THE RED GAMBIT SERIES

Author Colin Gee

Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > Ideas Page > The Invasion of Nippon the T28 Project

Maldoon
Member
Posts: 3

Howdy all,

Snooping around and I ran across this massive metal monster.  Apparently it was designed to subdue Japan during Operation Downfall.  Is there any chance of seeing this in any theatre fighting anybody in our beloved RG?

http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=331

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank

--

History is not about being right, it's about being believed.

May 18, 2015 at 12:47 PM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

I have a metal one of these in my wargame army. About as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Ive considered it, but with the arrival of tanks like the Super Pershing and the m46, the centurion and the Panther II, I can only see a limited need for it, and then it would be a matter of shipping and logistics.

--

May 19, 2015 at 3:25 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Maldoon
Member
Posts: 3

That makes plenty of sense.  I suppose I was temporarily blinded by the thought of a huge, firebreathing anteater crawling around lapping up Commies like so many fireants.

We, though, defer to our leader's wisdom.

--

History is not about being right, it's about being believed.

May 19, 2015 at 11:58 AM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

My main problem with all these things is trying to think like they would in the day. yes, i believe we would all love the Germans to produce King Tigers, arm every man with ST44s, nothing but SuperGarands for every US infantryman, but i cant do that. I try hard to see i t how it woudl be then.

The US had the above, the brits had the Tortoise. I plan to use neither at this time.

remember, the US had the T-14, but shipped more m4s in its stead, cos they could get more tanks for the merchant shipping space, regardless of the fact thatthe T-14 was equally armed and better armoured.

Would the Brits plunge on with teh Centurion development? You betcha they would, and the Comet.

The US would invest in the Pershing, and SuperPershing, looking ahead to the m46 and the next generation asap. Why, because the Soviets now possess the IS-II, IS-IV, and T-44.

In the air, I see some real issues. Just cos aircraft were in deve;lopment doesnt mean I will bring them forward. It will be on need. I brought the skyraider in early, as I saw a definite need. Likewise the shooting star got ramped up, alongside the vampire. The German industry will have l;earned a salutory lesson from WW2. Just cos you can build it doesnt mean you should. STick with a properly manufactured Panther with the upgraded 88mm and you have a tank capable of tackling most opponents. No dabbling in the Maus or E100 required. If the US needs a new weapon to give the basic infantry units more firepower, I believe they would produce the MG42 under licence, on tehbasis that is was [and still is] the best of its type and more than fit for purpose.

of course... I could go on lol

--

May 20, 2015 at 3:30 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Maldoon
Member
Posts: 3

It's easy to get swept away in all the possibilities and tangents and rabbit holes, of that I have no doubt. I'm sure you receive all sorts of arguments for "X" or "Y", but your line of reasoning is sounds and undeniable to even this insatiable devotee of fine writing.


Keep up the good work, I've got money burning a hole in my pocket for our next installment.

--

History is not about being right, it's about being believed.

May 23, 2015 at 3:17 PM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

:-) I will attempt to relieve you of some in short order!

--

May 24, 2015 at 4:16 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Keith Lange
Member
Posts: 325

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk at May 20, 2015 at 3:30 AM

My main problem with all these things is trying to think like they would in the day. yes, i believe we would all love the Germans to produce King Tigers, arm every man with ST44s, nothing but SuperGarands for every US infantryman, but i cant do that. I try hard to see i t how it woudl be then.

The US had the above, the brits had the Tortoise. I plan to use neither at this time.

remember, the US had the T-14, but shipped more m4s in its stead, cos they could get more tanks for the merchant shipping space, regardless of the fact thatthe T-14 was equally armed and better armoured.

Would the Brits plunge on with teh Centurion development? You betcha they would, and the Comet.

The US would invest in the Pershing, and SuperPershing, looking ahead to the m46 and the next generation asap. Why, because the Soviets now possess the IS-II, IS-IV, and T-44.

In the air, I see some real issues. Just cos aircraft were in deve;lopment doesnt mean I will bring them forward. It will be on need. I brought the skyraider in early, as I saw a definite need. Likewise the shooting star got ramped up, alongside the vampire. The German industry will have l;earned a salutory lesson from WW2. Just cos you can build it doesnt mean you should. STick with a properly manufactured Panther with the upgraded 88mm and you have a tank capable of tackling most opponents. No dabbling in the Maus or E100 required. If the US needs a new weapon to give the basic infantry units more firepower, I believe they would produce the MG42 under licence, on tehbasis that is was [and still is] the best of its type and more than fit for purpose.

of course... I could go on lol

Interesting that you would mention the US producing the MG-42, because Savage designed a derivative in .30, the T-42. A discussion regarding it is on the following link (I'm FReeper Jacob Kell, btw.) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3276532/posts?page=40#40

May 30, 2015 at 2:21 AM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

Excellent... and I had no idea. Your name will appear in the book credits for that Mr Lange. Thank you.

--

May 30, 2015 at 4:11 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Keith Lange
Member
Posts: 325

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk at May 30, 2015 at 4:11 AM

Excellent... and I had no idea. Your name will appear in the book credits for that Mr Lange. Thank you.

So does that mean that we will see the T-24, or whatever it'll be called, in action in the upcoming books?

May 30, 2015 at 3:52 PM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

I think I can say yes to that :-)

--

May 30, 2015 at 5:56 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Keith Lange
Member
Posts: 325

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk at May 30, 2015 at 5:56 PM

I think I can say yes to that :-)

I'm really glad I could help!:)

May 30, 2015 at 10:53 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Keith Lange
Member
Posts: 325

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk at May 30, 2015 at 5:56 PM

I think I can say yes to that :-)

So do you think it will replace the .30 Brownings, or supplement them?

May 31, 2015 at 3:00 AM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

My gut feeling is it wont replace... dont see how it can... but we might see a steady replacement program with new units receiving the new weapon, and special forces etc. The main issues will be training and logistics.

--

May 31, 2015 at 5:42 AM Flag Quote & Reply

KEM
Member
Posts: 5

Having a US produced MG-42 would make a lot of sense and some interesting possibilities. Excellent design, minimal training, simplified logistics. Combined with the M2, that would give some serious firepower to units.

It would be easy for the whirring US manufacturing to produce them in huge quantities and ship them. Imagine using them in the Pacific theater and the shock to the Japanese?

--

~KEM


May 31, 2015 at 7:14 PM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

Interesting that you think there would be little training implication. I thought that there would be. Plus, the squads would have to carry a lot more ammo... mind you... if you change out the BAR for an MG42/T-42, what an increase in firepower that would be lol So, seriously, the ma deuce is safe, and it would be the .30 that would be lifted out and substituted for the 42. I think we can agree on that?

--

June 1, 2015 at 3:23 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Keith Lange
Member
Posts: 325

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk at June 1, 2015 at 3:23 AM

Interesting that you think there would be little training implication. I thought that there would be. Plus, the squads would have to carry a lot more ammo... mind you... if you change out the BAR for an MG42/T-42, what an increase in firepower that would be lol So, seriously, the ma deuce is safe, and it would be the .30 that would be lifted out and substituted for the 42. I think we can agree on that?

And yet what about pride-you know the "not invented here" syndrome? Some in the US military may not be so keen on having a German origin design adopted by the US military, even with the changes. They may insist on keeping the Brownings. Perhaps there might be a sort of face saving compromise-using the T-42MG-42 for the squad, maybe replaceing the BAR and the M1919A6 while the regular tripod mounted M1919 continues on, maybe like the Vickers. And of course the .50 Ma Deuce is safe. NOTHING can match it. So how will you handle the T-24's adoption? Have someone looking through old designs hoping to find something to help the war effort against the Soviets come across it?

June 1, 2015 at 4:10 AM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

Already sorted :-)


--

June 1, 2015 at 7:22 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Keith Lange
Member
Posts: 325

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk at June 1, 2015 at 7:22 AM

Already sorted :-)


Okay. So I guess all that's left is to decide on a official designation for the new weapon-unless of course it was already decided. If it wasn't, I would choose The M1946 machine gun.

June 1, 2015 at 6:53 PM Flag Quote & Reply

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk
Site Owner
Posts: 916

Hmmm as in M46? I had not gone for m42 mind you. I had titled it as the M3A1 machine gun in the first draft. What do you reckon?

--

June 2, 2015 at 3:25 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Keith Lange
Member
Posts: 325

gee_colin@yahoo.co.uk at June 2, 2015 at 3:25 AM

Hmmm as in M46? I had not gone for m42 mind you. I had titled it as the M3A1 machine gun in the first draft. What do you reckon?

It's okay, but the grease gun submachine gun was also titled M3A1, I believe. Still it's probably not uncommon for different weapon systems to have similar names. The "A1" part basically implies a weapon system that underwent modifications, so does that mean the weapon was modified?

June 2, 2015 at 4:32 AM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.

go back to the top