220 total hp on the twin engined M24), which provided a favorable 21.5 hp/ton (vs 16 hp/ton). To keep mobility high, the AOS 895-3 6-cylinder gasoline engine was now rated at a comfortable 500 hp (vs. If you spot anything out of place, please let us know! Hello dear reader! This article is in need of some care and attention and may contain errors or inaccuracies. The armor was similar to the M24 Chaffee at 1.5 in (38 mm) at the thickest (the glacis plate and turret mantlet). Armour still relied on welded RHA sloped plates, with storage sponson boxes for tooling, with vertical openings. The turret was enlarged, with a turret ring 2 inches (50 cm) wider, requiring a longer hull, (19.9 ft vs 16.06 ft or 5.9 m vs. This was the final production prototype, and Cadillac’s Cleveland Tank Plant (which already had experience producing the former M5 and M24 light tanks) was chosen for the first batch in 1952.Ĭompared to M24 Chaffee, the M41 was a much bigger tank, a direct consequence of the main gun’s breech block length. Work on a longer barrel was accompanied by a more efficient rangefinder, which was deemed in 1949 too ambitious for such tank class and downgraded on the next T41 prototype. At the same time, a replacement for the late WW2 standard light tank, the M24 Chaffee, was started in 1947 with research on the T37 to fit a more efficient armament to deal with armor.Īdded to this was chosen to make the new model air-transportable for fast deployment into enemy territory since reconnaissance was still the main duty for light tanks. This was a new classification between the heavy (120 mm gun), medium (90 mm), and light tank (76 mm), according to their main armament. On November, 7, 1950, the US Ordnance Committee Minutes (OCM) published the #33476 item. Light Tank – 5,500 Built Development history
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |