He is lying, the T13 shell wasn’t a post-war product at all.
The 105mm gun T4 came into being when the 90mm M1A1 gun was mounted on the 4-wheeled carriage as for the 120mm AA gun. This made the equipment look all carriage and “very little gun” Thus it was decided to make a bigger piece for the carriage, hence the 105mm.
The first attempt to adapt the T4 for use in tanks was the 105 mm Gun T5, a 48-caliber long ‘sawed-off’ version of the 65-caliber long anti-aircraft gun. The T5, designed in early 1944, had a muzzle velocity of 2,800 ft/s (853 m/s), which was a downgrade compared to the T4, which was capable of producing muzzle velocities in excess of 3,000 ft/s (914 m/s).To bring the firepower of the T5 back into line with the T4, the 65-caliber long T5E1 was developed in late 1944 for armored vehicle mounts. The T5E1’s muzzle velocity was predicted to be about 3,000 ft/s (914 m/s), just as potent as the T4’s. To help manage the recoil and provide a better view after firing, the T5E1 was equipped with a 180 lb (81.6 kg) double-baffle Muzzle Brake T10.
FACTS:
-
The T13 shell was the earliest 105mm anti-tank shell available; it was essentially an enlarged version of the 75mm M61 shell. It was developed for the T4 105mm gun, the predecessor to the T5, and the T13E1 was an improved version. They were compatible with the T5E1 gun.
-
The AP T32 shell was specifically developed for the T5E1 gun, and its production began later than the T13.
-
The APHE shell was actually the earliest anti-tank shell available for this gun.
4 Likes
Yea i already knew that this guy says just whatever he wants/accuses other people on the forum without any basis and just been constantly shilling for only german stuff.
His previous posts are the proof of this that’s why i don’t even want to engage in conversation with this guy in any serious way.
I don’t want to argue with you, but the M6A2E1 heavy tank officially began testing in June 1945. Please, by that time, the European war had already ended. You can’t use post-WWII shells to shoot at tanks from WWII history.
Congratulations, you troll, you’re on the forum’s blacklist.
Don’t tell me you’re also a minor in China. Not only do you not understand World War II history, but you also like to argue sophistry. You’re just asking for trouble.
Neither of the two screenshots you posted say anything about when testing started, just that those particular photographs were taken on those dates.
To the Chinese minor who initiated this vote, tell me, where do you plan to shoot the Tiger II with the APCBC shells tested in July 1945? In a junkyard? Or at the armored wreckage by the roadside? As far as I know, Germany surrendered after May 1945. Where is your historical common sense?
Go read the literature yourself; I don’t want to explain anything to a complete WWII history idiot.
By linking this article to me and telling me to find the information myself, it implies that the article does in fact claim that the tank started testing in June 1945, but for some reason you decided not to include that section in the screenshots you added in your original post as “proof” of that claim. And you call me an idiot…
Anyways, as a gesture of good faith I actually did go through that source and nowhere in it does it state when testing of the vehicle begun. Now sure you can make some various inferences here and there based on things said but nothing that is concrete. I even went above and beyond by checking Hunnicutt’s Firepower and he said nothing about when testing started either.
Also as a final note, why does it matter even if the vehicle only existed from June onwards? Sure the war in Europe ended but the US was still fighting Japan by then, calling it a postwar tank is categorically incorrect even if your claimed timeline is true. Unless you want to advocate for the vehicle to lock the player into fighting only the Japanese I don’t see any reason for it to matter.
There’s nothing we can do. This is just an experimental vehicle. During its trials, it never faced the 88mm gun of the Tiger II, so its hull cheeks and upper glacis were never reinforced to counter that weapon.
Adding 50mm sloped armour plates to the original hull was already the maximum upgrade it got. Its main perks are its tall profile and fast reverse speed. In War Thunder, you can fire from behind cover to make the most of these traits, but here those advantages barely make up for its flaws.
Maybe we can put forward a suggestion. At the very least, add steel plates and sandbags to its upper hull sides for extra protection. After all, an experimental vehicle deployed to the front lines definitely needs improvements. We could ask the devs to give it minor buffs similar to those applied to the Super M26.
If this tank doesn’t get access to those rounds, it’ll be a total disaster — I’m not exaggerating.
Its frontal armour is full of weak spots. You can’t wiggle the turret to cover vulnerabilities like you do in WoT, and these flaws are on the hull too. What’s more, there aren’t enough covers to hide its tall chassis like in War Thunder. So those HEAT rounds are absolutely essential. Without them, it’ll be just like the British heavy tanks and the IS-2: its front and hull can be easily penetrated.
When facing the Tiger II, even landing a hit won’t guarantee taking out one or two turret crew members. At best, you’ll only damage the turret ammo rack. Then the Tiger II will fire back and blow through its hull cheeks or turret cheeks instantly.
It’s really a tough spot.
Since it’s just a prototype, I reckon American troops would have scavenged armour plates from wrecked Panthers and welded them onto the turret and hull sides if it ever saw combat.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Wow, that’s absolutely ridiculous. Are you getting mad?
Haha, I can’t hold it in. Why are you so flustered?
