So, according to Hunnicutt:
>dual 105mm autoloaders firing gun launched rockets
>7 rounds in each autoloader
>94 rounds total
>240 rounds per minute between them
>absurdly low profile
>as a result of the absurdly low profile it would have much better armor than any other tank in existence
>silica cored armor for defeating HEAT
>entire ass lifts up so crew can escape quickly
>also makes maintenance and loading shells easier
Give me one valid reason this thing wouldn't assfuck everything the Soviets had.
>>34231985
>take hit
>ammo explodes
>take city block with you.
>>34231994
You just described pretty much every tank before blowout hatches were invented.
This thing was designed in 1955.
Its guns could also elevate 90 degrees.
360 Rotation only possible with + 20 degree angle. might as well not have a turret at all
>>34231985
The claims of its performance sound unreasonably high.
Also there's a question of gun depression.
Someone probably just took a look at it and went "ehh this'll never get past prototype phase and will just be a massive money sinkhole" and therefore it was never produced.
>>34231985
>Give me one valid reason this thing wouldn't assfuck everything the Soviets had.
The weapons it was intended to be armed with did not eixist.
>>34231994
All tanks explode when hit.
>>34232009
Even tanks with blowout panels explode. They just explode in such a way that the crew might not explode at the same time, if they're lucky.
>>34231985
US doesn't like vehicles without fully traversable turrets. Contemporaries like the Ontos Scorpion were thrown to the Marines and Air Cav because the Army didn't want them around. Adding more armor and a fuckoff gun(s) wasn't going to change anything.
How can Russia even compete?