M6 heavy tank
Development history
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 18:50, 21 April 2026 | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
Some minor changes were introduced in the production vehicles: the cupola was replaced by a double-door hatch with a ring mount, while the machine gun in a rotor mount and the left front machine gun were removed. |
Some minor changes were introduced in the production vehicles: the cupola was replaced by a double-door hatch with a ring mount, while the machine gun in a rotor mount and the left front machine gun were removed. |
||
However, by the time the M6 was ready for production, the Armored Corps had lost interest in the project. The advantages the M6 offered over medium tanks – its much thicker armor and slightly more powerful gun – were offset partly by the shortcomings of the design |
However, by the time the M6 was ready for production, the Armored Corps had lost interest in the project. The advantages the M6 offered over medium tanks – its much thicker armor and slightly more powerful gun – were offset partly by the shortcomings of the design such as very high silhouette, awkward internal layout, reliability problems, and partly by logistical concerns due to its weight. |
||
In early 1942, the Ordnance Department set a production target of 250 a month, with Fisher as a second contractor to meet a planned expansion in the size of the army.Chamberlain & Ellis, page 155 However, by September, the focus had changed, with tank production scaled back and more aircraft for the USAAF. Under this new "Army Supply Program", the M6 production was cut from 5,000 to a little over 100. |
In early 1942, the Ordnance Department set a production target of 250 a month, with Fisher as a second contractor to meet a planned expansion in the size of the army.Chamberlain & Ellis, page 155 However, by September, the focus had changed, with tank production scaled back and more aircraft for the USAAF. Under this new "Army Supply Program", the M6 production was cut from 5,000 to a little over 100. |
||
