Another choice is the M47 Patton itself. The M47 used a hull based off the M46 Patton but featured better sloping so the protection would be equal to the T42 hull. The gun is the same as the T42(the M36). The M47 had a top speed of 48 km\/h while having 15.9 hp\/t. The M47 should be superior to the T42 in mobility besides top speed, also you get to train 5 crew members in it. I\u2019d be happy with an M47 premium but I\u2019d like to have the M47 as a researchable tank at tier 9 and have the M26 and M46 combined as a single tier 8 tank, we could see it in the Euro Tree too. You could have the M47 as a German Premium too\u2026<\/p>\n The T25 and the T25E1 were modified T23s that were fitted with the \u00a090 mm gun T7(aka M3) in a new turret. The T25E1 used a more conventional transmission because the original T23 Electric transmission(used in the T25) couldn\u2019t deal with the weight being added. The T25E1 would be a better choice than the original T25 in my honest opinion. \u00a0The T25E1\u2032s turret was 76 mm thick with an 89 mm thick mantlet. The frontal armor is 76 mm thick at a 46 degree slope to protect the crew of 5. The T25E1 could reach speeds of 56 km\/h but only in short spurts, its sustained top speed was 48 km\/h and had 12.9 hp\/t. the T25E1 would be the most sluggish and weakest armed and armored out of these 3 vehicles and would need good \u201csoft\u201d stats for compensation.<\/p>\n Now for some prototype\/conceptual vehicles. In 1952, the first Questionmark conference was held. Out of this conference the M-1, M-4\/M-5, and the M-7 could be viable tier 8 mediums.<\/p>\n The M-1 was the most conventional out of these vehicles, being similar to the M48 Patton. It had 102 mm of frontal armor sloped back at 60 degress and had a powerful 500 hp engine(AOS-895, used in the Walker Bulldog). The M-1 was armed with the\u00a090 mm T139 gun<\/a>(which in all practicality is the 90 mm M41 gun). I would think this would be a little too much out of a premium, the M-2 design armed with the 105 mm T140 gun could make a good tier 9 tank with the M-1 being stock.<\/p>\n The M-4 and the M-5 only differed in powerplant, the M-4 was to use a failed engine(AX-1100) while the M-5 was to use the AOS-895 and would have good mobility(13 hp\/t). They had 102 mm of armor sloped at 60 degrees to protect the 4 crew members. The turret for these designs was placed in the rear to minimize overhang of the gun which was the 90 mm T139 gun. The M-5 should still get a good deal of comfort(which all these other tanks have an exceptional amount of comfortable gun depression). I think the M-5 would be a good choice as it unique and it isn\u2019t over\/underpowering.<\/p>\n The M-7 is a strange vehicle. It has the same chassis as the M-5 as above but the turret is a pod with an autoloaded 90 mm T139 gun. The weight of the M-7 was only 32 tons and would have 15.6 hp\/t. There was to be no dangers of gun fumes or recoil but this arrangement also made vision more difficult for the crew of 3. The M-7\u2032s autoloader would have access to many more rounds and for this reason it would be near impossible to balance as a tier 8 unless it is extremely nerfed, however the M-6(37 tons) was armed with a 105 mm T140 making the M-6\/M-7 a tier IX candidate.<\/p>\n This is actually the M-7 with the 105 mm gun.<\/p>\n Now the last vehicle that I would endorse will come from the third Questionmark conference. Here many medium tanks were proposed but most either had composite armor or a smooth bore 90 mm gun so that only leaves one vehicle from the conference available, the TS-3. the TS-3 was a 40 ton vehicle armed crewed by 4 tankers and was armed with the 90 mm T139 . The armor was 96.5 mm thick and sloped back at 60 degrees; overall the TS-3 had less overall armor than the M48. The hp\/t ratio would be ~14 hp\/t giving the TS-3 good mobility with the 560 hp AOI-1195 engine. The TS-3 could be an effective premium if balanced properly.<\/p>\n There are more concepts from the US which could fill this position but most of the ones not here didn\u2019t receive a proper designation and are pretty boring to be honest. I don\u2019t want to talk about the \u201c90 mm Gun Tank Proposal\u201d or the \u201cLightweight Medium Tank\u201d and you really don\u2019t need to know, but they do exist.<\/p>\n Sources: Hunnicutt\u2019s\u00a0Pershing<\/em>,\u00a0Patton<\/em>, and\u00a0Abrams<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Now the Americans already have one don\u2019t … \u7ee7\u7eed\u9605\u8bfb ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/xvm.garphy.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/\u4e0b\u8f7d.png\" "\\"\u4e0b\u8f7d\\"")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n