Company of Heroes: Eastern Front

Eastern Front Mod (Read-Only) => Suggestions => Red Army Suggestions => Topic started by: Akalonor on March 08, 2010, 03:47:36 AM

Title: T-28
Post by: Akalonor on March 08, 2010, 03:47:36 AM
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armor upgrades, bringing its performance on par with the early Panzer IV, although its suspension and layout were outdated.--     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
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: ford_prefect on March 08, 2010, 02:35:15 PM
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)       
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: TheDancingJesus on March 08, 2010, 03:59:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Daiwiz on March 08, 2010, 09:09:08 PM
Needs a pretty flamethrower  ;D
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: SoccerSpartan on March 09, 2010, 12:29:16 AM
YES! love the idea, possibly have the flamethrower as an individual unit upgrade? Either way this should be added ingame
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Daiwiz on March 09, 2010, 03:33:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Akalonor on March 09, 2010, 03:55:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: hgghg4 on March 09, 2010, 05:51:28 AM
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
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Paciat on March 09, 2010, 07:43:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: ford_prefect on March 09, 2010, 02:33:44 PM
If the M3 came in a quicker way then the rest I'd use it
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Daiwiz on March 09, 2010, 03:41:20 PM
The M3 was a very good tank, it was simply that the Sherman got produced so quickly. Off topic though.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Akalonor on March 09, 2010, 11:53:55 PM
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
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: ford_prefect on March 09, 2010, 11:54:09 PM
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: March 09, 2010, 11:55:16 PM
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 
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Daiwiz on March 10, 2010, 06:10:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Paciat on March 10, 2010, 08:17:51 AM
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".
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).
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: ford_prefect on March 10, 2010, 01:39:59 PM
smaller than everything else Russia has (besides the t-70 and t-90)
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Paciat on March 10, 2010, 01:55:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Akalonor on March 10, 2010, 01:59:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: ford_prefect on March 10, 2010, 02:24:29 PM
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 -_-
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Shadowmetroid on March 10, 2010, 06:20:32 PM
Perhaps as a reward unit, replacing the JS-2...? Or another unit. Ideas, anyone?
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Akalonor on March 11, 2010, 12:34:26 AM
JS-2 is a heavy tank, Medium should only replace medium, maybe replace  T70's as an early starter.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Shadowmetroid on March 11, 2010, 06:01:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Akalonor on March 12, 2010, 12:35:53 AM
I would rather have T-28's than T-70's/90's
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: ford_prefect on March 12, 2010, 02:05:03 AM
me too +1
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Paciat on March 12, 2010, 08:43:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Shadowmetroid on March 12, 2010, 06:14:17 PM
BT-7 would be an awesome addition, as well. It looks cool, and it's fast to boot!
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: Ost_Front_Soldat on March 12, 2010, 06:30:10 PM
Yes, BT-7s would be good, T-26 isn't a bad idea either.
Title: Re: T-28
Post by: comrade2012 on April 17, 2010, 04:56:20 AM
yes, they should