Thread replies: 13
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6
Anonymous
Could it have been good? 2016-08-21 05:26:21 Post No. 31056086
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Could it have been good? 2016-08-21 05:26:21 Post No. 31056086
[Report] Image search: [Google]
>>
No.
>>
File: T92111111.png (201KB, 417x510px) Image search:
[Google]
201KB, 417x510px
>>
>>31056086
Oscillating turrets had shit NBC protection.
Among other design flaws and doctrine flaws.
>>
File: t928mf.jpg (86KB, 800x464px) Image search:
[Google]
86KB, 800x464px
>>
>>31056099
/thread
>>
File: sheet03.jpg (31KB, 461x250px) Image search:
[Google]
31KB, 461x250px
>>
File: t92_01.jpg (146KB, 900x618px) Image search:
[Google]
146KB, 900x618px
>>
>>31056086
That was an American design? Looks like an AMX-13 and BMP-2 had a baby.
>>
multi turret tanks were tried in the interwar years and early WW2. They sucked then and they would still suck now.
>>
>>31057065
It's not multiturreted, those are just cupolas.
>>
There was nothing to bad with the design AFAIK. It just. Opulent be adapted to a amphibious tank and was thus scrapped for the M551. Also it isn't an oscillating turret the gut is in a almost self contained unit kinda separate from the rest of the turret. Has a semi-automatic gun as well IIRC so it has a good rate of fire.
>>
File: M551 Sheridan side armor.png (545KB, 507x969px) Image search:
[Google]
545KB, 507x969px
The 76 mm gun lacks of punch compared to the low-pressure 152 mm gun.
Unlike the M551 Sheridan, the T-92 wasn't amphibious.
Thread posts: 13
Thread images: 6
Thread images: 6