Re: [Epic] Super-Heavy Tanx

From: Brian Thomas <bthom37_at_...>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 21:47:22 -0400

At 12:03 AM 5/28/98 +0100, you wrote:
>>And of course the M-3 Grant/Lee tanks had a mix of guns, with the 75 mm
>>gun in the body of the tank and a 37 mm gun in a turret. The French did
>>this with a couple of their tanks. The Grants were that only mixed AP
>>weapon tanks to be used in combat that were any thing close to a
>>success. They were used in the North Africa campaign by the British.
>
>
>Yanks also used M3's!!
>
>>The Germans had, of course, their "Kitty Cats (Tigers, Panthers et al)",
>>which were classed as "Super heavy" at the time, but were not that much
>>bigger than current tanks.
>
>
>Panther is classed as a medium tank. Tigers are heavy.
>
>>Several "Assault" tanks were "on the design table" as the war ended that
>>would have been "Super Heavy"
>
>
>One being the German Maus tank - 128mm and 75mm gun in turret, later models
>were to have 150mm or 170mm guns instead of 128mm.
>
>
>Jimi :)
>

Jimi-

   Wasn't the Maus tank supposed to be 100+ tons, and require 8 engines?
For some reason these numbers stick out in my mind, must've seen them
somewhere. Interestingly, the current belief is that tanks must get
smaller, 40-50tons, with 35 being ideal. Turretless tanks, that sort of
thing. Although, it will be interesting how they reconcile these
numbers/concepts with the energy requirements for 'all-electric' tanks and
rail guns/particle weapons.

To keep this somewhere on-topic, how much DO the Shadowsword/Baneblade weigh?

                                                        Brian
Received on Thu May 28 1998 - 01:47:22 UTC