T28 prototype HD

[DoggieKruger 48]

now with roof

[MacusFlash 2,270]

Roof -> cupolas -> weakspots. Btw the only reason for roof is that WG couldn't fix collision model inside T28's turret. 127mm armor is able to bounce some lol gun even when practically shell is inside turret.

[Rexxie 10,788]

Will need to see armor values on that roof. The fact they went with cupolas is a bit worrying, though. But you never know, the cupolas could be extremely tough, or the turret armor in general could have been changed.

[no_name_cro 2,034]

Front looks more sloped...

[gabse 200]

Looks really good now with the closed turret

[Crossfader 1,142]

T28 prot. now with more weak spots... Its always gonnna be shit with it being so slow

[TheMostComfortableTanker 958]

I would have rather seen them replace it with something more historical, but gameplay aside, at least they finally added a roof.  

For something that has 8" of armor at the front and is supposed to get shot at, not putting anything over the roof seems kind of anti-logic.  The main reason the roof was taken off on so many tanks was to save weight, though I think with this, they would rather not all get killed by a strafing fighter or a hand grenade.  Once you're at a 65 ton assault tank, those meager weight savings aren't too important.

For all we know, those cupolas could end up an idiot trap that's actually tougher than the rest of the front.  I'll withhold my complaints until I can see the actual armor.

[hallo1994 603]

Is it me or the turret cheeks look wider? 

[Nkrlz 54]

i just hope they didn't replace the cheeks weakspot with those ridiculously small cupolas.

[hall0 1,095]

Oh no I can't see my invisible crew members anymore

[monkey10120 217]

Meh, cupolas dont matter when the turret is easier and softer.

[hallo1994 603]

Now hopefully it will also get an HP buff as well.

[How_Terrible 529]

34 minutes ago, TheMostComfortableTanker said:

I would have rather seen them replace it with something more historical

 

Good luck with that. After the M36 the U.S. Army more or less abandon development of purpose built gun armed tank destroyers. They realized that there was virtually nothing that a 90mm armed M36 could do that the M26 Pershing with the exact same gun couldn't do as well or better.

[rojo180 800]

Garbage needs to be burned!

Refurbished garbage is still garbage!

INTO THE INCINERATOR YOU GO!!!

[Toxic_Turtles690 52]

2 minutes ago, rojo180 said:

Garbage needs to burned!

am I garbage too for actually having liked the tank?

[rojo180 800]

Just now, Toxic_Turtles690 said:

am I garbage too for actually having liked the tank?

In you go!!!

[Fabunil 1,597]

Inb4 20mm roof so arty will have an easier time penning it than before.

[BlackAdder 1,390]

ROOF = RIP DEPRESSION? 

 

 

[Shifty_101st 1,144]

Quick, where's the new armor model Kappa

[The_direwolf 167]

At least its not as ugly.

[TheMostComfortableTanker 958]

2 hours ago, How_Terrible said:

Good luck with that. After the M36 the U.S. Army more or less abandon development of purpose built gun armed tank destroyers. They realized that there was virtually nothing that a 90mm armed M36 could do that the M26 Pershing with the exact same gun couldn't do as well or better.

Only reason I made that statement is the US does have options available.  

It would work quite well with the T25/2 before it, but they made a T25 with naval rangefinders like on the late T29.  They also on the T25 chassis planned for a turret very similar to the one on the M6A2E1, mounting a 105mm gun.  Seeing as the T95 IRL was only meant to use a 105mm, there's no reason at all that it can't be bumped up to a 120mm.

Beyond that, The_Chieftain has made mention of other historical designs out there that could replace it as well.  I don't recall him mentioning any specifics, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time WG ignored him and went the easy route.  The low tier US TD switch was something he had wanted for years, but I guess only happened when WG finally realized that the T18 wouldn't ever be balanced as a tier 2 TD.

The statement about US and TDs doesn't really apply to WoT at all.  WoT includes assault guns and all sorts of other stuff under TDs.  There's stuff well past the Pershing that the US drafted up that could be put in as TDs, though not necessarily at tier 8.  The scorpion is a good example of this.  It certainly came after the M36 and Pershing, but was basically an American waffentrager.  The T95 was meant for breaking through heavily fortified places, so it had a ridiculous amount of armor and never really cared for speed.  There's a whole lot of designs out there, the issue is it's usually too much work for WG to bother.

[Jerinos 2]

So, now it can get vents. Glass half full.

[Nekommando 386]

It now looks much better and more logical, now while they are at it can they add roof to the 263 as well?

[TheMostComfortableTanker 958]

41 minutes ago, Nekommando said:

It now looks much better and more logical, now while they are at it can they add roof to the 263 as well?

Нет

[DoggieKruger 48]

On the historicity of the US tanks, the T25/2 was a completely made up designation as is the T28P anyways.

I also blame the T25/2's existence for the backwards ass logic of having the T20 model as the Tier 7 medium. The E8 has the T23 turret so it doesn't make sense for the T20 to not at least have a Pershing turret. Then the T25/2 is just a T25 with a Jackson turret. Wut. 

On topic, hopefully the turret roof will be less thick than the turret sides so there will be less stupid bounces.