Understanding U.S. Tank Development

[@michaelinhouston9086]

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

[@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

[@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.👍

[@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.

[@drridiculouslyreanna]

Fantastic presentation!

[@arthurvasquez3994]

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

[@davidwatson8118]

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

[@roba4176]

keep up the great work everyone

[@stevej8005]

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

[@brianyee5504]

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

[@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

[@Fulcrum205]

Great Show!

[@azzaob510]

Another great show :)

[@anselmdanker9519]

Really outstanding presentation 😊 great work

[@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!

[@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.

[@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

[@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!

[@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?

[@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.