Failed Tanks! Chapter 9:The M6 Heavy Tank

[kaneCVR]

1st of all, the M4 sherman had TERRIBLE armor. As did most american tanks. 2nd, lots of them were equipped with 90mm anti-tank and 105mm HE cannons. Fire power over was superior to the sherman, witch could not dream to dent a Panther or Tiger unless they were using tungsten rounds and got very lucky to face it at a vulnerable angle. 3rd, 22mph was a good top speed for a heavy tank.

It's still a crappy tank tough. It's armor was insufficient compared to it's counterparts.

[Acclamator55]

FAIL

[hardcorecrusher12]

and wtf why would the infrastructure of europe do,nt hold a 66 ton tank? king tigers who weigted 70 tons could drive over most bridges and roads.

[hardcorecrusher12]

the only big problem was that just like the german tanks it was hard and difficult to produce. but it had the best power to weigth ratio of almost all the heavy tanks. if the americans taked the m6 into action they would have a far better and effective tank on the battlefield who also could figth tigers with its 90mm gun. this video is just full of unsourcebl crap

[hardcorecrusher12]

i think the m6 was a great tank because it size and apearance would have a fear factor and it was better armed then the sherman its gun was an high velocity 76mm much more effective then the sherman 75mm and also the sherman wasnt even better protected the m6 had 100mm of frontal welded armor the sherman did have around 75mm front armor. and also they where planning to install a 90mm gun in the m6 comparable to the 90mm of the pershing but because the project was canceld it didnt came that far

[GreyFergy101]

Well i heard that they were thinking of mass producing it to replace the sherman for the d day landings.

[BlacktailDefense]

@GreyFergy101 Crikey, it would have been a second Dieppe Raid!

[GreyFergy101]

@BlacktailDefense Lol too true!

[SALordBaxter]

Well at least the M6 in world of tanks is good. Do you play that game at all Blacktail?

[BlacktailDefense]

@SALordBaxter Unfortunately, no. My computer isn't a recent model, and I'm not too keen on online gaming.

[GreyFergy101]

@SALordBaxter He should talk to the germans about the maus lol, i play that game and are going for the m6 too.

[BlacktailDefense]

@GreyFergy101 As it happens, one of the upcoming chapters WILL be on the Maus (I think I had it marked for Chapter 23).

[UprisingMilitia]

Just to point out,the gun that the M6 is using is actually the 3 Inch M7 not the M2/M3 75mm gun of the M3 Lee.

[BlacktailDefense]

@dabadger1 The M4A4 had a range of 120 miles, and a 5-10mph top speed advantage is huge. Not to mention that the M4A4 was actually light enough for Europe's bridges.

[frellthat]

Cool video. What is the song starting at 1:36?

[BlacktailDefense]

@frellthat Thanks!

The name of the song is "The Toy Trumpet". I don't remember the name of the composer, though.

[frellthat]

@BlacktailDefense Ah yes, it was Raymond Scott's "The Toy Trumpet", specifically in a recording by the Chamber League, which is also on Youtube. Thank you!

[yuyuyu25]

Grant, Sherman, Stuart, and Priest were all British names for their lend-lease tanks that stuck on with history. If I recall, there are little records to indicate that these names were used by American soldiers.

Other than that, an enjoyable video. About the Ordanance guys at the army though, I'm hearing that they did some really stupid things that cost soldiers their lives, such as not going with the 76mm earlier, and tellling GIs that their M16's were perfect weapons. Now, we can add the M6.

[BlacktailDefense]

@yuyuyu25 BuOrd definitely screwed-up big time and again, didn't they? A few more examples are the M14 which, though MUCH better than the M16 (not exactly hard to do), was crude compared to the FAL, CETME, G3, and SG 540. They also gave us the M60 machine gun, known for it's countless failings as "The Pig", over the FN MAG --- only to be replaced some 40 years later by the older MAG (which is known as the "M240" in US military use)!

Then there's the M9A1 Bazooka, the M72 LAWS, the Beretta M9...

[bjm1702]

The US never assigned names to tanks (eg. Lee, Grant, Sherman). They were called those names by the British, because the US had a rubbish naming system. Example, M3 could mean: M3 Medium tank, M3 Light tank, M3 90mm AT gun, M3 halftrack, M3 SMG etc. the names, such as Sherman, caught on with the US public after the war.

[ModelbuildingTANKS]

If I can remember correctly, General Patton actually suggested the US buy in the Christy rank suspension in the 1930's, but the depression said different. So the crappy, tall HVSS suspension came into effect.

Also, here's a suggestion. The British in WWII built a monster of a tank called the TOG2. It weighed 80 tons, but had the armament of a Sherman firefly! How far we have come....

[BlacktailDefense]

@ModelbuildingTANKS

Man, imagine if the *M4 Sherman* had a Christie suspension!

Also, the TOG has it's own future chapter reserved for it --- but the waiting line is long, so you won't see it here for quite a while.

[MarshallJukov]

@BlacktailDefense

If M4 Sherman would have Cristie suspension it would be T-34/76 LOL)))))

[steffen19k]

For the sake of technical accuracy....The T34/76 never had a Christie suspension. It had torsion bars. The Russian tanks with a Christie Suspension were the BT series of tanks and the russians went away from that suspension design as war broke out and they needed to be able to get tanks in the field quickly.

The HVSS Suspension used on the E8 version of the Shermans would actually be more correctly identified as a modification of the Christie design, as it involves a horizontal spring.... IMO

[MarshallJukov]

@steffen19k

T-34 never had any torsion bars, sorry. Its Cristies suspension taken from BT and redesigned.

T-44 was first Russian medium tank to have one. Besides with heavy tanks.

[Pershingtank]

Did ya' make a typo? Pershing was 46 tons, not 36. Still excellent vid!

[BlacktailDefense]

@Pershingtank

Thanks!

As for the M26 Pershing's weight, the source I used was the AFV Database, which lists it as "92,355lbs" (about 46 short tons);

afvdb(dot)50megs(dot)com/usa/m­26pershing(dot)html

As you can see at the bottom of the page, their data is well-sourced.

[Pershingtank]

@BlacktailDefense Link doesn't work

[BlacktailDefense]

@Pershingtank

You have to replace the (dot)s with actual dots, and add three w's and a (dot) to the front of it.

Alternatively, go to the Google search engine, and enter "AFV Database, M26 Pershing" --- the first page that comes up will be the one I'm referring to.

[Pershingtank]

@BlacktailDefense Ohhh, forgot the "W"

[ihateforigners]

Can I get the picture at 9:00?

I would like further information on how wrapping armor around air can increase weight. That interests me.

[BlacktailDefense]

@ihateforigners

You can find that image at the AFV Database;

afvdb(dot)50megs(dot)com/usa/p­ics/heavytankm6(dot)html

As for how wrapping armor around air increases weight, by "air" I mean a vehicle's interior volume. The larger it is, the larger (and heavier) the armor plates you need to contain it in armor.

Case in point; the M46 Pershing is 30% lighter than the M6, even though has thicker armor, because it's interior volume is smaller.

[ihateforigners]

@BlacktailDefense OHHHHHHH!!! Ok, I get you now!

I couldn't get the picture! It has a 404 error, and I tried Internet Archive, help me?

[BlacktailDefense]

@ihateforigners

Try googling "AFV Database"; that'll lead you to a site with a HUGE amount of information on US-built tracked AFVs.

[ReviveHF]

M6 is huge yes, but T35 and Vickers A1E1 has multiple turrets and guns and looks so much cooler than M6. Well, young girls and boys will wet their pants after seeing those Jumbos but also a tasty meal for the future Anti Tank ammunitions like HEAT,HESH and Sabot. Imagine the if the US military decided to play with these Jumbos in WW2.

[BlacktailDefense]

@ReviveHF

"Imagine the if the US military decided to play with these Jumbos in WW2."

We don't have to --- the French already tried to use a tank built on the same basic principles (though it was half as heavy), the Char B1. They got creamed.

[thorstenguenther]

@BlacktailDefense: from what I've read on Wikipedia, the Char B1 wasn't that bad - it's main drawback was that the tank commander was overworked inside the one-man turret as he also had to function as loader and gunner. The B1 was virtually invulnerable to the German PaK 36 and even the French 47 mm ATG (source: Heinz Guderian) and a single B1 was able to destroy 13(!) Panzer IIIs and IVs in a single frontal attack on May 16, 1940. By all means: not bad for an inter-war design.

[BlacktailDefense]

@thorstenguenther

"...a single B1 was able to destroy 13(!) Panzer IIIs and IVs in a single frontal attack on May 16, 1940."

That was due to lousy tactics of a single company of German tanks. The Wehrmacht simply bypassed the rest of them, and destroyed their supply lines behind them, stranding the fuel-less Char B1s.

In favor of an overly simplistic, one-dimensional design philosophy (massive Armor and Firepower) the Char B1's designers threw away all Sustainability, Mobility, and Surprise.

[trueprophesy]

You should actually make a show on history channel about the worst tanks

[BlacktailDefense]

@trueprophesy

That would be a lot of fun, but the History Channel won't so much as look in the direction of anyone who isn't;

1- Famous.

2- Has a PhD.

3- Owns a lot of stock in the network.

I don't fall into any of those categories, so I'm not likely to turn this series into a proper TV show.

Moreover, I like having creative control in my work.

[Ag3nt0fCha0s]

@BlacktailDefense

You wouldn't bve insinuating that the History channel is in any way biassed or untruthfull, would you?

Lol

[44WarmocK77]

M6 vs Tiger I (POV of the german TC): - Look out for a big block of metal - Move into weapon rage - Move into THEIR weapon range - Open hatch, show'em your middle finger - Let them fire one shot and listen to their shell bounce off your armor - Shoot the M6 and blow it away from the field - Spit - Laugh - ??? - PROFIT!

[BlacktailDefense]

@44WarmocK77

LoL

That's actually a plausible scenario, given the limitations of the M6 --- there's no end to what it *can't* do!

[44WarmocK77]

@BlacktailDefense

Oh, it can do three things damn well:

Looking ugly as hell

Burn fuel as if it were for free

Being a thankful victim for target practise - you simply can't miss that rolling haystack xD

[BlacktailDefense]

@44WarmocK77

That, and apparently selling war bonds --- note the M6's cameo in a war bonds poster in the video.

[henchman696]

You are a damn genius.I am loving the vid. Quote : "...The M6 sucked that much" lol classic.

[BlacktailDefense]

@henchman696

Thanks!

But believe me, some of the tanks that I'm preparing future chapters on make the M6 look like a Rolls Royce by comparison...

[minionator1]

a tiger weigths only 57 tons....

[BlacktailDefense]

@minionator1

That's in Metric Tons --- I use the English measurement system for weight in my presentations, so the numbers end up being larger.

[Ag3nt0fCha0s]

Ubelievable. One would've thought either this or the tsar tank would've been your first targets for these vids.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Ag3nt0fCha0s

I did know of the M6 when I started this series, but I didn't have enough info to completely debunk it when I started the series.

Plus, the line of candidates is VERY long --- the M6 had to get in line. XD

I've identified more than 50 subjects so far (thus, I could probably make 50 chapters or more!), and almost all the info required to write the next 10 chapters is already compiled.

[Ag3nt0fCha0s]

@BlacktailDefense

How on earth do you find the time? We're all very impressed btw.

[BlacktailDefense]

@Ag3nt0fCha0s

It doesn't take a lot of time to read and take notes --- it's making these slides on Photoshop that REALLY takes a long time.

[Ag3nt0fCha0s]

First comment again! *buys champaigne*