In the beginning the Army created the tank and the infantry. And the tank was without form, and void; defenseless against infantry counterattacks. And the Spirit of the Army moved its pens upon the drawing board. And the Army said, let there be machine guns: and there were machine guns. And the Army saw the machine guns, and it was good; and the Army divided the machine guns from the infantry.
The bullet deflectors at 6:40 look as much like they are designed to protect the exhausts as anything else. Perhaps the idea of deflecting bullets into trenches was a secondary function.
One "feature" of the 37 mm gun was the ammo limitations. HE was only issued to artillery units. ?Tanks could only get the Armor piercing 37mm ammo. In north Africa, the 37MM on the M3 was stablized. Unfortunately the stablazer was classified stricter than the level of the tank gunners. Thus the gunners were not cleared to know about and use the stablizer on their tanks.
The T5 shows that the M4 Medium's hull, suspension and propulsion system were proven designs. The Sherman Legend was built on more than one lucky design.
Consider that, as a Machine Gun Carrier, M2 really rocks a paradigm. Ah, Universal "Bren" Carrier, we hardly knew ye. Eight machine guns. Armor good enough on the front of the hull and the gun mantlet, but vulnerable to T-Gewehr everywhere else. An era when man portable LATWS were all you needed to stop an armored onslaught. Wait . . . the more things change . . . Anyway, I'd buy one at auction simply for all those MGs. Seriously, though, I can see the M3 Medium hiding inside.
@@Zorro9129 Sorry - but I'm going to have to disagree. The US ordered the M2 into production in *August 1940,* with production of the 1000 tanks to continue to 1942. By 1940, Germany was in full production of the Pz III F/G/H (armed with a better gun and more armour than the M2), and the Pz IV E (again, armed with a larger gun and more armour than the M2). Meanwhile the British had the Matilda II, and the French had the SOMUA S35, H35/H39 and R35/R40 - all already in service and better tanks. America is _very_ lucky it did not share a land border with a hostile nation, as the state of it's armoured forces in 1940 was _woeful...._
@@matthewwadwell6100 The French tanks had one man turrets and awful hatch and vision device design. A lot of people praise them as top trumps seems to neglect ergonomics, but the Germans found an that although shells bounced off a lot of the time, return fire was slow and inaccurate most of the time as the French tanks were almost blind. The H35 and R35 had very different usage parameters, though.
@@wbertie2604 True - the french tanks had awful ergonomics. But my point was that the M2 was _incredibly_ obsolete as a tank even before it entered production.
@@matthewwadwell6100 it had a 37mm gun and 30 to 50mm of armour, which in 1939-41 was pretty typical of the period (Pz. III, British cruisers), certainly in 1940. It was behind the curve but not impossibly so.
US tank design in the 30-ies was almost, but not quite, as bad as British. Of course, the US Army had almost no R&D funds at the time, while the British did not plan to send an expeditionary froce to the Continent. The best tank designers at the time were the Czechs - with the TNHP (that became the Pz38(t) and the Russians. But they had unlimited funds.
In the beginning the Army created the tank and the infantry.
And the tank was without form, and void; defenseless against infantry counterattacks. And the Spirit of the Army moved its pens upon the drawing board.
And the Army said, let there be machine guns: and there were machine guns.
And the Army saw the machine guns, and it was good; and the Army divided the machine guns from the infantry.
Amen!
Honestly, bullet deflectors are pretty decent ideas for WW1 combat expectations
It was worth a try. Didn't work great, so they got rid of them.
Tankers: we've crossed the enemy lines. Fire the rearward facing machine guns.
Friendly infantry following the tanks: Please don't!
Is Taiwan a Different ........
th-cam.com/video/o31ttIgPOys/w-d-xo.html 🤔
The M2 is such an underrated tank, what a beauty. Gaze upon those machine guns!
I can imagine it now...
*Rolls foward*
GAZE UPON MY MACHINE GUNS!
All 14 of them, some of them in really awkward positions :D :D
Making Orks of the galaxy proud.
@@kitten-inside Dakka Dakka Dakka.
The bullet deflectors at 6:40 look as much like they are designed to protect the exhausts as anything else. Perhaps the idea of deflecting bullets into trenches was a secondary function.
One "feature" of the 37 mm gun was the ammo limitations. HE was only issued to artillery units. ?Tanks could only get the Armor piercing 37mm ammo. In north Africa, the 37MM on the M3 was stablized. Unfortunately the stablazer was classified stricter than the level of the tank gunners. Thus the gunners were not cleared to know about and use the stablizer on their tanks.
The T5 shows that the M4 Medium's hull, suspension and propulsion system were proven designs. The Sherman Legend was built on more than one lucky design.
Thanks!
I still hope to see the M2 Medium as a plastic kit some time.
They needed more machineguns.
I personally think there weren't enough machine guns
Not enough dakka
I mean look at that hull. We could add a few machine guns for the driver to use, and a few for the sides too
So the tanks were built with the Navies approach...
If there is an open space, there shouldn't be. Space is for guns.
Guns are good.
11:54 Rock island arsenal? is that where Gun Jesus is often appearing? Lol
Yes
As yes the 50 cal monster.
Don’t you mean the .30 cal monster?
@@a_random_tank_152mmera7 @BloodyCar wrong M2
@@Saturnus_Ouranos oh I see
@@sqooter2 I think you thought about M2 BMG
@@Saturnus_Ouranos i did
ah M2 the equivalent of american on the cult of machine gun
The holy machine gun of antioch
This tank is the physical manifestation of the second amendment right (sarcasm)
More dakka!
Hail the Omnissiah! He is the God in the Machine, the Source of All Knowledge.
M2: guns, guns, guns 😅
Consider that, as a Machine Gun Carrier, M2 really rocks a paradigm. Ah, Universal "Bren" Carrier, we hardly knew ye.
Eight machine guns. Armor good enough on the front of the hull and the gun mantlet, but vulnerable to T-Gewehr everywhere else. An era when man portable LATWS were all you needed to stop an armored onslaught. Wait . . . the more things change . . .
Anyway, I'd buy one at auction simply for all those MGs.
Seriously, though, I can see the M3 Medium hiding inside.
Wow - the tank that was obsolete before production even started! America is lucky that they developed a better tank before entering combat....
It wasn't much worse than other tanks in use at the time.
@@Zorro9129 Sorry - but I'm going to have to disagree.
The US ordered the M2 into production in *August 1940,* with production of the 1000 tanks to continue to 1942.
By 1940, Germany was in full production of the Pz III F/G/H (armed with a better gun and more armour than the M2), and the Pz IV E (again, armed with a larger gun and more armour than the M2).
Meanwhile the British had the Matilda II, and the French had the SOMUA S35, H35/H39 and R35/R40 - all already in service and better tanks.
America is _very_ lucky it did not share a land border with a hostile nation, as the state of it's armoured forces in 1940 was _woeful...._
@@matthewwadwell6100 The French tanks had one man turrets and awful hatch and vision device design. A lot of people praise them as top trumps seems to neglect ergonomics, but the Germans found an that although shells bounced off a lot of the time, return fire was slow and inaccurate most of the time as the French tanks were almost blind. The H35 and R35 had very different usage parameters, though.
@@wbertie2604 True - the french tanks had awful ergonomics. But my point was that the M2 was _incredibly_ obsolete as a tank even before it entered production.
@@matthewwadwell6100 it had a 37mm gun and 30 to 50mm of armour, which in 1939-41 was pretty typical of the period (Pz. III, British cruisers), certainly in 1940. It was behind the curve but not impossibly so.
US tank design in the 30-ies was almost, but not quite, as bad as British. Of course, the US Army had almost no R&D funds at the time, while the British did not plan to send an expeditionary froce to the Continent. The best tank designers at the time were the Czechs - with the TNHP (that became the Pz38(t) and the Russians. But they had unlimited funds.
There is some duplication of information, such as the engine data three times.
24:30 OMG WTAF?!?
Did you mean M48? (26:46)
👍
Patrick image. Explains Inbredistan for the last 200 years.