±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: Robski
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6641

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 121
Total: 121
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Photo Gallery
03: Community Forums
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Photo Gallery
07: Community Forums
08: Home
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Downloads
17: Community Forums
18: Photo Gallery
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Home
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: News Archive
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Photo Gallery
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Community Forums
50: Member Screenshots
51: Community Forums
52: Community Forums
53: Community Forums
54: Statistics
55: Community Forums
56: Photo Gallery
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Home
62: CPGlang
63: Downloads
64: Community Forums
65: Home
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Community Forums
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: Downloads
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: Home
78: Community Forums
79: Home
80: Community Forums
81: Photo Gallery
82: Home
83: Community Forums
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Photo Gallery
87: Community Forums
88: Photo Gallery
89: Photo Gallery
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: News
97: Community Forums
98: Downloads
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Community Forums
103: Photo Gallery
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: CPGlang
107: Community Forums
108: Community Forums
109: Photo Gallery
110: Community Forums
111: Photo Gallery
112: Community Forums
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Home
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Photo Gallery

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
T1 heavy tanks, extra armour?
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Dec 09, 2013
Posts: 6

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 6:05 am
Post subject: T1 heavy tanks, extra armour?



The Ill fated M6 series of tanks always seems to have something new pop up the more I dig.

For instance in may 1942 the British reported the following

"T1 Heavy tank. Rowbothac? and Colonel Green have both had an opportunity of trying out the heavy tank T1 (Now known as the M6) with the electrical transmission. We hear very glowing reports of it. Ordnance will be going intro production of this tank with both types of transmissions. I.e. the torque converter with Cletrse gearing and the all electric. As many as possible will be the electric transmission but in early stages they cannot get enough electric capacity to fit all tanks.

General Barnes and Colonel Christmas state that the armour thickness of this tank can be increased to give a 5 inch armour basis over almost all the front of the tank and 4 inches all around the turret. The sides can be 3 inch basis all over, or alternatively 3.5 around the fighting compartment and 2.5 around the engine. The full 3 inches all around would be preferable.


Both Barnes and Christmas are terribly anxious that we should place a requirement for the heavy tank, pointing out that we should start getting them in the autumn, which means a ? by the spring of 1943. They are getting plenty of experience with the pilots and feel this tank might be of intense value because the Assault tank cannot be in theatre of war by the spring of 1943. to feel that this tank should be of great value in the limited numbers in which it will be available. It's armour basis is far superior to the M4 medium tank, which can be fitted with a 3 inch gun with certain sacrifices. We feel the later is, of course, very desirable also. We have cabled recommending you to place a definite requirement.


August 1942 the British report the following:

"Drawings for the new armour thickness selected by the U.S. from British specification are in hand. It is now intended to standardize on these thicknesses for all future tanks of this type. The increase in weight of the additional armour is estimated to be 9500 pounds. This brings the total weight of the T1 type up to 66.25 short tons."


The U.S. ended up selecting the specs on the right I assume.

i.imgur.com/aqxKVGn.jpg


T1E1 log book entry, confirms the extra weight of the armour. unsure of the date (summer 1942?)

i.imgur.com/BWmWxG1.png

This was from September 1942 I believe. Confirming the new weight

i.imgur.com/J1m2Mby.png



In January 1943 they planned on redoing the turret and the front hull to a degree.

i.imgur.com/U1r6qTm.png

The surviving turret trainer would appear to have been done to that spec? as it no longer carries a 37mm but a .30 cal. I wonder if any of the production turrets ended up with the change.

Does anyone know if they ever went ahead with that new armour scheme? quite an increase in weight. Or more likely with the fact production stopped at 40 odd vehicles that nothing would have changed due to the time it would require to retool the lines etc?
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


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