T92 | Triple Turret Airborne Lightweight
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ต.ค. 2021
- Amid concerns about the practicality of the US Army's new light tank in 1952, a replacement vehicle was needed. This ground-breaking light tank used many brand new features never before seen on a fighting vehicle and changed the future of AFV design forever. Despite this, the design was never used in combat due to developments behind the iron curtain, and only one example survives today.
Any feedback is greatly appreciated, I'm always trying to improve.
Want to thank all of you for all the recent support my channel has (inexplicably) received - nearly 600 subscribers at time of writing and more people watching my content than I would've ever thought possible. Thank you so, so much! Means the world to me.
((Like and subscribe))
Credit to these excellent articles:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T92_Lig...
tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwa... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![รวมเพลงลูกทุ่ง 6 หนุ่มไทบ้าน ฮิตติดกระแส ชุดที่ 1 l มนต์แคน ไมค์ ไผ่ เสถียร ไหมไทย พี [Longplay]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD2v1OjMw5I/mqdefault.jpg)
Fun fact: every tank is airdrop capable. The problem starts only if you want to be able to use it afterwards.
You mean like airdropping humvees without parachutes?
@@philvanderlaan5942 Maybe i guess?
@@Zyron_Guy01 last year I think it was someone thought it would be really funny to do just that with three , next duty station Fort Leavenworth Kansas I believe.
That applies to everything
I'm sure T28 is airdrop capable
"Sunk because it couldn't swim"
Good last words there.
I feel like suddenly dropping the program cause it doesn't float is silly. Seems like to me that this tank was pretty promising, and would of made a excellent tank with Air drop capacity. Which in my opinion is more important, though the Sheridan is dope, It would of been cool to see both in use.
Also the 76mm gun.
I think it may sound silly but if you watch at it from perspective of being used in Europe, the place full of lakes and other bodies of water, you better be floating.
Sheridan had it's own issues T92 looks like a mini merkavah i wonder if it was the inspiration 🤔
76 mm gun wont do shit to t 54
@@twink5717 tell that to Northern Vietnamese tank crews who got btfo'd by... 76-mm guns. Powder charge matters.
Army *stamping foot* "Theirs can swim so I want one that swims too."
And after over sixty years it has been proven to be a completely useless feature, since whenever soviet or russian army had to cross a river, they still had to install pontoon bridges. Every goddamn time. Since the real challenge isn't making BMP float, it's making it climb onto unprepared bank
Swimming is pretty good, though.
@@CharliMorganMusic yeah
Better to have scuba and drive across the bottom :)
Russian Army light tank: *swims*
American Army: The Russians are swimming across the river!! We wanna swim the river too!
American A-10: Brrrrrrrrrrrtttttttt!!!!!!!
Russian light tanks: Glub, glub *sinks*
American Army: Good point
If they really wanted the T92 to swim, they could have fitted a floatation screen. They ended up using one to make the Sheridan amphibious. I remember seeing the T92 prototype at Aberdeen Proving Grounds back in the late 80's.
T
I was at Aberdeen back in the late 80's, apparently I missed this one. Or if I seen it I had no idea about it's history. I play this one from time to time in World of Tanks.
Probably was just not worth it
Did you work there? I work for gdls. I get to see the new tanks
I can’t believe I’ve never heard of this tank I’ve studied armored vehicles all my life and I’m 60 years old
Glad I could tell you about it then Raymond!
Should look up all the tanks in war thunder.
ITC had a plastic model of the T-92. I’m ten years older and the old Colby or Jarret books for young kids had a mention of that tank. Saw one at Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
At 18 metric tons with 320 hp with a power/weight of 18.38 hp/t giving a very good performance but even if it couldn't float like the Russian PT-76 that led to a new swimming requirement it could still be a formidabile light tank that was relatively economical and easily airlifted anywhere. Good job 👍👍
Yeah just look at it’s performance in War Thunder
@@bmac7643 warthunder isn't real life
@@cloaker2829Lemme just email another document to the devs about the engine
@@ZaHandledo it💯
@@cloaker2829 yes, but it is at least somewhat of a reference upon how it may have possibly performed in the real world
Wow, the T92 sounded pretty awesome! The rear entrance/exit sounded especially nice.
This little tank had so many innovative ideas! Installing the main gun upside down to facilitate semi-auto function, awesome. Engine up front adds to the armor in a worst case scenario. To bad the project didn't float...
Thanks! I have been fascinated by this little-known 'what if' since I had a toy tank based on it as a kid in the early '60s.
I probably had the same toy tank. Also the F9F Cougar jet from Woolworth's.
That tank was way ahead of its time. Smart design.
The US Army figured out that a Tank, that is literally named: "swiming Tank" could swim? Very impressive!
Kinda makes me wonder. Soviets got amphibious transporter for infantry/artillery, hell, even their APC on same chassis as PT-76 (and ASU-85) could transport a cannon and fire it while on water. Why didn't Americans go similar way and just make an amphibious armoured transporter, but for their tanks?
@@unknowncommenter6698 my (un)educated guess: displacement
In order to transport heavy loades (i.e. real Tanks) any amphibious vessel would have to be so big, that it would be to bulky for road and railroad Transport.
The soviets where only able to "solve" this problem by making the PT-76s armor so thin (down to 6mm) that it barely stops .30cal.
@@comentedonakeyboard I mean Soviets had PTS (made with spare parts of t-72 and t-80), BMP series and whatnot and all that shit was amphibious and not thin as hell armor.
@@unknowncommenter6698 Based soviet engineering.
@@footisman2059 it was mostly due to Europe (and especially Germany) being full of lakes, swamps and other bodies of water. But when nukes got invented then BTR-50/PT-76 became totally useless. Maybe except that in case of BTR-50 it could transport lots of supplies (using tracks for increased mobility and thin armor as advantage against no armor in case of regular trucks) and defend itself from light infantry.
Sweet. "Sunk because it could not swim". Well done, the subject is covered well with no ego. Keep 'em coming!
I remember as a kid having a model of this tank (we are talking 50 years ago!!) I think as an airborne tank it would have been worth it. The swimming thing, well, a rarity in airborne warfare.
yeah but but how could the US live with them selves if russia could do a thing
@@jonny_codphilo7809 by having their tank have a much more deadly gun.
I picked up a copy of that model and built it up. It’s a very rare model with a version of it being motorized and in 1/24 scale like automobile models. An even rarer model of it was made by I believe Tamiya and I am not sure of the scale, 1/48 or even 1/35
seems a very fine airborne tank. i think 82nd or 101st troopers would love to have these things roll off their c-141s and support them in battle instead of jeeps with M2s. amphibious tanks are such a niche application it's stupid that this was cancelled over a feature that was likely never going to be used in its lifetime anyway.
as for the gun caliber - this was firmly an infantry support tool. design constraints meant it was too small to realistically be a good anti-tank weapon. 76mm was perfectly fine for anti-infantry/light armor role. putting a 90mm (or realistically a 105 if they wanted to fight soviet MBTs) meant it would've been much heavier and carried much less ammo which would've eliminated its airborne capability anyway.
As always, they want a light high-tech reliable cheap mass production parachute droppable tank that swims and can survive an atgm from behind while destroying a heavy tank with its gun.
Something like th Ontos was supposed to be a tank killer but in VN the Marines used it for fire support
We still cant get a light tank to drop with the ABN or AST troops. Like can we field the M8 already? Its a sexy ass tank and is a beast.
What do you mean by M8? The only M8 I could find was the M8 greyhound, a scout car from WW2.
@@Kishanth.J M8 Buford. AKA M8 Airborne Gun System
Excellent production!
Thank you for making this for us.✌
My pleasure Troy!
Excellent video as always.
I climbed on that tank at Aberdeen many many years ago!
Over the last dozen or so years, I have heard how the Army is looking for a new light tank. With the improvements made in armor combat vehicle technology over the last 45 years since the introduction of the Abrams, Bradley, Striker, and the Marine's LAV, now may be the time to revisit both the T92 and the M551 and apply what has been learned and developed.
They are already picked the LT and it is green lit for production. Forgot the name.
Excellent video - I really enjoy your style of presentation. Hope to see much more from you. (Subbed, of course).
Thanks so much Avi
Very useful. Please keep at it.
Very cool, newly subscribed looking forward to more.
Subbed. Very very impressive, and a?damn shame it was never used.
Nice story...well done and very relevant given the current search for an airborne capable tank.
I've just stumbled upon your channel and have to say you're making some great content!
GET THIS TANK INTO A MUSEUM
Great video, was introduced to this tank though War Thunder, and I have to say it's one of my favorites, excellent work!
This was such a well made video, great job!
I feel like we have come back around to this vehicle with the army's new infantry support vehicle
Brilliant design - triple turret. Great light tank.
Great video, more footage would be nice if it exists but subscribed anyway!
Well done! Thanks
Really informative!
I absolutely adore this vehicle in War Thunder, never had seen it before and it was interesting to learn it was only ever a prototype.
Thanks Tim :) Always nice to see people are still enjoying my old videos even if I feel they’re a bit lacking haha
Something I've never heard of. Great job Man!
Sweet looking little tank
Loved the "fallout" nuke blast survival gag! Very nice reference!
Hopefully it is at the New Armor Center at Ft. Benning, Ga... They'll get it restored best they can eventually...
Nicely done..
This is my most favorite tank of all time.
Tanker don't swim and tankers don't fly... we roll across the battlefield and make shit die!!! (one of my favorite cadences)
That’s why tanks don’t go where cattails grow, cause tanker don’t swim!
i love the optimism with all of these cold war era tanks that are like, "yea this tank can survive a nuke!"
Back in 1980 I was TDY at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and the T-92 prototype was on display at the museum there I wonder if it's at the new Museum on Benning or if it even exist anymore. I've even got a picture of the one at APG.
Very good, I thought I knew about every U.S. tank but I never heard about this one. Now l know! 🤗
Great work Sir thank you
My father in law drove a Walker Bulldog in Germany in the 1950s. He brought home an accordion that he held on to, but never learned to play. He made a model of one and gave it to my son as a present. He passed a few years ago.
Actually there were only 2 potential competing manufacturers: Cadillac & Chrysler. The third was actually the designer: The US Army Tank Automotive Command.
I really hope this channel blows up. Just discovered it yesterday. Excellent content.
Thanks so much! I hope so too..
Your editing has definitely improved! Great job!
Glad you think so!
Poor AAI - they tried so hard to build a light tank the Army wanted. The T92, the later the RDF/LT...
Excellent video. Thanks for posting.
Thank you too!
I like it. It kind of looks like the Ontos or the British scorpion with its platform
I have the feeling, that this type of tank is better suited for a modern battlefield, as example our Leopard 2. The MBT is not obsolete, but on a battlefield with massive drones, its a smaller Tank, with good scouting and drone AA .50 caliber MG a good choice.
RPG, or anything heavier turns what you’ve described into a barbecue
“Sunk because it couldn’t swim”… awesome ending
me in war thunder: behind ridge line with only gun sticking out go brrrr
شرح رائع وشكرا لك على اضافه الترجمه العربية
What a shame. This little bruiser had mad potential.
Was this a tank or some variant or armored vehicle? it is more like a cross from a light tank destroyer and 2 Panzer1's. Those 2heavy machine guns would have made it very useful as infantry support
This seems like it would have been an excellent export tank for smaller countries or as a chassis for AA turrets.
This is one of those “Looks really cool but thank goodness it never happened” vehicles. See also M60A2 and MBT-70. The dual cupolas seem nice but having served on a M60A3 I can tell you they leave much to be desired. Lots of complexity for little gain.
Wow mate, just found out about your channel and it looks great! Just watched all your videos, they are all very informative and entertaining to watch. Just a suggestion but I’d love for you to shed some light on the Australian Cruiser tank series. Not a lot of people know about the tanks. Thanks!
Awesome, thank you!
I love the military when it comes to their design choices
We need a light tank for scouting but is armored and armed with a heavy tank's armor and weaponry, it needs to be fast but also amphibious and also a troop transport but also designed with a low profile for scouting and reconnaissance, but it also needs to be light weight to be transportable by air and parachuted into combat and needs an engine that can get it up to scout speeds but big enough to move the heavy armor and armed hull of a heavy tank.
They wanted a tank that was light enough for airdrops. Here comes T92 light tank. But then: It cannot not swim. Quite difficult to design anything if specifications change all the time.
The U.S. Army is full of historic, "what if's".
In early 1985, the Sergeant York anti-aircraft, twin, 40mm Bofors, tracked system had been approved for mass production and deployment. The SGT York was to be the U.S. Army's direct counterpart to the West German Gepard, which mounted two, 35mm antiaircraft cannon.
Yet in June 1985, The U.S. Army stunned everyone by abruptly cancelling the SGT York. Soldiers were already in training schools learning how to operate the SGT York, or how to maintain and repair it. The top Army brass and the Secretary of the Army claimed the SGT York was already obsolescent. Guided, radar antiaircraft surface -to-air-missiles were the wave of the future.
In 1992 the Army had chosen the FMC Armored Gun System for mass production and deployment. The AGS resembled a dwarf M1 Abrams tank. It was not a tank per se, as the Army insisted. It was a self-propelled, high caliber, direct fire, infantry assault 105mm cannon.
But before the U.S. Army let contracts for mass production in 1993, it cancelled the entire program. The Soviet Union had peacefully dissolved in 1992. The Army top brass declared the AGS redundant to force future threats. The money could be saved and spent elsewhere; the peace dividend, it was called.
In 1970 the U.S. Army was about to approve the heavy, heavily-armed Cheyenne Attack Helicopter for mass production. But events overtook the Cheyenne. In mid-1973 the U.S. Army finally withdrew from Vietnam after eight long fruitless years. Congress was fed up with the Vietnam War and wanted nothing more to do with expensive, new-weapons acquisitions.
Requirement: we need a light tank that can be air dropped.
T92 is developed that’s almost 2/3 the weight of the M41.
…but can it swim?!!
Damn that sort of requirement change can make you go crazy.
You fulfill all the original specifications, only for some committee to decide that what they actually want is something different.
Ahead of its time
All I can think is the development scene from Pentagon Wars.
Had a toy version of this. I thought it was a version of the French AMX 30 .... But the dual machine gun turrets convince me this was it.
Ome of my absolute favorite vehicles in war thunder.
Enjoying these.
Cheers Tim!
Agree
I like this tank a lot in World of Tanks, and really want a 1:35 scale model, which does not exist.
05:17 turret fighting compartment of the M551 Sheridan
Good spot - can’t find any footage of the inside of the T92 unfortunately but felt it was close enough!
It's pretty lightly armed, AC-2s are only really useful for anti-aircraft work and maybe some lucky TACs. The two MGs would help with dealing with close in infantry though. I'd say a small laser would be better, but they're hard to mount on an ICE powered vehicle.
In the start of this video you mentioned how the Army received three proposals for a light tank and thus used the alpha/numeric designations “T-71” (for two of entries) and “T-92” for three subject proposals.
My question is; and I’ve always wondered about this, what were the other intervening alpha/numeric designators T-73 through T-91, used for? Anyone venture a guess at an answer?
Why jump from T-71 to T-92 for designators in the very same project? A project that only had three commercial entries. Why not just pick the next number in line?
In other words, how does the military decide on a final “T” or an “M” number when labeling a vehicle?
In WW2 they went from the M-5 Stuart light tank to M-24 Chaffee light tank. Were there 19 light tank prototype developments before they finally deployed the Chaffee? If so, what were they?
Thank you very much for this video. I knew that the t92 had a cleft turret but that was all I knew about it. Will know how problematic the gun on the Sheridan turned out to be maybe something more like the teen 92s cleft turret with a different gun would have solved those issues.
The M551 was trialed with a 76mm gun.
@@gmatgmat a76mm gun and a tow box launcher on the side of the turret would have been more generally useful, probably. Heck, a 105 artillery gun and tow box...
Another excellent video, your channel growth is definitely well deserved!
A swimming tank is a very easy target to sink or destroy.
Gun's in top three
Wouldn’t surprise me at all if some of the army’s evaluating staff had a brother-in-law, who had a nephew, who had a cousin, who had a son, who was somehow financially connected to the Sheridan project.
Nice vid. I imagine this would be a very popular tank today if it got to full production and deployment.
Thanks Dylan - I really appreciate your comments!
The Sheridan could swim and with its overdrive transmission it was as fast as the later m1 and Bradley's. I know this from having served in them in the 1980s.the biggest issue was the aluminum armor and that ridiculous short barred gun that was necessary because of the crapshow shitlay missile system
Me halfway through the video: "HEy tHAT LOOKS lIKe PEniS!!"
Definitely a place for something like this or the German weasel on the modern battlefield. Small and fast covered in ATM’s.
Funny how the cold war militaries though everything had to swim or snorkel for a while. Then they realized that in order to do this you need calm water, little flow and, most importantly, a nice place to enter and exit the water. I think in most cases swim capability is not even close to being worth the extra design factors.
Rather than upgrade from the Walker Bulldog, the Army opted to stay with the older design that retained the operational flaws that created the prototype replacement, while still not meeting the amphibious requirement 🥴 classic Army
AAI : “Check this tank we made.”
U.S : “Can it swim?”
AAI : “No.”
U.S : “Get out.”
My father helped build this at aircraft armaments inc.
So a mini-Merkava before the Merkava was even an idea.
👍🏆👍
Either he misspoke, or I misunderstood, but I heard him say the T92 had an 89" turret ring. I'd buy 69", the same as the M4.
no the T92 did have a 89" turret ring according to R.P. Hunnicutt's books (specifically Sheridan: A History of the American Light Tank, pg 306)
30 years later, the US's biggest combat operations were fought in the desert.
If I could get a model of that tank I would love to build it.
I think that it was offered under the ITC brand. Every now and then it will show up for sale.
Thanks I will look for it.
Lol i thought i could find T92E1 here 😂
Liked for the pun
It's a fine tank, it just needed more turrets, that's all.
With the layout similar to the Israeli Merkeva, this was way ahead of its time.
That layout is not ahead of its time, it is simply one solution and one that has its pros and cons...
The concept could still have been scaled up to MBT specs. They could have created either a much lighter and more mobile MBT or a standard weight MBT with a higher caliber gun, like 155.
Israel essentially did this with the Merkava series!
@@RedWrenchFilms
Not really. The Merkava is heavier than average and carries a standard caliber gun, loaded manually. I was talking about something more like the Swedish Stridsvagn 2000 concept. The basic idea is, if you put the main gun outside the fighting compartment you can make it bigger and with higher elevation/depression, but it will have to have an autoloader with no manual backup.
@@lucianene7741 Ah something like the M1128 MGS then?
@@RedWrenchFilms
Something of the sort, yes, but with tracks instead of wheels and a manned turret. You still need top vision in a tank, no matter how advanced the electronics.
You could drive it in Warthunder 😁
Effectively it could've worked, but seems that US Army's higher-ups are always fixated with impossible feats, after all the army wasn't destined to amphibian attacks, and surely the T92 could've performed better than the Sheridan, expecially if you look at the awful Shillelagh's flop.
When u could be deployed via airborne, smaller and lighter than an M41, "could" deflect nuclear shockwaves, fast enough to travel as a light tank, only need atleast 3 crews to operate in worst scenario. But u cant swim:
"My disappointment, is... Immeasurable. And my carreer is ruined."
The M41 bulldog if it was good:
i thought it was learned in the 1930ies that multi-turreted tanks are not worth the extra weight and cost. and what use is a machinegun turret over the gunners position?? the man has to aim the main gun, which is enough of a job!!!??