tanks/vehicles Top Tier US Heavy Tank: The T110E5

[Panzerzwerg 2,682]

Yes, your eyes are not tricking you, this goes about the T110E5. I know that "the other game" features this tank as Tier X Heavy Tank, but that doesn't mean WT can't have it. 

 

History:

 

After introducing into service the M103 Heavy Tank, which still had its flaws, the US Army continued to develop heavy tanks. One project being the T110 Series. 

 

Speaking about the T110 Heavy Tank series, these vehicles successfully raised many questions among people, especially about their existence. Even after deploying the M103 Heavy Tank, the Americans were still not satisfied with its performance on the battlefield. Thus, it was decided to recreate it again with 2 methods – evolutionary and revolutionary ones. The former was an attempt to improve its performance by mounting an autoloader system, eventually resulting in the development of the T57 (120 mm) and T58 (155 mm, also a derivative from the T30 Heavy Tank). And the latter was an attempt to create the tank from scratch.

 

At some point, one of the Chrysler’s engineers had a perfect concept for a T110 “Heavy Tank”. It was designated as T110E5.

The finished concept was very similar with the M103 Heavy Tank, but moretechnically sophisticated, and of course protected better.

 

As a result, it was decided to launch the concept of the T110E5, but there was some little trouble. In February 1956, the T110E5 was cancelled, as the test site was already attended by the T43E2 Heavy Tank for trials, which was laterput into service as the M103A1 Heavy Tank. Although it was not as perfect as the T110E5, it was already classified as suitable for the US Army and ready for production.

 

Data:

 

Armament: 120mm M58, one cal.30 MG and one cal.50 in the Commanders Cupola. 

 

Armour:

 

-254/76/38 Hull Armour (mm)

-203/127/76 Turret Armour (mm)

 

Speed: 37 km/h

 

Ammunition:

-M358 APBC-T

-M469 HEAT-FS-T

-M356 HE-T

 

There is very little information about this tank officially available, so feel free to comment more data. 

 

Mod edit (02/04/2019): Correction of use of false visual materials (pictures) to showcase the vehicle in question.

Measure: Added correct pictures (from comments), preserved originals posted by OP as part of a spoiler below edited pictures.

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

Original pictures:

Spoiler

 

(Some of you may recognise the last picture from acrzer25's suggestion about the T54E2 which passed to development. Its actually the T110E5, the T54E looks like this:  314px-T54HG2.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by CokeSpray
Replacement of incorrect pictures

[blakeob 8,086]

Open for discussion. 

[WulfPack 1,693]

Would you know the LFP thickness?

[Panzerzwerg 2,682]

1 hour ago, WulfPack said:

Would you know the LFP thickness?

 

According to "the other game" which generally gets Armour correct, its 127-152mm. Decently sloped.

[Apache_Warrior 607]

I am almost 100% sure it was already proposed, with more data.

[Panzerzwerg 2,682]

1 minute ago, Apache_Warrior said:

I am almost 100% sure it was already proposed, with more data.

 

And i am almost 100% sure that it doesn't matter. If you can find the link to the older thread, feel free to post it here. More Data is always welcome. 

 

You probably mean the T54E2 Suggestion. 

Edited September 12, 2016 by Panzerzwerg

[Apache_Warrior 607]

3 minutes ago, Panzerzwerg said:

 

And i am almost 100% sure that it doesn't matter. If you can find the link to the older thread, feel free to post it here. More Data is always welcome. 

 

You probably mean the T54E2 Suggestion. 

 

Yep, I just looked for it: 

It is indeed T54E2... well, I am no expert in prototype USA AFVs, but this thing looks the same as what you posted. We (or just I) could use some clarification why those two look alike, or why this prototype has different designations.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Apache_Warrior

[Nope 10,634]

You are confusing the T54E1 with the T54E2. The E2 did not have a oscillating turret, but a conventional turret.

Edited September 12, 2016 by Nope

[arczer25 5,202]

2 hours ago, Panzerzwerg said:

Yes, your eyes are not tricking you, this goes about the T110E5. I know that "the other game" features this tank as Tier X Heavy Tank, but that doesn't mean WT can't have it. 

 

History:

 

After introducing into service the M103 Heavy Tank, which still had its flaws, the US Army continued to develop heavy tanks. One project being the T110 Series. 

 

Speaking about the T110 Heavy Tank series, these vehicles successfully raised many questions among people, especially about their existence. Even after deploying the M103 Heavy Tank, the Americans were still not satisfied with its performance on the battlefield. Thus, it was decided to recreate it again with 2 methods – evolutionary and revolutionary ones. The former was an attempt to improve its performance by mounting an autoloader system, eventually resulting in the development of the T57 (120 mm) and T58 (155 mm, also a derivative from the T30 Heavy Tank). And the latter was an attempt to create the tank from scratch.

 

At some point, one of the Chrysler’s engineers had a perfect concept for a T110 “Heavy Tank”. It was designated as T110E5.

The finished concept was very similar with the M103 Heavy Tank, but moretechnically sophisticated, and of course protected better.

 

As a result, it was decided to launch the concept of the T110E5, but there was some little trouble. In February 1956, the T110E5 was cancelled, as the test site was already attended by the T43E2 Heavy Tank for trials, which was laterput into service as the M103A1 Heavy Tank. Although it was not as perfect as the T110E5, it was already classified as suitable for the US Army and ready for production.

 

Data:

 

Armament: 120mm M58, one cal.30 MG and one cal.50 in the Commanders Cupola. 

 

Armour:

 

-254/76/38 Hull Armour (mm)

-203/127/76 Turret Armour (mm)

 

Speed: 37 km/h

 

Ammunition:

-M358 APBC-T

-M469 HEAT-FS-T

-M356 HE-T

 

There is very little information about this tank officially available, so feel free to comment more data. 

 

(Some of you may recognise the last picture from acrzer25's suggestion about the T54E2 which passed to development. Its actually the T110E5, the T54E looks like this:  314px-T54HG2.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

small correction 314px-T54HG2.jpg this is T54E1 with oscillating turret like in message this it T110E5, different engine compartment roof due to new engine

its was based on similar concept like T54E2 and T95 (like most projects at that time).

 

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

It looks good I support

 

 

 

A question only, you are using the same photo of T-54E2 that has passed to development.

 

 

[Panzerzwerg 2,682]

So T54E2 had conventional Turret, not oscillating? If so, i'll remove the image.

[Nope 10,634]

54 minutes ago, Panzerzwerg said:

So T54E2 had conventional Turret, not oscillating? If so, i'll remove the image.

 

To compare, here's the T110E5 mockup:

 

 

If you look at your picture and the WG render, the turret has a potential shot trap area while the one in both the WG render and the mockup do not have such an area.

[Godman_82 9,389]

I voted no, although I don't mind to see the tank in the game in the future, as regular (as i also voted),

The problem is M58 gun and M358 shells, which are still not corrected. Bug reports are well documented and they are made over a year ago. I would vote for fixing current tanks before they will add another.

I personally would like to see variants of M103, because of lack of data of T110E5. This lack of info may cause future nerf of the tank to the unplayable level, and there would be nothing we could do about it.

[The_Doctor_084 1,583]

Then make a suggestion for those tanks?  If the armor values, engine data, suspension, cannon, and ammo types and data are known you can build a working model.

[Solid_Snake01 974]

First off the T110E5 was never made or Built it was cancelled before the could start making it. Also the other game that people like to call WoT is a paper tank waste basket of a game which is 20 times worst tank info source then Wikipedia.

 

Second the Picture you posted is the T54E2 which is a medium tank not a T110E5 the T54E2 project was cancelled because the Military went with the T95 medium tank project instead

 

Third Gaijin put tanks like the Panther 2 and Tiger 2 105cm in the game to fill in the gap between the end of ww2 to later cold war. the E-100 is a special event tank which the event had a lot of issues.

 

Now for happy number Four it is rare to see the white elephants on the battlefield anymore and by elephants i mean the Maus and E-100 why well they are expensive to run and not only that Heavy tanks just like real life are become obsolete most because good bye early cold war (Korea) and now Good Morning Vietnam did you sleep well , Well its time to wake up to Mid/Late cold war. ATGMs which the heavy tanks fear most now on the battlefield MBTs run wild and ATGMs go on a rampage.

[Godman_82 9,389]

3 hours ago, RexLuporum said:

Then make a suggestion for those tanks?  If the armor values, engine data, suspension, cannon, and ammo types and data are known you can build a working model.

That's right. And that's why I made such an suggestion, at it was recently passed to Devs
 

 

When AP rounds will be fixed, then I will vote Yes for T110E5. Otherwise it would be another tank, that most players will call "unplayable".

The other thing is - according to wikipedia, T110E5 was only "full sized mock up" with engine. Can't say if that's enough for the Devs to follow the rule "one build in steel". Maybe the event vehicle then, like E-100.

[arczer25 5,202]

6 hours ago, Godman_82 said:

That's right. And that's why I made such an suggestion, at it was recently passed to Devs
 

 

When AP rounds will be fixed, then I will vote Yes for T110E5. Otherwise it would be another tank, that most players will call "unplayable".

The other thing is - according to wikipedia, T110E5 was only "full sized mock up" with engine. Can't say if that's enough for the Devs to follow the rule "one build in steel". Maybe the event vehicle then, like E-100.

that's why in my final US tree there are no T110E5, in one branch MBT* (not all are mbt) there is M48/M60, in second T54/T95 (who would don't love 178mm/60 degree turret with thickest point about ~380mm and 105mm smoothbore with 150mm penetration at 60 degree), heavy line is only M103 and its variants..

[Godman_82 9,389]

5 minutes ago, arczer25 said:

that's why in my final US tree there are no T110E5, in one branch MBT* (not all are mbt) there is M48/M60, in second T54/T95 (who would don't love 178mm/60 degree turret with thickest point about ~380mm and 105mm smoothbore with 150mm penetration at 60 degree), heavy line is only M103 and its variants..

I had just reviewed Your suggestion, and yeah, it's great I love the T95 profile.
I want it all... but first I want M358 to be penetrating 124mm at 60 degrees from 1000 yards. That would change the game completely, because only IS-4 hull would be able to bounce the shots. T-54, IS-3 and T-10M would be in serious trouble

[WulfPack 1,693]

2 minutes ago, Godman_82 said:

I had just reviewed Your suggestion, and yeah, it's great I love the T95 profile.
I want it all... but first I want M358 to be penetrating 124mm at 60 degrees from 1000 yards. That would change the game completely, because only IS-4 hull would be able to bounce the shots. T-54, IS-3 and T-10M would be in serious trouble

Taking in account the T-10M's UFP being angled on 2 planes, I'm going to guess it would be able to bounce it.

[Godman_82 9,389]

Just now, WulfPack said:

Taking in account the T-10M's UFP being angled on 2 planes, I'm going to guess it would be able to bounce it.

Of course, it would not be insta-killing everything it hits, but that would change this vehicle (M103 I mean) firepower completely. We would move from "absolutely no chance of penetration the hull" to "able to penetrate if the enemy is not angling very good".

And we are talking about 1000 yards penetration

I'm always against any kind of accusing the game of being biased, but the values of 60 deg penetration of M358 are lowered just below Soviet vehicles (while it should be just over). No wonder people came up with the idea of rusbias Moreover - Gaijin has not put a half of the explanation about it, which cases even more fuss.

[Bodobaggins 158]

No, it was never even considered for combat testing afaik. This is not WoT with fantasy tanks everywhere, we already have enough prototype rubbish.

[Josh_Yong 328]

43 minutes ago, Bodobaggins said:

No, it was never even considered for combat testing afaik. This is not WoT with fantasy tanks everywhere, we already have enough prototype rubbish.

whars wrong with paper tanks?

I'd love to use paper tanks in a proper tank game like WT

[vikingrGER 2,124]

Not anymore prototypes which never saw service.

[MoldyThesaurus 680]

You should probably add "Premium" to Poll Question #2.

[arczer25 5,202]

when tank is at last properly evaluated and tested while both don't sad that it is complete garbage and it won't be completely broken for current game meta it is fine, especially when it can fill gaps and when it was step in development to other later tanks that entered the service or if they were finished and ready to put intro production (T23E3 was to be standardized as M27) only it was rejected for lesser reason (in case M27 US didn't had any need to interrupt M4 production at that time) and put intro further development.

 

sadly T110E5 except for in game balance (as it is fine in that term) its just concept tank with ended really nowhere.

Edited September 14, 2016 by arczer25