Sherman tank was the most commonly used American Tank in world war ii. Up next, i rock and afghanistan think veteran nick lewis moran talks about the design and history of the m4 sherman tank. The tank was the best u. S. Tank during world war ii because of its versatility, low production cost, and reliability. Nicholas miranda is the director war intary director of america, the stakes game as 100 million players worldwide. York military Affairs Symposium hosted this 90 minute event. [applause] Nicholas Moran graduated from University College dublin and enlisted in the Irish Defense reserve forces in 1997. The United States army in 2000, and was commissioned as an army officer in 2002. He then spent one year in iraq as a tank platoon leader and a oneyear tour in afghanistan. Is also aoran graduate of the u. S. Army command and general college. He has been working at the San Francisco bays wargaming americas inhouse tanker and his historian since 2012 and has the nickname of the chieftain. His first book on the development of tanks is scheduled for release in the first half of 2018. He is known for written articles and reviews of tanks inside and out. A lot of you to called inside the chieftains hatch. Theres this videocast on cspans American History tv. Ladies and gentlemen, Nicholas Moran. [applause] good evening. On thats not a good title, but as the that i can come up with. Going to do the obligatory shot first. We are a commercial enterprise. If you are interested in tanks, world of tanks is great. Is not a realistic simulation. I would like to thank you for inviting me, because i have seen some of the other speakers, and there are some highend personnel. I dont have any letters after my name. I do not teach at a university, i work for a videogame. Thank them for taking the gamble and bringing this guy out who has no history whatsoever to give you guys a top. However, despite the disreputable background, as far as the academics are concerned, everything in here is either sourced from the archives or is as accurate as i can make it. Im hoping this will actually come across. If cspan cant hear me, im sure they will make a mention. Initially, i was asked to come here and do my midst of american armor top. Its on youtube. If you want to listen to it, go to youtube. In this, i took some of the common conceptions about the importing and the pershing and said these are the common conceptions, and they are wrong. Because i have given the talk, i said lets modify and instead of how good were the tanks, we will go with why is it the way it is . Thats the spirit behind us. I dont know your luggage i dont know your knowledge levels, speakers here are very high end. Every now and then, its good to go back to some of the lower levels and make sure the fundamentals are still good area make sure the fundamentals are still good. Audience participation question number one. The rifle is the m1 grand, what was better on service . What was better out in service . Pretty much nothing. You can make an argument for the storm to bear 44, but the m1 was probably the best piece of equipment of its type in the world and the u. S. Produced it. What was the better fighter than the mustang . Is better to strengthen the hearing . A better carrier than the ethics . A better artillery fusion in the ec . We had the best. Fighter. D stuff. Noncombat no other country had the handy talky. Spoke, some people say the higgins boat once the s1 the war. The victory ship. I think the record was six days in california. You can go on and on. Exceptions, the other countries have their own areas of expertise. We didnt touch the british with her photography and some of their radars. The germans had a few advantages. As a general rule, anything that the u. S. Went to war with was the best in the world that without the that was out there. What happened . How did we go from the vet at pretty much everything to this . We didng to argue that not get it wrong, and that there were very specific decisions made in the u. S. As to why the m4 ended up the way that it was. Over the course of the next hour hopefully you will get an understanding of the levels of thought that went into the design process. Audience participation question number two. [laughter] hands up for the chicken. Who holds the chicken . Who votes that a . In 2006, it was concluded that it was the egg. That fighting was later reversed by the university of sheffield and word in 2010. In a paper entitled structural control of nuclei eggshell protein. Current scientific thought and therefore indicate that the answer to your chicken or egg question is the chicken. I think you learn something this evening. Guesses . Sir. Back behind you. How would that apply to this topic . Most people are going by the looking back, hearing what people are saying, as opposed to looking at it as a moment. Excellent point. It is not the answer to this question, it is a good point. I mentioned earlier i was talking about british Army Operations in long island, which to an extent, i lived through. Interesting, the different perspectives, if any of you are involved in the matter or dealing with it after the fact. Cert . [indistinct] you are getting there. [inaudible] here is your chicken and here is your egg. On the left side is the symbol for army grand forces. These are the guys who equipped the force. On the right side is here is yoe is your the ordinance branch, the guys who developed the equipment. Is, should doctrine match the technology that is being created, or should technology be geared toward meeting whatever the doctrine requires . So, here is your next question. Drivesnks that doctrine the technological design . Ok. Who thinks Technology Drives what the doctrine does . Ok, a few more people. Who doesnt care . Ok. This is barnes. I refer to him as the mad of the u. S. Army. He believes he knows better than anybody else what the army needs. To quote him, for those of you in the back it is not well understood that tactics are written around the weapon. Field operations ordinarily do not generate ideas leading to new materiel. A new piece of equipment must first be produced, such as a machine gun, before the tactics can be designed for the exploitation abilities of the weapon. This is why it is necessary for the Ordnance Department to take a strong lead over that using services of the development of new equipment, and to get help where the weapon best fits into battlefield operations. If you talk to ordinance, Technology Drives doctrine. It is kind of hard to argue the know how, how can you to use a machine gun if you didnt know such a capability exists . This is what army grand forces thought. Here is thatne army grand forces would draw specifications and they would then be submitted to ordinance. Ordnance would Design Equipment to match what Army Ground Forces wanted the equipment to do. The quote is from the written history of the Army Ground Forces. Did not exist as an entity, but we will leave that aside. Curious, to be clear, we have the user saying they are in charge, and the developer saying they are in charge, and both have reasonable arguments. This is the process today. Parthad to learn this as of my majors course, and im glad im not involved in procurement. This is the army side of it. If you can understand this, you are a better man than i. The bottom line is that in todays military, it is driven by the operational needs, not the technology. Operational with needs, such as the 30 millimeter strike or striker. This came from the field. Said we needigade vehicles with a cannon capable of engaging bmbs. The engineers built them a cannon , a deviceone i saw you can fit onto a tank, when it is driving at least 15 miles per hour, it will detect a minefield before it hits the mine. We have not gotten to that today, but these requests were being fielded from the fields through ordnance, and they did develop materiel which met the requirements. Anyways, the bottom line is that ordnance thought they were in the lead and gs thought that they were. The world u. S. Joined war, the u. S. Was starting from scratch. To its simplest terms, the problem is to determine the kinds of equipment that will be needed most and could be requiredred in the hundreds, thousands, or millions, in time to be of use. Note the in time to be of use. You cant wait around for the Perfect Piece of equipment. In a lecture40, before the army industrial wessonnce, Major General estimated that the development of a major materiel required a minimum of three years from Work Environment to fielding. And the efficiency of war, they cut it down to 1. 52 years. Generally matches with the development of any piece of equipment developed by anybody else, british, german, russian. One and a half to two years. Yes, audience participation number 4. What are the two biggest problems facing the United States as they prepare to fight world war ii . One word each. Production. Logistics. You guys are very good, you are bouncing around the right idea. The two problems are called atlantic and pacific. There we go. Anything which is being built to fight is going to be fighting many thousands of miles away, and a couple oceans, from the nearest factory. It has to get there and be sustained. This means you need to have as few parts break is possible to reduce the need for spares to be shipped over. Youve also got consumables like petrol, oil, lubricants, across the ocean. Note also that unlike the germans, who could, if they had to do a complete refurbish, they to thehip the tank back factory, or so could the soviets. We could not. Anything we sent over was there to fight until it was either discarded or destroyed. The major repair in the u. S. Is not an option. You have to think about the entire chain, from the factory floor to the battlefield. Here is an example of one of the problems. Were 12,122 flat cars in the United States which could carry a pershing tank. In may of 1948, they wanted to get a battalion of pershings from fort knox to fort campbell. It took 40 days to collect all those flat cars. Say 1942, how to many flat cars were capable of carrying a 4550 ton tank . And Everything Else that had to be carried to get to the ship . And when it got to the shipyard, we had been building once every 10 days. What is the lifting capacity of a liberty ship crane. Make these 60 ton monsters, can you get it to the fight . Arguably, you possibly could, but can you get them in sufficient numbers to have an effect . Words,in the simplest what use is having the best equipment if you cant get it to the fight. For if it gets to the fight and it breaks down . No use. You wasted all that shipping and effort to get a tank overseas just to see it raked down. To see it break down. These are the basic problems. Lets get down to nuts and bolts. Quote on the Ground Forces. Criteria hed two genuine battle need. Reluctant to initiate development of any equipment not considered essential to combat to increase combat efficiency. Desired by men in the field, if it was not absolutely essential, it might prove to be a luxury or excess baggage. This was a clearcut policy of general mcnair, which he often emphasized. It was eventually adopted formally as were department policy. Whodetermines battle need . Determines what is an essential piece of equipment versus luxury equipment . The theater commanders. Another school of thought says the decision should be centralized in the u. S. Who thinks they went with theater commanders . They went with centralized decision in the u. S. . You are all wrong. Thatere youre going was done centrally, but once it was set up we have so many tanks, the actual nature of those tanks, improvements to them, was not centralized. I should explain. For the idea of the guys who wanted to centralized decisions was that theater commanders might be too strongly influenced by the limiting local conditions of their own tactical situation to exercise proper overall judgment, which seems distrusting and the reasoning of fourstar generals. They believed that theater commander recommendations were colored by the combat soldiers natural attachment to Reliable Equipment with which they were familiar. Basically, they were worried that the troops were very happy with what they had and would not request Additional Information or additional equipment. There was evidence to support this. With the sixth Armored Division that they 44, reports received no 76 millimeter tanks and had no particular desire for any. The 75 had gotten all the way across ramps, white rock the boats . And to anpartment, extent, mcnair, went with the former view. They did not produce and ship materiel overseas unless the endusers were asking for it. In d. C. Thisys was a great tank and it should be shipped overseas, they have the commanders in europe and north africa. If they say no, the equipment did not go overseas. The second criterion, reliable performance and combat. This standard is sometimes referred to as atul readiness. The equipment, having been proved capable of performing the function for which it was designed, was sufficiently rugged and reliable without imposing excessive problems of maintenance. Again, excessive problems. It might break down, that will happen. There is perhaps a subcategory which i would call immediate capability. Army Ground Forces were not willing to accept equipment if it was the case of that or nothing, but it still had to be reliable. 10. In point, m3 or m the situation of tanks, we have the m2 medium that the u. S. Started the war with. The u. S. Had, at the time, the cult of the machine gun. The infantry were owning the tanks. The cavalry had combat cards, basically tanks. The infantry were quite interested in the tanks ability to deal with enemy infantry. Why did i do that . Machine guns everywhere, deflectors on the back so you fire that, the machine gun would reflect office and shoot into the trench you were walking past. Gun,was an antitank trained for antitank capability. Somebody figured out that if we have a tank, they might bring one, and we have to kill their tank. The main weapon was the machine gun. To 15 tonsas limited by policy, because that was the average weight of an American Railroad bridge at the time. Ro bridge, sorry. So, in 1939, the u. S. Conducted a series of tests to determine if machine guns or would be more effective. Survey says 75 millimeter. Good to know. They added the 75 into the hall of an m2 medium. It should start looking a bit familiar. Then this happened. That is a photograph taken near the germans quickly overrun france. A couple lessons are taken by the u. S. First, a 37 milliliter is not going to cut it for antitank. You need something bigger. They already tested the 75 millimeter, fortunately. The second problem, and this is where the lecture will fork into two tracks. A created Tank Destroyers as a result. Why the sherman was designed the way it was, but also about the tds. The solution, build m threes. You take the m2 and you take the 75 and add a new turret and a few more gadgets and gizmos, and youve made an m3. It is always improving on something that they know already works. This is the sort of thinking which will dominate Army Development and procurement for the next war. They build arsenals. Probably the most important man in the war, he talks to chrysler, and they build the detroit tank plant. Initially, the army only wanted 350 m3 tanks. The problem was that the russians and british were in such demand for these tanks that they couldnt switch over to the m4. They built 6500 of them. Something similar happened with the six pounder. The british six pounder was developed before world war ii. After the fall of france, we realized we cant produce antitank guns, or we built the two pounder. The british one was what they had ready to go. The soviets say the t 34 was supposed to be replaced. Didnt happen, the germans invaded, will go with what we have. There were improvements on the m3 in the form of new stabilizers, the chrysler multibank engine tank. Call castcaste hull. Barnes was not in favor of keeping the 37 millimeter on the tour it. He was happy to go with the current list tank with a turretless tank. , this was going to break into directions. We have the question of how do we stop these . The idea of having antitank guns with the infantry was not working. I go past a couple hidden slides here you have to cut these off. Theres no way you could put enough antitank guns to stop the concentrated armor attack. The solution was to have mobile, couldantitank guns that meet the enemy attack at the point of penetration. The idea was these would be up all the tanks, and have the Tank Destroyer branch. Nearly defensive organization, if you look at the manuals and the doctrine. They were never to be used for the attack. Not everything was a Tank Destroyer. If you google it or look at my youtube channel, i explained the difference between an antitank gun and a Tank Destroyer. This is a problem the u. S. Had. This was the thinking of antitank technology at the beginning of the war. Intothrow rifles and a tank track to stop it . This is my favorite photograph ive ever found in the archives. It is a declassified photograph of an antitank rock. T failed to stop the tank you can see where the tank sheared theock rock. The u. S. Antitank systems were a little lacking. They eventually selected the 37 millimeter, kind of taken from the germans, not exactly. Construction in 1939, a little late to the party. Now you have the question, do you want these fast, mobile antitank Tank Destroyers . Do you want them to be really fast . The thinking was that these turret antitank guns would be hard to spot. They would be the master of the tank. The comparison of Coastal Artillery versus battleships, which the u. S. Navy didnt believe in either, apparently. Fact that these things are much cheaper than tanks, because you didnt need im going to come back to this couple times. Money was a big problem for army procurement. Buy war bonds, we need money to fight. If you can make a cheap Tank Destroyer that is better for the army than an expensive one but at the end, bruce wanted out , head of the Tank Destroyer bank. They would all be mobile and selfpropelled. For the record, the chief of infantry said the best weapon to kill a tank was another tank, back in 1940 or 41. I have a couple examples of designs just for the light platoon of the Tank Destroyer companies. Was to beplatoon equipped with a 37 millimeter. The heaviest ones would get a 75 on a half track. 14, the get a t2, a t , and that t8. All designed to get a 37 millimeter into the fight. T 22, t 21, and m3. Many different designs were tried out to fit the requirements of antitank gun. This is an example of the doctrine of development. Got turned into the end eight greyhound. M8 greyhound. The winner was the m4. It was selected from production not because it was the best, but because it was the first to meet all the requirements. The for better vehicles, but you have to have something in the field to fight the enemy. This was it. There were a couple of other issues. We just realized invented the m4 tanks, so they renamed it the m six. Were sent to africa, and they were singularly useless and immediately withdrawn. Swarms, massest of development, going on to meet one tactical requirement, which all cost money. Back in tank land, the m six, whoever got the memo about renaming the m4 didnt get the same memo. And as, 3. 5 is of armor, three inch gun, the biggest gun anyone in the world was trying to put into a tank. It wasnt, but that was the thinking. You had a proactive 37 millimeter and a thousand horsepower radial engine. It did, electric use the horizontal volume suspension system. You cant see it. Cars and ship cranes, the previous issue it didnt work anyway. The head of armored force looks at this and says look, due to its tremendous weight and limited tactical use, there was no requirement in the armored force for a hefty tank. Notincreased power does compensate for the heavier armor, and also, they would prefer to ship to 30 ton tanks rather than one 60 ton tank. That was assuming they could fix the problems with it, which they never did. So, the m4 it is. They still have all the machine guns, having gotten rid of that idea. If you look at the front of every m3 medium, you will see holes for the machine gun. The thing about this, there are two things to note. All about reliability and sustainability. Everything in here has been done before. The engine was used and known to work for the m3. , 75ension system millimeter, known to work for the m3. A new gearbox, a new stabilizer system for the gun. How easy is it to maintain . These are bolts. You simply unbolt the front of the tank, and it comes off. Very easy to maintain. Suspension, if you have a problem with the suspension system, there are 16 bolts. Undo them, swap it out, and youre done. Try doing that on a t 34 or panther, its not easy. Everything fits from the factory. The british hank machine guy tank machine guy mentioned in his book to never see of ice in an engineers workbench in a u. S. Factory a vice. The only reason you would have it is to hold the item to modify it. If you did your job right in the first place, you would not need a vice. An americanhat last factory was to specification and was completely interchangeable. If you compare it with germany find a video by john parcell about the construction techniques and the german factories in world war ii. Everything was made to suit the tank. Try apiece. If it didnt work, just weld a piece on. Reasonably well armored, so the front slope the 234 had and American Tanks didnt if you take into account the thickness of the armor and the slope, it is almost as thick as a tiger. There is one centimeter in difference. This is actually a pretty tough tank. Anything on the battlefield. It is ergonomically sound, i will come back to that. Like anything, it can be improved. The tank that left the factory in 1945 is completely different from the factories from the tanks in the factories in 1942. They come back and they are glowing. Made a great impression on everyone, and the troops are thrilled. The long gun is magnificent and accuracy and penetration, and the sites are a significant improvement. Dors are giving i cant an english accent, im sorry. Users are giving praise to all american equipment, particular the m4. Ideal gun sights would it is vital we received earliest large numbers, and regardless of the availability of tools and spares this tank was working. The first problem was the primary site. The linkages, because the primary site is up here. The linkages between the gun and the site were a bit wobbly. The solution was to add a new telescope that pops up, a collapsible telescope. Something that i dont know what they were thinking there was no hatch for the loader. It took them nine months to figure out how to drill a hole in the roof. If theres one thing you look at in the sherman of 1942 that stops it from being handsdown the best tank in the world, it is the lack of a hatch. They also added a little bit of applique armor, minor improvements. Aboute people complaining german tanks they suffered a multitude of changes. Americans did the same thing. We changed tanks rapidly, but we made them standardized. Moving on to guns. The 57 millimeter was not invented here. You will hear that argument, that the americans, a very proud people, or you could say it xena phobic, they dont believe anyone else can make anything better than americans. This is patently not true. What about the peak of one mustang, rollsroyce . A better engine than we did. The six pounder was the same. Its a better antitank gun then we have, so lets make it. They made the 57 millimeter m1. We have a high velocity, which made it more accurate and harder hitting, higher rate of fire, lighter, all these wonderful things about the 57. Branch saidtroyer hang on a second. At over 500 meters, it loses penetration. Armor force said if we are shooting and 80 rank, we are degrading our capability to it it fell out of service. Not because it was foreign or anything, but because it didnt work. By the three inch gun and another in from vehicle. Wanted something that was about as hardhitting as a tank, but much faster and more mobile. But you have a war to fight. The t 49 67 70 was still in development. As an interim vehicle, it had to be cheap, so there is no turret traverse motor in this vehicle. Think the same bogies, same sprocket wheels, same engines in the back as the m4. They tried to take proven equipment to make their vehicles. The problem with the three inch was you could not put it into a sherman. They tried. The initial requirement in 1941 to three inch gun, but it was too heavy, didnt work. They had to wait until Something Else came along. Thats Something Else is a 76 millimeter. New alloys were created, and you can create the same type of gun that half the weight for a bigger gun for the same way. Compared to the three inch, the 76 was half the weight and the 19 millimeter was the same way. Thats why you have the divergence. The head of Armored Forces notified the existence in thescinating, archives, you will find transcripts of telephone calls. You had to be important enough to have somebody listening and typing, but you dont get that today. The turk question how long is it . , how long isestion it . The only thing that worries me is this is not going to throw to get the fighting. Im anxious to getting m4 tanks with anything in them. If youve heard the phrase perfect is the enemy of good enough, we cannot wait for new development. Guess what happens to the germans . They wait. Cake got our passes our asses kicked. Question, howhat many rounds can it carry, how happy are they. Its a repeated theme in the archives. Toyou needed more punch punch through armor, the first choice of action is to increase velocity, and only if that was not good enough, we moved to a larger caliber. This might you could carry more ammunition. Ammunition capacity it was a huge thing that would come up time and time again. By the middle of 1942 the thisners managed to stop into a carrot. Tests, itall of the was technically fit that it did not break the tank when it fired. It generally have what it was a debt. They wanted what thousand of these for the invasion of north africa. The thing to remember is that by the biggest take the germans had was a panzer. This was a case of the army wanting bigger equipment just in case the opposition came up with something bigger. Armored force the tested one. It mayncluded that technically work but you dont have to fight it. It is incredibly cramped inside. The crews cannot make the most of the tank. It was fundamentally to grant to be effective. They rejected it and said try again. Ordinance branch went. Audience participation question number five, what do these vehicles have in common . You are correct, who said that . He is quite correct. These were all tanks of proof for production and in the case of the and seven they built a stated just to build a once the contract was approved and signed they decided they did not need these. Rubbish, this i will come back to, that thing could not be figured out. In that entire factory that they they had six prototypes and seven production models. Its a matt graves stewardship of the taxpayer money . They invented what was called the special Armored Vehicles board. Late 1942 their purpose was to look at all of the various designs that were and look at a Tank Destroyer. And they started with making vehicles and cut it down to four. They were ruthless about it. They said we will focus on this instead because this is a better problem. This comes down to a case of hours weman hours, cannot squander because we are trying to win a war. In the meantime we are still helping out the british. Developmentsof the and it was vaguely shermanesque. The british wanted a assault tank and said we are going to build this. I cant remember whichever one it was. Built one, they built to actually. We will try it out. No, it did not work. There were fumes in the fighting conditions, cramped it had a tendency of breaking the gutters are. There were inaccessible components and it was not sustainable. That is why it never showed up the fight. They are still helping of the british. This is a crusader in test. The u. S. Did test these not because they wanted to build them locally but what design features were a good idea that they had not thought of. That and thought it was a good idea. A british guy called alex forardson who was present cromwell did not do well. They said send it back to the u. K. , the tanks have made us a laughingstock. The cromwell has had a variety of trouble. The americans are politely and different to what happens. The rollsroyce man is unhappy and he wants to withdraw as soon as possible. We are undoubtably the world worst salesman, i apologize for my lack of accent. And this wasnline a monthlong 2000 mile test that they drove these things all over england on roads and offerings. To get from southampton at the bottom of england it is 700 miles. Then it went all the way to the top of the country and then around. 2000 miles. The amount of specialist man hours is have to maintain fishermen versus the british tank. The ordinance tested not the disruption but they did test them a lot. Over a 2000 mile course the average speed of one of these tanks is one mile per hour less. That is vitally important information. Tank do arman endurance test . Given what happened to the panzer i would say no. Stating that at lock washer on the transmission seemed likely to fail by 4000 miles. It would need to be redesigned before it is put into production. A lock washer is one of those threaded washers and it is held into place. It cant be that hard to repair it. It may fall before 4000 miles. I had a couple of other but for the interest of time i will hold back. Commanderent that the can be confident about taking 99 of his vehicles and to battle. Hand if you are a quick with a cromwell percent are it may be in a state of anxiety to see the thing carry out what is expected. It was also observed that the crew and support people would be better rested. Yout breaks down en route have to take the time to stop and repair it. Which means that they do not have the rest. When it gets to the motor pool that means you have to have everybody awake when they get there. That amount of man hours and the other effectiveness of those man hours, the American Tank reliability was key because they had huge gains in efficiency. Were tested tanks in california and alaska. The take away is that they work. Got work to was going. It was not just most of the or something standing down for maintenance. Infantry division and you are relying on support of your attached tank battalion you knew that every company in your infantry unit would have tank support. It was not a case of one third breaking down and you have to charge without a tank. When you go to the ordinance archives it is fox after box of the effects of mold on rubber. The fuel pump would be subjected to a battery of tests. When it was approved for production there was still test. You come across reports of a that was randomly taken off the line to make sure the Quality Control was exactly what it was supposed to be. You got that whole thing, professionals talk logistics. Another vehicle that once the award. It is graded to carry five tons. 250 gallon cans. Trailer could carry a additional 40 cans bringing us to 4000 gallons. Of course, the americans depended on this. Is fuel and Oil Requirements per 1000 miles for a company of seven 17 medium tanks. Each barrel represents 100 gallons. Company words, one tank would be fueled by one truck. They had 5500 trucks rolling at once. They gives you a idea of just how many fuel tanks were out there. Efficient the tank was with all of the fuel. You have to get it from wherever it is then along the pipeline under the ocean and into five gallon cans and shipped over. Every decent this requires energy and power and personnel. It requires trucks and mechanics to maintain those. It requires ships to carry the spare parts to maintain the trucks to supply the mechanics. You see where i am going . Maintenance the German Military suffered a capacity problem. You could make new tanks with spare parts. For every 10 tiger tanks the left production they left one additional transmission and engine. The germans had this massive part shortage. They put armed guards on supply trends because they would be stealing the parts. Staged raids to get their parts. Mechanics would be dispatched to state a claim. If they are waiting for their parts to arrive they are not fixing tanks. Americans did not have this problem. Go to the center of American History they have this. They brought lots of parts and they all fit. Rarely very down down for long. This is a you take a transmission out. Just a couple of hours. For a panzer you have to take off the roof of the hall, pull out the driver position, the radio position, the radius which are radios which are in the middle there. You can see all the bits around the driver that have to come out before the transmission can be pulled out backup through the roof. Your three mechanics are going to repair one german tank and the time it takes to repair two or three American Tanks. This heavy welding armored front is tough to get through. Things, isscheme of it worth having it . Your tank may be the best in the world but if it is down for maintenance it is not contributing. It is not contributed, why havent . These things had to be replaced every 1200 miles. Was up to 2000 miles. Whether or not it survive is a different question. Times when of the they are really soured. January of 1943 the first of the t series tanks roll out. It is in production so they have met the immediate requirement of improvements. It had issue with the the 223 had a electric drive. It would go backward just as fast. It was very mobile. You could control the entire tank. It could drive and fight with one man and theory. What is not to like . To generalonstration mcnair and marshall it was agreed to build 250 of these tanks as a additional reduction run. All of the issues would be fixed. Hindsight about 50 of them we will come back to that. Testing them in detail create a number of problems were found. The tallest gunner when he is sitting in the seat the site was too high. Many of those problems could be fixed rate we will come back to that. This was a series modification to simplify production, increase ergonomics and increase firepower and survivability. You have a choice, you can try to grow fine and improve it. You knew that would be available in numbers or you can take a gamble i can do what is going to be a substantially better tank. It still had some bugs to work out. It may not be available and the required numbers. You are again when with the world here. Perhaps you can understand why they are cautious. As part of the overall progression we now have a 76 millimeter gun on the terrorist. This also makes the hedge easier to get out. Was stowage which changed the burn rate from average. Au can see it but there was better way to see the opposition. This all happened very quickly. It idea of putting the turn it was tested by june. Testing was completed and approved in september. By september of 1943 we decided that all factories would stop producing 75 millimeter tanks. The marine corps or other contracts. The problem was all of these tanks are now being produced. They still have to be gotten from overseas. They also seem to be a nice remember luxury versus essential . Killinglimeter army was everything in italy. That i may detail not have time to get to. Generally speaking the 75 was working. The americans about to invade france say they have a couple hundred of these tanks which would mean a new line of supply is necessary. We will have to retrying our tankers. Why bother with the hassle . They list the 76 and the u. K. Hindsight this is what is known as a waltz. It made sense at the time. The fifth army, the guys who were winning said give us all the 76 millimeters you can get. There was another minor issue which was a shortage. Particular was no indication that the 76 could not do the job. They did not spend any tungsten building the high velocity armor piercing ammunition. They had other things to make. Perhaps that was a bad decision. They should have developed or ammunition just in case. Is any single flaw that i can point to with their tank production is they should have developed that. Is this. Thing audience participation number six, what is the advantage of having narrow treads and why did the u. S. Build them . Correct. The difference in weight between a 16 inch track and its what he wanted track is a fulltime. That is a additional time that the drive wheel has to haul around to get the tank to go the same speed. Lets each page is longer. It has resistance in it as well. It actually made a lot of sense to go with a narrower track. The solution again a suspension that have been tested earlier with the heavier tanks. This is a new idea. They tried able series of this patent you can look at these weird pictures. Track andwith a wider the results if you put everything together is the tank with the preferred engine had a new suspension system. The definitive tank went on to the korean war until it was d service. It was argued with a definitive and best tank. They do have a issue of protection. This is not a typical. Would add onton the vehicle. To quote the army forces. Another point to consider is that any addition of armor only as weight and creates a false sense of security without actually supplying additional protection. The power of a large caliber tank was such that existing armor would almost mean doubling. Additional protection afforded longer ranges. He adjust with the additional weight . Crew you can see that they are going right to their sherman. Is a synthetic going to stop . Going to be happy with the two tons of sandbags . The americans looked into this and said no. That is the way it is supposed to be. It was only patent enforce. I amthe assault tanks, being told i am running out of time. Going back, it is the 90 millimeter gun. Would 15th battalion direct 310 hours of maintenance. Absolutely unacceptable. This theyinance fix would say fantastic, we will send them overseas. Most of them and then we can turn this over to you. This was not that enthusiastic. They will look the commanders know you have 150 of these lightweight tanks. What it took them up on it. Click i am going to skip over this slide. The t 26, i have a lot of this online and in other videos. The bottom line is nobody wanted a 90 millimeter tank initially. The ordinance in general was so determined. He knew this would be a tank that would win the war. He asked the british, he designed it first and the theory was if the british light the tank they would order it. Productionnk now in this in his design would be made by the army. The british went with a better decision. Again, i have gone on to that in detail elsewhere. Better then mobile tanks according to africa. That was the lesson they learned. In practice it did not work because in north africa they were not acting or doing much. I will skip over the chief of d3. It was not wanted. However there was a change of heart. Of june 1944july they decided this is what they wanted. I could get a pick and punch through this. One unit actually mutinied. They did that want this tank. First thing it was there. It was reliable. Panzer and sherman. Which is better at amash and the enemy . It is a simple design. I dont know why the germans did not want something ceiling mounted. Then there is ergonomics. This is the inside of a panzer. If you are currently this and highly comfortable survival rate. It is a deathtrap. Bogota the sale. How quickly can i get out of a tank if it is on fire . With the m4 it is right on top of you. Thelook at the panzer and tiger wishes canal like this. The americans did this was a good idea. They would have been better off building the 76 millimeter. They did not read that is why victories have a reputation. The americans had ever with the roast it did not work. They realize this after they put it into the field. It did not work at all. This is a target range timer which applies to the horizontal bar. If you are in the middle of africa, how do you know where we are. This is a moving map. Since of the patient the tank. To develop an experiment and to try. They will stop using it. The end result. Much is the proof is in the pudding. Not purely faceoff. They look at the sherman and they are looking to prepare tactile way tactfully. Few people look at a strategically. As effectively as possible. And that i would argue that therefore m4 did is excellent news of four. What are you questioning . Please have any world of tanks questions until after this. Grexit it is well known was that the major problem . There was not adequate communication between the engineers and the people in the field . It was a bit of both. The developments of the division did send updates. Have path fighting going on all away towards africa. They wondered what was going on themselves. Stories as well as the problem seems to be a lack of realization of using what was required. I will go back to the six armored, we dont want any tanks. Probably there is they are there mett is because anything that needed a six millimeter gun. If the people dont also they need it doesnt matter. If there is any conflict that is where it is. A tangentialraise question about what the two biggest problems were with the u. S. Going to war. That was the atlantic in the pacific did the general said war is a racket. One of the things i always raised about americas need for a foreign war is that any evidence of a enemy attacking. They can never wage a war thenst us because you have logistics of trust in the have youand pacific ever heard a argument that the so i have not heard any argument saying the opposition can attack on land. Is that where you are going . The fact is having a coast guard coast guard. That is useless. You are not able to sustain that. That thee to existing short answer to your question, i have not seen anything to argue against that. To support it, look up operation seal life. Possessing ato his and really that. But assuming they can even come up with a plan. For something oddly similar to the firefight. I know at normandy there was a famous story the took out expenses senator schatz environments. People say they needed it. There is two problems here. This of the 76 was too big. If the americans that the 76 was to big to effectively fight the firefly to lower the 17 pounder do . These are people looking at the outside not on the inside. If you look at how a gunner is in hisd his head is here left hand is down here. He is trying to get on target. I have done a video on the rounds are huge. They take forever to load. I will go to part two in a moment. Firefly neck that six tanks in five minutes. How many times did a sherman with a much higher rate of fire destroyed seven panzer tanks . In three minutes. Or more likely six machine gun nests in three minutes. Sucked as areally tank. Theother problem from American Perspective is that they acknowledge we need a bigger gun. What they did not acknowledge is that the bigger gun was not big enough to they did not realize that until they put it into combat. And you have the famous talking aboutte how it wont do a thing. Reality that is not true. As evidenced by loss of german tanks have blown up. Easily, perhaps. This goes back to the bigger question of how it is in system for system. So the firefly in and of itself also has a problem that nothing in the american system uses the ignition. This is whya side we started a problem. They could supply 100 tanks. What good is that going to do to the entire u. S. Army . This is a hypothesis. I think is was purchased for other artists use. This is speculation but it has happened. The biggest purchaser was the military and the u. S. Government. So that is kind of a longwinded way of staying the firefly did not suit the americans. What it suits them did not show to go to. H fattarted building ammo. Belting cooper was here what would you say to him to change the third headline america captures a bridge. It is damaged. The infantry crosses over, fantastic. They need things apart. There have sitting pershing on a armoredhit kill horse, you guys have a problem with us. ,nd it is all these thinkers how many of them were not dead . Is it is basic confirmation bias. His job was to destroy takes. With a small subset of the data that is available to them. Whether not i can convince the man who may have a 90 something years old. Let him keep thinking i guess. Class one question is on the obviously also the other tanks, was that part of the initial design, with the attachment. Its her was weekend. It was a wonderful thing. A quick question. How far does the power turned traverse . A lot. You may not have seen, i just published a article was weekend and i have one camino tomorrow about the affective combat range. The medium combat range. It is about 700 yards. The meeting was about 300 yards. A dish withefending a line of tanks you are going to spread them out. Slew that60 degree you have to cover. The first person to shoot usually is for out of our fans. Answerrman gets a short vacuum youll get the hell gordon watchman said that the americans were better in crypto and radar. Slightly better than the british. Bettertish were slightly at magic. I stand corrected. A question about going from what we did not have armored cars. We had cap cars, we did not have cars. With some armored cars because the shermans were better for urban warfare then the tiger tanks. Cars weren is armored very good at urban warfare. Cars, quietly go there. In terms of armored cars the u. S. Army took a fair look at Armored Vehicles. There was a vehicle called the tracklist tank. A. M. Tested in a urban terrain was not as common as it is today. Seven to present of the published is on urban terrain. You had to have your taste capable of going off road very well. This is why the wheels of day disorders. I have not looked into it. Click site tengion three this is ause the end result operation good when an operation torch. Is there a loss. If you are a manager at the end sooner you see when those battles. Upon is the site up decided upon. Rooster line. You understand that there is 88 of their and there are bigger things. Goodness is the anyway. But it comes down to it. The person in the tank at the time does not care about all of the logistical things that ended up with him being there. There are two characters to this. Not only this jill have a tank so ive. I dont see how you can say that better than the position of the person in charge. Is it unfortunate for the person there . Is it is. Is it so the better decision, i would argue no. What is the medication, given the situation . Well, as far as i can tell it is pretty uniform. The projectiles were pretty much the same. There were reports committed back from the field. A shortage of abcs. 1945. As in the our problem is that the tanks have not found any tanks to shoot at. Again, i put this on facebook. This may be a exaggeration. That had not been designed in july of 1944. Only once they said we need a better head than the ordinance them said they have a policy still too late and that again bring it back to your earlier question. That is a problem they could have fixed and given the american takes a better gun. They didnt. The american takes of the justifiably going. Why did you think this . Imf thinking about the tungsten manufactured tools. You mentioned that they talked about liability. You mention the crews were talking about survivability. . Rban the brood of grexit refer you to the front of this room. It is slow. Not as sharply, it is thicker to compensate. The effect of armor is almost the millimeter the same. Yourite armor is done for wingspan is smaller. Then you have less room inside. The other thing is that if you are making a very big you do not have much room inside the tank because of all the armor. Where do you put your spare parts and ammo . Theou look at a modern tank smoke is in the front. Even the soviets had it on the side. It just was not worth it. Good evening. Calliopeking about the , you can see pictures of it. Tank that could fire a handful of rockets, the germans are using half tracks. What was the theory about on top ofese rockets a tank as opposed to another vehicle . The answer is i have no idea. I agree with you. Backe found reports coming into the archive same why are we doing this . Senset have made a good to somebody. I dont know who that was but i dont know what they were thinking. Is somebody who has several versions of shermans thank you for a great presentation. The tanks may have been the same but the way the Armored Divisions were structured was not. Obviously can you talk about how the Armored Division were structured within the u. S. System with that heavy Armored Division minus the other ones compared to some of the other nationalities. I am not sure i am actually able i am a technical guide. I probably shouldnt be because i write for a major academic journal. The thing i will say with the is that therey was a difference between the Armored Division and the tank battalion. The Armored Division was designed to do the punching. They used the same tank for both roles. I guess you can make it argument that the british came up with that different kinds of tanks. U. S. Did something wrong here by not having different tanks fight these different roles . I think that brings us back to the question of if we could build a tank that work, they couldnt. If they could, would they have shipped them overseas . I am not sure there is a answer to that. I dont feel confident in going ato detail about moving from leg company to three Medium Companies and so on. Sending up here i would need to get some books. In the 1940s the standard american flak at was a 50 ton car that was the basic building block. That was the state of the art car at the time. There were cars of lesser cause a, how did that limited design . All i know is the documents talk about the heavy tanks. This was written at 1950. ,t stated, if my memory serves these 12,000 cars were of sufficient capacity and with to carry it out. Havet know why you would a narrower than normal flak car. They did exist. Either way they did not believe they had sufficient capacity to this in the 1950s. [applause] you are watching American History tv, all weekend every weekend on cspan3. To join the conversation like us on facebook. Quick screen help plantation was built in the 1790s and was a slave dealer for the first half of the 19th century. Sunday on a artifacts we visit the plantation. With the founder of the founding slave houses project. Here is a preview. So here is the auctioneer stand. Acrid help plantation which is in Campbell County virginia. Companye with the here withnd they are me for a independent project. Ofy are doing documentation all the known slave houses in the United States. Temple is a company that makes. Er baby with that i use one of the pieces of equipment is a 3d laser scanner. That is a piece of equipment that i currently do not use. That is the highest level of documentation that is out there for building sort objects. Someare here to document holdings with me. This site and agree help plantation have the original slaveowner who was very active in the slave trade. One of the things he decided to slave his yard is a Auction Block and stand. You can definitely feel the power of that place, it is a huge part of light this is possible. This would have been the last place men, women and children would have been with their families. They would have been scattered all across the United States. It is really ground zero for that. Watch the entire program on great help plantation on american artifacts. Here on American History tv. Only on cspan3. According to the archives, ken gareish documented his World War Ii Service in new gina between 19 42 and 1944. The film shows scenes of life behind the front lines at a key supply area where Lieutenant Colonel was responsible for maintaining p38 and p39 aircraft and includes scenes of natives and australian allies