Military Review

Heavy Tanks Series M6

35
Heavy Tanks M6 series were produced during the Second World War, however, since these machines did not participate in hostilities, they are known only to a narrow circle of experts stories armored vehicles. Although the Heavy Tank M6 is technically rather interesting. Serious errors in the design and a large mass in many respects predetermined the fate of the machine.


T1E2


In the United States until the Second World War, tank production was practically neglected. Before 1939, there was not even such a unit, all tanks were under the command of the infantry command. Among the tanks that were in service, there were practically no modern heavy tanks. The entire fleet of cars of this class consisted of several dozen Mk.VIII tanks, made back in 1919 — 1920. Mk.VIII - the final of the development of the British "diamond tanks" of the First World War Already by the 1930 years these sedentary and poorly protected tanks (booking protected only from light rifle weapons) hopelessly outdated. There was no question of using them as combat vehicles. The maximum that they were capable of is to become an educational tool. It should be noted that no work on the creation of the replacement of these machines was carried out in connection with the meager funding of the American armed forces during the interwar period.

With the beginning of World War II and the success of the German tank forces on the battlefield, the interest of the US military to tanks increased significantly. The US military decided to first of all upgrade its pre-war medium tank - М2А1. The main armament - the 37 mm gun - was replaced by an 75 caliber mm gun. This machine has become known under the designation M3 Lee Grant. In September, 1939 revived the heavy tank program. By order of 22.05.1940, they formulated the initial concept for the new heavy tank. For the most part, she repeated the concept of the 1930-ies - a multi-tower tank with a relatively modest reservation.



Given the tactical and technical requirements, the mass of the new tank should be from 50 to 80 tons. Later, the US military decided that the specified range of masses was too large and clarified the requirements according to which the mass of the car should be within 50 tons. Estimated booking - sheets of thickness 75 mm and more.

The heavy tank was thought to be a heavy breakthrough machine. The start date for the development of the new heavy tank is 11, July 1939. It was on this day that the project was given the name “Heavy Tank T1” (heavy tank T1). Development was carried out by Baldwin Locomotive Works.

From the very beginning of the design, the designers decided not to use the multi-turret scheme. Most likely, the designers took into account the experience of fighting in Europe, during which the multi-turret tanks completely discredited themselves. Already on the first wooden model of the car there was only one tower.

The crew consisted of a 6 man: a commander, a gunner, a loader, a driver and an assistant driver who actually performed the duties of a machine gunner. The workplace of the tank commander was located to the left of the gun, for it was provided for commander's turret. To enter the exit of the crew members a total of 3 hatch was provided.

Heavy Tanks Series M6
Pilot T1E2 as it arrived at the Aberdeen Proving Ground


Series heavy tank M6 on the test site General Motors 4 August 1943


Heavy tank tower cast. To balance the system of twin guns, the back of the tower was extended. A commander's turret and a bracket for installing an anti-aircraft machine gun were mounted on the turret.

A radio station served for external communication, and a tank intercom for internal communications.

As an engine for the American heavy tank, the Wright G-200 engine was chosen. At 2300 rpm, the engine developed the power of the 960 HP.

After a lot of experiments, the designers chose the Hydromatic transmission as the transmission.

In the undercarriage of heavy tanks used 8 small road wheels (interlocked in pairs) on board. The suspension had vertical buffer springs. The undercarriage was protected by special armored screens. The upper parts of the hull sides were located above the tracks.

As the main armament served as a modernized anti-aircraft gun Т9 caliber 75 mm. As an additional weapon, the M5EXNNXX 1 mm gun was paired with it. The commander of the tank firing a machine gun. The assistant driver in charge had two machine guns at once. In the body of the tank were made three small loopholes for firing from personal weapons.


Production pilot heavy tank M6А1 at the site of General Motors, 22 January 1943. Outwardly, there are almost no differences from the serial M6, with the exception of the welded body


In the summer of 1940, the company-developer received an order for the manufacture of a test batch in 50 tanks.

The first modification of the heavy tank was T1-1. From the prototype, it differed gas-electric transmission company General Electric. In April, 1941, the next version of the machine - T1-2. This heavy tank was equipped with a T16001 double-disc clutch. However, during the tests it found a huge number of flaws. Transmission and brakes, as well as the mechanism of rotation of the tower worked very. During the tests, the power steering system failed. Despite the identified shortcomings, the car with some improvements and additions launched in production. Probably, this decision was influenced by the day of testing - 08.12.1941. The tests were carried out the next day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the US military simply was afraid to enter the war, not having a heavy tank armed with. The serial car should have received the following improvements: the number of machine guns from the shooter was reduced to one; the place of the driver was equipped with two periscopes; another periscope equipped the workplace shooter; the commander's turret was dismantled, replacing it with a two-wing hatch. In addition, a large number of less significant changes were made. However, for the launch of mass production of American heavy tank was too "raw." In this regard, in the course of production, modifications were made, which caused the appearance of a number of modifications:
The T1 tank had a molded hull, equipped with a Wright G-200 engine and Hydromatic transmission;
The T1E1 tank also had a cast hull and a Wright G-200 engine, but was equipped with an GE electric transmission;
The T1E2 tank had a Twin Disc torque converter;
T1E3 tank - in this modification the cast hull was replaced by a welded one using a number of cast parts.



Series heavy tank M6 on trial in Fort Knox


26 May 1942, the first American heavy tank received the serial designation M6, and the modification T1EX3 - M6A1.

The initial order for the M6 tanks was 1084 vehicles. Soon it was reduced to 115 units, and in 1944, production was stopped altogether. Tankmen simply didn’t need these cars, due to excessive weight, they couldn’t fit them into their tactical schemes. For the same reason, work on the next modification - T1-4 suspended. True, the US Army Supply Service increased the order to 230 tanks, outlining the supply of 115 vehicles to the UK.

However, further the American heavy tank M6 met with resistance in the army, more precisely, from the commander of the armored forces D. Divers, and the production of machines was sharply reduced. Over the entire production period (November 1942 - February 1944 of the year), 40 tanks of this series were produced, of which: М6 - 8 units; М6А1 - 12 units; M62 - 20 units. In addition to these machines have released another 3 tank series M6.

In July, the 1944 year, when heavy tanks were again required for the European theater of operations, one М6А2 was modified by mounting the turret with an 105 caliber mm gun. It was planned to deliver 15 М6А2 with such tools to Europe, but the idea was not accepted. The tank modified in this way received the designation M16A2EXNNUMX.

The M6 heavy tanks were generally prototypes. Limited mobility - the cause of poor combat qualities. Military tests that took place in the 1944 — 1945 years revealed the imperfection of the constructive solution, the main idea of ​​which was to use the 120 mm caliber cannon to fight tanks. According to the test results, the vehicles were not accepted for service and did not take part in the hostilities.

Heavy tanks M6 used for training purposes. In addition, the machines of this series were used as experimental equipment for testing various units and assemblies. In July 1944, on one М6А2, a new turret with a 105 mm caliber gun was installed (according to other data, the caliber was 120 mm). The 15 heavy tank series was planned to be redone and shipped to Europe, but these plans were not to be realized.

Specifications:
Combat weight - 57,4 t;
Length - 8432 mm;
Width - 3124 mm;
Height - mm 2997;
Clearance - 521;
Booking:
forehead case - 70 ... 102 mm;
board - 44 ... 70 mm;
feed - 41 mm;
bottom and roof - 25 mm;
Aiming devices: M15 telescopic sight, M8 periscope device with M39 telescopic sight.
Engine: WRIGT G-200, carburetor, star-shaped, 9-cylinder, air-cooled, horsepower 960 at 2300 rpm;
Transmission: hydromechanical, controlled differential.
Chassis (on board): 8 track rollers interconnected in 4 trolleys in pairs, suspended on horizontal buffer springs, 4 supporting rollers, a guide wheel with a tensioning mechanism, a rear wheel drive; caterpillar - 99 654-mm tracks;
Maximum speed - 35 km / h;
Power reserve - 160 km;
Armament: 76,2-mm gun, 37-mm gun, 3 machine gun caliber 12,7 mm;
Ammunition:
76-mm - 75 shots;
37-mm - 202 shots;
12,7-mm - 6900 cartridges;
Crew - 6 man.

Based on materials:
http://vn-parabellum.com
http://www.aviarmor.net
http://www.protank.su
http://pro-tank.ru
Author:
35 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Basileus
    Basileus 30 September 2013 08: 52
    +5
    In general, it is surprising how the Americans were able to raise their tank building from scratch in such a short time and, if not brought up to their best counterparts, then get close enough to them.
    1. UVB
      UVB 30 September 2013 10: 33
      +7
      It’s interesting, but could they within months transport their industry thousands of kilometers away and from scratch, often without a roof over their head, to organize mass production of equipment?
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 30 September 2013 10: 55
        0
        What does this have to do with it?
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 30 September 2013 11: 45
          +7
          Yes, minus gentlemen, you are completely bruised by the head. What does the release of technology have to do with it when the conversation is about development? What does the war have to do with it when it comes to samples created by a country that at that time had little idea of ​​what war was? A completely left argument.
          It's like blaming a runner for not squeezing a 100kg barbell.
          1. anip
            anip 30 September 2013 12: 20
            +8
            Quote: Basileus
            What does the war have to do with it ...

            What about the war? It’s one thing when you need to defend your country in battles, when you need to evacuate factories in the thousands and hundreds of thousands of people, and it’s quite another thing when you just, sitting in peace on your main territory, take into account mistakes, compare performance characteristics and analyze military use, develop and produce weapons .

            Quote: Basileus
            when it comes to samples created by a country that at that time generally had little idea of ​​what war was?

            Why faintly imagined? They fought in the First World War, fought between the World Wars, fought in the Second World War. Another thing is that they either attacked those who were obviously weaker, or got involved in real hostilities to cap analysis. And if you take the Second World War and the United States with Japan, then it was not there that the tanks decided at first.

            Quote: Basileus
            In general, it is surprising how the Americans were able to raise their tank building from scratch in such a short time and, if not brought up to their best counterparts, then get close enough to them.

            For what "so short" ??? The first US tank M1917 began mass production in 1918, it was one of the variants of the French Renault FT-17, and was produced in the amount of 952 pieces. The British produced the first tank in 1916. That is, the States had more than enough time.
            1. Basileus
              Basileus 1 October 2013 07: 39
              +1
              They scored on tanks during the interwar period. And they fought "differently" as in Europe, therefore they were not ready for such a war.
              1. Basileus
                Basileus 1 October 2013 10: 03
                0
                Well, yes, I forgot it. We recall Britain, a country with the oldest tank roots, which developed and produced tanks throughout the interwar period. They could not produce anything adequate to the Germans and advice throughout the first half of the war. Only Comet can be called more or less successful, but it practically did not fight and lagged far behind the new medium tanks of the USSR and the USA.
                1. 505506
                  505506 2 October 2013 10: 09
                  +2
                  And it rages those who hate America, simply because. Objectivity does not smell there, do not pay attention.
      2. Avenger711
        Avenger711 30 September 2013 13: 18
        +2
        And there was often not a bare spot, but at least the foundations. The evacuation plan was detailed.
      3. shishkin7676
        shishkin7676 23 February 2016 08: 28
        0
        They built factories faster than we transported.
    2. Speedy
      Speedy 30 September 2013 10: 42
      10
      They had greenhouse conditions, developed heavy and automotive industries, etc. It’s probably all the same easier to sit across the ocean, watch, compare, experiment (you can not afford successful projects), do not forget to make money on it than in conditions of war, the evacuation of enterprises, lack of raw materials and skilled labor, and in general to saturate the state of total war active army.
      1. Sashkessss
        Sashkessss 30 September 2013 15: 17
        +3
        Comrade Skorobey, you are as right as ever. All the equipment that was created was sold abroad after "tests, as it were." And already in battle, the technique showed itself in full. To the surprised looks of the allies, they replied "It's strange, everything works well for us, you are using it incorrectly", after which they noted all the disadvantages and tried to remove them in the next model. Or they could not clean it up, but make the model more abrupt, while again selling it to Europe. America itself needed a technique capable of banging like that, from over the hill, because on its mainland she had no one to fight with
    3. Avenger711
      Avenger711 30 September 2013 13: 23
      +3
      One has to talk about the combat capabilities of American tanks during WWII without much enthusiasm, but the general technical level made it possible to quickly design vehicles that did not break down after 200 km of march. At the same time, they did not manage to properly arm the Sherman, having received, in fact, options from a tank and anti-tank self-propelled guns. The very concept of tank destroyers to which all sorts of "volverins" belonged also failed, since these vehicles were in fact used as tanks.
      1. Basileus
        Basileus 1 October 2013 09: 48
        0
        Sherman, however, generally corresponded to the T-34-76, including in armament, with some differences, but where without them? Then we went in different ways.
    4. Dezzed
      Dezzed 30 September 2013 14: 07
      0
      "Engine: WRIGT G-200, carburetor, radial,"

      do not make me laugh!

      try replacing the lower spark plug in this engine
      1. maxvet
        maxvet 30 September 2013 20: 08
        0
        Quote: DezzeD
        "Engine: WRIGT G-200, carburetor, radial,"

        do not make me laugh!

        try replacing the lower spark plug in this engine

        and which engines were installed on the BT, M3 Stuart?
    5. postman
      postman 30 September 2013 18: 46
      +4
      Quote: Basileus
      In general, it is surprising how the Americans were able to raise their tank construction from scratch in such a short time

      Why is it so surprising?
      1.With the onset of active hostilities in Europe, the influx of gold in the United States increased by almost an order of magnitude (Norwegian, French, etc., private gold and savings).
      In June 3-4, alone (before the fall of France), $ 500 million worth of gold came to America.
      2.great depression officially ended in 1940
      [img] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/DJIA_historical_gr
      aph_% 28log) .svg / 800px-DJIA_historical_graph_ (log) .svg.png [/ img]

      3.Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant named after I.V. Stalin= The American Caterpillar 60 tractor was chosen as the prototype of the first tractor. The construction of the plant was carried out with the involvement of specialists from the USA and other countries. The design of the plant was carried out by the architectural firm Albert Can Incorporated of Detroit
      Stalingrad Tractor Plant named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky= The design of the plant was carried out by Albert Can Incorporated
      The structures for the Stalingrad Tractor Plant were manufactured in the USA, transported to the USSR and mounted for six months.
      Kirovsky Zavod (Red Putilovets in Leningrad)= Fordson Putilovets (copy of the American Fordson-F tractor) 1924 under license from Ford.
      Assembly plant No. 37 (original name KIM, then MZMA, AZLK),= In 1931 he began to produce tankettes, and in 1933 switched to the production of light amphibious tanks. In addition, since 1936, semi-armored tractors have been produced here - artillery tractors of the Komsomolets type
      "Kharkov steam locomotive plant" (KhPZ)
      Christie's pendant or candle pendant - a type of independent suspension with a coil spring, invented by American engineer John Christie for own-wheeled tracked tanks Soviet BT-2, BT-5, BT-7 and T-34;
      4. Let me remind you that the American bulldozer (tractor) defeated the Japanese TOTVD, as the Japanese say, and the bulldozer is the basis of the tank
      5. Until the early thirties, the USSR did not have its own tractor industry. And hence the tank. 12 years later By June 1941, the Red Army was armed with 24 thousand tanks of its own production.
      6. American industry
      The company Alberta Kahn played the role of a coordinator between the Soviet customer and hundreds of Western (initially, primarily American) companies that supplied equipment and advised the construction of individual facilities. In fact, through Kahn, a powerful stream of American and European military-industrial technology flowed into the USSR. Those several thousand foreign specialists who worked in the USSR at the beginning of the 30s represented various western firms that mainly built and set up factories designed by Kahn.
      1. postman
        postman 30 September 2013 18: 48
        +2
        Quote: Postman
        Quote: Basileus
        In general, it is surprising how the Americans were able to raise their tank construction from scratch in such a short time

        Why is it so surprising?
        1.With the onset of active hostilities in Europe, the influx of gold in the United States increased by almost an order of magnitude (Norwegian, French, etc., private gold and savings).
        In June 3-4, alone (before the fall of France), $ 500 million worth of gold came to America.
        2.great depression officially ended in 1940, and so went on to decline, somewhere in 1934
        3.Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant named after I.V. Stalin= The American Caterpillar 60 tractor was chosen as the prototype of the first tractor. The construction of the plant was carried out with the involvement of specialists from the USA and other countries. The design of the plant was carried out by the architectural firm Albert Can Incorporated of Detroit
        Stalingrad Tractor Plant named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky= The design of the plant was carried out by Albert Can Incorporated
        The structures for the Stalingrad Tractor Plant were manufactured in the USA, transported to the USSR and mounted for six months.
        Kirovsky Zavod (Red Putilovets in Leningrad)= Fordson Putilovets (copy of the American Fordson-F tractor) 1924 under license from Ford.
        Assembly plant No. 37 (original name KIM, then MZMA, AZLK),= In 1931 he began to produce tankettes, and in 1933 switched to the production of light amphibious tanks. In addition, since 1936, semi-armored tractors have been produced here - artillery tractors of the Komsomolets type
        "Kharkov steam locomotive plant" (KhPZ)
        Christie's pendant or candle pendant - a type of independent suspension with a coil spring, invented by American engineer John Christie for own-wheeled tracked tanks Soviet BT-2, BT-5, BT-7 and T-34;
        4. Let me remind you that the American bulldozer (tractor) defeated the Japanese TOTVD, as the Japanese say, and the bulldozer is the basis of the tank
        5. Until the early thirties, the USSR did not have its own tractor industry. And hence the tank. 12 years later By June 1941, the Red Army was armed with 24 thousand tanks of its own production.
        6. American industry
        The company Alberta Kahn played the role of a coordinator between the Soviet customer and hundreds of Western (initially, primarily American) companies that supplied equipment and advised the construction of individual facilities. In fact, through Kahn, a powerful stream of American and European military-industrial technology flowed into the USSR. Those several thousand foreign specialists who worked in the USSR at the beginning of the 30s represented various western firms that mainly built and set up factories designed by Kahn.
        1. postman
          postman 30 September 2013 18: 51
          +2
          Quote: Postman
          by Kahn.


          The Cana firm designed between 1929 and 1932. 521 (according to other sources - 571) objects. These are primarily tractor (that is, tank) factories in Stalingrad, Chelyabinsk, Kharkov, Tomsk; aircraft manufacturing plants in Kramatorsk and Tomsk; automobile plants in Chelyabinsk, Moscow, Stalingrad, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara; blacksmith shops in Chelyabinsk, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Kolomna, Lyubertsy, Magnitogorsk, Nizhny Tagil, Stalingrad; machine-tool plants in Kaluga, Novosibirsk, Upper Solda; rolling mill in Moscow; foundries in Chelyabinsk, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Kolomna, Lyubertsy, Magnitogorsk, Sormovo, Stalingrad; machine shops in Chelyabinsk, Lyubertsy, Podolsk, Stalingrad, Sverdlovsk; Thermal Power Station in Yakutsk; steel and rolling mills in Kamensky, Kolomna, Kuznetsk, Magnitogorsk, Nizhny Tagil, Verkhny Tagil, Sormovo; Leningrad Aluminum Plant; Ural asbestos factory, etc.
  2. avt
    avt 30 September 2013 09: 02
    +3
    Quote: Basileus
    In general, it is surprising how the Americans were able to raise their tank building from scratch in such a short time and, if not brought up to their best counterparts, then get close enough to them.

    request And when, unlike us and the Europeans, did they last fight on their territory? Even during World War I they famously fussed about hat analysis, and before that they supplied both sides with weapons and all the necessary materials for good money. The Germans even closer to the end of the war laid a series of cargo submarines to break through the English blockade.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 30 September 2013 09: 09
      +3
      Nevertheless, the fact that by the beginning of the war they were able to build quite modern M4 and T1 (M6), having very little experience in designing their own machines - the USSR had it even more, but by the end they were given Pershing - says a lot . Although with their capabilities, sin would be a mess.
      1. anip
        anip 30 September 2013 12: 33
        +7
        Quote: Basileus
        he had more in the USSR

        The first U.S. M1917 tank began to be mass-produced in 1918.

        Quote: Basileus
        and by the end, Pershing was given out - says a lot.

        Well yes. In the USSR in 1944, the T-44B tank began to be developed, which was further developed and the T-54 index, which was adopted in 1946 and began to be mass-produced in 1947. And there was the IS-3, which they began to do in May 1945. Not bad for a country that has survived a difficult war, right?
        So what has the States done so extraordinary?
        1. Avenger711
          Avenger711 30 September 2013 15: 44
          0
          Until 1949, only 300 T-54s were produced; Morozov was not doing business.
      2. Bigriver
        Bigriver 30 September 2013 13: 03
        +5
        Quote: Basileus
        However, the fact that by the beginning of the war they were able to build quite modern M4 and T1 (M6), having a very small experience in designing their own machines - the USSR had more than that.

        This is what a fright he was with us more?
        Are we selling Christy to the amers, and aren't they for us? And car factories in the 30s, and thousands of tractors in the 20s, of course, we sold to amers? smile
        At the beginning of the 10th century, they had their first automobile conveyor working, releasing a car every XNUMX seconds.
  3. avt
    avt 30 September 2013 09: 30
    +2
    Quote: Basileus
    having very little experience in designing their own machines - the USSR had more than that,

    What a fright? Especially when you consider that the basis of the CCCR armored forces were tanks based on Christie and T-26 variant aglitsky? They normally raised money and the engineers developed evolutionarily, unlike us, when after the devastation we were overwhelmed by a big leap, paying unchildly for our safety.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 30 September 2013 10: 12
      0
      Well, ours creatively approached the process of copying, simultaneously developing their own armored vehicles. T-28 and T-35 did not come from the air.

      And the evolution of the Americans stalled in the 20s, when the government struck a bolt on the ground forces. What is development without orders?
      1. Bigriver
        Bigriver 30 September 2013 13: 09
        +3
        Quote: Basileus
        Well, ours creatively approached the process of copying, simultaneously developing their own armored vehicles. T-28 and T-35 not taken from the air.

        Based on the Aglitskiy "Independent".
        1. Basileus
          Basileus 3 October 2013 09: 54
          0
          Based on. Our independents did not buy, as did the Vickers 16t. So it's still more likely tanks of its own design)
    2. Bigriver
      Bigriver 30 September 2013 13: 07
      +1
      Quote: avt

      What a fright? ..

      hi
      I ask deeply sorry, your "With what fright?" did not notice: ((
      It turned out funny .. but let it stay.
      1. avt
        avt 30 September 2013 13: 46
        +1
        Quote: BigRiver
        I ask you deeply sorry

        C'mon, I don't have a patent for this. smile
    3. the47th
      the47th 30 September 2013 16: 20
      +1
      The USSR had experience using military vehicles. After the war in Spain in 1935, the T-26 and BT showed their failure, for the 37 and 45 mm anti-tank guns they were a simple target, and this served as an impetus for the creation of new vehicles. The United States did not participate in any military conflicts at that time, so there was no experience of real use of technology.
  4. Snoop
    Snoop 30 September 2013 09: 55
    +7
    a narrow circle of specialists)))))) ... and millions of users of the WOT game)))
    1. kazssr
      kazssr 30 September 2013 10: 42
      +2
      I agree, I’m playing it myself))) hi
  5. Small Saturn
    Small Saturn 30 September 2013 11: 17
    +4
    It is unlikely that they were able to "come close enough" to the best analogues of that time. M6, even being a prototype, was, if not outdated, then somehow "wrong" for its time: large mass, huge hull dimensions, low speed, 2nd 37mm (absolutely unnecessary) gun. It is not surprising that this machine never found its use. If she took part in the hostilities in Europe in 1944, it would become a convenient target for enemy anti-tank weapons, especially for the Pak40, of which the Germans had enough.
    1. Basileus
      Basileus 30 September 2013 11: 49
      +1
      Well, I meant rather Sherman and Pershing. By the time of the landing in Europe, the T1, the same age as the KV-1C and Churchill, was undoubtedly outdated.
  6. svp67
    svp67 30 September 2013 13: 21
    +3
    The crew of the car consisted of 6 people: commander, gunner, loader, driver and assistant driver
    And who is the "sixth"?
    1. maxvet
      maxvet 1 October 2013 19: 08
      +1
      the black man who brews coffee wink
  7. the47th
    the47th 30 September 2013 14: 32
    +2
    In my opinion, the problem is that the Americans came to the 2nd World War (and half the war), came up with worthless tanks, lies in the stupidity of the US military elite. They did not understand what tanks were for in war and did not know how to use them. Therefore, the orders for the development of tanks looked something like: "We need a great tank, we don't care about its characteristics, but it must be great." Plus, contact between the designers and the military was poorly established, the engineers practically did not rely on the real combat experience of their tanks. As a result, the States had normal tanks only towards the end of the war.
  8. Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov 30 September 2013 15: 14
    0
    Quote: Basileus
    ... when it comes to samples created by a country that at that time generally had little idea of ​​what war was? ...


    Was America faintly aware of what war was? belay
    1. Omskgasmyas
      Omskgasmyas 30 September 2013 16: 36
      +1
      The USA got involved in the First World War when Germany was already exhausted. Landed, armed with samples of weapons, many of which were borrowed from Europeans. They suffered heavy losses.
      And Japan was forcibly dragged into World War II, and Germany declared war purely out of solidarity with the yupps. There was a need for a strong fleet, he appeared. We needed heavy bombers, they appeared. The remaining types of weapons were quite mediocre, as they were not vital for the United States. US ground forces are not something to be proud of then, and now.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 30 September 2013 20: 14
        +2
        As for forcibly dragged in a big question, it was possible for the Japanese not to block oxygen.
        1. Glory333
          Glory333 30 September 2013 21: 00
          +1
          It is true that the USA itself, by all means, grossly violating international law, provoked Japan and Germany to attack.
          It is interesting that the United States knew perfectly well and in detail about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but deliberately set its fleet under attack, although it had previously withdrawn from the port the most valuable ships - aircraft carriers.
          1. shishkin7676
            shishkin7676 23 February 2016 08: 33
            0
            Roosevelt knew about the attack on PX before the Japanese! when he signed the embargo ......
    2. Snoop
      Snoop 30 September 2013 17: 21
      +1
      In theory, yes, their military theorists about the use of tanks in general were downs, at least the experience of countries that fought in the Second World War would be accepted.
      You see, they had a law that the gun should not protrude beyond the dimensions of the tank, they say deadly, since the tank will cling to the barrel no matter how it hits, trees, houses, etc. So they armed Sherman with a short-barreled gun)))
      They also believed that the internal ballistics of the gun should be aimed at greater survivability of the gun in terms of the maximum number of shots. Here are the long-shooting guns, but they do not pierce anything)))
      For this, mistakes were then paid by American tankers in Normandy. There were frequent cases when a Panther or a Tiger, having shot 4-5 Shermans under a hail of shells, quietly crawled into their shelters. Yes, and with the T-IV they had problems.
      1. Avenger711
        Avenger711 30 September 2013 20: 16
        0
        75 mm due to the smaller wall thickness of the projectile had a more powerful mine. But in Africa and the Pacific, this was enough. Problems started only in Normandy.
  9. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 1 October 2013 08: 18
    0
    Quote: Basileus
    And the evolution of the Americans stalled in the 20s, when the government struck a bolt on the ground forces. What is development without orders?
    Evolution has not just stalled. She quickly turned off. As you know, the States got into the WWI absolutely being completely unprepared for it. And new weapons systems, including the M1917 tank, appeared in large numbers at the very end of the war and continued to appear during the first months of 1919. And then, in the 1920s, Congress said that since the army has such a large number of new (at that time) systems, then there is no need to spend money on acquiring new weapons, especially if the army is reduced from 4 million to 150 thousand, and at the same time cut down almost everything money for R&D (and what remained was leaked to the air corps - the future Air Force, which were then part of the army). In this state, the army remained until 1939.
  10. FAO_48E
    FAO_48E 1 October 2013 08: 30
    +1
    Quote: Snoop
    In theory, yes, their military theorists about the use of tanks in general were downs, at least the experience of countries that fought in the Second World War would be accepted.
    You see, they had a law that the gun should not protrude beyond the dimensions of the tank, they say deadly, since the tank will cling to the barrel no matter how it hits, trees, houses, etc. So they armed Sherman with a short-barreled gun)))
    They also believed that the internal ballistics of the gun should be aimed at greater survivability of the gun in terms of the maximum number of shots. Here are the long-shooting guns, but they do not pierce anything)))
    For this, mistakes were then paid by American tankers in Normandy. There were frequent cases when a Panther or a Tiger, having shot 4-5 Shermans under a hail of shells, quietly crawled into their shelters. Yes, and with the T-IV they had problems.

    Well, downs - I don’t know, but everything else is true. It was hard to wake up after twenty years of hibernation. And sorry, there was somehow nothing to observe the experience of the warring countries. Almost all organizations above the divisional level (with the exception of the so-called regional corps administrations) ceased to exist in the early 1920s. The command of the tank troops was dispersed in the 1920s and recreated only in the 1940s. So they made the first designs on a hunch based on unreasonable fantasies ... with all the ensuing consequences.
  11. Sarmat1972
    Sarmat1972 1 October 2013 18: 50
    0
    After reading the article and comments, I had such a chain: mattresses in the period from 1918 to 1940. tanks were not needed, because no one claimed in their territory and there were no prerequisites for conducting military operations on the territory of mattress. although they had specialists and observers in almost all conflicts and in all states - = it is not for nothing that the United States was one of the first states to recognize the USSR. Then they made porridge with the Second World War and realized that tanks are one of the most profitable types of trade! Given the shortcomings of the tanks of other countries, they did their development, but of course, made their mistakes. Here is such a thought. chaotic, but I think it’s clear