T85E1 MGMC - The American Wirbelwind

Suggestions Ground
1
[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

image

Description

In May 1943 the Ordnance Committee wanted to develop a 4 x 20mm anti aircraft gun to be mounted on a mobile carriage. The plan was approved in June and soon they came up with 4 different quad mount designs. The first 2 were both based on the .50 Maxson mount where one is armed with 4x20mm Oerlikon MK IV (designated T18) and the other armed with 4 x AN-M2 (designated T18E1). The other 2 quad mounts were both based on the twin 20mm gun mount T4 equipped with a hydraulic drive and a Sperry K sight. They were designated as the T19 ( Oerlikon) and T19E1 (Hispano-Suiza) respectively.

In October 1943, the project for the T18E1 and T19E1 quad mounts got cancelled and the Ordnance Committee recommended the T18 and T19 gun mount to be installed on the twin 40mm gun motor carriage T65 chassis based on the M5 Stuart. Two of these chassis were available since interest shifted to the twin 40mm gun motor carriage T65E1 based on the T24 Chaffee prototype chassis. It was noted that if these installations were successful, the design could be transferred to the modified T24 chassis for production.

The one with the T18 mount was designated multiple 20mm motor gun carriage T85 and the one with the T19 mount was designated T85E1. The T85 arrived at the Aberdeen proving grounds for tests in March 1945 and was still in progress when the end of the war closed the program. Later, the T85E1 was refitted with the new AN-M3 cannons and re-designated the T19E2. This new weapon was a lightweight version of the AN-M2 with a barrel shortened by 15 inches. The T85E1 with the new T19E2 completed in September 1945 and sent to Aberdeen in November. Its tests provided useful information for the further development of light spaags.

Specifications

Vehicle Specifications:

Most likely identical components, performance and stats to the M19 as their would share a similar chassis

Weapon specifications:

Armament: 4x20mm AN-M3 cannons (belt fed)
rate of fire: 750 rpm per gun
muzzle velocity: 840 m/s
ammunition capacity: unknown (there are ammo bins that surround the turret under the guns)

Images

image
image1014×1298 154 KB

image
image1018×1302 193 KB

References

Stuart - A History of the American Light Tank, Vol. 1 page 351-353by R.P. Hunnicutt
[R.P. Hunnicutt. Stuart. A history of american light tank.pdf]

Nevington War Museum

6 Likes
2

+1 around 3.3-3.7

I don’t think it’s as critically needed as it once was considering we have the T77 now, but more SPAA is never a bad thing

2 Likes
3

More SPAA is always a good thing! +1

4

Likely 4.0.

5

I like it, but it looks like it will be completely defenceless againts ground targets unless they happen to be right infront or back. Or does the shield rotate with the turret?

6

Everything except 40mm and .50cal its welcome lol

1 Like
7

Would love to see this, I still believe that the Wirbelwind should be at Rank 4 with a BR of atleast 5.7/6.0. So if I was going to add the T85E1 I would add it also at Rank 4 with a .3 BR deduction to that of the Wirbelwind due to the lack of gun shield. Due to the Skink’s improved turret traverse and elevation I would also put that at the same BR as the Wirbelwind (Rank 4, 5.7/6.0).

8

USA definitely needs one placed between 7.7 and 9.0 with radar, because the M163 is dogshit

9

+1, in my opinion this would be nice between the Skink and T77 and honestly would be a much preferred alternative to the Skink.

1 Like
10

If the guns behave the same as the 20mm AN/M3s in Aircraft, then yes. My only question is if there’s enough ammo per gun (before reloading) and for the vehicle overall? As for the Skink, those 20mm Polsten cannons seems a bit lackluster in damage.