![]() On the other hand, Light Tank T2 utilized semi-elliptical leaf spring bogies, reminiscent to those found on the British-designed Vickers 6-ton. Combat Car T5 would eventually be accepted for service as Combat Car M1. Combat Car T5 featured VVSS bogies, and oddly enough, it initially had two open-top turrets, which would not be retained. They were not, however, without their differences. Both vehicles had been designed and built by Rock Island Arsenal, and as such, they shared many similarities. On 23 April, 1934, Combat Car T5 and Light Tank T2 were demonstrated at Aberdeen Proving Ground. Combat Car T4E1 was an agile vehicle, but expensive, and it did not conform to new design requirements. The Combat Car T4E1 also ended up being almost twice as expensive as subsequent designs. Previous designs such as the Combat Car T4E1 had proven to be mobile, utilizing Christie-type suspension and a controlled differential, but they were heavier, with a weight of 8.1 tonnes or 9 US tons. Of the parameters put forth, importance was placed on a maximum weight of roughly 6.8 metric tonnes, or 7.5 US tons. ![]() In the spring of 1933, George Dern, the Secretary of War, decreed that development of new light tanks and combat cars should commence. They were still in service with the Army until 1932. The Mark VIII “Liberty” tanks had been produced in 1919, too late for their intended role in World War I. Outmoded tanks such as the Mark VIII Heavy (practically of World War I vintage) were still in service in 1932. By the 1930s, the tank reserves of the US Army consisted mostly of either outdated models, or overly ambitious dead-end designs. Many previous designs had been largely prototypical, or had an extremely limited production run. A clear example of this regulation was the designation of the Calvary’s aforementioned M1 Combat Car, as the Act denied the branch the ability to operate “tanks” by name. The National Defense Act of 1920 had restructured, regulated, and disseminated the military, as well as its ability to procure new weapons systems. This also coincided with past debates within the Army on how truly effective armor could be in future conflicts. Funding was relatively scarce, as the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression. Source: īefore the M1 Combat Car and M2 Light Tank models were approved for production, attempts to effectively mechanize the armed forces of the US had been a struggle. Note the commander’s cupola on the turret of M2A1. Although visually similar, the M1 Combat Car (left) and M2A1 Light Tank (right) differed in some ways, namely in their turrets. The M2A1 also had a dedicated commander’s cupola. The M2A1 featured a rounded turret that tapered inward towards the mantlet, whereas the M1 had a flatter, wider turret. Where the vehicles differed was in their turrets. The vehicles were also armed only with machine guns. The hull and running gear, consisting of a front drive sprocket, raised rear idler, and a pair of vertical volute spring suspension (VVSS) bogies per side, were visually nearly identical between the two. Introduced in 1935, the Infantry’s M2A1 light tank had many similarities to the Cavalry’s M1 “Combat Car” of 1934 and its variants, as they had been designed concurrently. Light Tank – 237 Built (M2A2), 73 Built (M2A3) Introduction: “Imitation is the Best Form of Flattery”īy 1935, the light tanks of the United States armed forces were beginning to resemble what would later become the iconic M3/ M5 “Stuart” series of tanks that saw extensive service during the Second World War.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |