Indeed the US army only wanted 350 M3s before switching production to Shermand but the demand for things via lend lease meant that just over 5000 were made
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
OTL work started on the Detroit Tank Arsenal in September 1940; the first two tanks were assembled by April 1941, before the building was totally finished. Full series production began in July, 1941. If the US army is looking at plans for the TTL Valiant and the French G1 requirements, they might choose to go straight to a turreted tank based on M2 Medium with a turreted 75mm gun. The US Army Ordnance official history claims that by 1939 they were already speculating on the need for a larger AT gun than the 37mm just adopted, and that some considered an adaptation of the French 75 as a tank armament. After all, even with better British tanks, TTL many of the crews of the Royal Armoured Corps will be riding Lend Lease Shermans. Best to have them as early and as numerous as possible.
My understanding is that the US opted to build the interim M3 Lee rather than what would have been the M4 because they were at that time unable to build a turret large enough to take the 75mm gun and the Battle of France had shown their existing medium tanks were hopelessly obsolete.
marathag
Banned
Baldwin was able to cast a T1 Turret in August 1941 that was the same 69" ring diameter as the M4 Sherman
The M3 Pilot was built at Rock Island Arsenal in April, 1941
The M3 and M6 were both OK'ed on paper at nearly the same time
marathag
Banned
As soon as the drawings were done on the M3 and sent to Chrysler, new design for a turreted 75mm was started
Apples and oranges. Casting thickness and overall weight and shape would be different.
That's irrelevant, in early 1941 the US Army needs a viable medium tank now and can't afford to wait a year for the M4. Good enough is good enough and better can wait till later.
Other tanks were not available to Australia that is why the "useless" Sentinel was developed. For a first effort for a medium tank it was not all bad. It had the largest (at the time) cast hull segments in use anywhere. Its development allowed the building of the British Firefly with it's 17 Pdr. The Sentinal did see limited service, serving with one Armoured Regiment in Australia. They starred in the "Rats of Tobruk" as German tanks.
OTL that is indeed the case. ITTL it might not be.
True, though I don't doubt they could have done it without them, it would just have taken a bit longer.
That was 3rd Army Tank Brigade, which never went overseas, and was disbanded a year and a half after it was formed.
You may wish that is the case but I suspect all tanks will be used by their builders for at least the first 2-3 years of the war...
They still served. Admittedly it was for a brief time but they were still used in the defence of Australia.
Here the A11 Matilda is going to have a 2-pounder gun, which is a not-insignificant upgrade. In addition, the tank that OTL became the Valentine is likely to be rather faster than OTL, given it looks like it might be getting a Napier Lion engine, so is going be considerably faster.
The men were, but the tanks appear to have stuck around only for the film, so, no.
Last edited:
If the production rate increases substantially, there is little evidence that the new vehicles built would not be kept by the British Army for it's own uses. Indeed, the thread is littered with comments about how great it would be for the British Army to make use of the increased numbers of tanks available to it.
There is no evidence of that.
- Status