±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: DIEGO38
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6597

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 118
Total: 118
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Home
03: Home
04: Community Forums
05: Home
06: Community Forums
07: Photo Gallery
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Home
12: Community Forums
13: Photo Gallery
14: Photo Gallery
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Photo Gallery
18: Downloads
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Photo Gallery
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Photo Gallery
31: Community Forums
32: Photo Gallery
33: Photo Gallery
34: Photo Gallery
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Home
39: Photo Gallery
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Photo Gallery
43: Community Forums
44: Photo Gallery
45: Community Forums
46: Search and Rescue
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Home
53: Community Forums
54: Home
55: Home
56: Photo Gallery
57: Home
58: Photo Gallery
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Photo Gallery
64: Photo Gallery
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Member Screenshots
69: Home
70: Community Forums
71: Photo Gallery
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Community Forums
75: Home
76: Photo Gallery
77: Photo Gallery
78: Home
79: Photo Gallery
80: Community Forums
81: Statistics
82: Community Forums
83: Downloads
84: Photo Gallery
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Photo Gallery
89: Photo Gallery
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: Photo Gallery
94: Community Forums
95: Photo Gallery
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Photo Gallery
103: Photo Gallery
104: Home
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: Photo Gallery
109: Community Forums
110: Home
111: Community Forums
112: Photo Gallery
113: Home
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Photo Gallery
118: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
M1 Heavy Tank
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 4632
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:39 am
Post subject: Re: M1 Heavy Tank

Yo, 'Weed...I can't answer your question, but.....
I've often wondered just what an "assistant driver" actually does. I have one that rides in the car with me sometimes and it's not actually all that helpful....
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 22, 2006
Posts: 2516
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:48 am
Post subject: Re: M1 Heavy Tank

Also refered to as the M6 Heavy tank. 3" main gun, 37mm coax. Codriver had twin .30 cal.. Some versions had a .50 cal in the rear of the turret that was also supposed to be an AA gun (yes under armor)

There is one left in the world. Want to guess where it's at? Smile

production was cancelled for a couple reasons. Main one was weight. Someone figured that for every one of these we could ship 2 Shermans. On top of that they knew that there would be problems unloading them in the war zone. Most ships of the era could only handle 35 tons or so even with heavy cargo gear. The Logisticians knew that there would not be any good port facilities with heavy cranes so it was decided to lower the priority of heavy tanks. There were also 'reliability problems' with the drive train. They tried several different combinations including electric motors. I think that it was only unreliable in terms of what the American army demanded since they knew how long the supply chain would be. I think that it probably was more reliable than the German heavy tank powertrains. I could see the 3"/37mm combo being replaced by a 90mm main gun in the production machines and we would have had something that could stand toe to toe with the German cats.

Can you tell I've alway liked it Smile It is a regular feature on my tours.

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
JeffStringer
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 632

PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:51 am
Post subject: Re: M1 Heavy Tank

Does your wave her arms about while describing something in the conversation? Rolling Eyes

I was never good with sign language! Laughing


Jeff
Back to top
View user's profile
David_Reasoner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 127
Location: South Central Kentucky
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:00 am
Post subject: Re: M1 Heavy Tank

I think one of the pilot models did indeed end up sporting a new turret with a 90mm (or maybe even 105mm?) gun and a large turret bustle. Vaguely remember seeing a photo in Chamberlain's British and American Tanks of WW2.

David
Back to top
View user's profile
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 3941
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:19 am
Post subject: Re: M1 Heavy Tank

- David_Reasoner
I think one of the pilot models did indeed end up sporting a new turret with a 90mm (or maybe even 105mm?) gun and a large turret bustle. Vaguely remember seeing a photo in Chamberlain's British and American Tanks of WW2.

David


M6A2E1

\"Only%20one%20was%20constructed.%20This%20tank%20was%20built%20to%20a%20specific%20need:%20to%20break%20tough%20defensive%20positions%20in%20Europe.%20The%20T5E1%20105mm%20cannon%20was%20used%20and%20the%20turret%20ring%20increased%20from%2069\"%20to%2080\".%20The%20vehicle's%20height%20went%20up%20to%2011'%205\"%20as%20a%20result%20of%20the%20new%20turret.%20and%20the%20length%20(with%20the%20gun)%20went%20to%20just%20under%2037'.%20A%20goal%20was%20to%20build%2015%20of%20these%20monsters%20and%20ship%20them%20quickly%20to%20the%20European%20theater.%20European%20commands%20considered%20this%20tank%20and%20promptly%20rejected%20it.%20The%20thought%20of%20a%20154,000%20pound%20vehicle%20that%20could%20only%20travel%2018mph%20was%20considered%20too%20difficult%20to%20deploy.\" TANKS!%20U.S.%20Heavy%20Tanks The%20one%20at%20the%20Ordnance%20Museum%20is%20a%20T1E1%20prototype%20(regular%20turret).%20This%20may%20be%20a%20pic%20of%20it%20on%20the%20old%20Mile%20of%20Tanks. And%20this%20is%20just%20amusing:

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
mike_Duplessis
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 236

PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:39 pm
Post subject: Re: M1 Heavy Tank

I think it was the British who convinced the U.S. to put the radio in the turret bustle for the Grant and soon after for the Sherman. Before that the assistant driver usually handled the radio work - which was probably more of a headache back-in-the-day than it is now. I hear for awhile the U.S. (and the Russians too) were very short on trained tank crews and the co-driver (hull mg) position often went vacant, or was filled by a mess cook or infantryman drafted into the position.

One reason why it took so long to discard the assistant driver position is that tanks are very maintenance-intensive machines. It usually took everybody working hard well into the night for things to be up and working the next morning. One less crew position meant one less pair of hands for maintenance duties. That's one criticism of recent efforts to field an autoloader-equipped tank with a reduced crew. 3 guys in the field just aren't enough to keep a tank ship-shape.
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum