Where would the British have used their M6's?

[Ian Hathaway]

Following the Chief of Infantry recommendation from 20 May 1940, the US Army Ordnance Corps started to work on a 50-ton heavy tank. By the middle of 1942 prototypes had been developed and trials conducted and production of 6000 M6A1 tanks recommended. The tank itself carried a 76mm gun with a coaxial 37mm, two MGs in the hull (although I have seen a version with three) and a further two MGs. The vehicle weighed 57 1/2 Tonnes with a hull length of 7.5m and armour up to 85mm. The powerplant generated 825hp which allowed a speed of over 20mph. Later developments and experimentation proved this tank could easily take a 90mm gun and be up armoured without affecting performance drastically.

By December 1942 production began but at a reduced amount of just 115 vehicles of which 60 were to be sent to the British as part of the Lend Lease scheme. However the full scale production was cancelled because it was claimed that the tank was unreliable even though in endurance trials the only issue reported was a track linkage failure after 3000 miles. It was also claimed that the gun was inaccurate even though the same targetting and stabalisation systems were used in the Sherman. It was decided that logistically the priority was the Sherman even though for every three Sherman that could be shipped overseas they could have sent two M6s.

So my question ... where would the British have deployed their 60 M6s if they had arrived as planned?

Secondly I guess is would the M6 have proved its worth in combat to such an extent that production of the Sherman would have been switched to the M6?

 

[Kongzilla]

I would Imagine they would use the M6's in the only theater the British are operating in at the time. In Africa they could use the bigger gun so that they don't have to waltz straight into the German 88's.

 

[Riain]

Shhhhh!

Don't question the awesomeness of the Sherman or US Army doctrine, people will pitch a fit!!!

 

[Hoist40]

Agree about North Africa, its probably the best place for the M6. Wide open spaces that the 3 inch gun can take advantage of and not a lot of mud that a 60 ton tank can sink into. Once the war starts moving into Italy and then Northern Europe you would probably see at least some units that had M6 to transition to M4's because of the difficulties of operating a 60 ton tank off of landing craft, over bridges and through muddy fields.

I would think that the Soviets might also have liked some if they were reliable though it might tax their transport system and getting one out if stuck in the mud might prove difficult.

A note about getting stuck in the mud, the M6 actually had wide and long tracks which meant that its ground pressure was less then the Sherman, its just that all tanks get stuck in the mud at times and its a lot harder to get a 60 ton tank out of the mud then to get a 30 ton one out

 

[Generaloberst]

North Africa, immediately. If they could have done it, they maybe could have shipped some over to the Far East, but that's debatable.

 

[Dave Howery]

The powerplant generated 825hp which allowed a speed of over 20mph.

that seems kinda slow, but I admit that I know nothing about how fast tanks could go in WW2... how does 20mph compare to the others?

 

[MattII]

North Africa seems unlikely to me considering the prototypes were still being tested in mid '42, so probably Italy.

that seems kinda slow, but I admit that I know nothing about how fast tanks could go in WW2... how does 20mph compare to the others?

The M4 could manage 25-30 mph apparently, but the Churchill only 15 mph, so 22 mph isn't too bad.

 

[Mekajiki]

Wiki says the Sherman, half the weight of the m6, did 25-30. Even the modern Abrams, the literally perfect tank, only does about 60 mph IIRC.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

That tank appears to be under armoured with 85mm when compared to the Churchill and if as posted it had reliability problems then they may not be issued at all and sent on to Russia instead.

 

[marathag]

That tank appears to be under armoured with 85mm when compared to the Churchill and if as posted it had reliability problems then they may not be issued at all and sent on to Russia instead.

Let us not compare a M6 of 1942 with a Churchill MkVII of 1944, ok?

M6A1 1942
Hull Front Upper 83mm@30°
Lower 102-79mm@0 to 60°
Sides Upper 44mm@10°
Lower 70mm@0°

Turret Gun Shield 102mm@0°
Front 83mm@7°
Sides/Rear 83mm@0°
22mph top speed

Churchill MkIII early production, pre-applique retrofit 1942
Hull Front Upper 89-176mm@0° (176mm around MG mount only)
Lower 38mm to 101mm
Hull Sides 70mm@0°

Turret Gun Shield 108mm@0°
Front 89mm@0°
Sides/Rear 76mm@0°
15mph top speed -but for reliability concerns, some had 4th gear disabled, so 10mph

Not seeing that much difference, really. If you can weld plates onto a Churchill, you can do the same to the M6 for up armoring

Now US reliability was measured against the Lee and Sherman, and the M6 would have been worse.

But worse than a Tiger or Ferdinand?

don't think so.

But that MkIII wasn't all that reliable at first either, and a report from January 15th,1942 had 42% of Mk I and Mk II being non- operational, and not till the later replacement of high Manganese Tracks later on did the reliability really get better, as part of the major rework that all Churchills went thru, ending in Fall 1942

 

[AdA]

M6 Firefly?

Initally the M6 are retained in Britain since the Sherman can outclass all existing German tanks in Africa. After the apperance of the F2 version of the PzIV they are planned to deploy to Africa, but this is canceled when it's understood that Torch will deal with Africa. First combat reports of the Tiger in Tunisia lead to all M6 in british hand being rearmed with 17pdrs and issued in special independent "tank hunter" troops at the disposal of the armoured division commanders. The few deployed to Italy prove they are in deed useful in that role and all are deployed in Normandy.
The most famous action by M6 Fireflies was their destruction of Michael Wittmann's Tiger unit when leading the advance of 7th Armoured Division into Villiers Bocage

Ok, I migh just have been poking the Tiger fans a bit on this one

 

[NothingNow]

That tank appears to be under armoured with 85mm when compared to the Churchill and if as posted it had reliability problems then they may not be issued at all and sent on to Russia instead.

I doubt the Russians would take them period, as the T-34 and Kv-1 were both much better than the M6 and weren't at the end of a long-ass supply chain.

Also, the Brits would probably want to ditch the 37mm Gun M6 for more 3" ammunition, or replace most of the 37mm ammunition anyway. Cutting it down to maybe 40-100 shells, instead of 202 shells.

 

[machine3589]

Here`s an interesting slide-show about the M6.

It would have been a disaster.

 

[AdA]

Regarding size, here's an interesting pic of a M6 btw a M3 Stuart and a M3 Lee. It predictably dwarves the Stuart, but compared to the Lee it's not the monster some assume when posting about it.

 

[AdA]

I doubt the Russians would take them period, as the T-34 and Kv-1 were both much better than the M6 and weren't at the end of a long-ass supply chain.

Also, the Brits would probably want to ditch the 37mm Gun M6 for more 3" ammunition, or replace most of the 37mm ammunition anyway. Cutting it down to maybe 40-100 shells, instead of 202 shells.

The T34 is not comparable to the M6. As for the KV-1, its highly debatable weather it was better than the M6.

 

[Deadmeat]

LOL go download and play WoT! then u too can see the blinding fast speed of the lumbering beast!

 

[KACKO]

I doubt the Russians would take them period, as the T-34 and Kv-1 were both much better than the M6 and weren't at the end of a long-ass supply chain.

Also, the Brits would probably want to ditch the 37mm Gun M6 for more 3" ammunition, or replace most of the 37mm ammunition anyway. Cutting it down to maybe 40-100 shells, instead of 202 shells.

Soviets took Valentines, Grants, Shermans, Stuarts., why they shouldn't take M6? Worst they will put them on some low intensity front.

 

[Hoist40]

The M-6 was not that slow (22 mph) compared to other tanks. It was faster then all the British Infantry Tanks, and equal to the Soviet KV-1. It was a couple of miles an hour slower then the Tiger I and II. It probably was not much slower then a late model Panzer IV with the long gun and extra armor.

Also its 3 inch gun was more powerful then the Soviet 76mm gun and nearly equal to the Soviet 85mm.

Edit, also the M6 has a more powerful engine then even the Tiger II.

 

[marathag]

Initally the M6 are retained in Britain since the Sherman can outclass all existing German tanks in Africa. After the apperance of the F2 version of the PzIV they are planned to deploy to Africa, but this is canceled when it's understood that Torch will deal with Africa. First combat reports of the Tiger in Tunisia lead to all M6 in british hand being rearmed with 32pdrs and issued in special independent "tank hunter" troops at the disposal of the armoured division commanders.

Fixed your post

With High velocity 105mm

EDIT: well, the T5E1 was actually a 39 pounder, firing an APBC round at 3000 ft/sec, so was a bit better than the 32 pounder, so just imagine the above with a slightly smaller turret

 

[AdA]

Fixed your post

With High velocity 105mm

EDIT: well, the T5E1 was actually a 39 pounder, firing an APBC round at 3000 ft/sec, so was a bit better than the 32 pounder, so just imagine the above with a slightly smaller turret

The 32pdr was not ready in time. The 17pdr was. The 3'' to 17pdr was done in the M10 and lead to a most succeful vehicle. It could probably be done in the M6 with minimal fuss.
Those M6A2E1 were at a point meant for combat deployment, but the extra weight had slowed the M6 down and they were not used.