Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

HIST: Discussions about the last 4000 years of history, give or take a few days.

Moderator: K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by MKSheppard »

Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks
By
Ryan Crierie
Copyright 2010

A very special thanks to: Richard P. Hunnicutt, without whose marvelous book Firepower, on US Heavy Tank Development, I could not have written this article.

NOTE: As mentioned above, this article is based heavily on Firepower -- but since I now have located the Record Group at NARA responsible for US WWII tank design, I can do my own research into US tank design, instead of relying on Hunnicutt. This article was written several years ago, I just cleaned it up to post on SDN.

The M6 Heavy Tank Program

US heavy tank design in World War II began with the German invasion of France on May 10, 1940. The success of the German Panzer arm beyond anyone's wildest expectations led to the Chief of Infantry of the US Army recommending that a requirement be established for a new heavy tank in the weight range of either 50 tons or 80 tons.

Two days later, moving with remarkable rapidity, the Ordnance Committee responded to that recommendation, by supplying it's own recommendation for a 50 ton tank development project.

By July 11, 1940, a preliminary design was approved and designated the Heavy Tank, T1.

This design was a multi-turreted vehicle very similar to the Soviet T-28 and T-35 tanks.

Armament consisted of the following:
  • Two primary turrets armed with the low velocity T6 75mm gun (Combined total coverage of 250 degrees)
  • One secondary turret armed with 37mm Gun and .30 Caliber Coaxial MG
  • One secondary turret armed with a 20mm Cannon and a .30 Caliber Coaxial MG
NOTE: Both secondary turrets had a combined total coverage of 360 degrees.
  • Two .30 Caliber MGs in ball mounts on frontal armor plate
  • Two .30 Caliber MGs in ball mounts on diagonal armor plates in the rear hull area.
Sanity however, soon returned; and this layout was revised into one with a single large electrically traversed turret, which was approved on November 22, 1940.

The revised T1 was now equipped with a version of the 3-inch T9 Anti-aircraft gun, with a 37mm M5E1 gun as the coaxial weapon. Both weapons had power elevation and a gyrostabilizer early on, but the power elevation feature was deleted as the design progressed.

Contrary to later US Tank design practices, the tank commander sat on the left side of the main gun.

Secondary armament consisted of a .30 Caliber MG in the tank commander's cupola, which was of the same type as used on the M3 Medium Tank.

The loader operated a .50 Caliber machine gun from his position. The driver had control of two .30 caliber machine guns mounted on the front armor, which he fired electrically. The assistant driver controlled twin .50 Caliber machine guns in a flexible mount.

Early on in the development cycle, a crew of six to seven men was proposed. When the tank was standardized, it was specified at six. They were:

1.) Commander
2.) Gunner
3.) Loader
4.) Ammunition Passer
5.) Driver
6.) Assistant Driver

Mobility was provided by a Wright G-200 aircraft radial, which developed 960 hp at 2,300 rpm. To successfully transmit the power from this very high-powered engine to the tracks required an entirely new transmission as no existing tank transmission could do the job.

After some deliberation, a new Hydramatic transmission proposed by Oldsmobile was chosen. As a fallback, torque converter proposals by Schneider Hydraulic, Twin Disc Clutch, and Borg-Warner were to be studied as alternatives to the Hydramatic transmission.

A General Electric Gas-Electric transmission was also approved for a single vehicle designated T1E2, due to recent studies by GE indicating that it would only add three tons to the tank's weight (as opposed to earlier studies during the transmission selection process which estimated added weight at 5 tons).

By August 1940, contracts had been placed with Baldwin Locomotive Works for the pilot construction and 50 production models. Due to unforseen problems with the Hydramatic transmission resulting in it missing it's delivery date of May 1941, the pilot tank was completed using Twin Disc's torque converter as the T1E2.

Baldwin began testing the T1E2 during August 1941 as it prepared it's plans for mass production of the design. The usual problems with such a new and heavy vehicle were found during this test, such as transmission problems and steering brake overheating.

Finally, on December 8, 1941, the T1E2 was officially presented to the US Army at the Baldwin Locomotive Works during a demonstration which showed it alongside a M3 medium tank, which had been designed in parallel with the T1. Many features such as fixed machine guns used by the driver, and a commander's cupola with a .30 caliber machine gun were shared across both designs.

The production version of the T1 benefited from experience gained in tank operation and design by eliminating the left fixed machine gun, as well as reducing the size of the driver's door in the frontal glacis (eliminating it completely and going to a roof hatch would have required too much in terms of delaying production). The commander's cupola was removed, and replaced with a hatch similar to that on the production M4 Medium, with a rotating ring allowing fitting of anti-aircraft machine gun.

With America now at war, it was decided to get the new tank into production as quickly as possible, and not wait for the test program to finish. Any changes that needed to be made due to experience could be introduced into later production marks; as the US was already doing with the M3 Medium.

In order to meet the expected numbers of tanks that would be needed by the Army, on February 14, 1942, several different versions of the T1 were officially named. They were:
  • T1 - Cast hull, Wright G-200 engine, Hydramatic transmission
  • T1E1 - Cast hull, Wright G-200 engine, GE electric drive transmission
  • T1E2 - Cast hull, Wright G-200 engine, Twin Disc torque converter transmission
  • T1E3 - Welded hull, Wright G-200 engine, Twin Disc torque converter transmission
  • T1E4 - Welded Hull, Four GM 6-71 Diesels, two Hydramatic transmissions
Production orders had already been placed for the T1E2 and T1E3, and on April 13, 1942, standardization of these two vehicles as the Heavy Tanks M6 and M6A1 was recommended. By May 26, 1942, the recommendation was approved.

Despite funding having been allocated for 1,084 heavy tanks, the changing requirements of the Armored Force reduced the number authorized to just 115. With these reduced requirements, and the standardization of the M6 and M6A1, the T1 and T1E4 were cancelled on June 11, 1942.

The T1E1 program was allowed to continue informally, due to the pilot tank showing exceptional performance; and it's standardization as the M6A2 was proposed, but not approved. On August 10, 1942, the Army recommended that the T1E1 be classified as a limited procurement type to allow 115 to be manufactured for extended service test.

Due to the procurement of heavy tanks having been increased from 115 vehicles to 230 in June; the result was that all the T1E1s would be sent to the U.S. Army, with the M6 and M6A1s sent overseas via lend-lease.

By September 1942, heavy tank production was expected to consist of 50 M6s and 65 M6A1s for Britain, and 115 T1E1s for the US. Production was expected to start in either October or November of that year.

However, the opinion of the Army was shifting against the heavy tank. On December 7, 1942; the Commanding General of the Armored Force, General Jacob Devers, wrote to the Commanding General of the Army Ground Forces; stating that:

"Due to its tremendous weight and limited tactical use, there is no requirement in the Armored Force for the heavy tank. The increase in the power of the armament of the heavy tank does not compensate for the heavier armor".

This was also accompanied by general opinion in the Armored Force that it was better to use the available shipping to carry two 30-ton medium tanks instead of one 60-ton heavy tank.

In light of the Armored Force's opinion, the Services of Supply approved the termination of the heavy tank production program after 40 units had been produced.

The first M6 production model was delivered in December 1942; while Fisher/General Motors produced just a single M6A1 pilot. Due to the cancellation of the Fisher contract, all production tanks ended up being built by Baldwin Locomotive Works. The last production tank, a T1E1, was delivered in February of 1944.

Image
M6 and M5 at Fort Knox, showing disparity in size

Breakdown of M6 series production
  • 1 - T1E1 Pilot
  • 20 - T1E1
  • 1 - T1E2 Pilot
  • 8 - M6
  • 1 - Fisher M6A1 Pilot
  • 12 - M6A1
  • Total: 43
Despite the termination of the heavy tank program, the various models were shipped to Aberdeen Proving Ground anyway, to see what they performed like. The reports from Aberdeen were highly critical of the M6 and M6A1; with the conclusion that the tanks were unsatisfactory unless a complete redesign was performed.

Among the problems encountered were:
  • Crew positions were awkward, making it difficult to operate the main gun and secondary machine guns.
  • The Direct sight telescope was located so close to the 3" gun, that the gunner could only use it with his left eye.
  • The tank commander had no way to deliver machine gun fire to the sides and rear without exposing himself due to the removal of the .50 caliber machine gun cupola from production turrets.
Aberdeen also considered the 37mm co-axial cannon to be rather superflous and recommended that it be replaced with a more conventional .30 caliber machine gun.

Experiments and Modifications to the M6 Series.

Despite the program being effectively dead in the water, this did not stop the Army from further developing the M6 series experimentally.

The 90mm Gun Armed T1E1

Image

Due to the Armored Force now considering the 3 inch gun as inadequate for a heavy tank, the Ordnance Department began a test program in which the pilot T1E1 at Aberdeen had the 90mm gun T7 installed experimentally. This gun was eventually standardized as the 90mm gun M3 and installed in the Pershing.

Firing tests showed that the T1E1 provided a stable gun platform for the 90mm gun, but the turret was in need of a redesign to accomodate the efficient operation of the new gun.

However, by the time the firing tests had been done and the reports written up, the Army Ground Forces had cancelled the heavy tank program, and the 90mm program did not proceed any further.

The 105mm Gun Armed M6A2E1

Image

Shortly after D-Day, there was some thought in the Ordnance Department that there would be a need for a small number of tanks with thick armor and a powerful gun to break through fortified areas.

To this end, they put forth a proposal to modify several existing T1E1s by doing the following tasks:
  • Removal of the Bow Machine Gun Mounts
  • Removal of the Driver's Vision Door
  • Welding additional steel plate onto the front to bring frontal protection up to the equivalent of 7.5 inches of vertical armor.
  • A new turret mounting the 105mm gun T5E1.
  • Modifying the turret ring from 69" to 80" to accept the new turret.
It was hoped that fifteen T1E1s could be so modified in 90 days if the project was assigned a high enough priority. The remaining other five T1E1s left over after the conversions would be used as spare parts.

An OCM of August 14, 1944 recommended the modification of the 15 tanks and gave them a tentative designation of Heavy Tank, M6A2E1. The hoped-for goal was delivery by November 15th.

However, the Army Ground Forces had been indifferent to the project, and the Army Service Forces referred the matter of the program to Eisenhower in a cablegram of August 2, 1944. His reply of August 18th stated that the 15 modified tanks weren't wanted as they were considered impractical for the ETO. Upon this, the project was effectively killed off for the better. Early tests at Aberdeen with a T1E1 loaded to the 77-ton weight of the M6A2E1 showed it couldn't even climb a 40 percent slope, and since the final drive reduction gearing would not have been changed in the very short time available for conversion, the modified tanks would have been limited to operating on very favorable terrain.

The T29/M6A2E1 Hybrids

Image

After the M6A2E1 project died, it was requested that two T1E1s be converted anyway to quasi-M6A2E1 standards to test the new heavy tank T29's armament and turret. Following approval of the request, the modifications were carried through, albeit without the hull armor from the original M6A2E1 program, as it was not needed for a demonstrator vehicle.

The End of the M6 Program

On December 14th, 1944 the M6, M6A1, and T1E1 were classified as obsolete.

All were scrapped except a single T1E1 which has remained at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD for the last sixty-five years, and recently was restored at least externally. It is likely that it will be moved down south to the new U.S. Army Ordnance Museum complex in Virginia as part of BRAC, which will see most of Aberdeen's existing exhibits (about 60%) move down south.

The following photos were taken in September of 2008.

Image
Image
Image


Technical Data of M6 Series

T1E1
63.5 ton combat weight
6 man crew
3" M7 Main Gun with 75 Rounds
37mm M6 Coaxial with 202 Rounds
2 x .50 Caliber M2HB MGs in Fixed Front Hull Mount with 6,900 rounds
.30 Caliber M1919A4 MG in fixed Bow Mount with 5,500 rounds (total .30 cal)
.30 Caliber M1919A4 MG in flexible Anti-Aircraft Mount

Front Upper Hull: 83mm at 30 degrees
Front Lower Hull: 102-70mm at 0 to 60 degrees
Side Upper Hull: 44mm at 20 degrees
Side Lower Hull: 70mm at 0 degrees (includes track armor)
Rear Hull: 41mm at 17 degrees
Top Hull: 25mm at 90 degrees
Hull Floor: 25mm at 90 degrees

Gun Mantlet: 102mm at 0 degrees
Front Turret: 83mm at 7 degrees
Side Turret: 83mm at 0 degrees
Rear Turret: 83mm at 0 degrees
Top Turret: 25mm at 90 degrees

Engine
Wright G-200 Radial 960 hp @ 2,300 RPM
464 gallons of 80 octane gasoline providing a cruising range of 100 miles on roads
Top speed 20~ MPH on roads.

T1E2
63 tons combat weight
6 or 7 man crew
3" T12 Main Gun with 75 Rounds
37mm M5E1 Coaxial with 200 Rounds
2 x .50 Caliber M2HBs in Flexible Twin Hull Mount with 8,000 rounds (total .50 cal)
2 x .30 Caliber M1919A4 MG in fixed Bow Mount with 10,000 rounds (total .30 cal)
.30 Caliber M1919A4 in commander's cupola
.50 Caliber M2HB in flexible Anti-Aircraft Mount

Front Hull: 76mm at 0 degrees
Front Side Hull: 64mm at 0 degrees
Rear Side Hull: 51mm at 0 degrees
Rear Hull: 51mm at 0 degrees
Top Hull: 25mm at 90 degrees
Hull Floor: 25mm at 90 degrees

Gun Mantlet: 76mm at 0 degrees
Front Turret: 76mm at 0 degrees
Side Turret: 76mm at 0 degrees
Rear Turret: 76mm at 0 degrees
Top Turret: 25mm at 90 degrees

Engine
Wright G-200 Radial 960 hp @ 2,300 RPM
477 gallons of 80 octane gasoline providing a cruising range of 100 miles on roads
Top speed 22~ MPH on roads.

M6
63.25 ton combat weight
6 man crew
3" M7 Main Gun with 75 Rounds
37mm M6 Coaxial with 202 Rounds
2 x .50 Caliber M2HBs in Flexible Twin Hull Mount with 6,900 rounds
.30 Caliber M1919A4 MG in fixed Bow Mount with 5,500 rounds (total .30 cal)
.30 Caliber M1919A4 in flexible Anti-Aircraft Mount (or .50 M2HB)

Front Upper Hull: 83mm at 30 degrees
Front Lower Hull: 102-70mm at 0 to 60 degrees
Upper Side Hull: 44mm at 20 degrees
Lower Side Hull: 70mm at 0 degrees (including track armor)
Rear Hull: 41mm at 17 degrees
Top Hull: 25mm at 90 degrees
Hull Floor: 25mm at 90 degrees

Gun Mantlet: 102mm at 0 degrees
Front Turret: 83mm at 7 degrees
Side Turret: 83mm at 0 degrees
Rear Turret: 83mm at 0 degrees
Top Turret: 25mm at 90 degrees

Engine
Wright G-200 Radial 960 hp @ 2,300 RPM
477 gallons of 80 octane gasoline providing a cruising range of 100 miles on roads
Top speed 22~ MPH on roads.

M6A1
63.15 ton combat weight
6 man crew
3" M7 Main Gun with 75 Rounds
37mm M6 Coaxial with 202 Rounds
2 x .50 Caliber M2HBs in Flexible Twin Hull Mount with 6,900 rounds
.30 Caliber M1919A4 MG in fixed Bow Mount with 5,500 rounds (total .30 cal)
.30 Caliber M1919A4 in flexible Anti-Aircraft Mount (or .50 M2HB)

Front Upper Hull: 83mm at 30 degrees
Front Lower Hull: 102-70mm at 0 to 60 degrees
Upper Side Hull: 44mm at 20 degrees
Lower Side Hull: 70mm at 0 degrees (including track armor)
Rear Hull: 41mm at 17 degrees
Top Hull: 25mm at 90 degrees
Hull Floor: 25mm at 90 degrees

Gun Mantlet: 102mm at 0 degrees
Front Turret: 83mm at 7 degrees
Side Turret: 83mm at 0 degrees
Rear Turret: 83mm at 0 degrees
Top Turret: 25mm at 90 degrees

Engine
Wright G-200 Radial 960 hp @ 2,300 RPM
477 gallons of 80 octane gasoline providing a cruising range of 100 miles on roads
Top speed 22~ MPH on roads.

M6A2E1
77 ton combat weight
5 man crew
Armament Data
105mm T5E1 Main Gun with 60 rounds
.30 caliber M1919A4 Coaxial with 4,000 rounds
.50 Caliber M2HB in flexible Anti-Aircraft Mount with 600 rounds

Front Hull: 191mm at 0 degrees
Upper Side Hull: 44mm at 20 degrees
Lower Side Hull: 70mm at 0 degrees (including track armor)
Rear Hull: 41mm at 17 degrees
Top Hull: 25mm at 90 degrees
Hull Floor: 25mm at 90 degrees

Gun Mantlet: 191mm at 0 degrees
Front Turret: 191mm at 0 degrees
Side Turret: 89mm at 0 degrees
Rear Turret: 208mm at 0 degrees
Top Turret: 25mm at 90 degrees

Engine
Wright G-200 Radial 960 hp @ 2,300 RPM
464 gallons of 80 octane gasoline providing a cruising range of 100 miles on roads
Top speed 18~ MPH on roads.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Sea Skimmer »

The trouble at the time was all our bailey bridge gear, and our primary type of pontoon treadway bridge gear was limited to 40 ton loads. A stronger bridge required either putting in heavy pontoon gear, which was very bulky, or building a timber trestle. So that meant even once established on land our M6 swarm could not move very quickly. All the more so since a 70 ton bridge will not easily support a 50 ton tank on a trailer. I have no idea just what we had in mind for the Pershing. The Germans got away with the situation in large part because they were constantly retreating.

It would have been well worth it though to have some of the things available. If we need to cancel something to pay for a limited number of high end landing craft, then we can cancel all the stuff we wasted at Anzio. Dock uploaded M6s would have done more then that ever did to break the German line.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Serafine666
Jedi Knight
Posts: 554
Joined: 2009-11-19 09:43pm
Location: Sherwood, OR, USA

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Serafine666 »

Out of curiosity, wasn't the M26 Pershing regarded as a "heavy" tank? Obviously, the M6 program came to nothing but if the M26 is regarded as a "heavy" tank (and the Army didn't see the need for one), where did it come from? How did the development line that led to it continue while the M6 program floundered because the Army decided it didn't desire a heavy tank? Further, how was it that the M26 was later developed into the M46 Patton and finally into the M60 MBT while the M6 program crashed and died? I'm not sure if your book answers the question, Shep, but since it seems as if part of the demise of the M6 program was due to a lack of interest in a heavy tank, I'm curious how one heavy tank program survived to create the first American Main Battle Tank (as well as the M103 which served until the M1A1 Abrams came online) and the other died on the vine.
Image
"Freedom is not an external truth. It exists within men, and those who wish to be free are free." - Paul Ernst

The world is black and white. People, however, are grey.

When man has no choice but to do good, there's no point in calling him moral.
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by MKSheppard »

O ho ho ho, there was more than just the M6 program regarding US Heavies in WWII. I just haven't written them up like the M6.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Simon_Jester »

MKSheppard wrote:On December 14th, 1944 the M6, M6A1, and T1E1 were classified as obsolete.

All were scrapped except a single T1E1 which has remained at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD for the last sixty-five years, and recently was restored at least externally. It is likely that it will be moved down south to the new U.S. Army Ordnance Museum complex in Virginia as part of BRAC, which will see most of Aberdeen's existing exhibits (about 60%) move down south.

The following photos were taken in September of 2008...
Funny. I could have sworn it wasn't there when I visited around that time... probably forgetting it.

Just to make sure I'm clear on this, they're moving much of the exhibits, but not all? Will they be closing the museum at Aberdeen, or just scaling it back so they can get the tanks under a roof somewhere?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
starfury
Jedi Master
Posts: 1297
Joined: 2002-07-03 08:28pm
Location: aboard the ISD II Broadsword

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by starfury »

The M6 Tanks seem gave me very scaled up sherman vibe, very much unlike the M26 Pershing, I still don't know what to make of it.
"a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic"-Joseph Stalin

"No plan survives contact with the enemy"-Helmuth Von Moltke

"Women prefer stories about one person dying slowly. Men prefer stories of many people dying quickly."-Niles from Frasier.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Simon_Jester »

starfury wrote:The M6 Tanks seem gave me very scaled up sherman vibe, very much unlike the M26 Pershing, I still don't know what to make of it.
As I understand it, the M6 was part of the same generation of designs; it's not surprising it looks kind of similar. The M26 was designed later, and I gather they didn't get around to finalizing the design until after combat reports had already started coming back about the Sherman.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Twigler
Padawan Learner
Posts: 164
Joined: 2009-11-23 06:51pm

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Twigler »

Simon_Jester wrote:As I understand it, the M6 was part of the same generation of designs; it's not surprising it looks kind of similar. The M26 was designed later, and I gather they didn't get around to finalizing the design until after combat reports had already started coming back about the Sherman.
I've often wondered what the thinking behind the relatively high profile of the Sherman was. Was it made that way to be able to fit everything in the tank and still comply with the army's size restrictions, or did it have some other background?
User avatar
Stuart
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2935
Joined: 2004-10-26 09:23am
Location: The military-industrial complex

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Stuart »

Twigler wrote: I've often wondered what the thinking behind the relatively high profile of the Sherman was. Was it made that way to be able to fit everything in the tank and still comply with the army's size restrictions, or did it have some other background?
It comes out of two things; one was its ancestry from the M3 Grant/Lee series of tanks that had a sponson-mounted 75mm gun in the hull and a 37mm gun in a turret. The Sherman was basically an evolutionary development of the M3 that moved the 75mm up into a turret. The hull had limited modifications to maintain production continuity. The other was that the original engine specified for the M4 was high and this meant the hull had to be high to accommodate it. That worked out for the better because it meant enough hull volume was available to take alternative engines.
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others
Nations survive by making examples of others
User avatar
FSTargetDrone
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7878
Joined: 2004-04-10 06:10pm
Location: Drone HQ, Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by FSTargetDrone »

Simon_Jester wrote:Just to make sure I'm clear on this, they're moving much of the exhibits, but not all? Will they be closing the museum at Aberdeen, or just scaling it back so they can get the tanks under a roof somewhere?
Can someone answer this? I haven't been down to APG since I was in high school and I was hoping to get back later this year when it warmed up and the days are longer, especially since I've gotten a better digital camera recently. I want to get there before the collection is split.
Image
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Sea Skimmer »

FSTargetDrone wrote:
Simon_Jester wrote:Just to make sure I'm clear on this, they're moving much of the exhibits, but not all? Will they be closing the museum at Aberdeen, or just scaling it back so they can get the tanks under a roof somewhere?
Can someone answer this? I haven't been down to APG since I was in high school and I was hoping to get back later this year when it warmed up and the days are longer, especially since I've gotten a better digital camera recently. I want to get there before the collection is split.

Little too late, they’ve been removing stuff for restoration for a couple years now; a number of tanks will never return and went to the Armor Museum at Fort Knox for no good reason. This past summer they already moved a big chunk of the collection to Fort Lee. Another phase of the move will come this summer, and then the rest will go in 2011. I intend to make a trip soon to give the place a last look, I wouldn't wait too long.

The new Fort Lee facility is supposed to be finished at the end of 2011, at which time all the indoor stuff at Aberdeen will be moved. Its still not clear that the really big items, mainly the Pershing Missile, Atomic Cannon and 16in naval gun are going to be moved or not. Its pretty likely the railroad gun isn’t moving because its unlikely it can still move by rail safely, and its colossally absurd (though possible) as road haulage. I dunno if they really have that kind of money allotted.

As some good news though, Aberdeen Proving Ground actually has a number of artillery pieces which are not in public areas right now. You could see some of them over the fence in the secure areas. Supposedly all of those are going to be moved too and put out for the public. If they can still move her by rail, Fort Lee still has rail access, though it may not reach the appropriate areas.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Simon_Jester »

Re: Them moving tanks to Fort Knox: Aaargh! Do you know of any place to find out which ones?

Fort Lee is one thing from my point of view, because it's less than a day's drive away. But Fort Knox!?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by MKSheppard »

Poster from the last time I was there (Sep 2009)

Image
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Simon_Jester wrote:Re: Them moving tanks to Fort Knox: Aaargh! Do you know of any place to find out which ones?

Fort Lee is one thing from my point of view, because it's less than a day's drive away. But Fort Knox!?
Knox got the King Tiger quite a while ago, and I think they are getting the Elephant. I don’t know about anything else. It’s amazingly a pain to find a list of the vehicles either Museum has.

Ironically as part of the same base realignment and closures that are moving Aberdeen, the Armor School at Fort Knox is moving to Fort Benning, making the location of the Armor Museum kind of pointless, but they aren’t moving it since its much better established with the extensive collection already indoors. This means our national gold hoard will not longer have two hundred plus M1 tanks filled with trainees roaming around to guard it.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by MKSheppard »

Serafine666 wrote:Out of curiosity, wasn't the M26 Pershing regarded as a "heavy" tank?
It was a medium tank during development, then IIRC was designated a heavy tank for 'morale' purposes for it's introduction into combat, and then got redesignated back to a medium tank post-war.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Sidewinder
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5466
Joined: 2005-05-18 10:23pm
Location: Feasting on those who fell in battle
Contact:

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Sidewinder »

Stuart wrote:The other was that the original engine specified for the M4 was high and this meant the hull had to be high to accommodate it.
IIRC, it was a radial (aircraft) engine lying on its side, with the drive shaft coming down at an angle from the top, right?
Please do not make Americans fight giant monsters.

Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.

They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Crushing Cars - The Story of America's WWII Heavy Tanks

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Its actually pretty close to being vertical, just aimed at the transmission in the bow. I dunno about the orientation of the other engine options. You can see how they had lots of space for other options in this cutaway.

Image

~fixed your photo, imageshack is evil - shep
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Post Reply