mm T123E1 gun was placed on solid setting. Now there appeared problems with the power unit: it was out of reach. It was decided to make the engine “roll out” on the rails through a large manhole in the body’s rear. But a manhole like that drastically lowered the body’s rigidity.

After all these troubles, Chrysler came up with the fourth variant of the tank. Now the AOI1490 engine and XTG-510 transmission were placed in the rear compartment of the tank, in a classic manner. The length of the body increased, but it would solve most of the problems with the power unit. The 120-mm gun was placed solidly in the mask, providing horizontal firing angles of 15 degrees to the sides and inclination angles of +20 degrees and -10 degrees. Constructing the cannon’s mask proved problematic. It has to be 230mm thick and weigh just under two tons. The body’s forehead sheet and the cabin defense was equal to a 127-mm sheet angled at 60 degrees. The support weapons included a 7,62mm machinegun, that was paired with the cannon and a 12,7-mm machinegun located in the commander tower. The telescopic sight T156 were used for shooting. M16A1 periscopic sight was used as a back-up. The tank commander was able to use the T53 “OPTAR” rangefinder, installed on the top of the cabin. “OPTAR” was an optical rangefinder, used to evaluate the range covered by light impulses. Needless to say that this device, preceding the laser technology, wasn’t very effective and suffered from light dazzles.

The driver’s place was placed in the left side – near the gun. With such driver and gunner placement, the forehead armor had to be made with a lesser angle, so it was required to make it much thicker. This was the main downside of utilizing an immovable cabin instead of a tower.

The next logical step – replacing the cabin with a tower, that was possible while staying in the planned 50-ton limits of the machine. As the result, a classically composed tank was made, in which were utilized many of the already existing units, that was able to be built fairly quickly and cheaply. This tank became the fifth Chrysler’s project. The 120-mm gun was solidly fastened to the tower mask, having the standard 2,15-m epaulet like in the M103 heavy tank. The main difference from the standard composition became the placement of the gunner and the commander to the left of the gun. The team was reduced to four people – one of the loaders was excluded, replaced by a mechanical loader. The “OPTAR” T53 rangefinder was installed on the left side of the tower and could be used by both the gunner and the commander of the tank. Compared to the tower-less variant, the new T110 was providing better firing ability and quicker target hitting. The project had made it to the final stange – it was constructed and shown to the specialists of the Detroit arsenal in the form of a full-sized tank model. However, by that time, the modification project of T43-T43E2 heavy tank was successfully accepted, and that, together with the decision to concentrate the attention on lighter tanks, lead to the end of all works on T110.

Top 10 Tanks of all time

Since the First World War, tanks have become an integral part of modern and conventional warfare. Following is the list of world’s top ten tanks according to their firepower capability and battlefield maneuverability.

Country of Origin: USSR
Maximum Speed: 55 km/hr
Armor: 65mm
Gun: 76.2

This Soviet machine takes the lead in the best tank for a number of reasons. With unmatched combat power, strong armor, and amazing maneuverability makes T-34 the most desirable equipment of conventional warfare. Possibly the best feature of T-34 is its intimidating appearance, which can scare enemies even from a large distance.

Country of Origin: United States
Maximum Speed: 75km/hr
Gun: 120mm

Most geometric as well as feared tank in the battlefield, the M1s sprint towards enemy ranks could put fear into their hearts. Although among the expensive machines, M1 is considered the superior tank over any tank made anywhere in the world.

Country of Origin: Germany
Maximum Speed: 37km/hr
Armor: 100mm
Gun: 88mm

Tiger put Germany at the front of tank possessing nations during the Second World War. At the time, speed and size of the tank could not go hand in had, but Tiger tank changed all that. It was heavy – super heavy – extremely intimidating but at the same time possessing a decent speed with amazing 88mm caliber gun with incredible destructive power.

Country of Origin: England
Maximum Speed: 6.5 km/hr
Armor: 6-12 mm
Gun: a pair of 6-ponder guns

Tanks were born during the First World War out of necessity and England lead the tank production industry with innovation and bravery. One of the very first ancestors of the modern tanks was WWI Tank. This was the first time the word ‘Tank’ was used in battlefield. World’s first armored vehicle, this tank had a thin armor but was enough to sustain the bullets and shelling of WWI guns. Extremely intimidating, its presence alone was a crucial factor in many victories.

Country of Origin: England
Maximum Speed: 35 km/hr
Armor: 17-152 mm
Gun: 105 mm

Although not the best machine, when it comes to maneuverability, the Centurion tank however had a very desirable armor and production cost was cheap as well. Centurion was another British addition to the tank technology. British companies were making tanks on a large scale during and after the Frist world war, and Centurion was one of the large-scale production items, the A Fun 4 You reports.

Country of Origin: Germany
Maximum Speed: 40 km/hr
Armor: 50mm
Gun: 75mm

Pz IV’s maneuverability beats all its contemporaries, and its strong armor compliments its status. Its speed and armor came in very handy for Germany, but its production cost was very high and authorities had to abandon the project, since German treasury could not afford it.

Country of Origin: England
Maximum Speed: 60 km/hr
Armor: classified
Gun: 120 mm rifled gun

Considered the most handsome tank, Challenger has a great destructive power with an amazing 120 mm canon power. The armor of challenger is particularly thick with an above average maneuverability. This tank is not particularly intimidating but it does the job with great efficiency and productivity.

Country of Origin: USSR
Maximum Speed: 50 km/hr
Armor: 203mm
Gun: 100mm

Although not among the best of the lot, T-54/55 has low production and could be particularly effective when deployed in large numbers. T-54/55’s mediocre quality is compensated with its lightweight and cool features.

Country of Origin: Israel
Maximum Speed: 55km/hr
Gun: 120mm

Considered as modern day equivalent of ‘King’s Guards’, due to its close to impenetrable armor and super heavy weight. Markova tanks are not produced on a large scale due to high costs, but it has great firepower and combat strength, so every unit produced is worth it.

Country of Origin: United States
Maximum Speed: 39km/hr
Armor: 62mm
Gun: fast 75mm

The Ford company came up with the most maneuverable and low cost tank and completely revolutionized the tank industry. Although the firepower and armor is not the best in the lot, Sherman’s super maneuvering skills compensated everything and proved to be a great choice during the War.


  1. Adel

    You are wrong. I offer to discuss it. Write to me in PM, we will handle it.

  2. Oswiu

    Absolutely agree with you. I think it's an excellent idea.

Write a message