Understanding U.S. Tank Development

Understanding U.S. Tank Development
With Matthew Long
Part of our Tanks and Armoured Vehicles series
• Tanks and Armoured Veh...
Also Part of our Weapons of WWII series
• Weapons of WWII
Also part of our Allied Armoured Divisions in WWII series
• Allied Armoured Divisi...
This presentation will examine the design philosophy of U.S. armored vehicles as well as armored doctrine from the end of the First World War to the eve of the second. Primarily we will focus on disputing the myth that the United States appeared to be “behind the curve” regarding armored warfare development.
Matthew Long is a graduate student with Georgia State University focusing on the intersection of technology and culture in the 19th and 20th centuries. He is a former U.S. Army tank crewmember and is the host of Shot Trap, a KZbin series dedicated to examining the depiction of armored warfare on film. You can find him on Bluesky: @dr-robonator.bsky.social
You can become a KZbin Member and support us here / @ww2tv
You can become a Patron here / ww2tv
Please click subscribe for updates also "like" the video - it really helps!
Social Media links -
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
WW2TV Merchandise ww2tv.creator-...
WW2TV Bookshop - where you can purchase copies of books featured in my KZbin shows. Any book listed here comes with the personal recommendation of Paul Woodadge, the host of WW2TV. For full disclosure, if you do buy a book through a link from this page WW2TV will earn a commission.
UK - uk.bookshop.or...
USA - bookshop.org/s...
Patreon Brigadiers: Susan Yu, David Keahey, Tom Mullen and Jim Walsh
Become a WW2TV Brigadier and become part of this Hall of Fame
/ ww2tv

[@bryanb8740]

The evolution of doctrine (which seems it really didn’t gel until the US was neck deep in the war) is revealing. Also I now see where the Stuart and Sherman were conceived. Excellent! Thank you Matthew and Woody!

[@michaelinhouston9086]

I am only 30 minutes in and I feel compelled to say that this presentation is outstanding in every way - A+

[@arthurvasquez3994]

I just love these kind of World War 2 Documentaries keep them coming 👍🇺🇸

[@philbosworth3789]

What a great presentation! I really love technical stuff being discussed by someone who knows what they are talking about.

[@Na808Koa]

Had to split this wonderfully detailed presentation up and watch over a couple of days, but was well with the time to watch with Matthew putting on a cracking fact filled and engrossing delivery, thank you Woody.

[@PalleRasmussen]

This is a nice one. And what a glorious beard Matthew sports.

[@garyaugust1953]

Such an informative, brilliantly presented discussion by both of you. The information provided, the historical photographs, was just outstanding. Mathew will always be welcomed back by the sidebar gang

[@Chiller11]

That is without a doubt one of the most epic modern beards I have ever seen. Oh yeah it was an epic episode as well.

[@elmersalonga6424]

Jon Parshall (Naval/Pacific War) expert made a cracking talk about WW 2 tank production a few years back as well. Really enjoyed this one.👍

[@davidwatson8118]

As ex RAAC, this is an excellent presentation. Really enjoyed it.👍😎

[@FlytheW11216]

I thoroughly enjoyed this one! Matthew clearly knows his stuff and presents it well.

[@StevenHenry-h9g]

Many years ago I came across the memoir "Lieutenant Ramsey's War" by Ed Ramsey. Ramsey was a US Cavalryman in WWII, who was posted to the Philippines. He took part in the defense of Bataan, evaded capture after the surrender, and fought the rest of the war in command of a resistance cell on Luzon. His memoir is some pretty incredible stuff, and worth reading if you can track it down. Ramsey claims to have led the last mounted charge of the US Cavalry, at the village of Morong on January 16, 1942. His unit surprised a Japanese infantry force while the Japanese were halfway across a river. The cavalry charge caught the enemy completely by surprise, routed and scattered them. Then, a short while later, their horses were slaughtered to feed the starving troops on the peninsula. And that was pretty much the end of the mounted American cavalry.

[@buonafortuna8928]

Wow. Enjoyed that way more than I thought I would. Saw the title and thought "Humm nuts and bolts" - really wanted a "What became of the Brigadiers 2". Brilliant stuff Paul.

[@abrahamoyevaar2226]

As Salaam lads. Thank you Matthew and Woody for this technically detailed presentation. A fascinating topic well covered. Thanks again.

[@brianyee5504]

Again; great content that dove tailed in with my visit to Bovington. Thanks Woody!

[@drridiculouslyreanna]

Fantastic presentation!

[@roba4176]

keep up the great work everyone

[@jimwatts914]

Nice focus on the development and design of armor systems And equipment, and why professional soldier played the large role of ID-ing threats and opportunities. Well done Matt and Woody. Great to hear a presenter speak in proper American without an incomprehensible accent

[@dave3156]

Finally made one live for a change. What an effort changing from the original WW1 tanks to the ones we are familiar with in WW2. Quite a development cycle. Amazing with what the US ended up with considering the great depression and trying to develop a new tank. Thanks Matthew! Another good one Woody!

[@stevej8005]

Fascinating presentation from Matthew, really highlighted the developments in U.S technology, design, engineering and doctrine in the inter-war period.

[@sparkey6746]

Excellent analysis, thank you

[@anselmdanker9519]

Really outstanding presentation 😊 great work

[@Fulcrum205]

Great Show!

[@petervandyk7173]

In a word: brilliant! Hope you will find a valid reason to invite Matthew back on the show.

[@dannylong3590]

Hello Mathew Long I am Danny Long and was In The Army as well.

[@HG_NL]

Cool show!

[@azzaob510]

Another great show :)

[@johnlucas8479]

Thank you for a very interesting discussion of the development of tanks in the US. It would be interesting to timeline the US Development with UK, French Germany and USSR to see what was common and were the differences start appearing in design and doctrine. Well done Woody

[@elanvital9720]

I started really digging into French archives related to the ground forces and in particular tanks up to 1940, with some of their thinking being very apparent in writing. I hope one day someone can participate in a WW2TV video about the matter, because it's a much richer story than would be apparent at first.

[@donaldhill3823]

It always seemed odd that the Calvary morphed into Armor. The mission profile & general personality of those who typically joined the Calvary more closely matches that of Fighter Pilots. To me Armor at that time more closely resembled light field artillery units that were quickly moved around the battlefield as needed by the Infantry.

[@WW2TV]

Cavalry not Calvery

[@Ensign_Nemo]

@ 1:35:17 The Soviet Union had many more tanks than any other nation in 1941 but they were almost all obsolete designs. There were relatively few T-34 tanks in 1941. The US focused on growing and developing their industrial base rather than specializing in military production. The US had a huge peacetime economy and converted it to war production just before and right after Pearl Harbor, and this proved to be a winning strategy. Today China has the #1 manufacturing economy. The US is faring badly in updating and actually building new weapons such as ships and drones, when compared to China.

[@Fulcrum205]

This is a common myth. The US started gearing up for WW2 in the mid to late 1930s. The F6F Hellcat, Corsair, P-47, B-24and R2800 engine started in 1938. The P-38 and P-39 I. 1937. The B-17 started even earlier. The USN started converting 4 stacker destroyers to fast amphibious transports in 1938. Escort carriers of the Long Island and Avenger classes were laid down in 1939. The M3 Lee, that became the Sherman was in production by late 1940. Comparing WW2 to modern weapons development is inaccurate. GM or it's Chinese equivalent can't rapidly convert to build stealth fighters. The technological complexity between modern weapons and their nearest civilian equivalent is exponentially greater than in WW2

[@paulbrogger655]

"Calvary" vs. "cavalry” -- does this bother anyone else?

[@sk43999]

Yes, but it's no different from people who say "nucular" vs "nuclear". Annoying - yes. But the meaning (given the context) is unambiguous - let's move on, more important things to discuss.

[@davidwatson8118]

Accent.

[@michaelinhouston9086]

Now that you mention it, I recall hearing "calvary" in western movies and TV shows and in old Civil War movies. It is just another American linguistic peculiarity. I used to try to cordially correct people's pronunciation of words but I finally gave up as there is no way to do it where the person is not offended. Full disclosure: I pronounce the word "pretty" as "purdy" - that's my Texas drawl. lol

[@jeffbraaton4096]

Yeah as a Former Cav Tanker! L Trp 3/3 Armored CAVALRY Regiment Jan86-87. Calvary is where Jesus Christ was crucified and we in the Cavalry did that to our enemies!

[@steveschainost7590]

Every time he said 'Calvary' I flashed back to one of my grade school teachers who would admonish us boys for playing 'Calvary' during recess instead of 'Cavalry'.

[@michaelinhouston9086]

Kind of off topic - over the past 2 weeks I have heard 3 references to rabbit holes on 2 college basketball games and 1 TV sports talk show - obviously you have some American TV sports guys watching your channel - lol.

[@davidwatson8118]

If you have ever hunted wabbits, you will know, that warscally wabbits live in warrens, lots of tunnels going all over the place, hence the reference.😁

[@worldwartwoanalyzed7896]

I don't get Matt's point "That's not how strategic thinking works" re not having heavy tanks. They built the Sherman Jumbo and Pershing for that role. Prior to that they built a few hundred M6's and T23's, just couldn't make them actually work. The troops in the NWE Campaign were, by early 1945, requesting that ALL Sherman production be Jumbo's. So obviously heavy armor was valued, just too late to make much of a difference.

[@worldwartwoanalyzed7896]

And that's not to denigrate the Sherman, which was a very good medium tank. It's just to say that there was an unfilled niche role for heavies.

[@WW2TV]

Matthew was only talking about up to 1938/39 though when medium tanks were more in line with doctrine at that time

[@markcharlebois7129]

The US Army of WW2 needed an MBT and they would not receive anything in that like until arguably the M60.The Sherman was good for what it did when introduced in 1941: assist infantry and take on 1 on 1 the tanks of 1941. Yes upgraded all throughout the war, but the true potential of the Sherman was never realised. Even the Firefly which was good was a one trick pony as it was not modified to resemble an MBT, it was not equipped with HE rounds. The firepower the Sherman was looking for in US hands? The Pershing and the M46, M47 and M48 received. All but the M48 were unreliable mechanically in comparison to Sherman. The armor? Sure Jumbo received it but it only a couple hundred were made. The armor the Sherman would have needed for production, the M48 received. The Sherman was the "stopgap solution" and the ordnance and armoured departments never really thought about it. Devers and McNair

[@worldwartwoanalyzed7896]

@ ah that makes sense

[@coachhannah2403]

Cite for the Jumbo request?

[@michaelburke5907]

Drives me crazy...CALVARY is a mountain in the Holy Land. CAVALRY is a mounted force. This guy is an academic he he still pronounces it wrong!!!

[@billenright2788]

killer show. the speed of devel. was like that of airplanes: SCARY fast. in 25yrs they went from spindly death traps to the T-34/Panther/etc. I knew nothing about these early things.

[@steveschainost7590]

You bet. Think about it. . .over the same period the world went from powered box kites to the jet engine.