The Doom Turtle: America's 95 Ton Monster Tank



Go to the link: https://imprintapp.com/Megaproject_LIB to get 20% off an annual membership

Got a beard? Good. I’ve got something for you: http://beardblaze.com

Simon’s Social Media:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SimonWhistler
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/simonwhistler/

This video is #sponsored by Imprint.

Love content? Check out Simon’s other YouTube Channels:

Warographics: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9h8BDcXwkhZtnqoQJ7PggA
SideProjects: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3Wn3dABlgESm8Bzn8Vamgg
Into The Shadows: https://www.youtube.com/c/IntotheShadows
Today I Found Out: https://www.youtube.com/user/TodayIFoundOut
Highlight History: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnb-VTwBHEV3gtiB9di9DZQ
Brain Blaze: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYY5GWf7MHFJ6DZeHreoXgw
Casual Criminalist: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCasualCriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZdWrz8pF6B5Y_c6Zi6pmdQ
Places: https://youtube.com/@Places302?si=u5C3dXhcJ4tFuY-4
Astrographics: https://youtube.com/@Astrographics-ve4yq?si=4J_1EcNWIjXSBFOl

source

50 thoughts on “The Doom Turtle: America's 95 Ton Monster Tank”

  1. Lets just say that again … they lost a tank … just how do you lose a tank?
    It sounds like a bunch of tank fans … probably noncommissioned army personnel … after a night of drinking likely took it for a drive. The problem with that idea is that Fort Belvoir where it was found, and the Aberdeen Proving Grounds where it was lost … is over 100Km apart … and to get from one to the other would have required it to literally drive directly through Washington DC. It might have been seen. More likely it was properly loaded and shipped under orders from one to the other, and then due to military mismanagement … it was misplaced, paperwork lost, and forgotten about.

    Reply
  2. Americans were not sticklers to classification of armored vehicles. In addition to number of turreted tank destroyers, they had turetless T28 which they called "tank" even though it was enormous assault gun. BTW, if you are interested in realistic 100mm armored self-propelled gun, look at SU-100.

    Reply
  3. The T28 was basically a siege gun….and was originally classed as a 'gun motor carriage' or SP gun in modern lingo…. but by the time it started coming together the US army was using 155mm howitzers at point blank range for cracking bunkers anyways, so….

    Reply
  4. The pak 43 using the tungsten cored 40/43 round penetrated 305mm at a distance of 100 metres during american tests after the war, which means that the pak 43 has at least a chance of penetrating the front armor of the t28 at distances of up to 75 metres
    And if we were talking about the deepest penetrating german anti-tank round of the war that was actually used, the 17cm pzgr.43 could penetrate the front of the t28 at over 1000 metres away

    Reply
  5. Considering the cost, support and time to ship every piece of hardware overseas; multitudes of m4's and other vehicles over a couple of T28's is an easy calculation. If the US was on the same continent as the Axis, the choice of T28 would be more practical

    Reply
  6. I don't believe the engineers thought this would be feasible, but at the time the government was splashing a lot of money around so it made sense to try. I don't think any roads or bridges in Europe could have accommodated it. The infrastructure needed to maintain, move and operate would have been costly. One can only imagine how dire things would have had to become to where these tanks were being used in force. Some real warhammer weapons

    Reply
  7. At 6:58 you show a M2 light and an either another M2 or one of the combat cars built on the same chassis with what appears to be some kind of experimental tank destroyer type mount. The M2 medium was even clunkier looking!

    Reply
  8. At 14:30 ( I really should have just taken notes and made 1 big comment) if you will read the Honeycutt book “FIREPOWER the history of American heavy armor” the plan was always for 12 cylinder aircraft version which the 8 cylinder GAA was developed from was supposed to go in there but they realized there was no point since it was not going to see combat before a transmission that could handle the 1000+ horse power was developed. It was by then determined to be used purely as something super heavy to see what kind of logistical issues are involved in such large and heavy vehicles.

    Reply
  9. Ive seen this personally when it was at the patton museum.

    Strangely enough the design if were improved for the 22st century would actually be successful in ukraine.

    Track redundancy with a lot of spaced armor would work better than the slapped together turtle tanks we see today.

    Reply
  10. It’s not a tank.

    It’s a tank hunter.

    Tanks usually have a turret.

    This is closer to anti tank hunters developed by Germany in WW2.

    They took tank hulls and either fixed the turret design in place and mounted a huge gun or made a tank hull and extended it up a bit and shoved a huge gun through the front armour.

    Sweden designed a similar sort of tank like vehicle in the S tank but it was a little smaller and lighter.

    No one wanted it though because it can’t track or fire on the move.

    Reply

Leave a Comment