Figure 1.--The U.S. Army developed a tactical doctrune of mobility, but commanders had no real opportunity to try them out with large forces as the before the War, the Army was so small and poorly equipped. Only after the peace-time draft was instituted could the Arny begin to build substantial units. Manuvers were held in northern Louisiana to the a mazement of the local population like the little boy here (August-September 1941). Can you imagine growing up in a quiet Alabama community and all of audn seeing tanks in your back yard. This was the only time that many of America's best known commanders had the opportunity to test their ideas before America was drawn into the War. Here is M-2 Stuart Light Tank. By the time America entered the War, the M-3 Stuart was available, but soon relgated for training, although some 50 were used for good affct by the Marines on Guadalcanal nd other South Pacific campaigns. .

Developing effective tanks even with America's industrial capacity proved to be a challenge, primarily because so little work was done before the War. And American arms designers did not keep up with the advances being amde on the Eastern Front. As a result, the American tabks proved very effectiv in North Africa (1942-43), but badly outclassed by the time that the Allies landed in Normandy (1944). The M-2 Stuart was comoarable to the German Mark II panzers that had pushed into Czechoslovakia and Poland (1939). It was obsolete compared to the German and Soviet tanks fighting it out on the Eastern Front (1941). The M-2 was relegated for training purposes by the time America entered the War, although some 50 were used on Guadalcanal. The M-3 Grant was rushed into production before the United States had mastered turrat technology. Even so it helped the British at a crucial point in the Western Desert. The Germans had far better tanks, but the Afrika Korps was a low priority and was on the end of a very long and vulnerable supply line. The war was being settled on the Eastern Front which had the priority in allocation of resources. And the British were able to inderdict substantial part of what was sent to the Afrika Korps. The backbone of American armored forces during the War was the M-4 Sherman. It is unclear to what extent American tank designers managed or even tried to get Soviet or German technology. Even French technology available before 1940 would have been helpful. And of course the British were building tanks with modern features. Even a photograph of Soviet or German tanks should have given American tank designers clues. The high profile of the Sherman was one of its worst features. Designers were also working on the larger and heavier M-26 Pershing. Appararently the simplicity of the M-4 and the ability to begin production sooner won out. The Americans had high hopes for the M-4 Sherman, but it proved to be very vulnerable because of relatively thin armor and had an underpowered 75/76-mm gun with which to hit back. It is unclear why the United States did not build a more effective tank and was so slow to introduce an improved version. The Sherman had its assessts. It was highly mobile and fast. And it was was produced in great quantity. Pitted against the formidable German armor, the Americans had to develop armored tactics to play upon the Sherman's strong points. The U.S. Army at the start of the War planned to use the tank as infantry support and not for pitched armored battles with German tankers. Americans tankers proved to be quick learners, although many lost their lives in the process. The learning curve in the field, especially after Kaserine, was steep. And one great advantage the Americans had was the increasing Allied superority in the air. The Americans were able to develop tactics to deal with the superior German tanks, primarily based on mobility and numbers. the Shermans also had the advantage of close-air support and excellent artillery support. Only after realizing that it would take three or four Shermans destroyed to get one Panther did the United States rush development of the M-26 Pershing with a high-velocity 90-mm gun, but they did not arrive until after the Bulge. It was thus not until the final months of the War that American tankers had a tank that could slug it out with the German Panthers. (No tank could slug it out with the Tigers, but they were few in numbers and not very mobile.)

World War I

The tank was a brand new weapon which was developed by the British and French during World War I. The United States did not have a substantial arms industry at the time of World War I. When the United States declared war (April 1917), it did not have aank and when the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) reached France, the French provided a small number of tanks and aank unit commanded by Major Georege Patton was formed. Whille the United Stares did not vhave a large arms industry, it was the largest indistrial power in the world and began to mobilize its industry for arms production. One of the items was tanks. The United States did not hve time to design its own tank. Instead it began to produced the French Renault FT tank under licnse. The U.S. army ordered 4,400 FT's which would have significantly expanded the Allied tank force and would have given the AEF a powerful offensive punch. It demonstrates how had the War continued, America's industrial might would have come into play.

T Series

The United States used British and French tanks in World War I. After World War I, the United States made no effort to design and build a new tank. Some of the World War I tanks were maintained. The United States had begun building the British and French tanks thinking that the War would last longr than it did. There were proponnts within the Army for a modern armored force, but no desire by Congress to fund any major Army weapons programs. This finally began to change marginally in the late-1920s. The first American tank design other than Cavalry M-1 'Combat Car' was the T1, built by the Rock Island Arsenal with a wooden mockeup turret. The T stood for 'Tank'. The Rock Island Arsenl was the main American heavy arsenal responsible for 'specifications'. The T1 appeared (1927). It clearly was influenced by the British Vickers 6-ton-Mark E. The suspension, made of two quadruple bogies was clearly derived from the British tank. The T1 was followed by several variants, T2 prototype, and the the T2E1 with new VVSS suspensions and a modified, higher hull. The final version was the T1E6. These were all prototyoes, none of which were actully manufactured. When the U.S. Army deployed tanks to supress the Bonus Marchers, they used the World War I vinatge French-designed Renault tanks (1932). The T-series work, however, as well as the M-1 Combat Car would provided the basis for the M2 light tank.

M-2 Stuart Light Tank

The first M-2 Light Tank had a three-man crew. There was a one-man turret armed with a cal.50 (12.7 mm) and a coaxial 7.62 mm (0.3 in) Browning M1919 macjone gun. Another Browning was installed in the hull with a ball mount operated by the 'co-driver'. The hull general design, turret, tracks, VVSS suspension design with a front drive sprocket and rear idler were adopted from the erlier proptyps. The two bogies with vertical coil springs and two return roller were identical to the M-1 suspension, . This all saved time and cut costs, vital with the very limired appropriation provided by Congress. The engine was also the same as the M-1, it was a compact aviation radial Continental W-670. The top spped was about 35 mph. Internal modifications made it possible to enlarge the fuel tank capacity. The commander also served as the gunner and loader.

The M-3 Stuart

The U.S. Army began development of a light tank (late-1920s). They moved through a seies of protypes with gradually increased both armor and fire power. Productrion of the M-3 Stuat began (July 1940). America was not yet at war, bnut it shipped Stuarts to Britain under the Lend-Lease Act passed by Congress (March 1941). The Stuarts thuis first saw action with the British forces in North Africa (November 1941). The British assessment was that the Stuart was under-gunned, but they were pleased with its mechanical reliability and nicknamed it 'Honey'. The M-3 Stuart was comparable to the German Mark II Panzers that had pushed into Czechoslovakia and Poland (1939). It was obsolete compared to the advances occuring in armored vehicles in Europe. German and Soviet tanks began fighting it out on the Eastern Front (June 1941) and huge advances in armor occurred as a result of this horific crucible. Several upgrades were made to the M3 Stuart, but it was relegted for training purposes by the time America entered the War, although a handfull saw action in the Philipines when the Japanese invaded (December 1941). Upgrades resulted in the M3A1 which appeared (May 1942). The M3A1 first saw use on Guadalcanl (August 1942) and North Africa as part of Operation Torch (November 1942). Some 50 were used on Guadalcanal. The under-powered gun was not ideal, but it still proved useful in jungel terraine beginning at Aligtor Creek. It was all the Americans had in Morocco to use aginst Vich forces. (The initial run of Shemans had been shipped to the British Eigth Army.) Aginst the upgraded armor of German Panzers it was useless. One American tanker complained, "Popcorn balls thrown by Little Bo Peep would have been just as effective." After the Battle of Kasserine Pass (February 1943), the Stuart was no longer considerd a battle tank in Europe. It was relegated to the role of reconnaissance and flank security. The Stuarts continued to be utilized in Europe through the end of the war in yhosde roles, but its battle history was primarily in the Pacific. In th hungleds of New Guinea and the Solomons, the Stuart served an important role for infantry support. While its fire power was a limittion, the small Stuart proved more practical for jungle warfare than the much larger and heavier Sherman. It was replced by the more powerful Sherman (late-1943). By this time the fighting had lrgely moved from the South Pacific jungles to the islands of the Central Pacific. Notice the M-3 designation was used for both the Stuart and Grant. This was because the uugraded Stuart, Grant, and Shermans were all medium tanks.

The M-3 Grant

The M-3 Grant has to be the ugliest tank of World War II -- a kind of Rube Goldberg creation. The 30-ton Grant (originally called the Lee) was an incredible 10 feet tall (making it a vulnrable target. Not only it a towering target, the layout can onkly be called bizarre. The Grant had a hull with a 75-mm main gun stuck into a sponson on the right front hull. This meant the Grant gunners could only engage targets to their front. Higher up was a second turret that could traverse to fire at targets to the flanks and rear. But the turret only was armed with a light 37-mm gun. Most World War II tanks had a crew of five, but the two-gun Grant trquired a 7-man crew. The Grant wasn't what the U.S. Army wanted, but it was what it could get fast. The U.S. Armny when war broke out in Europe had only 400 tanks, mostly M-2 light tanks and a few M-2 mediums. They would have torn to pieces ny heavier armored and gunned Geramn tanks and anti-tank guns. And then the German Panzers smashed the French Army, thought to be the most powerful army in the world, in only a few weeks (May-June 1940). The U.S. Army realized that there was desperate needed for a modern tank. ThevFrench Army had been the major buklwark against the Fermans in World War I. Now the French were outbof the order of battle and the British might be next. Actually, the United States had already designed a better tank -- the M-4 Sherman. But this was a much more advanced tank and more difficult to manufacture. Detroit needed time to retool to manufacture Shermans. And after Pearl Harbor, America and Britain needed tanks right away. As a result, the Grant was cobbeled together and rushed into production while Detroit was working on turret manufacturing technology. As ungainly as it was, the Grant would play its part in the War. The British were locked in a fierce fight in the Western Desert with Rommel's Afrika Korps. The prize at stake was the vital Suez Canal and the oil fields of Iraq. The Germans had better tanks. British tanks had lighter gunned tanks with limited range. Fortunately, OKW was locked in a despeatte, life-and-death struggle with the Red Army io the Eastern Front. Fortunately for the British, the Afrika Korps was a low priority. And was on the end of a very long and vulnrable supply line. The war was being settled in the East which had the priority in allocation of resources. And the British were able to inderdict substantial part of what was sent to the Afrika Korps. As a result, the Grants deliverd to the British, despite their limitations, played an important role in the Western Desert. They had a 75 mm gun and armor piercing shells that caught Rommnel by surprise.

The M-4 Sherman

The backbone of American armored forces during the War was the M-4 Sherman. It is unclear to what extent American tank designers managed or even tried to get Soviet or German technology. Even French technology available before 1940 would have been helpful. And of course the British were building tanks with modern features. Even a photograph of Soviet or German tanks should have given American tank designers clues. The high profile of the Sherman was one of its worst features. Designers were also working on the larger and heavier M-26 Pershing. Appararently the simplicity of the M-4 and the ability to begin production sooner won out. The Americans had high hopes for the M-4 Sherman. And it proved very effective in North Africa where it only faced the German Mark IV Panzer. Based on this experience, the U.S. Army decided to focus on the M-4 rather than the more advanced M-26 Pershing. American arms developers semed to have paid no attention to the rapid advances in armor occurring on the Eastern Front. We know of no effort to meet with Soviet specialists or inspect the German tanks littering Eastern Front battlefields, esoecially Kursk. As a resukt, the M4 was essentially obsolete by the times the Allies landed in Normandy. The M4 proved to be very vulnerable because of relatively thin armor and had an underpowered 75/76-mm gun with which to hit back. It is unclear why the United States did not build a more effective tank and was so slow to introduce an improved version, but seems to have been primarily compalcency based on the North African experience. The Sherman had its advantageous features. It was highly mobile and fast. And it was was produced in great quantity. Pitted against the formidable German armor, however, the American tankers had to develop armored tactics to play upon the Sherman's strong points. The U.S. Army at the start of the War planned to use the tank as infantry support and not for pitched armored battles with German tankers. Americans tankers proved to be quick learners, although many lost their lives in the process. The learning curve in the field, especially after Kaserine, was steep. Tankers made a range of battlfield modifications. Thus we see M4s piled high with sand bags or extra metal sheets welded on. Some appear to have had some effectiveness, although actual tests were very limited. One great advantage the Americans had was the increasing Allied superority in the air. The Americans were able to develop tactics to deal with the superior German tanks, primarily based on mobility and numbers. the Shermans also had the advantage of close-air support and excellent artillery support.

The M-26 Pershing

It is unclear why the United States did not build a heavy tank that colud more effectivly take on the German Panzers. Or was so slow to introduce an improved version, but seems to have been primarily complacency based on the North African experience. The transport issue was another factor. The M-26 Pershing was a heavy tank, although on the smaller side. Some expets put it somewhere intermediate between the medium and heavy classification. It was named after General of the Armies John J. Pershing, who led the American Expeditionary Force in France during World War I. The M-26 Pershing was intended as a replacement for of the Medium M-4 Sherman. Delays in its development and improvements to the Sherman resulted in it not becoming available until the final months of the War in Europe. Only after realizing that it would take three ot four Shermans destroyed to get one Panther did the United States rush development of the M-26 Pershing with a high-velocity 90-mm gun, but they did not arrive until after the Bulge. It was thus not until the final months of the War that American tankers had a tank that could slug it out with the German Panthers. (No tank could slug it out with the Tigers, but they were few in numbers and not very mobile making them vulnerable to artillery and air attack as well as running out of fuel.) As a result, the Pershing did not have a major impact on the War. Only about 2,200 were actully built. It was not nearly as heavy as the German Tigers, meaning less well armored, but assesing firepower and mobility, made it competitive, especially with the Tiger I and Panther. [Hunnicutt. p. 200.] It only came into combat during the Invasion of Germany (1945), but was used extensively during the Korean War.

Tank Destroyers

The U.S. Army studied armored tactics, but mostly on a theoretical basis during the inter-War era. War games conducted in Louisiana used trucks matked as tanks (Summer 1941). The United States did not have a substantial armored force until well after The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, propelling America into the War (December 1941). Large-scale construction of American armor began only at this time. American armored concepts were strongly influenced by the German Blitzkrieg tactics and the fall of Fance (June 1940). American commanders as they prepared for war, expected to have to confront large-scale German Panzer attacks on relatively narrow fronts, which is how the Germans achieved their victory in France. The pre-war American assessment was that the Germans would be able tp break through anti-tank gun screens. And at the time, effective infantry anti-tank weapons did not exist. The U.S. Army decided that the answer to this threat was specialized anti-tank units �- Tank Destroyer (TD) battalions. The decesion was to make them highly mobile and thus capable of concentration. As the War progressed, American forces did not have to face such attacks. Such tank battles did take place, but in the East. There were two reasons that massive tank battles did not take place in the West. First, German armor was primarily deployed in the East, meaning the Western Alllies never had to face the full brunt of German armor. Second, the Western Allies achieved air superority in the major combat zones. The loss of air suoeriority made it impossible for the Germans to move and concentrate armor. Doing so, exposed them or more acurately their fuel and support vehicles to devestating air attacks. Only one TD battalion fought an engagement as anticipated -- the 601st at the Battle of El Guettar in Tunisia (February 1943). Soon after contact with the Germans, the U.S. Army tank concept began to shift toward an infantry support role. The United States deployed 80 TD battalions with 100,000 men. Each TD battalion had 36 self-propelled tank destroyers or towed guns. Unlike American armored units which were mostly equipped with M-4 Shermans, the TD battalions were equipped with a wide variety of TDs. The large numbers of TD types in contrast to the ubiquatous Shermans, is one reason why the TDs are not as well known as the other American tanks. This was in part because the German advances in armored technology meant that early American TDs were ineffective, espcially against frontal armor. The TDs were vital because the M-4 Shermans could not slug it out with the advanced German Panzers. The United States was able to gain battlefield success with a comnination of infantry tactics, larger numbers of Shermans (making flanking tactics possible), the TDs, effective artilery, and air support. The TD battalions attempted to gain flanking positions. This enabled them to hit the thiner side armor of the German Panzers. This also reduced the accuracy of the return fire. American units constantly were in the process of upgrading the TDs. Only the 90 mm gun of the M36 reaching the TD battalions in the last months of the War were able to penetrate the frontal armor of the advanced Panzers at long range. [Forty and Livesy, p. 392.]

Sources

Forty, George and Jack Livesy. eds. The Complete Guide to Tanks & Armoured Fighting Vehicles (London: Anness Publishing Ltd., 2006).

Hunnicutt, R. P. Pershing, A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series (Feist Publications: 1996).

Created: 3:35 AM 6/18/2013
Last updated: 10:46 AM 10/28/2019