Directionless and Adrift

Directionless and Adrift | Heavy Tank M6

Рет қаралды 15,140

Жыл бұрын

Until the advent of the main battle tank, the ultimate expression of 20th century warfare was the heavy breakthrough tank. Some of the first tank designs were, in retrospect, heavy tanks; although the name was added to distinguish them from newer, lighter and faster tank models that served other roles. During the interwar years, most tank nations dabbled with the idea of newer heavy tank designs.
Join this channel to get access to exclusive perks:
/ @tanksencyclopediayt
If you liked this video, please consider donating on Patreon or Paypal!
Patreon: / tankartfund
Paypal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/tanke...
Article: TO COME
Sources:
First report on Heavy Tank T1E2. US Ordnance Department
R.A.C Technical Situational Reports No 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20
R.P. Hunnicutt, Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank, Presidio Press
Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, British and American Tanks of World War II, Arms and Armour Press
US Ordnance Minutes 15842. Heavy Tank- Initiation of development project for a tank to weigh approximately 50 tons. May 22nd, 1940.
TM 9-721. Heavy Tanks M6 and M6A1. February 5th, 1943
TM 11-630. Radio Set SCR-506-A. November 1944
TM 11-487A. Directory of Signal Corps Equipments Radio Communication Equipment. August 1950.
TM 9-1904 Ammunition Inspection Guide. March 2nd 1944
The Design, Development and Production of Tanks in World War II. Chief of Ordinance August 15th 1944
Heavy Tanks and Assault Vehicles. May 14th 1945
Record of Army Ordnance Research and Development. Tank Development, 1940-45.
Harry C. Thomson and Lida Mayo, UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II The Technical Services THE ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT: PROCUREMENT AND SUPPLY
OP 1664 “U.S. Explosive Ordinance” May 28th 1947
www.primeportal.net/tanks/davi...
Reddit: / tankencyclopedia
TE Shop: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/Goo...
Our website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com
Gaming News Website: www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/games/
Facebook: / tanksencyclopedia
Twitter: / tanksenc
Discord: / discord
Email: tanks.encyclopedia@gmail.com
An article by William Whynacht
A script by ChromeCTD
Narrated by Jeran Korak
Edited by Talia Crow
Sound edited by Jeran Korak

Пікірлер: 60

@Hybris51129 Жыл бұрын

The M6A1 will always hold a special place in my heart because it was the first tank that when I was playing World of Tanks that finally made all the tank tactics 'click' in my mind. I learned how to properly angle, hull down, turret waggle, etc... and from then on my K:D ratio doubled and I actually had fun with the game as I took those skills and applied them to other tanks.

@PitFriend1 Жыл бұрын

The T1/M6 always seemed like a silly idea. It was larger than the medium tanks the Army started producing but had roughly the same armor and also didn’t have a dramatically better gun than the mediums did. I seem to remember reading that four M4s could be shipped for the same space as a single M6 could, making it even worse for a war being fought overseas. All these heavy tanks brought to the table was weight and size, neither of which helps in battle.

@mattbowden4996 Жыл бұрын

It's important to compare the M6 to the contemporary US medium tank, which would gave been the early M4. Compared to that it has significantly superior armour and firepower, but it is certainly true that as soon as the M4 was ungunned with the 76mm, any lingering argument for the M6 (at least when armed with the 3" gun) evaporated. Both tanks have the same firepower and neither could resist long 75mm guns so why suffer the extra weight when it's doing you no good?

@tacomas9602 Жыл бұрын

Hindsight is 20/20 but it would’ve been awesome to see them toy with Jumbo Sherman tanks. All they would have needed was a good tough HVSS or torsion bar and a heavy duty lower geared transmission. Shermans are very adaptable.

@marclaplante5679 Жыл бұрын

A 1,000 HP engine in 1941 was an incredible goal… given the Chieftain tank in the 1960s didn’t have a engine near that power.

@level98bearhuntingarmor Жыл бұрын

Honestly, it's one of my favorite tanks. I think just because I like how it looks

@pirotechnika3914 Жыл бұрын

It's always interesting to hear about less know tanks .Not the M6 is unknown it just doesn't seem to as wall know as other heavy tanks .

@mattbowden4996 Жыл бұрын

The elephant in the room with the M6 is the armour. 75mm was strong compared to a Char B1, but when you compare it to the latest heavy tanks being built elsewhere it simply wasn't thick enough. At the time the M6 was being designed the KV-1 already existed and was having it's frontal protection hastily improved from 75mm with applique armour kits, meanwhile the Churchill and the Tiger tanks were in development with over 100mm of frontal armour. Worse, no serious thought seems to have been put into improving the M6's armour until much, much later. As such, by the time the M6 would have been ready for combat it would have been hopelessly vulnerable to common German Anti-tank weapons. Even the 50mm Pak 38 could defeat it at frontally at a couple of hundred meters and the 75mm Pak 40 could blow through it's glacis plate at over a kilometer so the M6 simply couldn't function as an assault tank against any kind of anti-tank defense. Against other tanks the 3" gun in the M6 was a decent weapon and the 90mm was better still, but when faced with something as mundane as a Pz IV ausf G the M6 was reduced to an eggshell armed with a hammer. When you are playing "first hit gets the kill" against a tank less than half your weight, you've failed as a heavy tank.

@ostiariusalpha Жыл бұрын

The M6 had too much armor where it really didn't need it, and not enough where it did.

@builder396 Жыл бұрын

Small nitpick: Even Churchill started with 89mm of frontal armor initially and was only upgraded do the 152mm front armor with the Mk VII. Brits obviously saw the same necessity for more armor. Also ideas to improve the armor were thrown around a lot, with some proposals going up to 5 inches or 127mm on the front, which was how it was produced as well, and the M6A2E1 also upgraded it to ~180mm total IIRC and deleted most of the frontal features like viewports and bow machine guns to present a clean plate. I dont know why the armor thickness of the actual vehicles wasnt mentioned more, given the 75mm requirement was upped considerably. But the lack of angling and meager side armor that more equalled that of a Panther it really wasnt all that suitable.

@CZ350tuner Жыл бұрын

When one considers that the M4 Sherman Jumbo (an ad hoc heavy tank) had 114mm. of sloped frontal armour and came equipped with either a 76mm. L.53 or 105mm. L.28 .gun, the M6 heavy seems pointless.

@ostiariusalpha Жыл бұрын

@@CZ350tuner Perhaps not entirely pointless, the M6 had a larger engine bay, meaning it _potentially_ could have been more powerful and faster than what the overworked engine of the Jumbo managed to crawl along at. But that was the road untraveled.

@builder396 Жыл бұрын

@@CZ350tuner Tidbit: Jumbos came only in the 75mm and 76mm variants. 105mm Shermans were their own thing with no direct relation to the Jumbo. But I agree that it really made the M6 superfluous.

@TheTyrantOfMars Жыл бұрын

For real though just imagine TWIN hull 50 calls laying down a either hail of round to suppress infantry targets

@raymartcarreon6069 Жыл бұрын

M6 my beloved Heavy Tank

@derf-vr1fc Жыл бұрын

In Blitz? The T1 heavy was better for its Tier.

@raymartcarreon6069 Жыл бұрын

@@derf-vr1fcthat is true, T1 heavy is absolutely fun sealclub material. But I like the M6 more because 90mm gun just looks better, plus tier 6 so less Tien waiting for a match(I have 8k battles in wotb right now and waiting for a tier 5 and less match takes 10 minutes compared to instantly getting matched up in tier 6+).

@derf-vr1fc Жыл бұрын

@@raymartcarreon6069 Kabayan? Your name sounds like a Pinoy!

@patrickcloutier6801 4 ай бұрын

I think if the M6 design team had deleted the 37mm co-axial gun, and the 3 .50 caliber machine guns, production might have gone forward with a more simplified design.

@mladenmatosevic4591 Жыл бұрын

In 1942 become clear that Army priority is not mainland Europe but Africa and Pacific. Therefore it was unlikely to meet either strongest fortifications or many heavy tanks, and logistics favored more of lighter tanks. Only after capturing first proper ports in France heavy tanks would have seen more use but that was near end of the war.

@enema6222 Жыл бұрын

The major point you may be missing is logistics, the US had to ship every equipment, including tanks, spare parts, possible specialized mechanics equipment if such heavy and more complex tanks were to be sent, the spare parts of the mechanics equipment, fuel, fuel tankers, spare parts for the fuel tankers, etc., across the oceans, Atlantic and Pacific, and the cargo ships can only carry so many tons, and what the US sent into threat stayed in-country until the end of the conflict because they couldnt and werent willing to ship broken equipment back in to the mainland for any further repair in case of some major break down, thats also one of the reasons why the US Army was very keen on sending into service equipment they knew could trust as reliability goes. With all that what would you prefer, send in and having 10 M4 Sherman Medium tanks or having 3 M6 Heavy Tanks, not only that the generals in Europe, Africa and Pacific including the soldeirs themselves were for the majority satisfied with the performance of their M4 all the way to 1944 which was a major reason as to why the Pershing only got to Europe really late in the conflict making little to no impact in the shortning of the war, the US Army didnt sent any equipment unnecessary because they knew every ton is valuable. Also in terms of operation level heavier tanks need stronger engineer potoons and recovery vehicles and that starts a whole problem, you gotta get new equipment for the engineers which is easier than getting tanks across a ocean but still it adds up. Theres for sure other reasons as to why heavy tanks were used by the US in any significant numbers but that should explain enough.

@mladenmatosevic4591 Жыл бұрын

@@enema6222 I mentioned logistics. Of course we can go for hours about difficulties of dropping any tank to help on Pacific islands. Also, would it be better to have 3 Shermans or 1 Tiger? I would go for more Shermans. Nicholas Moran aka Chieftain reiterated many times all details here. And from personal experience I know that typical cranes of cargo ship can today handle 40-50T container and anything bigger is a problem.

@Ulani101 Жыл бұрын

Like TOG II, the M6 was too much tank, for not enough firepower or protection. It looks really long, just like TOG, too, making steering more difficult than it needed to be.

@danielm.595 7 ай бұрын

Yeah, how hard was it to understand that, if you have a huge chassis, you'd also need a big to huge turret? Both TOG 2 and the M6 look as if you hit the shift key, but don't notice the capslock is active.

@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Жыл бұрын

Hilarious that the M5 (between M4 Sherman and the M6) was the tiny Stuart, and upgraded M3. Then the whole system was canned for the M26 Pershing....

@user-en9pl5uz5t Жыл бұрын

How about the simultaneous existence of the M3 light tank, M3 medium tank, M3 scout car, M3 halftrack, M3 Gun Motor Carriage and M3 submachine gun? (To add to the fun, the M3 GMC was based on the halftrack, which itself was based on the scout car.) Most of these also had M3A1 versions.

@RedXlV Жыл бұрын

@@user-en9pl5uz5t That's exactly *why* the the M5 Stuart was designated M5 rather than M4 (as would've previously been the expected progression in light tank model numbers). The Army realized they had too many different vehicles designated M3, and didn't want to also have too many M4s.

@billwilson-es5yn 6 ай бұрын

The M26 was cancelled after 2000 were produced due to being a POS.

@TallDude73 Жыл бұрын

The US tank doctrine didn't seem to want a breakthrough heavy tank, including having to ship it, so its end was inevitable.

@pacificostudios 11 ай бұрын

M6 might have been necessary to win WWII, but by the time it was ready for deployment, the Allies already had a lot of ways to defeat a Tiger, even a Jagdtiger, and they had air supremacy, not just air superiority. If it had been just tank vs. tank, America would have sent over big tanks to beat the super German ones, but they didn't need them, not even Pershing. The simplest way to "defeat" a Tiger tank was to destroy the truck bringing up fuel to keep it running, and that's what the Allies did, mostly. Most of the survivors of German offensives walked back to friendly territory.

@watcherzero5256 Жыл бұрын

Right we have a tank with two primary guns and two secondary guns in four turrets, whats that? You want 6 machine guns as well?

@robertmills8640 Жыл бұрын

The voice of the narrator sounded very familiar.🤔

@renemourik6588 Жыл бұрын

Yes, the M6 could have been used as a stormram and as an opponent of the panther and tiger tank.

@user-en9pl5uz5t Жыл бұрын

Not really. It was too slow and the armor too weak. (The idea was proposed, particularly after the 105 mm tank gun was developed.) The Sherman Jumbo and the M36 tank destroyer would fill those roles.

@davidthomas2870 Жыл бұрын

It was useful, but mostly to convince the army that they didn't need heavy tanks and that the concept of a heavy tank is fundamentally flawed. Not a bad tank for its time, but if the choice is 1 T1/M6 or the 4 Shermans you could ship using the space needed for 1 of these, you take the 4 shermans every time.

@danielm.595 7 ай бұрын

Especially when the armor and gun of the M6 was not that big of an upgrade compared to the Sherman.

@davidthomas2870 7 ай бұрын

@@danielm.595 exactly. And if you need something with heavier armor, the Sherman suspension can take enough weld on armor to make a Sherman jumbo.

@alessiodecarolis Жыл бұрын

Effectively such a tank would've been more and indrance than a resource for the army, too heavy but with the same Gun of the M10, plus don't understand the necessity of a coaxial 37mm gun, it add only an unnecessary weight to the tank, plus steals precious space for main gun's ammo.

@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 Жыл бұрын

I think the 37 was an outmoded leftover from pre-war thought that it was an adequate anti-tank gun. The Germans found out otherwise rather quickly.

@ostiariusalpha Жыл бұрын

It was for dealing with lightly armored AFVs; you don't need a 90mm to kill a Stug.

@user-en9pl5uz5t Жыл бұрын

The idea of a lighter coaxial gun was for use against lesser targets, as other comments have noted. The British had a coaxial 20 mm gun on five Centurion prototypes, but this too was rejected as a machine gun was equally effective. It was a carryover from early war tanks, where the turret ring was a limitation (the M3 Medium, Churchill I and Char B1 bis come to mind).

@garyhooper1820 Жыл бұрын

Almost looks like a KV

@omarrp14 Жыл бұрын

It’s interesting to see that my fav tank in war thunder was useless IRL.

@alm5992 Жыл бұрын

Aren't War Thunder's models supposed to be muddy and scratched up? Are they just importing WoT models now?

@Thekilleroftanks Жыл бұрын

warthunder no longer produce their own models instead hires an outside company to do the work. wouldnt be surprised if they just ripped the shit straight from wargaming wot. mainly because its something warthunder does constantly in the first place so who gives a shit.

@merafirewing6591 Жыл бұрын

How would it play out if the tank did see service and was given the necessary improvements to fight against German tanks and anti-tank guns.

@user-en9pl5uz5t Жыл бұрын

The M26 Pershing would seem to have been the answer.

@BloodyCrow__ Жыл бұрын

@@user-en9pl5uz5t Thats a 1941 tank vs a 1945 tank

@ME262MKI Жыл бұрын

So the M6 with the 90mm gun is real and not fake as many WT fanboys claim

@user-en9pl5uz5t Жыл бұрын

Very much real. The gun was based on the 90 mm AA gun, and would appear on the M26 tank and M36 tank destroyer. The latter was already beginning to replace the M10 in late 1944.

@stephenbesley3177 9 ай бұрын

The enthusiasm for a heavy tanks was clearly not there. I'm sure the Americans could have made something work if the army really wanted it but clearly they didn't. For the most part the Sherman was adequate but only just.

@TheNicestPig 10 ай бұрын

what in the AI generated art

@TanksEncyclopediaYT 10 ай бұрын

Not an AI generated voice

@TheNicestPig 10 ай бұрын

@@TanksEncyclopediaYT no i meant the 2 pictures used at 3:03 and 3:18 lol

@floyd8740 Жыл бұрын

In so many of the plethora of videos, all debating their various opinions about the pros and cons of different allied tanks, authors simply overlook the two most important facts: 1) Due to it's Industrial Might, the vast majority of Allied tanks had to be produced in the USA. 2) Therefore the number one requirement of such tanks, was not armour, nor speed, nor firepower, but their ability to shipped across oceans and landed amphibiously. Something neither the Germans no Soviets had to worry about.

@parrot849 Жыл бұрын

It’s a wonder the U.S. Army ever got any kind of viable combat tank at all with all the bickering and high level interference.

@ostiariusalpha Жыл бұрын

The British, French, Russians, Germans, and Japanese were all in the same situation. They were all a mess.

@billwilson-es5yn 6 ай бұрын

What bickering? The M2 light tank was ready to go in 1941. Ordnance told Chrysler figure out the component production and assembly of the M3 and M4. The Army screwed around with a heavy tank design since they figured Germany was doing the same thing. Patton told Simpson that the M6 was too impractical to consider using in combat operations due to its weight, frequent breakdowns and being disliked by their crews. The Army liked the gasoline-electric drive capabilities so had GE continue work on that for the T20 series.

@LuigianoMariano Жыл бұрын

Some idiot created this "box" by wrapping armor plates around an excessive amount of empty space, creating a literal dead weight that sticks out like a sore thumb and can get sneezed to death by a Panzer 4.