Quote from: Old Wombat on April 04, 2024, 08:13:22 PMAlthough, the Neubaufahrzeug, unlike the others, was deployed operationally - to Norway for "policing" duties.

And built in two versions by two factories... double the failure rate and wasted work...

Quote from: Rick Lowe on April 04, 2024, 09:31:58 PM

Quote from: Old Wombat on April 04, 2024, 08:13:22 PMAlthough, the Neubaufahrzeug, unlike the others, was deployed operationally - to Norway for "policing" duties.

And built in two versions by two factories... double the failure rate and wasted work...

The T28 and T35 were both used in combat and as you'd expect were total failures...there was also a twin turreted tank the russians used as well and if think only one was ever made ..it failed aswell .
It was called the SMK and was destroyed in Russo-Finnish war .

Quote from: NARSES2 on April 04, 2024, 01:54:17 AM[Yup, yet another of those great ideas on paper that just doesn't make it when coming face to face with reality.

American tank designers in the 1930s and early 40s, of course, had an obsession with machine guns. They clearly considered them the primary weapon of tanks, if you look at the way they always seem to have wanted to cram more in. The greatest example is of course the M2 medium, with not just one machine gun at each corner of the superstructure plus a coax, but also two fixed ones for the driver (an idea that survived into the very earliest M4s) and two anti-aircraft machine guns ...

Or another example: the easy method of distinguishing a British M3 light tank (that has not yet had all the British stowage additions) from an American one is to see if the sponson guns have been removed or not

Quote from: Wardukw on April 05, 2024, 01:48:07 AMthere was also a twin turreted tank the russians used as well and if think only one was ever made

Stalin, for all his failings, had the right idea about those tanks. Apparently, when he was shown models of designs like the SMK and T-100, he derided them for having far too many turrets and guns to be useful in combat.

Quote from: Jakko on April 05, 2024, 01:58:52 AM

Quote from: Wardukw on April 05, 2024, 01:48:07 AMthere was also a twin turreted tank the russians used as well and if think only one was ever made

Stalin, for all his failings, had the right idea about those tanks. Apparently, when he was shown models of designs like the SMK and T-100, he derided them for having far too many turrets and guns to be useful in combat.

It would seem that the pint sized little psychopath wasn't stupid ..well to a point anyway .

Quote from: Jakko on April 05, 2024, 01:56:16 AM

Quote from: NARSES2 on April 04, 2024, 01:54:17 AM[Yup, yet another of those great ideas on paper that just doesn't make it when coming face to face with reality.

American tank designers in the 1930s and early 40s, of course, had an obsession with machine guns. They clearly considered them the primary weapon of tanks, if you look at the way they always seem to have wanted to cram more in. The greatest example is of course the M2 medium, with not just one machine gun at each corner of the superstructure plus a coax, but also two fixed ones for the driver (an idea that survived into the very earliest M4s) and two anti-aircraft machine guns ...

Patton was a great advocate for "machine-gun tanks" & actively campaigned against US tanks being armed with cannon - until North Africa. He was a much more conservative officer than his reputation suggests.

Initially, Amercian tanks were only regarded as replacements for cavalry - fast and relatively lightly armed.

Which nicely shows the American take on cavalry: mainly what in Europe would be light cavalry. Useful for scouting, screening, harassing etc., but not for actually attacking the enemy in strength. Whereas European cavalry units converted to armoured units as often as not were provided with tanks intended for fighting enemy tanks.