Tanks/Vehicles M6A2E1

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

So it did get standardized.... Which is why its called a M6A2E1 and not TXX

 

Im fine with this

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

So it did get standardized.... Which is why its called a M6A2E1 and not TXX

 

Im fine with this

Just because something is an MXAXEX doesn't mean it was standardised ,the M6A2E1 for instance was experimental and never entered service as it was used as a Testbed for the armament on the T29.

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

Just because something is an MXAXEX doesn't mean it was standardised ,the M6A2E1 for instance was experimental and never entered service as it was used as a Testbed for the armament on the T29.

But thats what it is. M6A2E1 is a standardized designation, doesnt mean it had to enter service, the M7 was standardized and it only had some 7 tanks. The M9 was standardized before they even started production.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

But thats what it is. M6A2E1 is a standardized designation, doesnt mean it had to enter service, the M7 was standardized and it only had some 7 tanks. The M9 was standardized before they even started production.

M6A2E1 wasn't standardised, only 1 vehicle was made and was used as a Test Bed for the armament of the T29

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

M6A2E1 wasn't standardised, only 1 vehicle was made and was used as a Test Bed for the armament of the T29

I dont think that really matters, since the M9 was standardized with only 1 vehicle. Anything with a M is standardized.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Miki_Hoshii

[BlitzkriegWulf 4,265]

M6A2E1 wasn't standardised, only 1 vehicle was made and was used as a Test Bed for the armament of the T29

I dont think that really matters, since the M9 was standardized with only 1 vehicle. Anything with a M is standardized.

 

 

You both want to get it in the game; there's no point in having a pissing match about its designation and what it meant.

 

As far as I'm concerned, "M" usually means that it has been standardized to some degree, and "E" is probably some kind of "test version" designation. 

 

 

M6 = Standardized tank

A2 = second version

E1 = testing something on that version (when applicable..)

 

T43E1... M26E4... M6A2E1....

[Tchar 952]

Yes, "E" is the term for Experimental. I will also add that "T" was for a test tank as in "T1E1"

[Whelmy 1,970]

All the images are from my threads on Wot :Ps

 

Some papers in my collection straight from the source (national archives)

 

 

It should be noted these are the specs they laid out but had yet to build the tank. for example the speed is estimated to be 18 mph when weighed down with all that extra frontal armor on the hull. But authors like Hunnicutt will list the speed the tank had as 18 mph for the unfinished version (just the turret on a standard M6A2 hull)

 

One would need to find the aberdeen testing reports to find out the actual speed of that tank in testing and not assume it was 18mph.

 

He made other errors for specs on the T1/M6 tanks, like a 22mph speed limit on them. They did in fact get 22mph, cross country. But the max speed on roads was 27mph which he fails to list.

 

The armor values are conservative as well. the Turret ended up having 9 inches frontal for example and not 7 1/2 inches.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA954836

Edited December 21, 2014 by Whelmy

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

I dont think that really matters, since the M9 was standardized with only 1 vehicle. Anything with a M is standardized.

Just because it has an M doesn't make it standardised, M9 probably was, but then you need to work down the variants, the M6 was standardised but never saw combat, and the M6A1 wasn't standardised and an unofficial name while the M6A2E1 was not a standardised tank but was a variant or model of a vehicle that was standardised with in the US military.

 

Same also goes for tanks with the T as some, such the T26E4, saw combat.

[Whelmy 1,970]

[Whelmy 1,970]

Oh and they ended up building two of them apparently. But we only have images of the one tank (Wonder if the archives might have #2 images floating around in some box, perhaps they actually finished the hull armor on that one)

 

Three turrets total as well, two finished ones and one rough one that was used for ballistic testing. It's even possible tank #2 had a turret closer to spec and looks of the T29 (which was what they pulled them from apparently)

Edited December 21, 2014 by Whelmy

[Tchar 952]

Same also goes for tanks with the T as some, such the T26E4, saw combat.

Would like to see your source on that.

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

Would like to see your source on that.

Wikipedia is the obvious one, but it also mentions another source with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing

[Miki_Hoshii 2,449]

E = Enhancement

 

M4A3E8's were very much production Shermans

[Grand_Moff_Tano 3,460]

E = Enhancement

 

M4A3E8's were very much production Shermans

E also means Experimental.

[Tchar 952]

[Whelmy 1,970]

History of the M6A2E1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kex9m72sp6qnc88/M6A2E1.pdf?dl=0

[themightyderp 34]

This is the proper tank for the current br of the same tank ingame that 90mm will help

[ChrisXD62365 520]

first time i said a tank looks bad... in a good way  :Ds .+1.

[kevQC 2,814]

This is the proper tank for the current br of the same tank ingame that 90mm will help

*105mm

[Whelmy 1,970]

They planned on providing the 191mm of armor by removing the drivers vision door and the dual cal .50 mount from the front. plating those holes over and then plating over the upper glacis plate and lower.

 

So you would have had something like this. Making an assumption once they plated over the MG mount and drivers door they would probably just toss another 45mm or so to equal it out to the planed 89mm.

Easiest way would be just slapping something like a 100mm plate over the top.

 

Hard to say what angle they would have chosen but assuming they wanted to make the most contact with the frontal hull at the top and then lower front plate you'd have this. Artists impressions from the drawings the army did make it look much steeper however.

 

It's safe to say the forward facing angled side sponsons on the front would have likewise had extra armor welded over them.

 

Edited January 16, 2015 by Whelmy

[KB_TheDireWolf 700]

This would be a good tank to have gib +1.

[Whelmy 1,970]

 

Another possibility with the frontal armor. Depending on how they determine "191mm effective frontal" this could be anything from having 191mm total to 191mm  LOS after slope is accounted for.

 

 

So instead of the example with a 100mm plate added to the base hull value giving 191mm total (or there about)  you could end up with a 75mm extra plate welded to the front. Assuming it was at 40 degrees.

 

Extra added plate               Base upper hull

75@40 = 97 mm                 89@30 = 102 mm effective

 

199mm total.

 

It seems they planned to up armor the side armor a bit as well. 2 5/8 inch (66.675 mm ) is to odd a number and off from even the thickest given value for any of the T1-M6 models side armors.

 

This would have involved anywhere from an extra 30-38mm on the rearmost sides and an extra 10mm on the thickest areas near the crew compartment.

 

 

The turret itself we know was much more armored then what was called for, having frontal areas with 9 inches (228.6 mm) slimming off to 4-1/2 inches (114 mm) as it curved into the sides. What we don't know is exactly what the side armor was or the rear. The called for specs would say 63.5mm but this is doubtful considering it was a T29 prototype turret and even it had 127 mm sides and a 102 mm rear. Chances are it did have the counter weight installed increasing the rear armor a substantial amount due to the fact the design would have been extremely nose heavy otherwise after all of the add on armor was added to the front along with the weight of the gun.

[ronan0 40]

I'll prefer to see t29/30/34 first but why not?

[Tchar 952]

I'll prefer to see t29/30/34 first but why not?

Well this tank could lead up to those. :salute: