Tips

Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 4, 2013

American Prototype Light Tanks Post-WWII Part 1: The T37, T49, and the L Series

 Author: Priory_of_Sion

Most of us here should know about the M24 Chaffee, M41 Walker Bulldog and the M551 Sheridan however few know about how the US Army got carried away in designing light tanks in this time frame of the late 1940s to the mid 1950s.


First off I would like to discuss the “missing link” between the M24 and the M41, the T37. Most of you should know a little about the T37 by WoT. It is the source for the M24's upgraded turret, even though it is too large for the Chaffee's turret ring(the US did have plans to enlarge the T24/M24 turret ring though which would allow the T37's turret).

Now to discuss the T37. In Jan. 1945 the Army Ground Forces Equipment Review Board and the War Dept. Equipment Review Board both decided the M24 wasn't fit. They proposed a 25t vehicle that had superior firepower & mobility compared to the Chaffee. They called it the T37.

Posted Image

Development began in 1946 and a pilot was produced in 1949. The T37 was split into 3 “phases”. Phase I was the turret and gun combination we see on the Chaffee in WoT. Phase II was mounted with a deadlier T91 76 mm gun(same gun as on the T71 LT) with a Vickers fire control system and became redesignated the T41 (direct precursor to the M41). Phase III was an autoloading variant which wasn't built due to the Korean War. Some more advanced features of the T37 such as the rangefinders, the FCS and autoloaders were never fully developed due to the war in Korea. In 1950 orders were given to Cadillac to produce 100 T41E1s which became the famed M41 Walker Bulldog.


The M41 Walker Bulldog itself was planned to be up-gunned before it was planned to be replaced. The T49 project saw the T41(the M41's prototype) transform into a 90 mm smooth bore wielding vehicle with a punch. This project was started in Jan. of 1950 to make sure the T41/M41 had enough firepower to deal with heavily armored Soviet Vehicles such as the IS series, since the 76 mm gun was perfect against T-34s.

The project was given the name T49. The gun was a low pressure weapon that fired fin-stabilized shaped charges. Very shallow rifling was added. The weapon was called the T132E1. These guns fired 3 shell types: HEP(High Explosive Plastic), HEAT, and HE. This was mounted in a new turret design.

Two T49s were shipped in May, 1954 to Aberdeen and remained there for a little over a year in tests. It was found satisfactory but the gun limited the types of ammo available. It was also deemed by the US to not be worth the time to develop. Speed was also decreased from the M41.

Posted Image

Another up-gunning project for the M41 Walker Bulldog is likely to appear in WoT, this was a proposal by Cadillac to mount the M41 90 mm gun in the Bulldog in 1956. Expect this as the top gun. I might delve further into the M41 Walker Bulldog's development and history later on.

Posted Image

 
In the beginning of the M41's production the US saw it as an interim design and immediate began programs to replace it.

A design from the Detroit Arsenal was the first of many proposals/prototypes. It was a 17 ton vehicle(as seen below) that had the same 76 mm gun as the M41. With a rear turreted design this proposal led the way for the L series of proposals. These proposals were created during the 1st Questionmark conference in April of 1952. I personally find the rear mount odd in American tanks due to the decrease in gun depression that goes with it, however they still seem to retain some of that comfort we all associate with American tanks. I would imagine -8 depression would be possible.
Posted Image

L-1 had the same 76 mm gun and was the basic 17t design, varying little from the Detroit Arsenal 17t tank, it had ~250 hp engine. The L-2 was a variant using a larger T139 90 mm gun.

Posted Image

The L-3 and L-4 had a similar layout but the hull was slightly different. Both used the T139 gun. A more powerful 440 hp engine was planned. Armor for the L-3 was the same as the M41. The L-4 had double those values.
Posted Image

The L-5 and L-6 were T140 105 mm armed tanks. They had the same engine and armor as the L-3. A larger turret rings were used to accommodate the large T140 gun. Warning: This design is fugly.
Posted Image

The Last of the L Series of vehicles to be proposed at the Questionmark Conference was the L-7. The L-7 was armed with the 76mm gun T91E3 in an oscillating turret. It weighed ~17 tons and, like most of the other concepts, its armor was equivalent to the M41's. It used the ~250 hp engine found on the L-1 and L-2. The L-7 was equipped with an autoloader.

Posted Image

All in all the L Series was quite experimental. All had frontal engines and drives for the sake of crew protection. The front drive also allowed the vehicles to be shorter than rear drive designs. A unique features of the L Series were that external fuel were easily dropped in case of emergency, a grill system protected against napalm attacks and a .50 caliber MG was proposed which is eerily similar to the StG 44 Krummlauf was to be fitted in the turret.
Posted Image

Do I expect these tanks in WoT? Well the T37 should be a tier 6 between the M24 and M41 in the future IMO; I have doubts it will though since it is very much like the Walker Bulldog. The T49 is tricky because of the smooth bore issue, I would doubt it will be in WoT unless they allow smooth bore guns. The L Series of vehicles should be in WoT too. I would like to think they would be good tier 6, 7 and possible tier 8 lights. Hope you'll enjoyed it and by the way there is a lot more US light tank prototypes to come among other things.


Source of information: Sheridan: A History of the American Light Tank vol. 2 by R. P. Hunnicutt.

29 comments:

  1. I'll answer any questions you have concerning the vehicles in the post above.

    ReplyDelete
  2. this blog is becoming more and more interesting to watch.

    keep up the good work, guys!

    ReplyDelete
  3. So the L5/6 thing. How exactly would that function in a combat situation? Ligth tanks usually rely on mobility to stay alive but that thing looks waaaay too small for the gun it's packing, I imagine it would have trouble firing it unless completely stationary and possibly braced so it doesn't tip over.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The L-5 and L-6 would likely function as longer range fire support than close range combat/recon. The overall weight for the L-5 and L-6 were quite heavy as well (26 and 30t each) so they aren't the smallest vehicles. I have to same instinct telling me the L-5 and L-6 were not designed to be fire-on-the-move gun platforms.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like the L-7, it looks like a mini BatChat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It also look an awful lot like the T71 we have in-game. :/

      (Captain Obvious, signing off)

      Delete
    2. In-game T71 rather looks like L-7, than the original model of it. Pasholok and Co. mixed up sht as usual :S At least we know where they got the idea...

      Wieros (EU)

      Delete
    3. More like the current T71 is an elaboration upon the first of the two (rather "thereabouts") concept drawings above, unless it's based on something more detailed ofc. No idea how *accurate* it is, but it looks sensible enough at least.

      Delete
  6. US Steel- SUPERIOR COMFORT!!

    I started stockpiling XP on the Chaffee a while ago, I've reamed of getting a Walker Bulldog ever since I first heard about it over a year ago.

    The smoothbore would sorta break WG's previous technological hard limit, but I'm sure they won't mind adding the 90mm M3 or something instead- I'm guessing it's not really plausible/ practical on a realistic scale, but TBH, we already have the insanely front heavy Russian TDs (ISU-152, Obj 704), the overloaded Pz IV Schmalturm, and Brit tanks with guns that would never fit in the turret (Cromwell/ Churchills with high-velocity 75/ 76mm guns).

    -Platypusbill

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ISU-152 was trialed with BL-10, problem was not front overloading, but manevarability in close terrain with such long gun.

      Delete
    2. That's why I said

      -Platypusbill

      Delete
    3. Wat, the blog somehow screwed up the comment :/ Anyway, meant to say "impractical"

      -Platypusbill

      Delete
    4. No, anon you said that: " we already have the insanely front heavy Russian TDs" which is not same.
      Same problems with manuevarability IRL plagued every front superstucture TD BTW.
      And you people wanted "Crocodil" with 7m barrel overhang.
      Fanboys at best.

      Delete
  7. 1) Brice, do you have a blog respectively a link where where we can read more of your articles?

    2) Silent, how about a section where you show links to wot/tank blogs you like? The blogs of your guest/co-authors for instance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yea, was thinking about that too. I'll compile some stuff

      Delete
    2. This particular article (I think) is something he's posted on the WoT Forum. If you want to find other stuff from him your best bet would be to look on the WoT NA forum profile for him and sort through the topics he's made.

      Delete
  8. "The font drive also allowed the vehicles to be shorter than rear drive design"

    Should say front, not font.

    /nitpick

    -ApplesauceBandit

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Done

      @G_ziz
      I don't have a personal blog and would like to stay just on FTR for now.

      Delete
    2. About the blog, that's fine of course, I was also wondering if you had a blog just because I discovered EnsignExpendable's one since he started writing there and it's like a mine of infos.

      Delete
  9. L-7 looks like a cross breed over the Indien Panzer's / T71 hull with the BatChat's turret ^^

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe that SerB has stated that the M5 Stuart and the M24 Chaffee are due to be up-tiered in the same manner as the VK 1602(D) and the VK 2801(K). Going by this, we are likely to see the M3A3 Stuart which has been in a leaked garage icon collection.

    So:

    [T2] M2 light
    [T3] M3A1 Stuart
    [T4] M3A3 Stuart
    [T5] M5 Stuart
    [T6] M24 Chaffee
    [T7] T37
    [T8] M41 Walker-Bulldog
    (and my postulation)
    [T9] T42 (Just a guess; the chassis is already modeled and it fits a statement by Storm in which he says the he believes the M47 to be T9.5 material. This fits with the T42's strong statistical similarities to the M47.)
    [T10] T95E2

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't see a way that the M5 gets upped to tier 5 without adding a significantly better gun option.
      Chaffee @ tier 5 (minus bobble-head turret & gun)
      T37 @ tier 6
      M41 Walker Bulldog @ tier 7

      heard that T92 light tank was coming...maybe that @ tier 8

      -Griff

      Delete
    2. You forgot the epic T92!!

      Delete
    3. Given that the scout matchmaking gets reduced in the same process, the M5 would go to Tier 5 but not sdee any higher tier battles than currently.

      Delete
    4. The T42 is very similar to the T69. The main difference is that it don't have a casette loader like the T69. Expect it to be tier 8 leading to the T54E2.

      Zee

      Delete
    5. Don't forget that tree has to include some other things like "Sherman Improved" and such.

      Delete
  11. HEP(High Explosive Plastic)

    Can we get some further info on this? Or maybe an article about shell types with some video's or something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HEP = HESH, it's just the American name for the shell type

      Delete
  12. The L7 looks really, really uncomfortable

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.