Cunningham Factory Tanks

23
Cunningham Factory Tanks


As Andrei aka MooH, a companion correctly noted, the American system for the development of military equipment was completely different and different from the Soviet one. In the Soviet Union, specialized design bureaus and factories were engaged in the development and production of weapons, that is, this process was singled out in a separate branch of industry - the defense industry, which is exclusively controlled by the state.

In the USA, from the very beginning of mechanization at the front, this interesting and profitable business was given into private hands, if not in everything, but in many respects. So, on the one hand, it seems to be good in that many firms, apart from military orders, also have civilians, and this significantly reduces financial risks. In this case, even among such “enthusiastic” people like Walter Christie, there is a chance not to disappear right away in the debt trap, but to stay afloat for some time, giving a lot of sensible ideas to the mountain. But, on the other hand, such a state "tender" procedure for the production of military products makes it much more expensive. No, of course, state acceptance commissions always choose what is better and cheaper (if they are not bought in advance), but any “private trader” will never work at a loss and, naturally, will try to cash in as much as possible. In tsarist Russia, by the way, such a scheme was also practiced, but there the “cut-and-roll” was wildest, but in the USSR collectivization and the absence of private entrepreneurship simply would not allow such a phenomenon to appear.

So, let me introduce you to one of the "pioneers" of American tank building - James Cunningham, Son & Company. And then all the fans of World of Tanks happily threw up their hands. Well, of course, you know at least one of their cars, but you don’t know how fun it is to look for grains of sensible information among the endless "reviews and guides", and yes, even in English-speaking Google.


James Cunningham


Founder James Cunningham himself and his son Joseph before production tanks did not survive (1815-1886 and 1842-1914, respectively). James was an immigrant from Ireland, somehow a son, and preferred a career as a producer of a split farming life. In 1834, together with a company of associates, he organized an office (and later an entire factory) for the production of horse-drawn carriages. And the wagons are very different, for every taste: from mail stagecoaches to hearse.


On the last journey ...


Going through the hardships of business to commercial success (and there was anything, up to a completely burned plant) in 1908, the company started to produce cars in step with progress. True, not to a wide market, but mainly for its regular customers. And how they made it ... They made the hulls themselves and completed them with spare parts from subcontractors. In 1916, by the way, this “small” family business produced the first American car with a V-8 engine. Then there were more planes, but there were no tractors. Russian-speaking sources insist that they were, but English-speaking people mention agricultural products only in the period after the end of World War II. But we, of course, are interested in tanks ... At once I will make a reservation that some models of Cunningham were developed simultaneously, therefore there will not be a clear time sequence of the model range.


Handsome from 1919


Cunningham T1E1 / T1EX3 Light Tank

Immediately after the end of the First World War, the American military leadership began a search for the best way to develop armored vehicles. The only light tank in service with the United States at that time was the French six-ton ​​Renault, which was produced under license, but I wanted something of my own. So far, back and forth, by 1922, the technical task for the production of a light American tank was ready. Naturally, everyone could participate. According to the task, the two-seater had to be armed with an 37-mm cannon and a machine gun of the 0.30 caliber, anti-bullet armor and speed at the level of 20 km / h. The hardships began in search of the best layout solution, initially only on paper, but Cunningham's 15 March 1927 received a government order to produce a prototype lightweight Cunningham T1 tank. Please note that it is not the adventurous approach of Christie, when it is first done, then it is shown, but a long, thoughtful work with the drawings, and work in coordination with the army team from Rock Island Arsenal. So, what was this prototype? In the process of working on “bugs”, they decided that the layout of “renochek” does not correspond to fashion trends. T1 made with a front engine, in fact - armored vehicle. Yes, and the chassis took the tractor with a large number of small road wheels (8 on board) and the lack of suspension as such. The driver with the commander-shooter had to sit behind the engine in the armored jacket. One thing is good - the tower was.


The first prototype T1


The car was demonstrated on September 1, however, due to haste, wooden mock-ups were installed instead of an armored tank and a tower. Naturally, the running gear, not very adapted to overcome trenches and funnels, immediately made itself felt. Oddly enough, for all thehistorical"The erroneous placement of the modules, the new tank in the tests showed superiority over the" six-ton ​​". Perhaps the blame for the successful V-8 engine with 110hp and reliable box 3/1. The maximum thickness of the reservation of vertical surfaces reached 10 mm. The body was made partly by welding, partly by riveting. In the process of testing, the machine was slightly disassembled, removing the wooden case and the tower, and the result was an armored personnel carrier, which, in principle, was called - Light Cargo Carrier T1. So if you please love and favor - the first American armored personnel carrier.

The military, without much thought, ordered Cunningham's as many as six cars: four Light Tank Т1Е1 and two Light Cargo Carrier, also Т1Е1. The new tanks differed from the prototype in the first place by the hull, which now did not go beyond the dimensions of the tracks and the fuel tanks placed on the sides of the cabin above the tracks. Also, several modernized air circulation system in the engine compartment. Well, of course, now instead of the model of the turret, there was a full-fledged one with a pair of 37-mm cannons and Browning 0.30 machine guns.


T1EX1


24 January 1928, the tank was adopted under the designation Light Tank M1 (generally a wild confusion they have with these indices). The machine weighed 7 tons, had a power supply in 16 hp / ton, a maximum speed of almost 30 km / h and a power reserve of 120 km. On June 20 of the same year, all the 4 T1EXNNXXs ordered were ready and went to Fort Meade, Maryland. There, in the first Experimental Mechanized Brigade, they continued to test them in every way. Of the interesting things: one of the tanks for 1 days passed more than 57 thousands of kilometers without a single serious damage, which is quite impressive compared to the old six-ton ​​trucks that ran an average 3 km from repair to repair.

The tests were quite good, the result was a number of comments, one of which concerned the thickness of the reservation. The maximum for T1EX1 was only 10mm, while for М1917 it was 15mm. 8 December 1928, the company Cunningham received an order for the upgraded machine - Т1Е2, which was already ready for 3 June 1929, and delivered to Aberdeen for testing. The new tank, of course, was different from its predecessor. Primarily boosted to 132 l / s engine. The thickness of the reservation was increased and now reached 16 mm in frontal projection. The outdated 37-mm M1916 fluff was replaced by a long-barreled semi-automatic from Browning with an initial velocity of the projectile 600 m / s. Slightly simplified the design of the tower, paying tribute to the manufacturability of production. Naturally, the weight of the equipment increased to 8 tons, and the linear dimensions increased, so we had to upgrade the suspension.


One of the 1EX2 is preserved and is now stored in Aberdeen.


Again, the unsatisfactory permeability of the new tank insisted on doing something about it. As an experiment, we took the second T1EX1 car and significantly altered the chassis by installing spring springs with hydraulic shock absorbers. Engine and gun taken from the new T1-2. Also replaced the 6-volt electrical system on the 12-volt. New technology received the designation T1EX3 and in April, 1931 went to the test site. The test results showed significantly improved patency compared to its predecessors. At the same time, multiple technical flaws and difficulties in production prevented the T1 from being “on stream”, but Cunningham did not fold its hands and continued the research.


Т1Е3 with long barrels


Cunningham T1E4 / T1E6

It is quite obvious that the front location of the engine in a tank at least complicates the work of the mechanic drive, limiting its visibility. To the heap was added increased gas content of the fighting compartment. This was one of the reasons why Cunningham decided to radically alter their tank, namely, turning the engine back, with all the associated alterations. The question of the suspension remained open, but just at that time in the USA they tested the new Vickers 6-ton with which they licked safely. Well, as they licked, what was there to steal it? Took ordinary semi-elliptical springs and installed on the support rollers. In principle, it turned out quite a good machine. The engine was put all the same V-8, only now on the 140 hp There were still some problems with the transmission, but they were successfully solved. Armament and booking remained the same. By the way, the tower was still being installed as on T1-1, and not modified from T1-2. The new tank received the designation T1EX4.


T1EX4


With the next version came curiosity. This machine falls out of the line several. As part of testing the transmission system, namely, the differential, they took the fourth T1EX1 manufactured in a row, installed a new engine (which is hp on 140) and transmission elements, respectively. This is the tanchik and received the designation T1EX5. That is, formally, it belongs to the previous family. This is all American confusion to blame.

Meanwhile, work on improving his brainchild of the engineer continued. And in the arena appears T1EX6. The tank was different from its predecessor, the new 12-cylinder engine with an 245 horsepower. Naturally, the dynamic characteristics improved. Now the maximum speed was 32 km / h, but the weight also increased, which did not have the best effect on controllability and terrain. And besides, the maintenance procedures have become more complicated.


T1EX6


The army refused further work to improve this family of tanks.

Cunningham T2 Medium Tank

The first unsuccessful attempts to create an adequate medium tank naturally led to the appearance of an 11 March 1926 order from the military authorities to continue working on this issue. Began long painstaking searches for layout solutions. The maximum mass of the machine should not exceed 15 tons. Finally, by 1929, the design of the tank was finally worked out in the Rock Island arsenal. The basis taken T1X1 factory Cunningham. In addition, quite a significant impact on the concept of the prototype had a "fresh" at the time the British Vickers Medium Tank.

New T2 Cunningham already by 1930 year entered the state tests. His crew consisted of 4-x people, full weight reached 14 tons, and the power of the Liberty engine - 338 hp The maximum speed of the car reached 40 km / h, despite the fact that a bit later the maximum speed was reduced to 32 km / h to increase the service life of the transmission and gearbox. It would be very curious to know exactly how the speed was reduced? Not electronically, maybe the box was installed new with other gear ratios, but I could not find any data about it.


T2 medium surrounded by gentlemen


The T2 gun turret was equipped with an 47-mm semi-automatic cannon and a Browning 0.50 heavy machine gun. This already impressive enough arsenal was supplemented by the installation of an 37-mm gun in the front hull sheet, next to the driver, or the commander didn’t get bored, or the loader ... A weight was installed on the main cannon for balancing the breech, much like on the gun mask. In the process of testing in October, 1931 of the year 37-mm refused and replaced it with a conventional machine gun caliber 0.30. The booking thickness of the T2 tank ranged from 22 to 6, which is actually quite good for the 1930 of the year.



On the test machine showed itself very worthy. The amortized suspension protected by an armor plate worked well, and the powerful engine gave confident traction. However, in January 1932, the tests completed. And, although T2 was called the best tank, which passed state tests, the car was not accepted for service. Guilty was the notorious savings on the financing of the army, which in 30-s reached a significant scale.

Experimental tank chassis Т1 / Т2

In addition to working on a clear design assignment from the army team, Cunningham did not disdain an experiment. For example, in 1926, the T-1, an experimental tank chassis, was developed and built by the Tank Development Chassis. Single armored box with weapons from one Browning 0.30 machine gun and booking only 3 mm. The most interesting thing was the chassis with four large-diameter road wheels. The machine was positioned as a light reconnaissance wedge. The engine was installed four-cylinder from Ford A, hp power 42. Despite the fact that the wedge was not interested in the military as weapon, it nevertheless served for a long time as a test bench for new types of caterpillars, including those with rubber tracks.


Tank Development Chassis


The next experimental chassis was a model outwardly similar to the Light Cargo Carrier T1, the difference in the chassis design was that instead of the eight, only the 4 skating rinks were installed on board, and they were sprung using semi-elliptical springs. Later, in the framework of tests, an 75-mm howitzer was installed on this base. The engine there was a V-8 LaSalle, hp 87 power, and the reservation reached 10mm.



The Cunningham Scout, proposed in 1934, was probably inspired by light patrol Wickers. Little is known about this car. Only that it was a two-seater, with machine-gun armament located in the tower shifted to the right side. The running gear consisted of three basic skating rinks on board, one supporting well and the leading skating rink paired with a carrying sloth. It is not known whether the prototype was made and if so, what was its fate. At least, I did not find such data.



T4 Armored Car

The development of armored car firm Cunningham led in parallel with the tank business. As with the other branches of armored vehicles, the army at that time was in a creative search. Dense work with the customer led to the fact that the T4 became the first standardized armored vehicle of the American army. The infantry was not very interested in them, believing that they were only suitable for reconnaissance, but the cavalry wanted passionately. In 1931, two cars were made, which immediately went to the test. The layout was standard for the 30-ies, it was based on a heavy three-axle truck, driven by two rear axles, mounted on it an armored corps, and on top a turret equipped with twin Colt-Browning M1921 machine guns and Browning M1919. Also, an additional machine gun could be mounted in an onboard installation. The booking thickness reached 10 mm, and the total weight of the car was over 4,5 tons. All this mass was driven by a V-8 Cunningham engine with 133 horsepower.



Despite impressiveness, the armored car showed a slight decrease in driving performance compared to lighter brethren, and the maximum speed in 90 km / h did not leave a chance to competitors. The car was adopted under the symbol M1 and, before 1938, they riveted and welded 20 machines that cavalrymen used with pleasure until the very beginning of World War II.



Cunningham 4.2 "(107mm) Chemical Mortar

If you remember, one of the results of the work on the T1EX1 tanks was the 2 BTR without an open-hull tower. Here is one armored carrier decided to convert into a self-propelled mortar. Now such experiments with MT-LB are practicing. They hoisted the T1 into the body as much as a whole, and the whole 107-mm chemical (!) Mortar, which at that time was a regular American WMD. In addition to the possibility of infecting the territory of a potential enemy with poisonous filth at a distance of 4-x km into the distance, it was possible to shoot with ordinary ammunition. The experiment failed, because the return of large-caliber weapons was too large for a light tank chassis.



A little later, somewhere to 1935-mu tried to put a mortar on the chassis of the Cunningham mortar carrier - a specially designed tractor, but this attempt was not crowned with success. By the way, the information about this tractor is found in English-speaking sources, and is indicated exactly as Cunningham, but there is no detailed information about it.


Presumably Cunningham Prototype


Cunningham flamethrower

Well, for a snack interesting. In addition to self-propelled mortars on the chassis Cunningham mortar carrier in 1940 year built a flamethrower tank. It all started with the fact that the Kinkaid Company developed a large-size flamethrower for installation on a self-propelled chassis. Since the experimental development was carried out not for a specific machine, but in general, it was of little use for installation on the tanks that were in service. They took the first suitable technique, which turned out to be this “Motor Carrier”. An armor was put up, fire mixture cylinders were installed outside (the test bed), the product was designated E1, and let's experience it. The successful design of a benzo-kerosene-oil flamethrower allowed “splashing” more than 70 meters, and the total spraying time of the mixture exceeded half a minute. After conducting a series of tests during the year, the military smoothly switched to the E2 sample, and the experimental Cunningham Flamethrower safely sunk into oblivion.


Note that the flamethrower is made on the same chassis as the mortar from the previous photo


This is where the history of the Cunningham armored vehicles ends. In RuNet, there are still mentions that the T4 tank was also developed and produced by this company, but do not believe them. Т4 was developed by experts from Rock Island, while actively using the developments of Christie. This is how it is.

Sources used:
http://www.aviarmor.net
http://amhistory.si.edu/archives/AC1193.html
"US Army Flamethrower Vehicles" by Cpt. John ringquist
"A History of the American Light Tank" by RP Hunnicutt
"A History of the American Medium Tank" by RP Hunnicutt
"A History of the American Wheeled Combat Wehicles" by RP Hunnicutt
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    21 October 2014 10: 59
    Thank. Interesting. I myself would not look for Old. Thanks again.
    1. +9
      21 October 2014 12: 47
      The author did not waste a lot of time.
      It turned out very good and interesting work.
  2. 52
    +3
    21 October 2014 15: 37
    Thanks to the author! hi
  3. +4
    21 October 2014 18: 20
    ABOUT! I'm already quoted! And I can be proud. smile
    I haven’t had time to read the article yet, but I’ve already put the plus wink
    1. +4
      21 October 2014 19: 57
      Okay, next time I will modestly indicate in the "Used sources" laughing
  4. +1
    21 October 2014 18: 47
    US military technology development system fundamentally different and different from the Soviet. In the Soviet Union, the development and production of weapons specialized design bureaus and factories, that is, this process has been singled out as a separate branch of industry - defense, controlled exclusively by the state.
    1.What does "give" to private hands mean?
    And in America there were (is) STATE TANK (tractor, car building) plants?
    And in the USSR of that (time) were private?
    / Well, change the status of the property and GET ALSO THE MOST /
    Rock island arsenal largest state arsenal in the US producing weapons.
    over 6 thousand civilians work (OH HORROR !!! whole 6 thousand) and serve about 250 military
    General Motors Corporation Works at the company's factories 202 thousand people in 2010 year despite robots, automation, mechanization, computer
    1. 0
      21 October 2014 19: 25
      Arsenal Specialists(state) Rock Island in collaboration with the designers of the tractor company Cunningham in 1924 presented the customer with the design of the T1 machine



      2..Medium M3 tanks were produced by 5 factories of Chrysler, American Locomotive Company (ALCo), Baldwin Locomotive Works, Prest Steel and Pullman-Standard.

      Do we have a T-34?


      (well, change the state-owned factories to private ones, and all the same)

      3. Specialized design bureaus and factories (with us), and they have private handicraftsmen?
      The same design bureaus (well called differently) at the same factories (well, private)

      "Leclerc" (at the birth of AMX-32) was designed by the design office "D'Issy-le-Moulineaux" especially for export to countries that put forward increased requirements for firepower and armor protection, compared to the existing AMX-30 tank.


      The main battle tank "Chiften" (MK.5) was designed "Research Center for Combat Vehicles in the late 1950's, as the heir to the Centurion tank ... two production lines were built, one in Leeds at the Royal Factory, the second - at the Vickers-et-Elsvik factory in Nkzhasl-on-Tyne

      In 1988, General Dynamics received a STATE contract from the Pentagon to improve the design of the tank. The result was the M12 tank, which entered service with the 1993

      The T-72B3 modification was developed (by order of the RF Ministry of Defense) on the basis of the T-72 as a cheap alternative to the T-90A until the Russian army received new generation tanks.

      The command of the Western Military District (ZVO) prepared a report to Sergey Shoigu and the Main Armored Directorate (GABTU) of the Ministry of Defense with a request to refuse to purchase modernized T-72Б-3 tanks.

      A representative of Uralvagonzavod explained to Izvestia that the military themselves chose the equipment that they are now unhappy with.
      1. +1
        21 October 2014 19: 55
        Well, there is a difference between a plant that makes ONLY tanks and a plant for which a tank is just a branch of production? I just about this thin, but very significant face.
        I'll explain, take the M114 equipped with a rather weak Small Block despite the fact that there were good Big block V-8s. In the USSR, they would not have done that, and the Americans did not have enough production capacity to provide for the civilian, so they "pushed" the slow-moving six. I'm in an article about this difference.
        And yes, there are a lot of simplifications and inaccuracies in the informatorium of vargeming. With all due respect to their historical department, they are generally igrodels, not historians.
        1. +1
          21 October 2014 20: 46
          Quote: Gremlin
          They wouldn’t do that in the USSR, and the Americans didn’t have enough production capacities to provide for a citizen,

          1. Well, in the USSR they did it, and not yet THAT?
          Remind about T-34 and KV-1 air filters?
          about the T-34 suspension?
          and so on.
          2. It is necessary to take into account not only the theater of war but also the de facto: the USA did not fight (well, for real) for how long I fly
          The country lived and lived for itself, and the war is "somewhere there"
          At its core, the economy remained a market economy. All enterprises worked on a competitive basis, they themselves selected suppliers, independently installed shift work, etc. The decisive motivation for their work, as in peacetime, was profit. For all the years of the war, not a single enterprise was requisitioned or nationalized. Strikes were not prohibited, and trade unions during the war more than once exercised their right to strike.
          - in March 1940, when the war was in full swing in Europe, Congress in response to Roosevelt’s request finance the purchase of 26 thousand combat aircraft allocated funds for the purchase of only 57 aircraft.
          - from 1941 to 1944; private investment in manufacturing equipment decreased almost 2,5 times
          Need locked in?
          when the largest metallurgical corporation "Yu.S. Steele refused to increase its steelmaking capacityRoosevelt ordered to begin construction new metallurgical plant at the expense of the federal budget
          Southeast Asia, the main supplier of natural rubber, was seized by the Japanese, and Standard Oil of New Jersey refused to grant the government its patents for the production of synthetic rubber, which it held jointly with the German concern IG Farben. Yes?
          And :: during 51 State Plant was built in just two years synthetic rubber (the first plant was built in record time - in 287 days), and its production was increased 350 times (from 2 thousand tons in 1942 g. to 700 thousand tons in 1944 g.), which provided 87% of the US needs for rubber.

          20 January 1942 g. The government ordered about the complete cessation of production of cars. Just three weeks later, on February 10 1942, the last “passenger car” rolled off the assembly line


          Quote: Gremlin
          take M114

          M114 or mess in the American?
          1. Are you sure the Big block V-8 would fit in "that place"?

          2. Have you considered the M114 SHAKE when using camaro's Big block V-8?
          3. Are you sure of the fire safety (for military equipment) of the Big block V-8, as well as that it could "eat" 80 (or 78) octane gasoline (according to the standard)?
          1. 0
            21 October 2014 20: 54
            Quote: Gremlin
            take M114

            M114 or mess in the American?
            1. Are you sure the Big block V-8 would fit in "that place"?

            2. Have you considered the M114 SHAKE when using camaro's Big block V-8?
            3. Are you sure of the fire safety (for military equipment) of the Big block V-8, as well as that it could "eat" 80 octane gasoline (according to the standard)?
            Quote: Gremlin
            and the Americans didn’t have enough production capacities to provide a citizen

            For the American industry, after the end of the XIX century and to this point the statement is ridiculous.
            There was enough power to plan an armada:
            Consolidated B-24 Liberator already almost 19000 pieces and 88 000 tanks made by the USA during the Second World War?
            APPROACH (engineering, design, technological), as well as the vision of the theater are different! YES.
            You can:

            And it is possible and so:


            Quote: Gremlin
            they are generally igrodely, not historians.

            Yeah...
            To my explanation of the PAZ from Skoda for the E-25, or the tower for the Mk2 cruiser, I get the standard answer:
            Dear user, all the equipment presented in the game is carefully balanced. Such performance characteristics are due to game balance and are not an error.

            Well, by the way, and on:
            [i] Topic: Prohibited Clan Name
            Hello, please explain:
            1. Banned (as an example) the names of the clan "Dead Head" ("Totenkopf"), SS-Standarte "Der Führer"), SS Regiment "Der Führer"?
            2. Prohibited in chat greetings (Deutscher Gruß, Hitlergruß) type: Heil Hitler! - “Long live Hitler!”, “Glory to Hitler!”
            ?
            Right?
            3) Why then do you have clans: UNA, UPA, UPA, OUN, Bandera, etc.?
            (with a pronounced nationalist coloring)
            4) Why with might and main (to the point of nausea) the nationalist slogan walks (in almost every game):
            "Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes! ”(Ukrainian. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the heroes!)
            / so tired of this ukroderm)
            and other national.LETTERS in the game, the same (in meaning)

            ---------------
            You can read the Game Rules here: http://forum.worldoftanks.ru/index.php?/topic/1176141-
            hi
            1. 0
              21 October 2014 22: 40
              For the American industry, after the end of the XIX century and to this point the statement is ridiculous.

              Well, it's not funny, but for the flagships of the lines, on which, of course, there were big blocks, the queue was scheduled for 3-4 months, mainly due to the lack of engines. I just wrote articles about them at one time. The exceptions are those years when demand fell ... But this is all the jungle of the market economy. It is much more effective to stick in a "slow" motor and not have further problems with buyers of both sides.
              1. +1
                22 October 2014 00: 29
                Quote: Gremlin
                there were big blocks the turn was scheduled for a month on 3-4 mainly due to a shortage of engines.

                ?
                1.M114: 3710 pieces !!! for 2 (!) year.
                CREEPY NUMBER for America and for GM in particular. Ugh.
                2.GM until 2008 year for 77 years the largest car manufacturer in the world (2008-77 = with 1931)
                At GM: 14 brands
                ONLY Cadilac (by no means consumer goods) in those years 300 000 (or 350 000 per year)
                General release on GM (not mistaken) 3 500 000 cars per year
                3. The military paid BETTER (not credit, but cash) and MORE (there is no competition in Japan, Europe, their own). Get dirty, put, lose your reputation ... But the point is, if you release 3710 of powerful motors ADDITIONALLY for 2 of the year GM is easier than FUEL
                (I myself was in aah when I saw GAZ in 80x, released 2000 000auto, in the photo GAZ -24, I’m a relative ... he’s not 24 2 million to me, but TOTAL from birth, and AMERICA? MORE THAN a year))
                About V-8, for reference:
                The legend included a case of dissatisfaction with Mitchell "incorrect sound" Camaro, Firebird and Corvette - three sports models of the company. They were equipped powerful V-shaped eight-cylinder engine, but for Beale's subtle hearing, he sounded not as good as a Ferrari or Lamborghini engine. Mitchell equips messenger to Italy to buy Ferrari V12 (cost in modern terms is approximately $ 100 000). Then Mitchell’s staff set about “transplanting” the engine from Ferrari to the Pontiac Firebird. And so Mitchell gathered the KB employees, started the engine and pulled the throttle grip. The motor erupted in an unusual Pontiac sound of European power. “Here, gentlemen,” said Mitchell, “what the hell a sports car should sound like!”
                Quote: Gremlin
                further problems with buyers of both parties

                And with the US Army?
                Your message about the redneck and mess of the American industry is not true, and about the impossibility of increasing the production of motors (+ 3710 pieces) in general:
                The USA produced MORE ships a week than the Japanese and Germans drowned together for a month (if I don’t confuse)
          2. +2
            21 October 2014 22: 35
            Yes, good, good. What is the essence of the dispute then? I can not catch. Well, a different approach was, and they themselves confirm this fact.
            I will not say a rise in price specifically for engines, but for cars at that time the price difference between the stock and the top full-size was 1500-2000 dollars, that's all the appreciation. There is also a difference ... From one single-chamber carburetor to three two-chamber or two four-chamber ...
            Oooh, the bigblock of those times could even eat 69 ... Did you forget about the ban on the use of leaded gasoline in 70? Then the volumes jumped from 6,5 to 7,5 l.
            1. +1
              22 October 2014 00: 37
              Quote: Gremlin
              What is the essence of the dispute?

              1. I liked the article, I want to argue, looking for evidence I myself will find out (or remember) a new (old)
              2. The approach is different, but not in the state order, or in the impossibility of the American managers (civil servants) to do something, increase output, etc.
              Quote: Gremlin
              1500-2000 dollars, that’s all the price increase.

              As I understand it, there was TK, there were tests, everyone was satisfied.
              Quote: Gremlin
              Ohhhh, the big block of those times could even eat 69 ..

              I didn’t know, seriously.
              I personally drove a Willys MC from Ford Motor Canada, 1950 of some decrepit year, with a mileage of 700 miles.
              In my opinion, donkey's urine could be poured into it (We in Germany found 72 (or so) with difficulty in some special gas stations), but there is something 60l / s
              ================================================== =====================


              Quote: Gremlin
              After which the volumes jumped from 6,5 to 7,5 liters.

              ?
              1.After the oil 1973 crisis of the year the US government decided to form a strategic oil reserve .... Instead, the automotive industry took over the burden of draconian standards Corporate Corporate Fuel Economy (CAFE), the Law on Average Fuel Consumption of Cars. New standards set for commercial vehicles the average fuel consumption of 13 liters per 100 km starting from the 1978 model year and prescribed a decrease in this indicator to 8,7 liters per 100 km by 1985 year
              2.Generation 1: "W" Series
              348 cubic inches (5.7 L), available from 1958 to 1961 in cars, and in light trucks through 1964;
              409 cubic inches (6.702 L), available from 1961 to 1965;
              427 cubic inches (6.9973 L), available in 1962 and 1963.
              Generation 2: Mark IV Series
              366 Big Block V-8 (6.0 L) 1960-1990
              396-cubic-inch (6.5 L) V8 was introduced in the 1965 Corvette
              402-cubic-inch (6.6 L) V8 Introduced in 1970
              427-cubic-inch (426.7cuin) (7.0 L) version of the Mark IV engine was introduced in 1966
              454- 7.4 L introduced the 7.4 L 454 EFI in 1987, introducing a new Vortec 7400 version in 1996.
              572-cubic-inch (9.4 L) "crate motor" in 1998
              1. 0
                22 October 2014 01: 05
                1. After the 1973 oil crisis of the year, the government decided to form a strategic reserve of oil .... Instead, the burden of draconian standards on the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), the Law on Average Fuel Consumption of Automobiles, was taken over by the automotive industry. New standards for commercial vehicles set the average fuel consumption of 13 liters per 100 km starting from the 1978 model year and prescribed a decrease in this indicator to 8,7 liters per 100 km to 1985

                So in the same place they did it so cleverly. First, environmental laws prohibit leaded benz. Consumption naturally increases, volumes grow, then new safety standards that significantly increase the weight of cars and practically lead to the disappearance of such a class as "compact", only "Senior Compact" and flagships remain ... And only then the oil crisis, consumption standards and an explosion in sales both GM and Ford, because it suddenly became very expensive to keep the gluttons.
                And yes, they put a small block, which means it was agreed, but it was weak. The question remains, who prevented from putting more "advanced" carburetors on the same small and immediately increasing the power? But this is a rather rhetorical question, across the ocean.
                1. 0
                  22 October 2014 12: 46
                  Quote: Gremlin
                  First environmental laws prohibiting leaded benz.

                  1.US Environmental Protection Agency The American Agency for the Prevention of Environmental Pollution in 1972 introduced a ban on the use of thermal power plants and the production of engines designed for leaded gasoline; (the oil crisis in 1973 started)
                  2.NO: A lawsuit from manufacturers immediately followed.
                  EPA won the process, and from 1976, gradual displacement began TPP-containing fuel, which was completed by the year 1986, and Europe in general in 2000

                  as you can see there is no connection

                  Quote: Gremlin
                  because keeping gluttons suddenly became very expensive.

                  after 1973, the US government, not wanting to take a piece of the pie from the voting population, abandoned the idea of ​​lowering fuel consumption by raising federal excises on it.
                  Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, Automotive Average Fuel Consumption Act, took over the automotive industry (INDEPENDENTLY). New standards set for commercial vehicles average fuel consumption 13 liters per 100 km starting from the 1978 model year and prescribed a decrease in this indicator to 8,7 l by 100 km by 1985 year.
                  As you can see, not the consumer’s wallet, but the manufacturer’s brains (under the pressure of competition between Japan and Europe)

                  Quote: Gremlin
                  the question becomes open who prevented from putting more "advanced" carburetors on the same small

                  it seems to me that nevertheless the role was played either by technical limitations (size, fire hazard, power reserve, maintenance), or the knowledge that soon nobody would need it (114), they all released 2 of the year
        2. 0
          21 October 2014 22: 06
          Quote: Gremlin
          here and "vtulili" slow-moving six.

          I don’t know much about the M114 issue, but if we are talking about GM engines, then both of their blocks - eights and in external dimensions do not differ significantly.
          1. 0
            21 October 2014 22: 22
            Eight of course, sealed.
          2. 0
            21 October 2014 22: 29
            Quote: MooH
            but if we are talking about engines from GM, then both of their blocks are eights and do not differ significantly in external dimensions.

            And the transmission for 250l / s or more did not have to use another? And the exhaust system? What about the air filter? What about the generator? And the fuel tank? And the cooling system?
            and so on a little bit, a little for this poop:

            and there is no place well, and + budget
            The engine was located longitudinally in the back engine compartment
            ==========================
            After all, the Germans did not start producing diesel engines in WW2 (for tanks), not because they are such "mugs" (after all, Hr.Diesel was apparently not Russian by birth)
            Jumo-205

            high-rise version - Jumo-207 with two centrifugal superchargers: - the first with an exhaust drive, the second with a mechanical drive and with an intercooler.

            the most powerful diesel Jumo 224

            ======================
            problems using in starters increased power that are installed on diesel engines, large quantities scarce for Germany, copper (on the wolf packs, Doenitz was not enough, and Goering is the same)
            1. 0
              22 October 2014 12: 12
              Are you serious about starters or is your sense of humor so strange?
              1. 0
                22 October 2014 12: 37
                Quote: MooH
                Are you serious about starters

                pro, what more copper goes to them? (they are more powerful) - yes seriously
                To start the engine, it is necessary to rotate its crankshaft. In this case, it is necessary to overcome the frictional resistance of parts compressed in air cylinders (especially for diesel engines) or a combustible mixture (for carburetor)
                Reliable engine start occurs at a certain minimum crankshaft rotation speed: for a carburetor engine - 40 ... 60 min "1, for a diesel engine - 150 ... 300 min'1.

                You compare the battery, starter and generator for a diesel and gasoline engine and you will immediately understand.
                Color Meta - MORE.
                The Germans take such a nation into account.
                well + more
                the diesel resource in those days (due to air purification) on the battlefield (ICE T-34 and, KV-1, etc.) was less than gasoline.
                the Germans thought that about 100-200 hours, compared with gasoline (thousands of mph), and this again was a math cost. Germany could not allow this.
                So we chose gasoline
                1. 0
                  22 October 2014 13: 34
                  Or maybe the fact is that the fleet took diesel fuel, and all the land went on synthetic gasoline?
                  Diesel, by the way, can be started without copper-air, inertial starter, launcher wink
                  1. 0
                    22 October 2014 14: 19
                    Quote: MooH
                    Or maybe the fact is that the fleet took diesel fuel, and all the land went on synthetic gasoline?

                    This also played a role, but not much. A common misconception
                    1. Hitler did not expect a protracted war neither the USSR nor England (accordingly, the fleet had nothing to take away, and the fleet (surface) and stood de facto the whole war)
                    2. Only in the fall of 1944, the Red Army occupied the Ploiesti oil shipyards (Romania) (and Hitler could not imagine this in a nightmare)
                    3. During the Second World War in Germany, the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis was used in eight plants. for the production of synthetic diesel fuel (about 600 thousand tons per year). The project was fully funded by the state. Similar plants were built in the occupied territories, in particular in Poland (Auschwitz), which functioned until the 1950's inclusive.
                    And TOTAL SYNTHETIC LIQUID FUEL (diesel and gasoline) in 1944 (quarter 2) reached 1173 thousand tons, i.e.573000 gasoline and 600 000 diesel)

                    and in 1.Q.1944 of the year, the 800 000 record of diesel fuel from 1 244 000 tons of TOTAL synthetic fuel and lubricants produced, i.e. more than 64%
                    The production of aviation gas in 1945 amounted to: in January - 11 thousand tons, in February - 1 thousand tons, in March it was not produced. During these three months, ordinary gasoline was produced 139 thousand tons, and diesel fuel - 180 thousand tons.
                    GASOLINE IS NOT ENOUGH (especially considering that the consumption of gasoline ICE on 10-20% is more than diesel)
                    4. Coal mining (including occupied countries), withleaving in July 1944, 26,3 million tons, ONLY in January 1945, it decreased to 11,8 million tons, in February - up to 7 million tons.
                    German daily coal output fell to 4% of the mining obtained ONLY at the beginning of 1944.
                    ONLY in mid-February 1945, Germany lost more than 18% of all brown coal production capacities. The supply of brown coal cars, which in October 1944 amounted to approximately 20 thousand cars a day, at the end of March 1945 decreased to 9 - 13 thousand cars

                    Quote: MooH
                    and without copper air, inertial starter, launcher

                    Eeee ... IN MILITARY CONDITIONS?
                    TANKS?
                    You are confusing something, a tank is not a plane that is BASED behind the front line, it is far enough away.
                    Yes + the tank may stall during movement and combat mission .. how to be? Hans with a cart loaded with compressed air cylinders running under fire to a stalled tank?
                    -inertial starter (like flywheel) and now, in the presence of composites, monomolecules, high-speed

                    bearings and nanotechnology - only just beginning to "walk" the planet
                    1. 0
                      22 October 2014 22: 17
                      Quote: opus
                      -inertial starter (like a flywheel) and now, in the presence of composites, monomoleculars, high-speed bearings and nanotechnology, it is only just beginning to "walk" the planet

                      Tell Vickers Armstrong and other comrades who used inertial starters on World War I tanks.

                      Quote: opus
                      Hans with a cart loaded with compressed air cylinders running under fire to a stalled tank?

                      Have you ever been a little familiar with the design of tanks? Ask Google about the T-34 air start and Ivan running under fire laughing

                      We also forgot to criticize push-pull tractor launchers - a well-established technology and no carts with cylinders wink

                      The statistics is entertaining, but why is it? Better give an example of any mass army unit of German production on heavy fuel.

                      And also a small nail in the coffin of your "brilliant" idea: there was not enough copper for starters, but did you find it for electric transmission?

                      Well, finally, for lovers of a scientific approach:
                      at your leisure, you can calculate the ratio of starter weight to other copper parts of the tank. I remind you that there is at least a generator winding and several hundred meters of wiring from copper, which is already decent, but here we also recall that there are still a lot of powerful electric drives, a very gluttonous walkie-talkie, all kinds of stoves and lights. I do not know the exact data, but according to a primitive estimate, it turns out that the starter's share is at most 10 percent.
                      1. 0
                        23 October 2014 02: 21
                        Quote: MooH
                        and other comrades who used inertial starters on tanks of the first world.

                        What for? You that do not know?
                        1.) On June 15, on June 1911, Charles Kettering presents a starter - an electric motor, which for a short period of time developed enough power to spin the engine crankshaft to the required speed, and after starting the same electric motor was used as a generator to charge the battery.
                        In 1912, the Cadillac Model Thirty car was launched into serial production, in which the engine crankshaft was spun up by the Kettering starter and only ... for example, the mass car of those years “Tin Lizzy” - Ford Model T up to the 1919 of the year.
                        And only since 1920, automakers began to install an electric starter in the engine starting system.
                        2.) Only in the 1916 year, the American engineer Vincent Hugo Bendix proposed using a special overrunning clutch in the design of the starter.
                        CAN ME Vickers Armstrong SHOULD TELL ABOUT DYNAMIC PROTECTION or DISTANCE ARMOR?
                        Quote: MooH
                        Have you ever been a little familiar with the design of tanks?

                        A little bit
                        Quote: MooH
                        about pneumatic start T-34

                        I met pneumatic start on marine diesels (there are a lot of places, 200atm cylinders have a place to store)
                        T-34 had Starter ST-700
                        http://wio.ru/tank/manual/t34manual7-3.htm

                        Even in garage conditions I can’t hear, I don’t see the compressor

                        Yes, a pneumatic start was (developed): but to charge the cylinders there was a compressor station, which catastrophically was not. But Maybach started from the handle and from the electric starter, easily
                        ---------------
                        Have you tried to implement: Starting the tank (diesel) engine with a shot from its gun?
                      2. +1
                        23 October 2014 02: 22
                        Quote: MooH
                        Still forgot
                        I didn’t criticize anything at all, only you

                        Quote: MooH
                        Better give an example of any ... German production of heavy fuel.

                        I already wrote:
                        Jumo 204, 1928 g = 441,3 kW, about 70 (Germany) + manufactured under license in England (Beardmore) under the name Newpor Culverin and since 1935 in Companie Lilloise in France
                        Jumo 5, 1932 g = 404,5 - 515 kW, more than 900 before the beginning 2MV + about 50 units Jumo 205M (marine version) Ks - boats remained in service in the GDR until the 60 of the last century.
                        all options Jumo 208, 1941 g 1100kW, something about 15
                        a handful of small Jumo 209, 223, 224 were taken to Moscow, where work on Jumo was continued by former engineer of the firm Junkers G. Junkers
                        ---
                        Types of aircraft equipped with diesel Jumo: Junkers F24 (diesel Fo4 for the first time on page No. 832), Junkers F24 Kay, D-2175, Focke-Wulf A17 Moewe, Do18 and Do26, Ju86, Focke DewXnumx (Ju17 1430), Do1444c, Blohm & Voss BV 26, Blohm & Voss BV138, Ju139R

                        Bramo 323R-2 engines, seemingly diesel and about 100
                        I will not list everyone
                        The first diesel engine truck was launched in Germany in 1924
                        The first production diesel-powered passenger car was the Mercedes-Benz 260 D, released in 1936
                        them and diesels released (up to 1940) 2000pcs
                        from the beginning of the 1930's to the spring of the 1945 of the year, German companies built 537 8000 wheeled vehicles of all kinds for the German Armed Forces, I'm afraid to make a mistake, but about 27-33% were equipped with DIESEL engines



                      3. +1
                        23 October 2014 02: 25
                        I do not know how many Daimler MB 507 C, "Saurer", MAN D4086B, D1046G, etc. have released.
                        In a year (!) MAN produced over 1 DIESEL "E2 / E2" and "F4 / F2500" trucks
                        Remind about the German engineer Robert Bosch and the "improved" built-in injection pump, modification of the compressorless injector? The inventor of the mixing process Lanova, and Wilhelm Riehm, the chief engineer of the MAN Paul Wiebicke (film mixing)
                        but the oldest ones still work:

                        (maybe it’s not a diesel engine), but there was such a company Anton Schlüter, it produced tractors.
                        DO YOU THINK IN THE HEALTHY MIND THINK THAT THERE WERE NO TRACTORS, BULDOSERS in GERMANY? Or that they were GASOLINE?

                        Quote: MooH
                        at your leisure you can calculate the weight ratio of the starter

                        can. especially if I multiply by 55000 produced.
                        GERMANY SAVED on everything you can, and if the wiring is not enough, then to 1500gr (copper) x55000 pieces it is VERY and a lot of copper
                        +
                        (so for reference, from the "lover of the scientific approach")
                        If the gasoline tank engine "M-17T" cost 17 thousand rubles, then diesel "V-2" at the beginning of its production cost the state more than 100 thousand rublesThat is, was more than five times more expensive. Alles Klaer? BESTIMMT!

                        and on the road:
                        opinion of Soviet engineers NIIBT Polygon:

                        "The use by the Germans and on a new tank, released in 1942, a carburetor engine, not a diesel can be explained:

                        a) specifics of the fuel balance of Germany, in which the main role is played by synthetic gasolines, benzenes and alcohol mixtures, unsuitable for burning in diesel engines;

                        b) the advantage of the carburetor engine over the diesel engine according to such important indicators for the tank as the minimum dimensions possible for a given power,

                        reliable start in winterand ease of manufacture;

                        c) a very significant in combat conditions, the percentage of fires of tanks with diesel engines and the absence of significant advantages in this regard in front of carburetor engines, especially with the competent design of the latter and the presence of reliable automatic fire extinguishers;

                        d) short tank engines due to the extremely low survivability of tanks in combat conditions, because of which, the cost of gasoline saved in the case of the use of a diesel engine in a tank does not have time to justify the increased consumption of alloy steels and highly skilled labor, which are no less scarce, necessary for the manufacture of a diesel engine in wartime than liquid fuel. "[80- P.93-94]


                        PS / I HOPE I didn’t take out your brain completely with my "proofs"?
                        For example, it’s useful, I updated the old knowledge wink
                      4. 0
                        23 October 2014 10: 11
                        The brain was not taken out by me, he was trained. The only thing is why so much irrelevant information?
                        You were advised to read about pneumatic start-you ignored.
                        About inertia, I honestly did not understand the whole depth of your idea of ​​describing an electric starter.
                        With a shot, the t-62 started, this is not a joke, this is a real method.
                        And in general, let's narrow the scope, I am not inclined to discuss the whole technique of the Third Reich in order to refute one crazy concept wink
                        So, the substantive questions are:
                        1.diesel unit in service with the Wehrmacht ground forces in an amount comparable to tanks? (Fuel consumption) planes in the garden, they have their own logistics.
                        2. A study on the ratio of the copper capacity of the starter and other electrical equipment?
                        3. The reasons for the use of electric transmissions on heavy tanks of the Wehrmacht?
                      5. +1
                        23 October 2014 12: 19
                        Quote: MooH
                        The only thing is why so much irrelevant information?

                        applies.
                        "Mass character" for the USSR and the USA, against "mass character" Europe-2 is absolutely different things. I will not repeat chewed: German tanks against coalition tanks.
                        A small example: "fight", staging and conspiracy of m / u CKD and "Skoda" (tanks R II-A, against S-II-a; yes, the same LT vz. 35 / Pz. 35 (t), ALL THAT from -for 160 cars
                        Quote: MooH
                        You were advised to read about pneumatic start

                        Not only read, but also answered and showed. So you "look for" a pneumatic launcher
                        Quote: MooH
                        I am not inclined to discuss all the technique of the Third Reich in order to refute one crazy concept

                        -Well, I doubt that you are capable
                        -about "delusional", I seem to have substantiated, yes even GUBT confirmed my guesses, I do not advise you to express yourself like that, from an engineering point of view, I can give you a lot of your delusional reasoning
                        Quote: MooH
                        1 diesel engine

                        -mlin, and trucks, buses and DIESEL cars, in the number of tens of thousands of pieces. WHAT IS THIS?
                        - Any U-boot from “MWM” RS127S 2x350 to 6 cylinder 4-stroke diesel engines “M6V 40 / 46” (6-cylinder, 4-stroke diesel engines Germaniawerft M6V 40 / 46 / XNUMX engine)
                        How many are there before 2000?
                        -Artillery tractors, Artillery trucks, Artillery tractors, etc., etc. Bussing, Benz, Durkopp, Poel, Bothe, Krupp-Daimler, Deutz, Horch, etc., etc.
                        Quote: MooH
                        -they have their own logistics.

                        It has no relation (logistics) to tank diesel, it was made for airplanes when needed (transatlantic, a marine reconnaissance hanging for hours over an escort), it would be made for tanks if the economy allowed
                        Quote: MooH
                        2. Study

                        I sent a manual to the ST-700 (B-2), where you can find it, compare it with the petrol M-17T. It’s easy to calculate, even the cost of the engines is given, you can make an approximation
                        Quote: MooH
                        3. Reasons for the use of electric transmissions


                        Ferdinand Porsche had his own cockroaches in his head, why should he bother with the "primitive" Maybach?



                        The tank’s electromechanical transmission consisted of a unit of main generators in a block with an auxiliary generator and a fan, two traction motors, an excitation generator, control equipment and a battery. The rotation speed of the traction motors of both tracks was controlled according to the Leonardo scheme.


                        HAVE MUCH MUCH THEM BEEN PRODUCED THAT?
                        ==============
                        12-cylinder V-shaped experimental pre-chamber tank diesel engine of water cooling from Daimler-Benz. It was an upgraded version of the MB507 engine with 720 hp. (530 kW), developed in 1942 for installation on a prototype of the Pz.Kpfw.V Ausf.D "Panther" tank, by means of supercharging the engine power was increased to 1100-1200 hp. (812-884 kW).
  5. 0
    21 October 2014 19: 18
    It would be interesting to know why this company stopped in military development. It seems that the models were successful.
    1. +1
      21 October 2014 19: 20
      Most likely they refused, because there were either no orders or there were scanty ones. In 30's, defense spending was greatly reduced.
  6. +1
    21 October 2014 21: 23
    Thanks for the info to the author.
  7. +1
    21 October 2014 22: 08
    Very vividly written, read in one breath, write more wink Plus definitely deserve it.
  8. 0
    22 October 2014 00: 55
    Quote: Author
    This is where the story of the Cunningham armored vehicles ends.

    1.a T1E2?





    Currently, the only copy of the T1E2 is on display at the American Tank Museum at the Aberdeen Proving Ground

    !!! not to be confused with T1E2 (Pilot) from General Motors (photo during an official presentation organized for the Ordnance Department 8 December 1941).
    The tank is fully armed.


    2. What about the T1E3 with spring-mounted suspension and a long-barrel cannon?

    1. 0
      22 October 2014 10: 40
      Phahah ... So here ... Arguing arguing ...
      So you would read the article for a start. Oh, I can't. lol
      1. 0
        22 October 2014 12: 21
        Quote: Gremlin
        Oh I can’t.

        1. Well whether you argue about something else
        2. I read the article
        3. I probably slurred (RIGHT 50% comment, for some reason it was gone, this is not the first time).
        ----------------
        Not about what you didn’t write, but oh, even (it went further 0): MUCH more I would like to read about them T1Е4 (2,3,6 (about this, especially because it’s for some reason "I have these tanks (t1e6) on the tractor with bundles of currency") and especially they are against the "Vickers 6-ton" (T-26 base):
        Could the procurement commission led by Innokenty Khalepsky acquire this tank for the Red Army?
        In addition to Great Britain, the Soviet procurement commission also visited Czechoslovakia, France and Italy, with the protocol on intentions to develop a heavy positional tank being signed in the latter, but these plans were not further developed. In France and Czechoslovakia, purchases of cars and motorcycles were made. Tanks that met the requirements of the Tank-tractor-vehicle armor were not found in these countries.


        Another visit for armored vehicles was coming overseas. 30 December 1929 g. The commission, headed by the head of the Office of mechanization and motorization of the Red Army I. Halepsky with deputies left for the North American United States (USA). There, they expected acquaintance with tanks of the T-1-1 type from Cunningham, which served as the layout prototype for the T-12 / T-24. However, these tanks developed speeds at 6-8 km / h less than what was stated in the specifications, and lagged far behind the 12-ton machines purchased from Vickers. The engine and gearboxes of the American tanks warmed up, and bulky caterpillars made a big noise. In addition, their price was significantly higher than expected, and the company's requirements to purchase a minimum batch of 50 machines with 50% prepayment were completely unacceptable. Therefore, further negotiations with Cunningham were discontinued.

        vs


        Quote: Gremlin
        Oh i couldn't

        Come on. Why this does not happen in our life
        1. +1
          22 October 2014 12: 55
          Oh, thanks for the information about the procurement commission. At Hunnikat, unfortunately, this was not mentioned.
          1. 0
            22 October 2014 13: 35
            Quote: Gremlin
            Hannikat, unfortunately, did not mention this.

            Yes cool
            - Cunningham 50% prepayment and a minimum batch of 50 pieces would not want
            - Cunningham wouldn’t show speed at 6-8 km / h less than what was stated in the performance characteristics
            -The engine and gearboxes of American tanks would not have warmed up, and bulky tracks did not make a big noise.
            - wheeled-tracked tanks of the designer J. Walter Christie “M. 1928 ”, shortly before the visit of our specialists, record speed characteristics.
            - come to the procurement commission in the year 1931, not 1929

            ...
            Humanity (and we in particular) would probably not have a T-34 tank (and before that the T-26), and our tank school would not be like that.
            There were more chances to buy from the Americans than among the British bourgeois (both for political reasons and for economic and technological ones: tractor, automobile, machine-tool plants)
  9. 0
    23 October 2014 05: 12
    As for indexes, the author is right.
  10. +1
    31 October 2014 15: 48
    Pretty interesting informative article. thanks to the author, gladly gave it a try.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"