If you enjoyed this longer video please show it by remembering to like the video and telling me what you thought about it in the comments. Don't forget to check out Skillshare as well who helped me have the ability to afford the licensing for the M6 footage you saw in the video as well as supporting future content. Check them out using the link in the description.
As someone who is doing his dissertation on the US Army in this period, the M6 should have stayed at home. I personally doubt the vehilce contirbuted anything useful to the Pershing's development.
I don't know if you have ever seen Monty Python's Meaning of Life? But there is a scene featuring a waiter trying to feed an after dinner mint to an extremely fat, extremeley full chap. He keeps asking in a french accent " a waffer finn mint?". The designers here were that waiter only it was "a little M2", "a waffer thin .50BMG?"
I think that, ultimately, the reason US heavy tanks never really went anywhere (including developmentally; there was just not much interest in them even post-war) is because the US faced a very different logistical reality compared to all other major combatants in the war. The US had to ship its tanks literally across the world, by sea, and then by land, along with their vast supply chains. Thus, heavy tanks were just not practical, because even if you could get them to the front, you'd have to make so many compromises in the process (including taking a disproportionately fewer number of medium tanks as a result) that it was just never worth it. As Germany itself showed again and again, combined arms warfare would almost always trump small numbers of powerful, heavy tanks.
@@user-uy1rg8td1v Not really. Like he said, it’s a trade off. And with weaponry evolving like it did and still is, heavier and more survivable tanks have become necessary, plus transportation now exists that can move them in large numbers quickly.
That's one of the reasons why American tanks are designed to he easy to ship by rail even today and why they have almost only every built MBTs, IFVs, and medium tanks. Soviets and germans could send their tanks straight to the battle field while the US had to ship everything half way across the globe. That's also why the US always built fairly narrow ships do as to fit through any canal and also why the US has built almost all of histories nuclear powered subs and air craft carriers.
In the word of the Chieftain, the most important part on the M4 were the lifting rings. Also, the limit is not what the harbour cranes can lift, but what the ship cranes can lift. You can control the harbour you load from, but you have to make do with whatever is at the destination or what you can carry along.
It is true that the Japanese did not try to invade New Zealand. However, the reason could be more accurately described as their fear of/inability to deal with the U.S. Navy than their fear of the Bob Semple tank. :-)
Why I pray to the Bob semple tank for safety and peace because it truly is the biggest stick to beat others to peace with, May Bob semple tank bless us all.
This beast was designed before the M3 was and before the Stuarts design was finalized. Ordnance obviously liked the lines of the hull since it was copied when designing the M3 and M4. The M6 was named Goliath by the Army and dubbed Junior by the tankers since it resembled an overgrown M4.
Break through tanks rarely ended up ‘breaking through’. US armored doctrine emphasized punching a hole in the enemy lines and then turning an armored division loose to widen, deepen and exploit that gap. The Sherman was good enough for what was required. Hell, it was good enough for Israel up until the 70’s.
1. Most liberty ship cranes could only carry up to 40 tons of weight. This is a main (and by Cone of Arc unmentioned) reason why the M6 never went to europe. If they wanted to ship them in mass to europe (and they would have had to do it in mass in order to make a difference) it would ether complicate things at the docks requirering liberty ships to wait in order to load and unload the M6 in a disassembled form (which would mean that much needed supplys wouldnt get to europe as the liberty ships would be delayed) or it would be outright impossible to even load them in as there are no crane hooks on the turret so if you want to disassemble the tank and lift up the turret seperately from the hull it would not be possible. This is something that many people forget. Germany had it so much easyer because they could transport all of their tanks from the factory to the front line via train. No cranes needed. As a result german world war 2 tanks were comicaly overweight with even the panther being 8 tons heavyer then the M4A3E2 jumbo Sherman (which had twice as much armor everywhere). 2. Germany could easly get their tanks across rivers by using large railway and civilian bridges designed to carry heavy traffic. When the german retreated they almost always destroyed these bridges. In other words allied tanks needed to be light enough in order to cross floating pontoon bridges and the M6 heavy defenetly could not do that. So you are asking the U.S. army to not only delay a big portion of their liberty ships and somehow lift a heavy tank into a ship with a crane which cant even lift it and you are also asking for the U.S. logistics teams to somehow build bridges threwout europe that are capable of carrying a 50+ ton heavy tank. Do you have any idea how unrealistic that is? And keep in mind: If the tank does not reach the front line it may aswell not exist because it is completely useless. So no, that would have never happend and the U.S. army did the right choice.
Well, as one already said here, M6 can't be shipped easily to Europe or Africa. You'd need extra space for that on the ships- space that could've been used to bring some more Shermans or a couple of tons of other stuff like ammo, food, medical supplies, and this was all before shipping containers even existed, so that's hard too. The US is playing the numbers game here, so it won't much help. Also, bringing them from England to France is hard at this point since French ports were screwed by the Krauts months after D-Day, so they can't go on a direct route In theory tho, M6 can match a Tiger, tho having lesser armor, so it might lose some points
@@dd-579fletcherwillyd.9 Transport is certainly very important, but I neglected to look at that given the US was building more transport ships than making bread by 1943.
@@jakobc.2558 Very fair point being made here. But that idea of just assembling these M6s in Europe might make all the difference. The Liberty ships couldn’t hold a whole tank, but what about those pieces? Also, as demonstrated by USS Indianapolis, some warships might assist in this as well (especially the USS Kentucky, an unfinished Iowa-class battleship that could end up cosplaying a transport ship).
The truth was that it was quickly found out that two Shermans could easily be loaded on a ship instead of only one heavy and cumbersome M6. Not only, the M4 could easily be loaded on the ship with spare parts as well....
@@defenestrationismyfavoriteword Nope. It’s been verified. Not having heavies, was costly to us in many ways. I’ve already explained this in another post on this thread why. “Do the body count” well you in a Sherman up against a Panther, a Tiger, a Tiger 2, and see how you far out. You’ll need 11 more Sherman’s to try and out swarm the Tiger from the rear, but first that Tiger is going shoot holes in about 8-9 of those Sherman’s. Sherman rounds will bounce off.
@@thethirdgeneration1738 1. Sherman Jumbo 2. Sherman crew survival rates vs all other tanks of the time 3. Poor german metal quality in the later stage of the war when all these big cats started being made. The 75mm could frontally penetrate the Tiger's on paper armor (assuming perfect metal) at 500m. The 76mm and 17pounder had even less trouble. 4. Poor quality of german tank crews as the war dragged on and all their aces were killed (seems they needed those bodybags more than the Sherman crews) 5. Tank duels were usually a first-shot wins deal. 6. Gun stabilizer. 7. The amount of Tigers faced by Shermans was extremely exaggerated. 8. Versatility. Count the amount of M4 variants compared to the amount of variants for other contemporary tanks. Including the Jumbo which seems to fit that US heavy tank you're opining for. War isn't a game of paper stats and who has the cooler gear. You can scream the "5 shermans for 1 cat" myth all you like and act like Fury's a documentary but reality barks louder than the biggest german gun. And reality is Operation Totalize ending with Wittman's entire squadron getting wiped out. If you got the time look up Chieftain's video "why the sherman was what it was". If you want the tl;dw, the Sherman was no death trap. Very much the opposite. And a Heavy tank would have been hell for logistics; shipping, bridges, railways so on. What would the heavy tank have done? Have less tanks that can die to less AT guns? It'll just get blown up by a mine, throw a track, burn out its transmission, have its crew killed while they're outside trying to get it unstuck, or have an infantry squad get wiped out by other infantry because the only tank you have is already busy somewhere else and the brass chose to have 1 heavy instead of 2 mediums. And then die to a bigger AT gun.
When it first debuted in war Thunder, I loved this tank. Then everyone realized there were places in the front where the armor was thinner than that of a light tank (the angled front facing sides). Then it became a liability.
Germany: "We built the best heavy tanks we could!" Britain: We built Heavy tanks based off experience in ww1 France: we built our tanks to help defend against other tanks. Japan: We built tanks to take on the Chinese hordes. America: *Monster Garage theme plays* This week Jessie and the crew attempt to make a tiger killer.... EDIT: almost 1000 likes at the time of this edit. Thank you all. I didn't think so many people would be entertained by the joke and make some good ones in the replies. Edit 2: now up to 1500 likes. All of you are too kind
Forgot completely how it was, but I remember two: Japan: "We fight against hordes of AC's so we gotta put more AA's on to the ship." Germany/America (not sure): "We got some free space, so we installed one more main battery for more firepower!"
@@Valivali94 which goes with that monster garage show, as far as i remember. They put so much sh** in the cars, there where no budget for road safety or whatsoever. Or was that pimp my tank?!
I mean the M4 Sherman can do literally everything. You want a mobile artillery piece? Slap some rockets on there. Want a bigger gun? Slap a 105mm on there. Need more armor? Weld some plates on there.
@@shinkreytpuylap There's the 105 mm howitzer (the M4 (105)) and then there's the French version of the tank with an actual 105 mm cannon (M-51 Super Sherman) that came about in the 1960s. This is not to be confused with Yugoslavia's SO-122, which was an M4 upgraded to a T34-85 engine with a monster 122 mm canon. This tank was never mass produced because by the 1960s, the gun was deemed insufficient to penetrate modern tank armor.
They aren't really that cursed, they were successful developments but arrived too late. Well, the T32 tho, it's just a Pershing E4 on steroids, so maybe
Dont you dare call T29 and its siblings cursed, i know they never saw combat and im not really serious, but in both major tank games, i loved T29. Good gun, good gun depression paired with very nice turret armor, i also like their design very much. When i think of a tank, i think of a T29 or something, its just all there, right proportions.
@@vexi4584 I’d argue that the t32 was the best of the bunch. It has the same gun as the super Pershing, but it’s a bigger tank so you can better operate that gun. The Super Pershing was kind of like a Pershing firefly, while T32 was actually designed to carry that massive cannon.
Cone at 14:05 behind the M6 there is an entire Tiger 1 tank . I was hoping you could shed some light on it . How did it get all the way from Germany to Central Park ? Was it captured and sent back as a trophy ? Please inform us I can't be the only person intrigued by it. By the way love your work , thank you for giving us this awesome accurate content.
Germany sent a handful of Tiger tanks to North Africa just before the collapse of that campaign, and so the US Army and British Armies captured one each in different operations. The British one is in Bovington while the American one is in Fort Benning. The film is from the Fifth War Bond Parade, a major drive for money towards the end of the war, and I do believe they actually had the captured Tiger there specifically next to M6 so Americans could see the USA could make tanks just as big as the Germans, even if the Army had no actual plans to use any.
👍 That must be the oceanic amphibious prototype Tiger I. It's got retractable propellors, and it could cruise across the Atlantic to attack NYC, Baltimore, Philly, Washington DC at 38 knots.
Ya know, I as certified Armchair general, I absolutely love this monster of a machine. Nothing says power as your tank being so big that if commander would slip and fell off the turret he would likely die or be severally crippled. Now that is power!
Hell I actually have sketched a design for a Infantry Support Gun that has a 90mm/17 pdr Cannon, a pair of twin TOW pods on the sides of the turret, a L94A1 7.62 NATO Chain Gun as a Coax Gun, w/ 6 wheels - that are similar to ATV wheels - and a pair (or perhaps 3) of diesel engines w/ a Automatic Transmission featuring also a deployable laser ranging and guiding mechanism for a 155mm Copperhead Arty Round. So that way this Infantry Assault Gun not only provides direct Cannon Fire but also has Anti-Tank, Anti-Infantry and Forward Observer Capabilities. Oh and it even comes w/ it's own field phone should Radios cease to be effective (and of course it has a radio comms system).
tiger be like :😳 Also the T-1 heavy and M-6 in wot Blitz are the best heavy tanks i have ever played they can reach 30 kmph with ease and have really hard to pen armor with regular AP
@@T-onblitz ah a Blitz Enjoyer Im not shitting on WoT but i dont think its a good way to see how a vehicle would have performed in real life. I think War Thunder would be better for that, but it does not have the T1. Instead, it has the M6A2E1 and the M6A1
@@rawhidelamp I love both the M6A1 and the M6A2E1 in war thunder first one has really trolly armor but a lot of players get cocky because they know the armor is weak, result? if I angle they tend to shoot at places where the armor reaches dumb levels second one has a mantlet that along with volumetric shells can eat up 90% of shells thrown at it, I once got shot multiple times by a type 75 SPH and it did nothing, I wasn't even aware it was something that huge lobbing HE at me
Used the T1 heavy, and i wouldnt last 5 minutes into the match. Stopped using it and i now hate that tank so much i will specifically go out of my way to kill T1 heavys just out of spite
Pffft it's impossible for any human to play like a bot because no human player can ever constantly and consistently break their targets' gun breeches and tracks without fail from 2km away while firing on the move without a stabilizer. Edit: Whoops you were referring to World of Tanks Blitz, not War Thunder battles, my bad.
Credit where credit is due, this is actually one of the most functional Heavy Tank designs I've ever seen. It's a bit under-gunned for it's size, but it doesn't really have any glaring faults besides possibly the large profile, but that's fair enough given it's designation.
My Dad drove the M-5A1 Stuart during the war. As you probably know, it had twin Cadillac engines with the Hydro-Matic transmission, which allowed the use of one engine only if the other was damage by simply unhooking its drivetrain. As the Stuart was a light tank, it was used, (at least by him), in a scout-recon role.
In the West, Stuarts were doing a lot of recon and scouting, rather than engaging armor. In the Pacific, where Japanese armor was much less advanced, they did a lot more shooting and assaulting alongside Shermans and such.
Looking at the increased bridging requirements ( one bridge every 50 miles ) the ammo required , the transportation changes from a 35 ton tank as standard , the rejection of the heavy tank is under stable.
Also Germany: damn it, this tank can't even move, it's too heavy. Also America: this monstrosity is great. But we need more tanks not 1 tank worth many.
The M6 is my favorite tank in WoT, and the tank I've achieved most of my most impressive results/medals in back when I played (back when the game was far less arcade like than today). I have hard carried in that tank so many times. The gun is incredible, the power of the engine is amazing, and it's just incredibly fun to drive if you remember not to show that semi-trailer like side profile to the enemy. As such, it's my favorite "might have been" of WWII. I know that objectively it probably wouldn't have been that great of a tank, and that there were good reasons for not sending it to Europe, but I want that tank to maul German armor the way I used it to maul tanks in the game.
I hated it at first because I’d always wreck these things in my Churchill tank until I played it myself. They’re so mobile and that gun is incredible. Easily one of the best tanks If you know what you’re doing
Man it's not the amurican Tiger, it's the amurican Maus. Can't you see the 37mm gun. It's so clear that this is meant to be a friend to the lonely Mauses.
I only hope a few generations from now it's still in good condition. Preservation of our history for our children is IMO one of the best things we can do as a species.
Aberdeen Ordinance Museum has been closed for some time now. It was moved to Fort Lee, Virginia, and opened last year. A must see for any history buffs!! I can't wait to visit it.
$14 million to develop a somewhat functioning prototype for the military is insanely efficient compared to the R&D costs weapon manufacturers charge today. The army spent $5 billion for prototypes of a future Bradley only to have to cancel the project due to the designs not meeting their desired specifications.
Holy crap you people must think I'm some noob. I can say with confidence I am Likely better at the game than you all. Since average Win\Loss is around 45% and I'm near 60%. The T1\M6 is bad and the turret is just as easily penned as the rest of the damn thing! Hide your hull🤣
Look up the M-2 "Combat Car," the ancestor of the M-3 Stuart: *EIGHT* machine guns. Early production M-3 Stuarts still had the excess machine gun ports, welded over or blanked off.
And once it was accepted into service, they were almost all 50 caliber machine guns. How do you make a fighting machine better? More 50cal. That is 12.7mm for those outside America, unless I am mistaken, which as an American I might be.
What difference would it make if it was the next day or a week from now? I always set them to premiere the day before so that it gets notifications to as many people as possible so they don't miss it.
@@ConeOfArc do you know theres a better way of putting people on airliners? But if you saw that your seat number was 123 you would freak out even though that method is faster (or in this case convenient) I got this idea from "the better boarding method airlines wont use" CGP Grey
I love all the old school tank designs they might of not worked out but it showed how ambitious engineers could be dreaming of giant unstoppable machines. It's kind of like the space race in the since that the sky was quite literally the limit, you just had to get the contract with some crazy off the wall idea.
Although it was never used in combat. It still provided valuable experience for the design team. Hopefully it could manage to raise enough bonds to return the money sunken into the project.
GM developed an automatic transmission in the 1930's with expectations that it would lead to more women buying their cars. Many women back then avoided driving since they disliked using a clutch to change gears and had problems using those when stopped facing uphill. Some time earlier an Englishman invented a select-shift manual transmission that used electric solenoids to shift gears and work the clutch. One placed the gear selector in the desired gear then pressed and released the clutch pedal to go into that gear. It worked smoothly so was used in expensive English cars and copied by the Germans to use in their Tiger 1 tanks. The GM Hydra-Matic worked fine except would go into gear with a strong thump which many drivers found to be annoying. GM worked on reducing the thump during the war and didn't get it eliminated until 1950 or so.
GM spent $Millions developing the "Hydramatic". I was a 2nd Armored grunt--our 2.5 Ton trucks had Hydramatics. I asked why an automatic in a truck (most commercial trucks have stick shift like 6 to 10 speeds. The answer: Because the Army (at that time) is made up of 75% draftee's who don't know how to use stick shift...I am not sure that was the case but we never had any probs with the Hydramatics.
@@hddun that was the reason that I have read before, and the article also stated that they had no transmission problems after its introduction, almost all your modern buses and coaches are auto's today with lorries going the same way, its hard to abuse a torque converter on take up compared to a manual clutch, I can see the attraction in a car but I still like my stick.
Funny thing is, I used to think the m48 Patton was a heavy tank because of its armor and when I saw it in person, it was huge! But later learned it was a medium
I love that tank so much in the game, at least, the game that existed back in the day before they dumbed it down for the kiddies. Such a rewarding tank to play.
At 14:05 in the video, it's a late production M6A2 using the 90mm M3, it also had better armor in every single part apart from the floor(it stayed the same) compared to early production M6's/M6A1's/M6A2's. The US reviewed all previous armor specifications, and finalized a new armor setup for the late production M6s in late 1942 following the measurement at Milford: (The armor upgrade weighed 9,500 lb (4.3 ton)) It received positive feedback, too bad it was too late for that.
Gaijin actualy hates U.S. tanks. They reduced the horsepower on almost all U.S. world war 2 tanks for no reason. M6 Heavy irl: 950 HP / M6 Heavy in game: 800 HP M4A1(76) and M18 irl: Around 460 HP /M4A1 (76) and M18 in game: 400 HP M4A3 (76) irl: 500 HP / M4A3 (76) in game: 450 HP. M4A2 (76) irl: 420 HP /M4A2 (76) in game: 410 HP. Originaly these tanks actualy had realistic horsepower ratings (except for the M6) but around 1 year ago they silently nerfed all of these engines. They did not write about them in any changelog so most players missed out on it. What is the point in pretending that WT is a "realistic tank game" if they do biased s**t like this?
Afraid of over shadowing muh russian tanks Similar to how the m6 being a 4.7 and facing tigers and panthers despite being a paper thin armored slow pos
M6 Goliath(working name) tracks have habit of popping off or breaking , thats one of the main reason the 90 mm versions were not used . they were trying to solve the the track problem
The Europeans don’t have to manufacture their Tanks across the Atlantic ocean. American Tanks were shipped by rail from Detroit too Atlantic ports. To be loaded on Liberty ships. A heavy tank needs new rail cars. Upgraded railroads, bridges, and tunnels. The port facilities needed bigger cranes for loading and unloading. Liberty ships needed modifications. Getting to the battlefield is necessary. In retrospect the Americans could have asked the British to produce a heavy tank for all the allied armies in Europe..
None of that was needed. The boom cranes on the Liberty and Victory ship were capable of lifting the M6 and Pershing. The railroads had plenty of flatcars capable of transporting them but those were being used to haul heavy loads of steel plate, structural steel and machinery. Roads, bridges and tunnels didn't present a problem since truckers and railroads could plan routes to avoid low tunnels and roads/bridges that had lower weight limits. The M6 was cancelled because the armor commanders overseas didn't want them because they were slow, unreliable and would require their own separate store of parts, repair shops with specially trained mechanics and their own recovery units.
@@billwilson3609 ….. Well yeah, the customers being Generals Eisenhower and Bradley said no thank you to it. But later said the M26 Pershing heavy tank was needed. I stand by my proposal that adopting a British heavy tank would have been more direct. Had the Brits produced one on time. Another solution was to have more 90mm armed M36 Jackson TD’s
@@Idahoguy10157 The Army didn't want the Pershing either since the M36's were getting the job done. Congress ordered Ordnance to come up with a heavy tank in 1943 due to the public's concern that US forces didn't have one and that may hurt their re-election in 1944 if the Army didn't have one by then. The M36 used the M10 hull that was produced by Fisher Body. Fisher Body was having organized labor problems so Ordnance had M36 turrets installed by Ford on new M4's while the Army rounded up M10's from the US training bases. Those were refurbished to become M36's. Fisher Body was to produce 8,000 M36's but that contract was cancelled after 2,000 M4/M10 M36's were made since the Army expected the war in Europe to be over before Summer.
@@FairladyS130 More accurately, American Nazis. I remember an interview with one of the Tuskegee airmen who was shot down over France. He said that shortly after being captured by the Germans they were telling him what high school he went to and even his marks in classes. Pretty sad for an American or anyone else to sink to such unpatriotic depths.
The Germans probably used the photographs seen in the US newspapers and other publications whose articles might of included the thickness of the armor. I would imagine that the M6 shocked the Germans because the US Ordnance Department never bothered to design tanks between the wars so allowed the US Army to buy and evaluate foreign-made tanks, those made by private US companies and those cobbled together by the US Arsenal shops. All they knew in 1941 was that we had the M2 light tank, which was shown in photographs parked next to a M6 to show the differences in size.
@@ToddSauve The opposite is true, actually. Many German-Americans went back home when the war kicked off. So that they could fight the war for their country. Was quite patriotic. Just ended up picking the wrong team is all.
One issue on Tank Size was transportation across the oceans> An M4 Sherman colld be loaded by longshoremen on most US docks> Gen. Patton used his tanks w/Artillery Tactics (TOT = Time On Target) made use of dozens of M4 Shermans to LOBE multiple shells onto a single panzer where w/a truck load of STEEL dropping out of the sky on top the Panzer, it overloaded its suspension, (Wheels came off) disabling the panzer, mox nix size of tank gun
Hilarious. When I saw that picture of the tanks Turbo hydramic transmission, next to the picture of the Cadillac ad transmission, as a mechanic, I thought that looks like a th400/350 from the 60's and 70's musclecars. Developed mainly from WW2. Even today there are 4spd versions of those transmissions.
With continuing the American heavy tanks, would love to see the T29 heavy tank program leading toward the T32 program. They are very popular tanks now a days and many have loved to speculate how they would’ve faired in real combat
As a kid, after we moved from the Midwest to the east coast, My dad took us to Aberdeen proving grounds, back when all of the tanks were outside. The non-US vehicles were all arranged in a field, while the US vehicles were all on the road meridian. It was utterly cool because my dad and older brother lifted me into one of the Marders, and while Rusty you could see all the operating details. Over the years they snuck me onto a couple of the other open topped AFVs, and while some of them were rested in place - some you could still operate the horizontal and vertical azimuth wheels. It was awesome.
Well, many Canadians sometimes do use Imperial. Most, however, use the metric system much more often, but I would say at least half of Canadians have used the Imperial system for at least a couple things one time or another.
I think your average Canadian would use an even blend of both feet and meters, but for height it is almost always feet, and shoe size is mostly in inches. For most things though most people I know far prefer centimetres over inches and kilometers over miles, but like to use pounds over kilograms, unless talking about very large numbers, then they would use kilos and metric tons. For liquid we would use a gallon for milk and for gas, but in some cases we would use liters for gas. For smaller amounts of liquid we would use metric. And when you get into really large amounts of liquid it just becomes whatever you prefer. Some people use full metric though and a handful of people use full imperial. It really just depends what the subject is and the scenario, however most people use metric a decent amount more than imperial.
While this design is my all time favorite tank in War Thunder, I just don’t see this as having been logistically practical in combat. Sure, it probably would’ve made an effective combatants, but an M6 in combat would’ve a logistics officer’s nightmare. Transport of the thing itself, the plethora of ammunition it needed, keeping it supplied with fuel… I love the thing in game, but in real life having a pair of Shermans tanks would be better…
That's the main reason why the Army refused to use it. It would've required it own specially trained mechanics, repair shops, store of replacement parts and towing vehicles along with main gun ammunition no their tanks could use. The other reason was that the M6 crews hated their working conditions and bitched about it all the time. The US Army valued the opinions of their soldiers that had to try out new weapons so were quick to discard whatever they disliked.
This is probably my favorite tank of all time, and what's remarkable is that I have no idea why. Ever since I unlocked it in War Thunder I just fell in love with the thing, and I don't even think it was good in the game back then.
Honestly, bless you for calling the T28 the T28, and not the T95. I know the Chieftain did a video about the nomenclature of the tank, but perhaps that could be a potential future video topic? And not just on the T28, maybe other tanks that are commonly misnamed or miscategorized in other games/media.
Europe is just about the only place left that relies solely on one system. For the most part the rest of the world teaches and uses both yes including america. Both systems have their uses and using just one hold you back.
@@ivanvladimir0435 unless you live in an authoritarian state that makes it illegal to use one over the other, then there are guaranteed to be people useing both in your country even if they don't teach both.
@@shinkreytpuylap the Pershing started out as a heavy tank then it was down graded to a medium post war. The M6 was probably more comparable to the failed German Vk Prototypes that lead to the design of the Tiger 1 like the Vk 3001or Vk3601 H and Vk 3601 P or the Naubaufzoig or whatever the multi turreted prototype heavy tank design was. Or seen as slightly better American version of a Russian KV1tank.
I feel like the US could’ve used them if they were givens more development time and simplified to cut down on the weight and cost of the beast, get rid of those extra unnecessary machine guns, replace the coaxial 37 with a 50 cal machine gun, improve the crew layout/ ergonomics a bit and the US could’ve had a 90mm armed tank ready in 1944. It might’ve been a little less practical than the Sherman for logistical purposes but it could’ve been used a spearhead for attacking tank forces like the jumbo was. Would’ve certainly been more useful than the Pershing
Well, I will say T1 heavy is more or less a test bed for later development on other tanks, even thought it was not intent to be one. You see, both a tank that is capable of carrying a 76 mm and that of a 90 mm gun were actually built and entered service, which is Sherman and Pershing.
The US Army was perfectly happy using the M3 and M4 tanks since those shared the same automotive gear and the mechanics could work on either one out in the field or at the repair shops. Accepting the M6 would've required the need for mechanics specially trained to work on it, separate warehouses and depots for the parts and it's own repair shops. The US Army had a 90mm mounted in a M4 based TD in 1944 and began installing it's turret w/gun in the standard M4 hull at the factories since those could be built faster and had better armor. The US armor commander didn't want the Pershing for the same reasons why they refused the M6 and were perfectly happy using what they had on hand.
Seeing as they had been built in quantity, I would have used them. I would have used them under a use them and lose them mentality where no replacements are to be made and the value of them would be for a "Special" push. This would be ideal for pushing into a major city or fortified position. Loses would be expected, but seeing as they were tougher than the Sherman, the surprise would be useful in revealing a "New" threat. Even if not used again, the reports of these behemoths would distract German R&D and resources to make mammoth killers where lighter tanks/guns/planes would do just fine or better.
The main reason however as you have mentioned really is that since wars involving the United States are more often than not overseas. It made very little sense for the US army to field heavy tanks as ships cranes were very limited in the weight they could lift during ww2. Medium tanks were easier to move around, load onto ships and could support infantry quite well. Now while a Sherman was indeed in disadvantage when facing a tiger or panther at range, it did not happen as often as movies tend to portray and Sherman tanks were never alone. Furthermore they had on point air support to take care of such threats, further limiting direct encounters. I'd love if I could collaborate in one of your video in the future. I don't own a dedicated channel on the subject but I'd love just to talk about the subject and share some of my knowledge with you and your audience at no cost lol Been watching your vids for quite some time ⏲️ keep up the good work ( I watched this video when it first came out but stumbled across it in my Playlist once again )
Honestly the logistics would have made them almost a liability at that point. Given that there would likely have been limited interchangeability for parts, ammunition requirements, not to mention fuel requirements, that makes it difficult. Factor in the US had "tank destroyer" units that were already doing great work...there just wasn't a need.
The US also had to send them from Detroit to a coast. NYC is the closest at 600 miles (1000 km). Similar distances would be Normandy Beach to Berlin. What's the width limits on the tunnels?
The Liberty ships' cranes carried two sets of booms that were rated for 30 and 50 tons. They could've handled the M6s with ease by removing the turrets before loading then dropping them back in place once set on the deck.
Thanks for a very informative video about two of my favourite tanks in War Thunder, the T1E1 and the M6A1. It surprised me that, despite their chequered history in reality, they make such very effective tanks in-game.
This video gives the third explanation I have heard for cancellation of the M-6 program. I believe Ian Hogg in one of his books claimed the M-6 was cancelled because fewer of them could be placed on board a ship when compared to the M-4, and it was decided by Army leadership that having a greater number of tanks was more important than having more powerful tanks. Quantity versus quality. Belton Cooper in his book Death Traps said it wasn't sent to Europe because General Patton objected to having it. According to Cooper, Patton's philosophy of armored warfare held that the primary purpose of a tank wasn't to battle other tanks, but to operate deep in the enemy's rear areas destroying soft targets like fuel storage and ammo dumps, for which he felt the faster Sherman was better suited.
It was cancelled for three reasons. The first was that it's crews hated their cramped working conditions inside the fighting compartment. The US military valued the opinions of those that had to use issued equipment so was quick to ditch whatever the end users strongly disliked. The second was that the US armor commanders flat out refused to accept any to use at the front due to being too slow to keep up with their faster advancing forces. The third was that the M6 would require it's own parts warehouses and depots, it's own repair shops and own specially trained crews of mechanics and crewed armor recovery vehicles. They were perfectly happy using the M3 and M4 since they shared the same automotive gear and suspension plus their mechanics could work on either one at the repair shops.
Shipping wouldn't of been a problem since they had Liberty ship tank transporters that could hold 400 M5's or 260 M4's. Those carried two sets of booms for the jib cranes that could handle 30 and 50 tons. None were sent to North Africa or Europe due to the Army cancelling it's production in 1942 after 250 test vehicles went thru field trials. There they found that the M6 couldn't be operated over 10 mph for very long before experiencing mechanical problems and track failures. The armor commanders didn't want a slow heavy tank that would need constant repairs nor one that their crews hated to use due to cramped working conditions that made their jobs difficult to do efficiently. Patton probably did object to using the M6 since he planned Operation Torch and the landings at Sicily.
One thing I've never noticed till now is that the drive sprocket is in the rear (along with the transmission, etc.), which is unusual for an American tank of that era.
For the tank crews in Europe riding in their Sherman's, I'm sure they would have LOVED to have some heavy tanks to go toe to toe with the panzers and tigers etc, but for the US command it made sense to stick with light and medium tanks as much as possible for logistical reasons. When you're having to ship your armor to the other side of the world it definitely makes sense to have more medium tanks than much fewer heavy ones.
Plus the main threat in Europe weren't tanks. It was some 16 year old with a AT rocket waiting for you to pass or a 88 hidden in a field waiting for you to get too close
@@SudrianTales mines and ambushes were tank killers of WW2. Everyone wants to push tanks in the spotlight but they didn't consider combined arms or artillery. It's all about tanks.
@@anthonyiocca5683 I wouldn't go as far to say Panthers were the "best" tanks Germany produced. too broad of a term. Every tank in WW2 had their pros and cons, True, only if the economy (and reliability) could keep up with the production that rivalled M4 Sherman tanks. Panthers would be unstoppable. Aside from the beaten to death topic of Panther transmissions were unreliable and a pain in the ass to repair due to the trans not being able to be readily accessible for repairs service hatch/door etc.
@@samhicks97 it was the Tigers transmissions that often failed. The Tiger was a enlarged Panzer 4, the King Tiger was a enlarged Panther… Fearsome looking junk. The Panther was their best.
Honestly, if they toned down the MGs to into having as many as the Sherman and changed the 37mm gun for a Coax MG (likely a .50 Browning) I think they could have worked the issues and been as good as the Centurion even, as stated in the video a bigger main gun like the 90mm gun or a licensed copy of the 17 pdr could have also worked well. Shipping and logistics wise however I don't know how it could have worked for the US and its abandonment was ultimately the right call, a good vehicle for the wrong nation.
I had the opportunity to speak to the mechanic who took care of the transfer of the M6 to the museum of Fort Benning, he said that the tracks of this M6 were simply "" lost "" they have no idea of 'where they are, and even if they still exist, they were still present on the tank in the 80s but since we lost their trace
I always figured the US didn't invest in heavies during WW2 because of logistics, an m4 was cheaper and easier to make for the same job, and I imagine you could ship a lot more at a time. Also a crew of 6 seems like a bit much lol
Exactly. It's fine to design and build a 40-60 ton tank. Good luck getting it to Europe. Most US tanks were built in Michigan/ Ohio etc. You have to get the tanks to to NYC/ Boston/ Baltimore/ Newport News. Tanks aren't being driven 1000+ miles to the ports, they are going by train. Train flatbeds have a max capacity they can carry. Trains also go over bridges which have weight limits. Ok lets say we go one tank per car instead of 2. Well you need 2x as many trains or flat bed cars. What production is being stopped to build more rolling stock?? Even the USA had limits to its industrial capacity. The train arrives in port. Now you need to get the tank onto the ship. You don't just drive a tank onto a boat. A crane has to lift the tank onto the transport. What is the weight capacity of the cranes at the harbor? What is the weight capacity of each ship? Would you rather transport 4 tanks or 2 tanks per ship? Now we make it to England. What is the weight capacity of their cranes, and their roads and their bridges???? This country, it's ports and infrastructure have been bombed the past 2-3 years. Let's say all of that is tackled, like a video game. How exactly is this 40-60 ton behemoth tank going to be transported across the English Channel for D-Day? I'm pretty sure an extra 10+ tons on an LVT is going to hamper its performance, much less how far across the Channel it can go before being beached. The M4 was a compromise decision from day 1. It fit the logistical needs of the USA/UK and could be produced and transported to Europe in bulk. It held its own. With some minor gun upgrades it became quite nasty. We need to consider the big picture. The Tiger was a logistics mess for the Wehrmacht. It did not fit on the rail stock of the day, it was too heavy for many bridges, cranes etc. And most of those issues were to fight on the same continent (North Africa excepted). WWII was not a video game.
4:30 I can't imagine why they'd put both 30 and 50-cal in one vehicle. If you run out of one or the other ammo, half your guns are out of use. Why not just standardize all guns on one round?
cause then you're either under powered, or wasting .50 cal ammo. 2 different uses, 2 different guns. don't recall exactly, but I'd say a lot had both. shermans had 2 .30's and a .50, no reason to waste .50 rounds on human targets when a .30 is more than capable, and light armor or vehicles would be less susceptible to .30, but a .50 will at least disable if not destroy them, saving rounds for the main gun.
No, it looks a Sherman that went to the gym and done a full workout and then bulked up on good protein and vitamins and looking to give the Tigers the good old golden right hook.
Building a heavy tank in a short time without many reliability issues was impossible at that time. Deploying them to Europe was difficult and expensive. Going against German tanks without any experience in battle with heavy tanks would be just stupid. America could build and deploy smaller tanks much faster in big numbers. They took heavy losses in battle, but they could afford it and replace them quickly. Germany was outnumbered more than 20:1 and the US had a save production side far away with unlimited supply. It was just a matter of time and more profit for the industrial complex of their war machine.
Considering, that it had around the same amor as the M4 tanks (not the jumbo, that was better), while it is 2x bigger, the germans would have some nice target practice.
@@billwilson3609 not really. In terms of raw armor thickness, it was better, but it was not very well angled, not like the m4. The m6 had a bit better protection, yes, but it was heavy, big, and slow.
Just because the M6-Project was designed to be an Heavy Tank doesn't make it equal to the Tiger.... It lacked the strong Armor, deadly Canon and the propagandistic degree of awareness The T26E1-1 Super Pershing is a way better fitting Candidate of an Heavy Tank compared to Tiger I and Tiger II
It’s interesting to me how the U.S. produced a huge variety of airplanes during WWII, took the time and money to design, build and somehow move all that AirPower to all theaters of the war. But for some reason didn’t see any need to give our troops a better fighting machine for ground fighting. I’m sure I’m missing something, but would it really take longer to design a tank than an airplane?
The Sherman had around a 80% survival rate and was able to be upgraded to a 76mm gun the same at all other heavy and medium tank designs up until the T25. There was no need to replace the Sherman as long as it was easily able to deal with Panthers and Tigers, let alone the remaining majority of AFVs it encountered.
I doubt it would have done well. The base design simply didn't have enough armour for the role as it could be rather easily defeated by the ubiquitous 75mm PaK 40 and it's derivatives.
Compared to the M6, the 76mm Shermans and even the 75mm ones are still the far superior answer to the German heavies since they are already capable of killing them while also being more reliable and easy to produce. The Americans wouldn't even be able to send the M6 to Europe as it's far heavier than 40 tons, the maximum carrying weight of Liberty ship cranes. If they somehow managed to send even one M6 to the frontline it would've just been immediately destroyed in the battlefield thanks to German anti-tank guns that would have no issue cutting through it's front armor so no, you're just giving German crews free target practice
@@EvillBob yeah, these motherfuckers are like "Yeah the Sherman is more flammable because of the gas engine even though a lot of other tanks used gas engines too, and the ammo placement also lead to a lot of fires even though 99% of tanks during the war used the same ammo placement layout" like man how many shitty documentaries have you been watching mate? Let's not even talk about the "Invincible German Heavy Tanks" nonsense
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the T14 is classified as an assault tank and an infantry tank and most assault and infantry tanks were also referred to as heavy tanks
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the Jumbo is known as a heavy tank BECAUSE IT HAD THE ARMOR OF A HEAVY TANK! 5.5 INCHES TO 6 INCH FRONTAL ARMOR, 1.5 INCHES TO 3.0 INCH TO 6 INCH SIDE ARMOR, AND 1.5 INCHES TO 6 INCH REAR ARMOR!
Myself, I came up with a "what if" variant of the M6A2 with a 17pdr, coaxial .30 calibre, slightly more armour and the extraneous 50s and 30s in the bow removed (just the usual single 30 perhaps) called the Griffin IIC. Looks rather pretty.
If you enjoyed this longer video please show it by remembering to like the video and telling me what you thought about it in the comments. Don't forget to check out Skillshare as well who helped me have the ability to afford the licensing for the M6 footage you saw in the video as well as supporting future content. Check them out using the link in the description.
Hey, Ive always wondered how you got your name. I get the nod to Joan of Arc, but is there a story?
Also, love your vid's! Your in my top 3 history channels beside Armchair Historian and Dark Docks
I liked the video its amazing
That moment you stay up waiting for a vid
As someone who is doing his dissertation on the US Army in this period, the M6 should have stayed at home. I personally doubt the vehilce contirbuted anything useful to the Pershing's development.
How many machine guns do you want on our tank designs?
U.S.: Yes
I don't know if you have ever seen Monty Python's Meaning of Life? But there is a scene featuring a waiter trying to feed an after dinner mint to an extremely fat, extremeley full chap. He keeps asking in a french accent " a waffer finn mint?". The designers here were that waiter only it was "a little M2", "a waffer thin .50BMG?"
In reality the US knew of the Bob semple tank and they where big scared of it.
As an American, I can confirm the next M1 will get rid of all armor so we can add more machine guns.
US tank designs, add a cannon, then shove MGs everywhere
(Example of this is the M3 Stuart, and the M2 Medium)
moar!
I think that, ultimately, the reason US heavy tanks never really went anywhere (including developmentally; there was just not much interest in them even post-war) is because the US faced a very different logistical reality compared to all other major combatants in the war. The US had to ship its tanks literally across the world, by sea, and then by land, along with their vast supply chains. Thus, heavy tanks were just not practical, because even if you could get them to the front, you'd have to make so many compromises in the process (including taking a disproportionately fewer number of medium tanks as a result) that it was just never worth it. As Germany itself showed again and again, combined arms warfare would almost always trump small numbers of powerful, heavy tanks.
Disregards all that when building the Abrams.
@@user-uy1rg8td1v Not really. Like he said, it’s a trade off. And with weaponry evolving like it did and still is, heavier and more survivable tanks have become necessary, plus transportation now exists that can move them in large numbers quickly.
@@balloonman257 yep, by air as well.
That's one of the reasons why American tanks are designed to he easy to ship by rail even today and why they have almost only every built MBTs, IFVs, and medium tanks. Soviets and germans could send their tanks straight to the battle field while the US had to ship everything half way across the globe. That's also why the US always built fairly narrow ships do as to fit through any canal and also why the US has built almost all of histories nuclear powered subs and air craft carriers.
In the word of the Chieftain, the most important part on the M4 were the lifting rings. Also, the limit is not what the harbour cranes can lift, but what the ship cranes can lift. You can control the harbour you load from, but you have to make do with whatever is at the destination or what you can carry along.
*sees the Bob Semple tank among the list of failed tanks*. Excuse me? Did the Japanese invade NZ or did they not?
It is true that the Japanese did not try to invade New Zealand. However, the reason could be more accurately described as their fear of/inability to deal with the U.S. Navy than their fear of the Bob Semple tank. :-)
He did what he could with what they had didn't take years and millions.
@@minarchist1776 It's just a joke man.
Why I pray to the Bob semple tank for safety and peace because it truly is the biggest stick to beat others to peace with, May Bob semple tank bless us all.
@@minarchist1776 The Bob Semple tank was recycleable too, when the war finished the corrugated iron sides could be removed and used for roofing.
it really does put it into perspective when you point out that this behemoth was a contemporary to the early Stuart and the M3 Lee
This beast was designed before the M3 was and before the Stuarts design was finalized. Ordnance obviously liked the lines of the hull since it was copied when designing the M3 and M4. The M6 was named Goliath by the Army and dubbed Junior by the tankers since it resembled an overgrown M4.
Break through tanks rarely ended up ‘breaking through’. US armored doctrine emphasized punching a hole in the enemy lines and then turning an armored division loose to widen, deepen and exploit that gap. The Sherman was good enough for what was required. Hell, it was good enough for Israel up until the 70’s.
“You never know unless you try it.”
Send it into battle on the European front and see for itself.
1. Most liberty ship cranes could only carry up to 40 tons of weight. This is a main (and by Cone of Arc unmentioned) reason why the M6 never went to europe. If they wanted to ship them in mass to europe (and they would have had to do it in mass in order to make a difference) it would ether complicate things at the docks requirering liberty ships to wait in order to load and unload the M6 in a disassembled form (which would mean that much needed supplys wouldnt get to europe as the liberty ships would be delayed) or it would be outright impossible to even load them in as there are no crane hooks on the turret so if you want to disassemble the tank and lift up the turret seperately from the hull it would not be possible.
This is something that many people forget. Germany had it so much easyer because they could transport all of their tanks from the factory to the front line via train. No cranes needed. As a result german world war 2 tanks were comicaly overweight with even the panther being 8 tons heavyer then the M4A3E2 jumbo Sherman (which had twice as much armor everywhere).
2. Germany could easly get their tanks across rivers by using large railway and civilian bridges designed to carry heavy traffic. When the german retreated they almost always destroyed these bridges.
In other words allied tanks needed to be light enough in order to cross floating pontoon bridges and the M6 heavy defenetly could not do that.
So you are asking the U.S. army to not only delay a big portion of their liberty ships and somehow lift a heavy tank into a ship with a crane which cant even lift it and you are also asking for the U.S. logistics teams to somehow build bridges threwout europe that are capable of carrying a 50+ ton heavy tank. Do you have any idea how unrealistic that is? And keep in mind: If the tank does not reach the front line it may aswell not exist because it is completely useless.
So no, that would have never happend and the U.S. army did the right choice.
Well, as one already said here, M6 can't be shipped easily to Europe or Africa. You'd need extra space for that on the ships- space that could've been used to bring some more Shermans or a couple of tons of other stuff like ammo, food, medical supplies, and this was all before shipping containers even existed, so that's hard too. The US is playing the numbers game here, so it won't much help. Also, bringing them from England to France is hard at this point since French ports were screwed by the Krauts months after D-Day, so they can't go on a direct route
In theory tho, M6 can match a Tiger, tho having lesser armor, so it might lose some points
@@dd-579fletcherwillyd.9 Transport is certainly very important, but I neglected to look at that given the US was building more transport ships than making bread by 1943.
@@jakobc.2558 Very fair point being made here. But that idea of just assembling these M6s in Europe might make all the difference. The Liberty ships couldn’t hold a whole tank, but what about those pieces? Also, as demonstrated by USS Indianapolis, some warships might assist in this as well (especially the USS Kentucky, an unfinished Iowa-class battleship that could end up cosplaying a transport ship).
@@jakobc.2558 I doubt it would work, though.
One M6 could have more machine guns that much infantry divisions XD
*laughs in M2 medium*
@@galladesamurai2380 *laughs in m3 Lee* now that's a division
*laughs in m15a GMC*
@@galladesamurai2380 omg yep
@@unusualincidentsunit7428 are you saying the m3 had more mgs then the m2?
I can't wait till next century when this video is no longer a premiere
Made me laugh
Lol
Hi Katyusha😊
Sooo
sup baby stalin whats hangin
The truth was that it was quickly found out that two Shermans could easily be loaded on a ship instead of only one heavy and cumbersome M6. Not only, the M4 could easily be loaded on the ship with spare parts as well....
The Truth was also found quickly that 10 dead body bags were loaded up coming back on that ship home for not having a Heavy also.
@@thethirdgeneration1738 That's no truth, that's a lie.
@@defenestrationismyfavoriteword Nope. It’s been verified. Not having heavies, was costly to us in many ways. I’ve already explained this in another post on this thread why. “Do the body count” well you in a Sherman up against a Panther, a Tiger, a Tiger 2, and see how you far out.
You’ll need 11 more Sherman’s to try and out swarm the Tiger from the rear, but first that Tiger is going shoot holes in about 8-9 of those Sherman’s. Sherman rounds will bounce off.
@@defenestrationismyfavoriteword ruclips.net/video/2appOUvxP4s/видео.html
@@thethirdgeneration1738 1. Sherman Jumbo
2. Sherman crew survival rates vs all other tanks of the time
3. Poor german metal quality in the later stage of the war when all these big cats started being made. The 75mm could frontally penetrate the Tiger's on paper armor (assuming perfect metal) at 500m. The 76mm and 17pounder had even less trouble.
4. Poor quality of german tank crews as the war dragged on and all their aces were killed (seems they needed those bodybags more than the Sherman crews)
5. Tank duels were usually a first-shot wins deal.
6. Gun stabilizer.
7. The amount of Tigers faced by Shermans was extremely exaggerated.
8. Versatility. Count the amount of M4 variants compared to the amount of variants for other contemporary tanks. Including the Jumbo which seems to fit that US heavy tank you're opining for.
War isn't a game of paper stats and who has the cooler gear. You can scream the "5 shermans for 1 cat" myth all you like and act like Fury's a documentary but reality barks louder than the biggest german gun. And reality is Operation Totalize ending with Wittman's entire squadron getting wiped out. If you got the time look up Chieftain's video "why the sherman was what it was".
If you want the tl;dw, the Sherman was no death trap. Very much the opposite. And a Heavy tank would have been hell for logistics; shipping, bridges, railways so on. What would the heavy tank have done? Have less tanks that can die to less AT guns? It'll just get blown up by a mine, throw a track, burn out its transmission, have its crew killed while they're outside trying to get it unstuck, or have an infantry squad get wiped out by other infantry because the only tank you have is already busy somewhere else and the brass chose to have 1 heavy instead of 2 mediums. And then die to a bigger AT gun.
When it first debuted in war Thunder, I loved this tank. Then everyone realized there were places in the front where the armor was thinner than that of a light tank (the angled front facing sides). Then it became a liability.
I was literally pinned by a KV-1 constantly shooting my rear in this thing it lasted a good few minutes before my turret came around and one shot him
That is true. You can get one shot by t34s but i still love playing this tank once in a while.
@@shadewolf0075 Penned, from penetrate.
@@whatdothlife4660 no it literally had me pinned against a rock face and kept shooting my engine as my turret transversed to shoot it
@Jim Bartz wow that is sooo profound!
Germany: "We built the best heavy tanks we could!"
Britain: We built Heavy tanks based off experience in ww1
France: we built our tanks to help defend against other tanks.
Japan: We built tanks to take on the Chinese hordes.
America: *Monster Garage theme plays* This week Jessie and the crew attempt to make a tiger killer....
EDIT: almost 1000 likes at the time of this edit. Thank you all. I didn't think so many people would be entertained by the joke and make some good ones in the replies.
Edit 2: now up to 1500 likes. All of you are too kind
"But they got carried away installing 1000 machine guns, so the budget for the main gun was limited at first"
Haha
A look into ship design is even more crazy sometimes, depending on the nation
Forgot completely how it was, but I remember two:
Japan: "We fight against hordes of AC's so we gotta put more AA's on to the ship."
Germany/America (not sure): "We got some free space, so we installed one more main battery for more firepower!"
@@Valivali94 which goes with that monster garage show, as far as i remember. They put so much sh** in the cars, there where no budget for road safety or whatsoever. Or was that pimp my tank?!
I mean the M4 Sherman can do literally everything. You want a mobile artillery piece? Slap some rockets on there. Want a bigger gun? Slap a 105mm on there. Need more armor? Weld some plates on there.
I didnt knew the sherman had a 105mm gun
@@shinkreytpuylap more of a howitzer really, not an actual anti-tank gun
@@shinkreytpuylap A 105mm Short Ranged Howitzer tho,it is not a n AT gun
@@shinkreytpuylap There's the 105 mm howitzer (the M4 (105)) and then there's the French version of the tank with an actual 105 mm cannon (M-51 Super Sherman) that came about in the 1960s.
This is not to be confused with Yugoslavia's SO-122, which was an M4 upgraded to a T34-85 engine with a monster 122 mm canon. This tank was never mass produced because by the 1960s, the gun was deemed insufficient to penetrate modern tank armor.
Won't one that burns up easily, keep that gas engine.
I wonder if the next American heavy tanks like the T29, T30, T34, and T32 are gonna get their own cursed by design videos.
They aren't really that cursed, they were successful developments but arrived too late.
Well, the T32 tho, it's just a Pershing E4 on steroids, so maybe
@@vexi4584 theres also the E5 perishing which is just a jumbo perishing
Dont you dare call T29 and its siblings cursed, i know they never saw combat and im not really serious, but in both major tank games, i loved T29.
Good gun, good gun depression paired with very nice turret armor, i also like their design very much. When i think of a tank, i think of a T29 or something, its just all there, right proportions.
@@vexi4584 I’d argue that the t32 was the best of the bunch. It has the same gun as the super Pershing, but it’s a bigger tank so you can better operate that gun. The Super Pershing was kind of like a Pershing firefly, while T32 was actually designed to carry that massive cannon.
@@Shaun_Jones It wasn't massive. The KwK 43 WAS a massive gun.
Cone at 14:05 behind the M6 there is an entire Tiger 1 tank . I was hoping you could shed some light on it . How did it get all the way from Germany to Central Park ? Was it captured and sent back as a trophy ? Please inform us I can't be the only person intrigued by it. By the way love your work , thank you for giving us this awesome accurate content.
Looks like a wooden mock up
Germany sent a handful of Tiger tanks to North Africa just before the collapse of that campaign, and so the US Army and British Armies captured one each in different operations. The British one is in Bovington while the American one is in Fort Benning. The film is from the Fifth War Bond Parade, a major drive for money towards the end of the war, and I do believe they actually had the captured Tiger there specifically next to M6 so Americans could see the USA could make tanks just as big as the Germans, even if the Army had no actual plans to use any.
Wow would you look at Time Square? Bizarre
👍 That must be the oceanic amphibious prototype Tiger I. It's got retractable propellors, and it could cruise across the Atlantic to attack NYC, Baltimore, Philly, Washington DC at 38 knots.
One way or the other it was captured and transported back to the US. Seems fairly obvious as the US didn't manufacture Tiger tanks. LOL.
Ya know, I as certified Armchair general, I absolutely love this monster of a machine. Nothing says power as your tank being so big that if commander would slip and fell off the turret he would likely die or be severally crippled. Now that is power!
ahahah
MAXIMUM GIRTH
Hell I actually have sketched a design for a Infantry Support Gun that has a 90mm/17 pdr Cannon, a pair of twin TOW pods on the sides of the turret, a L94A1 7.62 NATO Chain Gun as a Coax Gun, w/ 6 wheels - that are similar to ATV wheels - and a pair (or perhaps 3) of diesel engines w/ a Automatic Transmission featuring also a deployable laser ranging and guiding mechanism for a 155mm Copperhead Arty Round.
So that way this Infantry Assault Gun not only provides direct Cannon Fire but also has Anti-Tank, Anti-Infantry and Forward Observer Capabilities. Oh and it even comes w/ it's own field phone should Radios cease to be effective (and of course it has a radio comms system).
14:05 you can see a captured tiger in the back.
tiger be like :😳
Also the T-1 heavy and M-6 in wot Blitz are the best heavy tanks i have ever played they can reach 30 kmph with ease and have really hard to pen armor with regular AP
@@T-onblitz ah a Blitz Enjoyer
Im not shitting on WoT but i dont think its a good way to see how a vehicle would have performed in real life.
I think War Thunder would be better for that, but it does not have the T1. Instead, it has the M6A2E1 and the M6A1
@@rawhidelamp I love both the M6A1 and the M6A2E1 in war thunder
first one has really trolly armor but a lot of players get cocky because they know the armor is weak, result? if I angle they tend to shoot at places where the armor reaches dumb levels
second one has a mantlet that along with volumetric shells can eat up 90% of shells thrown at it, I once got shot multiple times by a type 75 SPH and it did nothing, I wasn't even aware it was something that huge lobbing HE at me
@@ivanvladimir0435 lmao manlet
@@blakelowrey9620 Not for the M6A2E1
M6A1... yeah, but not many think that's the way to kill a huge target
“Americas Tiger, the M6”
M6 players in wotb:
Yeah right lets just screw our team up by playing like a bot
Well you go from bullying everything with the T1 Heavy to a tank that needs a brain to play well.
Ah I love sniping M6's in my SU-152
Used the T1 heavy, and i wouldnt last 5 minutes into the match. Stopped using it and i now hate that tank so much i will specifically go out of my way to kill T1 heavys just out of spite
@@ROCKETMANN56 Exactly I love shooting them first just because it looks like a really big Sherman
Pffft it's impossible for any human to play like a bot because no human player can ever constantly and consistently break their targets' gun breeches and tracks without fail from 2km away while firing on the move without a stabilizer.
Edit: Whoops you were referring to World of Tanks Blitz, not War Thunder battles, my bad.
I’ll be sure to tune in next week when I finally remember to check
Credit where credit is due, this is actually one of the most functional Heavy Tank designs I've ever seen. It's a bit under-gunned for it's size, but it doesn't really have any glaring faults besides possibly the large profile, but that's fair enough given it's designation.
Imagine if the Germans confuse it for a bigger Sherman.
My Dad drove the M-5A1 Stuart during the war. As you probably know, it had twin Cadillac engines with the Hydro-Matic transmission, which allowed the use of one engine only if the other was damage by simply unhooking its drivetrain. As the Stuart was a light tank, it was used, (at least by him), in a scout-recon role.
Jump in the Cadilla-
In the West, Stuarts were doing a lot of recon and scouting, rather than engaging armor.
In the Pacific, where Japanese armor was much less advanced, they did a lot more shooting and assaulting alongside Shermans and such.
I only heard about this tank on world of tanks. I wonder how it was in real life!
I like to say its the M4's more obese cousin
@@somedrunkguy8786 the m6 and the t1 heavy remind me of cows
@@quentinfitzpatrick4975 then the M6A2E1 should remind you of a bull that should not be messed around with, not even tigers
I Fighted It In WT And Destroyed It Multiple Times.
And Yes WT Not WoT.
WT Is War Thunder.
@@empireofitalypsstimfromano5025 im on maximum render distance and i still can't find who the fuck asked
Looking at the increased bridging requirements ( one bridge every 50 miles ) the ammo required , the transportation changes from a 35 ton tank as standard , the rejection of the heavy tank is under stable.
Germany: we have made the best heavy tank that definitely isnt garbage we promise
America: god damit timmy what monstrosity have you created this time
Christ Timmy this damn thing packs more *BEEF* than an entire farm
Timmy bueng general Barnes the mad scientist
Also Germany: damn it, this tank can't even move, it's too heavy.
Also America: this monstrosity is great. But we need more tanks not 1 tank worth many.
The M6 is my favorite tank in WoT, and the tank I've achieved most of my most impressive results/medals in back when I played (back when the game was far less arcade like than today). I have hard carried in that tank so many times. The gun is incredible, the power of the engine is amazing, and it's just incredibly fun to drive if you remember not to show that semi-trailer like side profile to the enemy. As such, it's my favorite "might have been" of WWII. I know that objectively it probably wouldn't have been that great of a tank, and that there were good reasons for not sending it to Europe, but I want that tank to maul German armor the way I used it to maul tanks in the game.
Same
Same, I actually like the M6
I hated it at first because I’d always wreck these things in my Churchill tank until I played it myself. They’re so mobile and that gun is incredible. Easily one of the best tanks If you know what you’re doing
@@t-man8411es ,even with my Jackson TK, I was more afraid of the m6 ,than any german VI ranks tanks(or any others tanks for that matter)
PMSL, nobody's seen the video yet, won't be out for 9 hours. But, there are two dislikes 🤣🤣
That's the problem, THEY HATE THE FACT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO WATCH IT
It's the war thunder fanbois
rip
f
It is the two guys who designed it…
Its the war thunder players who pays 999,999,999 for repair costs.
Man it's not the amurican Tiger, it's the amurican Maus. Can't you see the 37mm gun. It's so clear that this is meant to be a friend to the lonely Mauses.
"Amurican"?
@@chaosXP3RT At least being German, he didn't say "Americunt" We all know that was what he was thinking....
I don't know about you, but when in his videos he says that at least one tank remains, it always makes me happy
though the condition is less happy.
@@zafranorbian757 it can be restored
I only hope a few generations from now it's still in good condition. Preservation of our history for our children is IMO one of the best things we can do as a species.
Aberdeen Ordinance Museum has been closed for some time now. It was moved to Fort Lee, Virginia, and opened last year. A must see for any history buffs!! I can't wait to visit it.
$14 million to develop a somewhat functioning prototype for the military is insanely efficient compared to the R&D costs weapon manufacturers charge today. The army spent $5 billion for prototypes of a future Bradley only to have to cancel the project due to the designs not meeting their desired specifications.
Did you count inflation?
Nvm you did count it
M6: has thick armour and no cupola*
WOT players: it's showtime
Except its armor is paper thin and can die to high explosives easier than most mediums.
@@eltxbox2496 just hide your hull
@@eltxbox2496 The side plates when moved to a 35 to 45 degree angle is a block
@@eltxbox2496 your turret is more useful to show than your body
Holy crap you people must think I'm some noob. I can say with confidence I am Likely better at the game than you all. Since average Win\Loss is around 45% and I'm near 60%. The T1\M6 is bad and the turret is just as easily penned as the rest of the damn thing! Hide your hull🤣
Soooooo, how many machine guns do you want? Designers: YES
America was the cult of the machine gun. M2 had even more
Look up the M-2 "Combat Car," the ancestor of the M-3 Stuart: *EIGHT* machine guns. Early production M-3 Stuarts still had the excess machine gun ports, welded over or blanked off.
And once it was accepted into service, they were almost all 50 caliber machine guns. How do you make a fighting machine better? More 50cal. That is 12.7mm for those outside America, unless I am mistaken, which as an American I might be.
@@michaelcox9855 "Moar Dakka!" is always a legitimate demand.
"How many you got?"
Ok , I'm fine with most premieres. Gives people a nice heads-up. However, when It's happening on the next DAY...😬
Well for some people it isn’t for the next day
For me it’s tonight at 9 o’clock
For me its 6 tonight
For me it’s at 7 am
What difference would it make if it was the next day or a week from now? I always set them to premiere the day before so that it gets notifications to as many people as possible so they don't miss it.
@@ConeOfArc do you know theres a better way of putting people on airliners? But if you saw that your seat number was 123 you would freak out even though that method is faster (or in this case convenient) I got this idea from "the better boarding method airlines wont use" CGP Grey
I love all the old school tank designs they might of not worked out but it showed how ambitious engineers could be dreaming of giant unstoppable machines. It's kind of like the space race in the since that the sky was quite literally the limit, you just had to get the contract with some crazy off the wall idea.
Although it was never used in combat. It still provided valuable experience for the design team. Hopefully it could manage to raise enough bonds to return the money sunken into the project.
I always thought that Hydra-matic was just some marketing BS that GM used to call automatic transmission like "Torqueflite" in Chryslers
GM developed an automatic transmission in the 1930's with expectations that it would lead to more women buying their cars. Many women back then avoided driving since they disliked using a clutch to change gears and had problems using those when stopped facing uphill. Some time earlier an Englishman invented a select-shift manual transmission that used electric solenoids to shift gears and work the clutch. One placed the gear selector in the desired gear then pressed and released the clutch pedal to go into that gear. It worked smoothly so was used in expensive English cars and copied by the Germans to use in their Tiger 1 tanks. The GM Hydra-Matic worked fine except would go into gear with a strong thump which many drivers found to be annoying. GM worked on reducing the thump during the war and didn't get it eliminated until 1950 or so.
GM spent $Millions developing the "Hydramatic". I was a 2nd Armored grunt--our 2.5 Ton trucks had Hydramatics. I asked why an automatic in a truck (most commercial trucks have stick shift like 6 to 10 speeds. The answer: Because the Army (at that time) is made up of 75% draftee's who don't know how to use stick shift...I am not sure that was the case but we never had any probs with the Hydramatics.
@@hddun that was the reason that I have read before, and the article also stated that they had no transmission problems after its introduction, almost all your modern buses and coaches are auto's today with lorries going the same way, its hard to abuse a torque converter on take up compared to a manual clutch, I can see the attraction in a car but I still like my stick.
your an idiot should shut the fuckup. it is a gm transmission and it was named that for a reason. dont be a fucking hate with no knowledge.
Funny thing is, I used to think the m48 Patton was a heavy tank because of its armor and when I saw it in person, it was huge! But later learned it was a medium
Yay, my freebie heavy tank is in the spotlight.
the mutant
The T1 Heavy is still my most played tank in World of Tanks. Love that beast
Mine as well. Nothing else comes remotely close.
I love that tank so much in the game, at least, the game that existed back in the day before they dumbed it down for the kiddies. Such a rewarding tank to play.
At 14:05 in the video, it's a late production M6A2 using the 90mm M3, it also had better armor in every single part apart from the floor(it stayed the same) compared to early production M6's/M6A1's/M6A2's.
The US reviewed all previous armor specifications, and finalized a new armor setup for the late production M6s in late 1942 following the measurement at Milford:
(The armor upgrade weighed 9,500 lb (4.3 ton))
It received positive feedback, too bad it was too late for that.
Gaijin actualy hates U.S. tanks. They reduced the horsepower on almost all U.S. world war 2 tanks for no reason.
M6 Heavy irl: 950 HP / M6 Heavy in game: 800 HP
M4A1(76) and M18 irl: Around 460 HP /M4A1 (76) and M18 in game: 400 HP
M4A3 (76) irl: 500 HP / M4A3 (76) in game: 450 HP.
M4A2 (76) irl: 420 HP /M4A2 (76) in game: 410 HP.
Originaly these tanks actualy had realistic horsepower ratings (except for the M6) but around 1 year ago they silently nerfed all of these engines. They did not write about them in any changelog so most players missed out on it.
What is the point in pretending that WT is a "realistic tank game" if they do biased s**t like this?
Wait, the M4A3 has the 500 HP from what I remember
@@ivanvladimir0435 go take a look ingame. They reduced the horsepower to 450 on the M4A3(76)W.
Russian bias blyat
Afraid of over shadowing muh russian tanks
Similar to how the m6 being a 4.7 and facing tigers and panthers despite being a paper thin armored slow pos
The design itself is one-of-a-kind, making it my personal favorite tank.
The M6 was nicknamed Junior by the GI's since it resembled an oversized M4.
@@billwilson3609 If it was bigger, why would they call it junior?
@@mynamesmatthew1551 It resembled the overgrown offspring of a M4.
All this program sounds to me like the Captain America of tanks. Thank you for give us all this info
M6 Goliath(working name) tracks have habit of popping off or breaking , thats one of the main reason the 90 mm versions were not used . they were trying to solve the the track problem
can you imagine the motion sickness of operating the 37 mm gun while the 75 mm and chassis were constantly turning lol
With the add discomfort of seating and movement during rough terrain and weather conditions too.
M6 in Real Life: Failed tank
M6 in WOTB: *You dare oppose me, mortal?*
Nah they pop real easy against a KV-1S or SU-100, or just shoot at the front Machine gun mount
@@gg-eo6ez world of tanks blitz its wot for mobile
KV-2 in WOT:Hehehehe:)
@@joe125ful Loved that thing
@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 I like more Russian balance:)
The Europeans don’t have to manufacture their Tanks across the Atlantic ocean. American Tanks were shipped by rail from Detroit too Atlantic ports. To be loaded on Liberty ships. A heavy tank needs new rail cars. Upgraded railroads, bridges, and tunnels. The port facilities needed bigger cranes for loading and unloading. Liberty ships needed modifications.
Getting to the battlefield is necessary. In retrospect the Americans could have asked the British to produce a heavy tank for all the allied armies in Europe..
None of that was needed. The boom cranes on the Liberty and Victory ship were capable of lifting the M6 and Pershing. The railroads had plenty of flatcars capable of transporting them but those were being used to haul heavy loads of steel plate, structural steel and machinery. Roads, bridges and tunnels didn't present a problem since truckers and railroads could plan routes to avoid low tunnels and roads/bridges that had lower weight limits. The M6 was cancelled because the armor commanders overseas didn't want them because they were slow, unreliable and would require their own separate store of parts, repair shops with specially trained mechanics and their own recovery units.
@@billwilson3609 ….. Well yeah, the customers being Generals Eisenhower and Bradley said no thank you to it. But later said the M26 Pershing heavy tank was needed. I stand by my proposal that adopting a British heavy tank would have been more direct. Had the Brits produced one on time. Another solution was to have more 90mm armed M36 Jackson TD’s
@@Idahoguy10157 British industry was way outpaced by the Americans. The U.S. should have built a fleet of these babies.
@@Idahoguy10157 The Army didn't want the Pershing either since the M36's were getting the job done. Congress ordered Ordnance to come up with a heavy tank in 1943 due to the public's concern that US forces didn't have one and that may hurt their re-election in 1944 if the Army didn't have one by then. The M36 used the M10 hull that was produced by Fisher Body. Fisher Body was having organized labor problems so Ordnance had M36 turrets installed by Ford on new M4's while the Army rounded up M10's from the US training bases. Those were refurbished to become M36's. Fisher Body was to produce 8,000 M36's but that contract was cancelled after 2,000 M4/M10 M36's were made since the Army expected the war in Europe to be over before Summer.
Funny enough, the M6 appears in Die Tigerfibel, the Tiger training manual. Pictures, armour layout, and where to hit it.
That's interesting, spies, spies and more spies.
@@FairladyS130 More accurately, American Nazis. I remember an interview with one of the Tuskegee airmen who was shot down over France. He said that shortly after being captured by the Germans they were telling him what high school he went to and even his marks in classes. Pretty sad for an American or anyone else to sink to such unpatriotic depths.
The Germans probably used the photographs seen in the US newspapers and other publications whose articles might of included the thickness of the armor. I would imagine that the M6 shocked the Germans because the US Ordnance Department never bothered to design tanks between the wars so allowed the US Army to buy and evaluate foreign-made tanks, those made by private US companies and those cobbled together by the US Arsenal shops. All they knew in 1941 was that we had the M2 light tank, which was shown in photographs parked next to a M6 to show the differences in size.
@@ToddSauve The opposite is true, actually.
Many German-Americans went back home when the war kicked off. So that they could fight the war for their country. Was quite patriotic. Just ended up picking the wrong team is all.
@@HauntingSpectre I have no need to wonder whether you are a Nazi then?
One issue on Tank Size was transportation across the oceans> An M4 Sherman colld be loaded by longshoremen on most US docks> Gen. Patton used his tanks w/Artillery Tactics (TOT = Time On Target) made use of dozens of M4 Shermans to LOBE multiple shells onto a single panzer where w/a truck load of STEEL dropping out of the sky on top the Panzer, it overloaded its suspension, (Wheels came off) disabling the panzer, mox nix size of tank gun
Hilarious. When I saw that picture of the tanks Turbo hydramic transmission, next to the picture of the Cadillac ad transmission, as a mechanic, I thought that looks like a th400/350 from the 60's and 70's musclecars. Developed mainly from WW2. Even today there are 4spd versions of those transmissions.
The T1, M6 and T29 are my favorites in WoT. Thanks for the video!
With continuing the American heavy tanks, would love to see the T29 heavy tank program leading toward the T32 program. They are very popular tanks now a days and many have loved to speculate how they would’ve faired in real combat
I love this serie. Please, do the T29, that's my favourite.
you're doing gods work brother. thank you for bringing these vehicles to light
As a kid, after we moved from the Midwest to the east coast, My dad took us to Aberdeen proving grounds, back when all of the tanks were outside. The non-US vehicles were all arranged in a field, while the US vehicles were all on the road meridian.
It was utterly cool because my dad and older brother lifted me into one of the Marders, and while Rusty you could see all the operating details. Over the years they snuck me onto a couple of the other open topped AFVs, and while some of them were rested in place - some you could still operate the horizontal and vertical azimuth wheels. It was awesome.
15:09
"that's just over 190mm for those of you in Europe"
*visible range in Canadians' eyes*
Jk haha, great video!
Hello from the Asian side.
Well, many Canadians sometimes do use Imperial. Most, however, use the metric system much more often, but I would say at least half of Canadians have used the Imperial system for at least a couple things one time or another.
the wohle world uses metric. Why should i measure my hands in foot?
I think your average Canadian would use an even blend of both feet and meters, but for height it is almost always feet, and shoe size is mostly in inches. For most things though most people I know far prefer centimetres over inches and kilometers over miles, but like to use pounds over kilograms, unless talking about very large numbers, then they would use kilos and metric tons. For liquid we would use a gallon for milk and for gas, but in some cases we would use liters for gas. For smaller amounts of liquid we would use metric. And when you get into really large amounts of liquid it just becomes whatever you prefer. Some people use full metric though and a handful of people use full imperial. It really just depends what the subject is and the scenario, however most people use metric a decent amount more than imperial.
"that's just over 190 mm for those of you IN THE REST OF THE WORLD" Fixed.
While this design is my all time favorite tank in War Thunder, I just don’t see this as having been logistically practical in combat. Sure, it probably would’ve made an effective combatants, but an M6 in combat would’ve a logistics officer’s nightmare. Transport of the thing itself, the plethora of ammunition it needed, keeping it supplied with fuel… I love the thing in game, but in real life having a pair of Shermans tanks would be better…
That's the main reason why the Army refused to use it. It would've required it own specially trained mechanics, repair shops, store of replacement parts and towing vehicles along with main gun ammunition no their tanks could use. The other reason was that the M6 crews hated their working conditions and bitched about it all the time. The US Army valued the opinions of their soldiers that had to try out new weapons so were quick to discard whatever they disliked.
lol hello kevin
This is probably my favorite tank of all time, and what's remarkable is that I have no idea why. Ever since I unlocked it in War Thunder I just fell in love with the thing, and I don't even think it was good in the game back then.
Honestly, bless you for calling the T28 the T28, and not the T95. I know the Chieftain did a video about the nomenclature of the tank, but perhaps that could be a potential future video topic? And not just on the T28, maybe other tanks that are commonly misnamed or miscategorized in other games/media.
9:14 Can I just take a minute to point out the headline on the left, like wtf
15:10 "for those of you in europe" more like for those of you in the rest of the world lol
Yeah I hate it when people assume I use miles and yards just because I'm mexican and thus US' neighbor
I'm american and hearing armor values in inches makes me sick.
Europe is just about the only place left that relies solely on one system. For the most part the rest of the world teaches and uses both yes including america. Both systems have their uses and using just one hold you back.
@@joeycampbell940 Gladly over here, no, only regular centimeters are used
@@ivanvladimir0435 unless you live in an authoritarian state that makes it illegal to use one over the other, then there are guaranteed to be people useing both in your country even if they don't teach both.
I would definitely say the Pershing was more like the American Tiger/Panther
yes but I do think the M6 played some role in the Pershing's development though.
More like Panther, since the Pershing and Panther are both mediums, also both start with a P
@@shinkreytpuylap yeah I guess, Panther and Pershing were both also considered heavy tanks before being redesignated iirc.
@@shinkreytpuylap the Pershing started out as a heavy tank then it was down graded to a medium post war. The M6 was probably more comparable to the failed German Vk Prototypes that lead to the design of the Tiger 1 like the Vk 3001or Vk3601 H and Vk 3601 P or the Naubaufzoig or whatever the multi turreted prototype heavy tank design was. Or seen as slightly better American version of a Russian KV1tank.
Man imagine seeing one of those firing tracer from all MGs. Pretty fireworks.
This has to be my favorite channel. The opening music is on point and I am always sucked in to the journey.
As an average warthunder enjoyer I can identify that this tank is very average in combat. It’s length and size meant it’s a huge target
I feel like the US could’ve used them if they were givens more development time and simplified to cut down on the weight and cost of the beast, get rid of those extra unnecessary machine guns, replace the coaxial 37 with a 50 cal machine gun, improve the crew layout/ ergonomics a bit and the US could’ve had a 90mm armed tank ready in 1944. It might’ve been a little less practical than the Sherman for logistical purposes but it could’ve been used a spearhead for attacking tank forces like the jumbo was. Would’ve certainly been more useful than the Pershing
Well, I will say T1 heavy is more or less a test bed for later development on other tanks, even thought it was not intent to be one. You see, both a tank that is capable of carrying a 76 mm and that of a 90 mm gun were actually built and entered service, which is Sherman and Pershing.
"extra unnecessary machine guns"
Blasphemer! When next your doorbell rings, it will be the Murican Inquisition bringing justice upon you!
@@korbell1089 get out of here you fanatic, I see you are gripped by the cult of the machine gun, may the power of cannons compel you
@@Mustache_Sam true they both could’ve mounted it, but still an American 90mm armed heavy tank ready for D day would’ve been badass
The US Army was perfectly happy using the M3 and M4 tanks since those shared the same automotive gear and the mechanics could work on either one out in the field or at the repair shops. Accepting the M6 would've required the need for mechanics specially trained to work on it, separate warehouses and depots for the parts and it's own repair shops. The US Army had a 90mm mounted in a M4 based TD in 1944 and began installing it's turret w/gun in the standard M4 hull at the factories since those could be built faster and had better armor. The US armor commander didn't want the Pershing for the same reasons why they refused the M6 and were perfectly happy using what they had on hand.
When designers ditched less is more and went with what would a child draw.
Germany: I introduce the Maus!
@@manictiger Tsar Tank: *helo*
Seeing as they had been built in quantity, I would have used them. I would have used them under a use them and lose them mentality where no replacements are to be made and the value of them would be for a "Special" push. This would be ideal for pushing into a major city or fortified position. Loses would be expected, but seeing as they were tougher than the Sherman, the surprise would be useful in revealing a "New" threat. Even if not used again, the reports of these behemoths would distract German R&D and resources to make mammoth killers where lighter tanks/guns/planes would do just fine or better.
The main reason however as you have mentioned really is that since wars involving the United States are more often than not overseas. It made very little sense for the US army to field heavy tanks as ships cranes were very limited in the weight they could lift during ww2.
Medium tanks were easier to move around, load onto ships and could support infantry quite well.
Now while a Sherman was indeed in disadvantage when facing a tiger or panther at range, it did not happen as often as movies tend to portray and Sherman tanks were never alone. Furthermore they had on point air support to take care of such threats, further limiting direct encounters. I'd love if I could collaborate in one of your video in the future. I don't own a dedicated channel on the subject but I'd love just to talk about the subject and share some of my knowledge with you and your audience at no cost lol
Been watching your vids for quite some time ⏲️ keep up the good work
( I watched this video when it first came out but stumbled across it in my Playlist once again )
Honestly the logistics would have made them almost a liability at that point. Given that there would likely have been limited interchangeability for parts, ammunition requirements, not to mention fuel requirements, that makes it difficult. Factor in the US had "tank destroyer" units that were already doing great work...there just wasn't a need.
The big problem with the US having a heavy during WW II was they had to be moved by ship, which requires cranes to load and unload in port.
They may have been too heavy for other things too like LST ramps, bailey bridges, smaller bridges on the way to Germany.
@@gordonvorenkamp6306 True.
Afaik one of the issues they faced when field-testing the Pershing tanks was the weight capacity of assault bridges.
The US also had to send them from Detroit to a coast. NYC is the closest at 600 miles (1000 km). Similar distances would be Normandy Beach to Berlin.
What's the width limits on the tunnels?
The Liberty ships' cranes carried two sets of booms that were rated for 30 and 50 tons. They could've handled the M6s with ease by removing the turrets before loading then dropping them back in place once set on the deck.
@@Zraknul The M6 would've been shipped by barge to the East Coast ports.
Oh hey, it's my most used tank in war thunder. This thing is a monster in game.
It is wonderful to see one of my favorite tanks get a full video about it. Even if it was cursed by design.
Wonderful work!
Thanks for a very informative video about two of my favourite tanks in War Thunder, the T1E1 and the M6A1. It surprised me that, despite their chequered history in reality, they make such very effective tanks in-game.
This video gives the third explanation I have heard for cancellation of the M-6 program. I believe Ian Hogg in one of his books claimed the M-6 was cancelled because fewer of them could be placed on board a ship when compared to the M-4, and it was decided by Army leadership that having a greater number of tanks was more important than having more powerful tanks. Quantity versus quality. Belton Cooper in his book Death Traps said it wasn't sent to Europe because General Patton objected to having it. According to Cooper, Patton's philosophy of armored warfare held that the primary purpose of a tank wasn't to battle other tanks, but to operate deep in the enemy's rear areas destroying soft targets like fuel storage and ammo dumps, for which he felt the faster Sherman was better suited.
It was cancelled for three reasons. The first was that it's crews hated their cramped working conditions inside the fighting compartment. The US military valued the opinions of those that had to use issued equipment so was quick to ditch whatever the end users strongly disliked. The second was that the US armor commanders flat out refused to accept any to use at the front due to being too slow to keep up with their faster advancing forces. The third was that the M6 would require it's own parts warehouses and depots, it's own repair shops and own specially trained crews of mechanics and crewed armor recovery vehicles. They were perfectly happy using the M3 and M4 since they shared the same automotive gear and suspension plus their mechanics could work on either one at the repair shops.
Shipping wouldn't of been a problem since they had Liberty ship tank transporters that could hold 400 M5's or 260 M4's. Those carried two sets of booms for the jib cranes that could handle 30 and 50 tons. None were sent to North Africa or Europe due to the Army cancelling it's production in 1942 after 250 test vehicles went thru field trials. There they found that the M6 couldn't be operated over 10 mph for very long before experiencing mechanical problems and track failures. The armor commanders didn't want a slow heavy tank that would need constant repairs nor one that their crews hated to use due to cramped working conditions that made their jobs difficult to do efficiently. Patton probably did object to using the M6 since he planned Operation Torch and the landings at Sicily.
Coneofarc and Bo releasing a video on the M6 interesting
Awesome video! Very informative. I love the T1 heavy and the M6 heavy in World of Tanks video game.
The M6 heavy tank truly was a interesting design
One thing I've never noticed till now is that the drive sprocket is in the rear (along with the transmission, etc.), which is unusual for an American tank of that era.
For the tank crews in Europe riding in their Sherman's, I'm sure they would have LOVED to have some heavy tanks to go toe to toe with the panzers and tigers etc, but for the US command it made sense to stick with light and medium tanks as much as possible for logistical reasons. When you're having to ship your armor to the other side of the world it definitely makes sense to have more medium tanks than much fewer heavy ones.
Plus the main threat in Europe weren't tanks.
It was some 16 year old with a AT rocket waiting for you to pass or a 88 hidden in a field waiting for you to get too close
@@SudrianTales mines and ambushes were tank killers of WW2. Everyone wants to push tanks in the spotlight but they didn't consider combined arms or artillery. It's all about tanks.
@@chaosagent_0106
I keep forgetting mines, thanks for the reminder and I agree.
Would be nice if the M6A1 received the armour add-on package for the frontal upper glacias as spaced armour, angled at 47 degrees.
51 degrees
@@anthonyiocca5683 Bruh, that's the type of "angling" you'd see on the gun mantlet of a Panther G.
@@samhicks97 Panthers were the best tanks the Nazis built. If they could of made the turret rotate faster it would of been the best tank of WWII.
@@anthonyiocca5683 I wouldn't go as far to say Panthers were the "best" tanks Germany produced. too broad of a term.
Every tank in WW2 had their pros and cons, True, only if the economy (and reliability) could keep up with the production that rivalled M4 Sherman tanks.
Panthers would be unstoppable.
Aside from the beaten to death topic of Panther transmissions were unreliable and a pain in the ass to repair due to the trans not being able to be readily accessible for repairs service hatch/door etc.
@@samhicks97 it was the Tigers transmissions that often failed. The Tiger was a enlarged Panzer 4, the King Tiger was a enlarged Panther…
Fearsome looking junk. The Panther was their best.
Honestly, if they toned down the MGs to into having as many as the Sherman and changed the 37mm gun for a Coax MG (likely a .50 Browning) I think they could have worked the issues and been as good as the Centurion even, as stated in the video a bigger main gun like the 90mm gun or a licensed copy of the 17 pdr could have also worked well. Shipping and logistics wise however I don't know how it could have worked for the US and its abandonment was ultimately the right call, a good vehicle for the wrong nation.
Well the jombo is more like the tiger to me than this thing.
The jumbo couldn’t even get penned by the krauts crappy gun XD
@@shaggybottomtext8363 yes
@@shaggybottomtext8363 Until it faced King Tigers
I had the opportunity to speak to the mechanic who took care of the transfer of the M6 to the museum of Fort Benning, he said that the tracks of this M6 were simply "" lost "" they have no idea of 'where they are, and even if they still exist, they were still present on the tank in the 80s but since we lost their trace
I always figured the US didn't invest in heavies during WW2 because of logistics, an m4 was cheaper and easier to make for the same job, and I imagine you could ship a lot more at a time. Also a crew of 6 seems like a bit much lol
Exactly. It's fine to design and build a 40-60 ton tank. Good luck getting it to Europe. Most US tanks were built in Michigan/ Ohio etc. You have to get the tanks to to NYC/ Boston/ Baltimore/ Newport News. Tanks aren't being driven 1000+ miles to the ports, they are going by train. Train flatbeds have a max capacity they can carry. Trains also go over bridges which have weight limits.
Ok lets say we go one tank per car instead of 2. Well you need 2x as many trains or flat bed cars. What production is being stopped to build more rolling stock?? Even the USA had limits to its industrial capacity.
The train arrives in port. Now you need to get the tank onto the ship. You don't just drive a tank onto a boat. A crane has to lift the tank onto the transport. What is the weight capacity of the cranes at the harbor? What is the weight capacity of each ship? Would you rather transport 4 tanks or 2 tanks per ship?
Now we make it to England. What is the weight capacity of their cranes, and their roads and their bridges???? This country, it's ports and infrastructure have been bombed the past 2-3 years.
Let's say all of that is tackled, like a video game.
How exactly is this 40-60 ton behemoth tank going to be transported across the English Channel for D-Day? I'm pretty sure an extra 10+ tons on an LVT is going to hamper its performance, much less how far across the Channel it can go before being beached.
The M4 was a compromise decision from day 1. It fit the logistical needs of the USA/UK and could be produced and transported to Europe in bulk. It held its own. With some minor gun upgrades it became quite nasty.
We need to consider the big picture.
The Tiger was a logistics mess for the Wehrmacht. It did not fit on the rail stock of the day, it was too heavy for many bridges, cranes etc. And most of those issues were to fight on the same continent (North Africa excepted).
WWII was not a video game.
4:30 I can't imagine why they'd put both 30 and 50-cal in one vehicle. If you run out of one or the other ammo, half your guns are out of use. Why not just standardize all guns on one round?
cause then you're either under powered, or wasting .50 cal ammo. 2 different uses, 2 different guns. don't recall exactly, but I'd say a lot had both. shermans had 2 .30's and a .50, no reason to waste .50 rounds on human targets when a .30 is more than capable, and light armor or vehicles would be less susceptible to .30, but a .50 will at least disable if not destroy them, saving rounds for the main gun.
Cone: *releases a cursed by design related to tanks*
WoT and WT(and WoT Blitz) players: Hey, I know this one
It leads to T29 one of the best tier 7 heavies so overall not so bad:)
When it comes to cool looking tanks, WW2 German AFV's couldn't be matched. The M6 looked like a regurgitated Sherman.
No, it looks a Sherman that went to the gym and done a full workout and then bulked up on good protein and vitamins and looking to give the Tigers the good old golden right hook.
Building a heavy tank in a short time without many reliability issues was impossible at that time. Deploying them to Europe was difficult and expensive. Going against German tanks without any experience in battle with heavy tanks would be just stupid. America could build and deploy smaller tanks much faster in big numbers. They took heavy losses in battle, but they could afford it and replace them quickly. Germany was outnumbered more than 20:1 and the US had a save production side far away with unlimited supply. It was just a matter of time and more profit for the industrial complex of their war machine.
Would’ve been interesting to see these in combat. Perhaps with the 90mm gun.
Considering, that it had around the same amor as the M4 tanks (not the jumbo, that was better), while it is 2x bigger, the germans would have some nice target practice.
The M6 was heavily armored all over.
@@billwilson3609 not really. In terms of raw armor thickness, it was better, but it was not very well angled, not like the m4. The m6 had a bit better protection, yes, but it was heavy, big, and slow.
Just because the M6-Project was designed to be an Heavy Tank doesn't make it equal to the Tiger.... It lacked the strong Armor, deadly Canon and the propagandistic degree of awareness
The T26E1-1 Super Pershing is a way better fitting Candidate of an Heavy Tank compared to Tiger I and Tiger II
It’s interesting to me how the U.S. produced a huge variety of airplanes during WWII, took the time and money to design, build and somehow move all that AirPower to all theaters of the war. But for some reason didn’t see any need to give our troops a better fighting machine for ground fighting. I’m sure I’m missing something, but would it really take longer to design a tank than an airplane?
That may be because they were fighting a war across two oceans
The Sherman had around a 80% survival rate and was able to be upgraded to a 76mm gun the same at all other heavy and medium tank designs up until the T25. There was no need to replace the Sherman as long as it was easily able to deal with Panthers and Tigers, let alone the remaining majority of AFVs it encountered.
Honestly I think that the tank could have done ok in Europe. It would be a clearer cut answer to the German Tigers.
I doubt it would have done well. The base design simply didn't have enough armour for the role as it could be rather easily defeated by the ubiquitous 75mm PaK 40 and it's derivatives.
Compared to the M6, the 76mm Shermans and even the 75mm ones are still the far superior answer to the German heavies since they are already capable of killing them while also being more reliable and easy to produce. The Americans wouldn't even be able to send the M6 to Europe as it's far heavier than 40 tons, the maximum carrying weight of Liberty ship cranes. If they somehow managed to send even one M6 to the frontline it would've just been immediately destroyed in the battlefield thanks to German anti-tank guns that would have no issue cutting through it's front armor so no, you're just giving German crews free target practice
@@m10tankdestroyer94 Bollocks.
@@m10tankdestroyer94 Yeah, the Sherman gets such a shit rep despite its actual performance.
@@EvillBob yeah, these motherfuckers are like "Yeah the Sherman is more flammable because of the gas engine even though a lot of other tanks used gas engines too, and the ammo placement also lead to a lot of fires even though 99% of tanks during the war used the same ammo placement layout" like man how many shitty documentaries have you been watching mate? Let's not even talk about the "Invincible German Heavy Tanks" nonsense
M6A2E1 irl: failed
M6A2E1 in wotb: DARE TO OPPOSE ME MORTAL
0:15 M4A3E2 was considered a heavy tank
no it was an assault tank, games label it a heavy but doctrinally there is a difference.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 but it is a heavier M4 Sherman
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the T14 is classified as an assault tank and an infantry tank and most assault and infantry tanks were also referred to as heavy tanks
@@matthiuskoenig3378 the Jumbo is known as a heavy tank BECAUSE IT HAD THE ARMOR OF A HEAVY TANK! 5.5 INCHES TO 6 INCH FRONTAL ARMOR, 1.5 INCHES TO 3.0 INCH TO 6 INCH SIDE ARMOR, AND 1.5 INCHES TO 6 INCH REAR ARMOR!
It's classified as an assault with are similar to heavy tanks in the armor department. But there differences.
The final variant looks like a KV-2 equipped with a smaller gun and covered with American tank armor.
Myself, I came up with a "what if" variant of the M6A2 with a 17pdr, coaxial .30 calibre, slightly more armour and the extraneous 50s and 30s in the bow removed (just the usual single 30 perhaps) called the Griffin IIC. Looks rather pretty.
Who watches a tank video at 4 in the morning?
More Like 7pm for Asia
You are not alone
Oh boy 4AM
Ayo, wtf?