Talk:T28 super-heavy tank

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:T28 Super Heavy Tank/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll get the review up as soon as I can. Cheers! —the_ed17— 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• What makes references 2-4 reliable?
  • Try looking for these tanks on Google Books under limited and full preview only...that would help you.
    • Ref 2:The references are listed on the bottom of the article.
    • Ref 3:Getting the references. There is a reference at the bottom of the article.
    • Ref 4:Also, getting the references.
    • Google Books: When I searched there, yes previously to your mentioning it, when it was mentioned, it was only in a book about metallurgy and metallurgical engineering, no preview. When searching for just "T28" it give books about the Soviet T-28.
      • Hmm well, look at this search...I know that you can't read them online, but can you get them at your local library? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• "The T28 was designed as a counter to the German heavy tanks, such as the Maus and the E-100. Other countries had heavy tanks to break the Siegfried Line, such as the British Model A39 Tortoise, the French Char 2C, and the Soviet SMK tank, but the US wasn't to be left behind."
  • References? "US wasn't to be left behind" is un-encyclopedic.
    • Removed part that is unencyclopedic, will be referencing.
• The entire article needs a good copy-edit...a few grammatical errors make it harder to read.
  • Will get one, I know a guy.
• It also needs a little expansion...it seems "bare-bones"...again, try Google Books, that should help you expand it.
  • See previous comment about google books, will try to do more.

My apologies, but I'm going to have to fail this...if you have any question, just leave a message on my talk page. As soon as you have fixed these issues, feel free to nominate it once more. —the_ed17— 19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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. TARTARUS ^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. TARTARUS ^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. TARTARUS ^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 gives a bibliography here

Ref #3 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. TARTARUS ^talk 20:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ref #4 states its source, making it reliable.

Ref #5 states its sources, making it reliable.

:Ref #6 is a blog = not reliable.

Ref #7 is from the same site as #1.

Ref #8 does not look reliable/does not give its sources.

Removed above three.

:Ref #9 is not reliable/personal website without sources.

Ref #10 states no sources.

Done, removed TARTARUS ^talk 20:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ref #11 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:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)"

Cheers! —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

 Done TARTARUS ^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—it looks more like a collection of random books... —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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:T28 Super Heavy Tank/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1 Well written:

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct: Comments:

• 'The T28 (also called 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95) was a prototype heavily armoured tank destroyer, designed for the US Military' - Bit vague - surely it was for the US Army?
  •  Done

• 'Although sometimes referred to as a super-heavy tank the T28 was, in reality, a very heavy tank destroyer, and was re-designated as the 105 mm Gun Motor Carriage T95 in 1945. In 1946 it was renamed again, to T28.' - This is basically just repeating the rest of the lead. Please rewrite the lead to at least a decent size without repetition.
  •  Done

• Very short, staccato sentence throughout the article that need to be tidied up - often they don't seem to make sense next to each other

(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation: Comments:

• Lead needs to be longer, as stated
  •  Doing...

• Layout is extremely confused and sparse, even for a prototype vehicle. The history section is less a history of the T28 than a sentence on the T28 and then talking about other tanks for comparison. There needs to be much more on the tank itself. We know it was to be used for breaching the Siegfried Line. But why? When, exactly - what plans called for its use? Who championed it? Who was against it?
  •  Doing...

• 'Comparisons' -> 'Comparison'. This section could also do with some text - moving the random facts about other super-heavy tanks into this section would be a good idea.
  •  Done

1. Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout:

• Either integrate the wikilinks in 'See Also' or got rid of them
  •  Done

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons:

• 'After removal they could be fixed together to make a unit that could be towed behind the tank. Due to its extreme weight and low engine power, the T28 had extremely limited obstacle-crossing ability and could not cross any of the portable bridges available at the time, and so was considered impractical in the field and not suitable for production.' - citation needed here

(c) it contains no original research: Pass

1. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic: Comments:

• Needs to go into far more detail about the history of the tank

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): Pass

1. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias: Pass

1. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Pass

1. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: Pass

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: Pass

This could be a GA article, but I think it has a fair way to go, especially in terms of the content in the History section and overall layout of the article. I'll place this on hold for the moment and see what happens. Skinny87 (talk) 14:16, 24 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)