EFEastern Front Forum Archive
Read-only public archive · no login or tracking

Locked topic · 28 posts

T-28

Red Army Suggestions

Archived poll

Should EF developers consider T-28 ?

Yes.23 votes · 56%
No.13 votes · 32%
Maybe.5 votes · 12%

41 total votes

#29706

T-28

The Russian T-28 was designed to be a Defense busting tank, it had Smoke launchers and 3 turrets, 2 MG, 1 Cannon
there was  a OT-28 a flamethrower version (Doctrinal call -in ??)
--Although the T-28 was rightly considered ineffective by 1941, it is worth remembering that when the Red Army was fielding the first T-28s in 1933, the French Army was still largely equipped with the FT-17, and the Reichswehr had no tanks at all. No army had a series-production medium tank comparable to the T-28 for several years.The T-28 had a number of advanced features for the time, including radio (in all tanks) and anti-aircraft machine-gun mounts. Just before the Second World War, many received armor upgrades, bringing its performance on par with the early Panzer IV, although its suspension and layout were outdated.--   





~Aka
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
#29728

Re: T-28

beautiful just beautiful I would love to see this thing in the Russian Army. (it would be great against Osth. smaller scout tanks) (Osth. is the name I gave to the Ostheer)       
#29732

Re: T-28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-28

Notes that in the Winter War, many of these were disabled but repairable - maybe give this a self-repair ability to keep it viable in the later game, when the other first-tier tanks are pretty useless?
#29744

Re: T-28

Needs a pretty flamethrower  ;D
In Soviet Union, rifle shoots you!
#29759

Re: T-28

YES! love the idea, possibly have the flamethrower as an individual unit upgrade? Either way this should be added ingame
Forum post image
#29768

Re: T-28

Ye, the individual unit upgrade similar to the Flamethrowers for the Ingenery, but with Churchill Croc style range, damage, and ability to keep the main gun.
In Soviet Union, rifle shoots you!
#29769

Re: T-28

I can see why people have never recomended the T-35 , but why not T-28 says I :) but I'd like to see how they work in the multiple turrets, maybe just give it a wider machine gun arc.
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
#29777

Re: T-28

I think why they haven't considered it is because the coding involved I am guessing is extremely difficult and 1 turret is bad enough, why complicate things and make 3. Just some food for thought :D
Forum post image
#29782

Re: T-28

It was a 10 year old tank.
In some ways I could be compared to a PzIV stubby but who  needs a T-28 when you have a T-34. Its like giving a M-3 Lee to the US.
#29801

Re: T-28

If the M3 came in a quicker way then the rest I'd use it
#29813

Re: T-28

The M3 was a very good tank, it was simply that the Sherman got produced so quickly. Off topic though.
In Soviet Union, rifle shoots you!
#29837

Re: T-28

The T-28 DID see combat in WWII nonetheless
Renaults were used by the Germans in low supply areas and that was the First "successful" tank to be made.
The T-28 should be a starters medium tank, its armor was thin so it isn't a superstation but it is a good defense busting tank (Think of the uses at a  Lyon map) that was very successful. Perhaps letting it be buildable from the Wep. Sup. center , The fact is its not meant to challenge the T-34 just provide support.

Add a flamethrower to make it a OT-28 if you still think they don't need it. :p
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
#29838

Re: T-28

well not really I'm defending the T-28 (small tank) and he brought up the erm.....M3 thats is. (small tank) so Im in a sense defending small tanks and in a sense thus defending the T-28 ;D

Post Merge: [time]1268175316[/time]

Akalonor wrote:
The T-28 DID see combat in WWII nonetheless
Renaults were used by the Germans in low supply areas and that was the First "successful" tank to be made.
The T-28 should be a starters medium tank, its armor was thin so it isn't a superstation but it is a good defense busting tank (Think of the uses at a  Lyon map) that was very successful. Perhaps letting it be buildable from the Wep. Sup. center , The fact is its not meant to challenge the T-34 just provide support.

Add a flamethrower to make it a OT-28 if you still think they don't need it. :p

hmm maybe some sort of upgrade for it though....like an upgrade for the support barracks 
#29873

Re: T-28

I vote for it being an individual upgrade like the Sniper artillery, even though I love the flames. Giving them a global upgrade would probably be a bit OP'd. Of course, if the Ostheer get a flamethrowing PzIII without individual upgrade, the Soviets could always get the OT-28 without having to upgrade.
In Soviet Union, rifle shoots you!
#29881

Re: T-28

Daiwiz wrote:
The M3 was a very good tank, it was simply that the Sherman got produced so quickly. Off topic though.

To fight japanese with no medium tanks or German armor in 1942. So was the T-28. "It was simply that the" T-34 "got produced so quickly".
ford_prefect wrote:
well not really I'm defending the T-28 (small tank) and he brought up the erm.....M3 thats is. (small tank) so Im in a sense defending small tanks and in a sense thus defending the T-28 ;D

How is T-28 small? There is a reason I compared M-3 Lee and T-28. Same weith (later T-28 were even heavier), armor (T-28 - thicker) and caliber of the gun (M-3 gun was better but it was hull mounted).

Last edited March 10, 2010 at 7:25 AM by Paciat

#29889

Re: T-28

smaller than everything else Russia has (besides the t-70 and t-90)
#29892

Re: T-28

ford_prefect wrote:
smaller than everything else Russia has (besides the t-70 and t-90)

and T-37a, T-40, T-26, BT-5, BT-7.(almmost the same weight as T-34) Remember that T-28 was build in the mid 30s. In fact only KV and T-35 tanks were hevier.

Last edited March 10, 2010 at 12:57 PM by Paciat

#29893

Re: T-28

And those two were considered unsuccesful, not so much the KV1 , but the T-35 was considered a nightmare for crews.Thats why I recommended the T-28 instead.
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
#29897

Re: T-28

Paciat wrote:
ford_prefect wrote:
smaller than everything else Russia has (besides the t-70 and t-90)

and T-37a, T-40, T-26, BT-5, BT-7.(almmost the same weight as T-34) Remember that T-28 was build in the mid 30s. In fact only KV and T-35 tanks were hevier.

In game -_-
#29909

Re: T-28

Perhaps as a reward unit, replacing the JS-2...? Or another unit. Ideas, anyone?
#29927

Re: T-28

JS-2 is a heavy tank, Medium should only replace medium, maybe replace  T70's as an early starter.
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
#29952

Re: T-28

Akalonor wrote:
JS-2 is a heavy tank, Medium should only replace medium, maybe replace  T70's as an early starter.


It also has multiple turrets, don't forget. But you're right, It shouldn't replace the JS-2.

Last edited March 12, 2010 at 1:55 AM by Shadowmetroid

#29994

Re: T-28

I would rather have T-28's than T-70's/90's
Molly: " It's our rock garden"
Dwight: "What are you farming, Bullcrap?"

You Are a Rebel Spy and a traitor to the Empire!
~Darth Vader

Any typos found may be given to Seeme.
#30002

Re: T-28

me too +1
#30017

Re: T-28

Akalonor wrote:
I would rather have T-28's than T-70's/90's

I would rather have a quick stubby BT-7 than another slow stubby T-28.
#30068

Re: T-28

BT-7 would be an awesome addition, as well. It looks cool, and it's fast to boot!
#30072

Re: T-28

Yes, BT-7s would be good, T-26 isn't a bad idea either.
Forum post image
#32297

Re: T-28

yes, they should
"It is better to fight for something than live for nothing." George Patton