Talk:T28 super-heavy tank

Super Heavy Tank section
As there is already an article that lists all Super Heavy Tanks, why not add a box at the bottom linking all the different super heavy tanks by country, similar to articles like "German Armoured Fighting Vehicles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Layne Phillips (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the entire super heavy tank article is nothing but original research, backed by....nothing. There is no real military designation or definition of a super heavy tank, so any such article is bound to be nonsense. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Counter to German tanks
I've got a problem with this line "The T28 was designed as a counter to the German heavy tanks,[2] such as the Maus[4] and the E-100.[5] It was also set to be used for attacking the German Siegfried Line.[3]".

Both of those tanks would better be classified as Super-Heavy. Also, was there actually any indication that this was the purpose and that they weren't just built to counter the current Tiger and King Tigers? Considering how the E-100 was never produced and the Maus was also mainly just a prototype how did they know of they existed and posed a threat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Layne Phillips (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Table units
The infobox says it weights 95 short tons, but the comparison tables list 95 metric tonnes. Can someone look over the units for all of the table items? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-10-08 00:09 z 


 * Done. T ARTARUS  talk 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Design intent
Was this designed to attack the Siegfried Line, or to face other super-heavy tanks. The latter seems doubtful, since the fixed gun design seems only suitable for assaulting fixed defences, and the poor mobility wouldn't even be very good for the defence. On the other hand who knows, since it doesn't seem terribly well suited for any purpose. —Michael Z. 2008-10-08 00:18 z 
 * Fixed it so that it should make more sense now. T ARTARUS  talk 20:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Early history
When was this project started? Was its original name T28 Super Heavy Tank, the same as its final name? —Michael Z. 2008-10-08 00:25 z 


 * Spring 1945, Yes, yes, but it changed along the way. T ARTARUS  talk 16:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pre-GA Review
I'm going to be reviewing this article, but even a brief glimpse at the sources used for this article makes me raise an eyebrow. Apart from the encyclopedia referenced to Google Books and the Patton Museum, none of them look to be WP:RS. Are there no books that could be used to reference this vehicle? I'd also like to ask why each of these sources should be considered RS for a GA article - could you explain each for me? Skinny87 (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ref #1 [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|20px]] gives a bibliography here
 * Ref #3 [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] does not look reliable. (no bibliography that I could find...)
 * a lot of articles on German Tanks use Achtung Panzer! as a reference, so I assumed that it was reliable. (See Heuschrecke 10 which uses it as a reference [good article & MILHIST A-class article])
 * Changed to a book reference. T ARTARUS  talk 20:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref #4 [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|20px]] states its source, making it reliable.
 * Ref #5 [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|20px]] states its sources, making it reliable.


 * Ref #7 [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|20px]] is from the same site as #1.
 * Ref #8 [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] does not look reliable/does not give its sources.
 * Removed above three.


 * Ref #10 [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|20px]] states no sources.
 * Done, removed T ARTARUS  talk 20:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref #11 [[Image:Symbol confirmed.svg|20px]] is a U.S. Army site.
 * And just for kicks, I'll add this is case there are questions about why I think these are/aren't reliable...=)... from USS Nevada (BB-36)'s FAC :

"To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)"
 * Cheers! &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  23:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Some could just be deleted.


 * 1) 8 can go, because the SMK and T-100 were just multi-turreted heavy tank prototypes, which led to the KV-1 (the Soviet super-heavy fantasy design was the Grote tank, which has no article).


 * 1) 6 and #7 are facts not in dispute, and don't really need a reference.

etc. —Michael Z. 2008-10-20 23:32 z 
 * ✅ T ARTARUS  talk 00:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much Ed, very kind of you. Tartarus, if you remove the dodgy links (including Achtung Panzer - no idea how that article got to be A-Class with that as a reference) and then I'll examine the article to see if it's GA quality. Skinny87 (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I found a bibliography for Achtung Panzer....here...didn't look hard enough last time maybe? :) However, take a look at ti, because this bibli might not make Achtung reliable&mdash;it looks more like a collection of random books... &mdash; Ed 17   for President  Vote for Ed  14:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A book list doesn't prove that a site is reliable, but it's a good sign. So is the fact that the author's name appears.  I'd say that unless doubtful material is found on this site, it is acceptable for GA assessment.


 * For an FA, I'd prefer to see footnotes which point to more specific citations, like published book pages. It all depends on the specific facts being supported, too. —Michael Z. 2008-10-21 15:18 z 


 * I just started a conversation about this sort of topic on the MILHIST Project talkpage. As to Achtung Panzer, I'd be leary about letting it even get past GA. Perhaps take it to the RS Noticeboard? Skinny87 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I will begin reviewing this article as soon as possible. Skinny87 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Suspension
What type of suspension did it actually have? HVSS, torsion-bar, leaf-spring, what? Double-track isn't appropriate. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, "double-tracked" is a feature of the suspension but is not the suspension type. I will check but it sure looks to me like eight HVSS bogies per side, four on each track. DMorpheus (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Tank? TD? GMC?
Since this vehicle was at various times designated a tank or gun motor carriage by the US Army, why does the article call it a tank destroyer or say the designation "tank" is wrong? Isn't it correct by definition since the Army so designated it? Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Maus stats are misleading
"The Maus has an armor thickness of up to 460mm" This is very misleading because only the gun mantle had that thickness, the rest of the frontal turret was 240mm, and the front hull was 260mm.

The T28/T95 had a mantle that was almost 500mm thick, but it's left out while the Maus misleads the readers by only giving the stats for the gun mantle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole comparison is a bit dodgy but the inclusion of Maus makes it more so, did not the Germans have self-propelled heavily armoured gun designs in the 80 to 100 ton range as opposed to a 200 ton turreted tank. Jagdtiger would be a better comparator. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this. As turreted design the Maus is in a different class of AFV. Jagdtiger is much more interesting. 78.54.157.111 (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its time to be bold and excise the Maus. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The gun
What about the T5E1 gun armour piercing capability? Does anybody have any data on this? It would be nice to include it, as I couldn't find anything on the Internet. 83.28.164.167 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The specs
Specs of this tank goes for T95. T28 was faster and had lower armor. Please fix it. (I mean, better will be adding both spec. for T28 and then after that for T95, because in this state, this topic makes many historic/tank fans angry. Thanks

For example: T28 had 18km/h speed and 254mm armor. T95 had 13km/h and 300+ mm armor.


 * Let me guess, you are a fellow "World of Tanks" player? :) The specs you give match the two tanks in that game. In reality though the T28 and the T95 are indeed one and the same vehicle, it was first called T28 and later T95. The "game-T28" is made up by the game designers. You may find black&white pictures of a tank that looks like the "game-T28" on the web, but make no mistake, they are of the real T28/T95: the tank has two pairs of tracks on each side, and the outer tracks can be detached for transport, resulting in a much slimmer vehicle. That is why the "game-T28" looks like a slimmed down T95, the game designers used the appearance of the T95 in transport mode and invented some specs for it in order to get a new vehicle.Elanguescence (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Add more vehicles to the table in the "Comparison with other countries' designs" section
Good examples would be the Panzer VIII Maus and the IS-3. GMRE (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone messed with the Parallel US developments and Other countries' designs section.
Going through the table, some of it seems wrong. Particularly the caliber of the guns.

I'm not good with Wiki editing so I'm refraining from editing it myself but can someone go and look up the table and see who previously messed with those and revert it back?

120.136.5.74 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Did some more checking: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T28_Super_Heavy_Tank&diff=542872623&oldid=542801509

Editing by 67.0.220.98 on 19:00, 8 March 2013 is all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.136.5.74 (talk)

Article image has too much HDR
Wouldn't it be best if the image was changed to a more high-quality one? The HDR in this one makes it very unprofessional. RDXL (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular Culture
Can we stop deleting the pop culture section? The wikia page is fully cited. It is generally considered to be common knowledge that the T28/T95 is nicknamed the "Doom Turtle." We have citations to the company owned wiki pages of the two most popular tank games that feature the T28 each specifying that the tank attained the "Doom Turtle" nickname among online gaming communities. What more do you need to prove that it is colloquially named the "Doom Turtle." Googling 'Doom Turtle' with all cookies and previous search results cleared will immediately bring up articles about the T28/T95, this should be common knowledge to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.16.64 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:T1 Light Tank which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)