Jump to content


M6A2E1 summarized overview


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

shapeshifter #1 Posted Mar 31 2014 - 14:23

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17542 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

M6A2E1

 

Size/Scale issues

 

Some of the more noticeable discrepancies in the model.

 

Gun mantlet appears to be much smaller, both in height and width. It can be seen in the image to reach the very bottom of the turret in the area where it curves into the splash guard.You can also see how the turret sides seem to slope in more as they reach the rear compared to in game.


 

 

Height of the tank appears to be much larger. The Tiger was 3.7 meters wide. so if we flip it on it's side to compare to the 3.47 meter tall M6A2E1



 


Length and size of turret and hull appears to be off. Hunnicutt gives the length of the T1E2 tank minus the gun as 285 inches or 7.23900 meters. The Official T14 Aberdeen testing report makes mention of the length of the T1E2 hull as 277 inches and or 7.0358 meters long. The other models are marked as slightly longer only due to the total length including the rear storage boxes.But the basic hull length minus the boxes should roughly be the same.




 Rear bustle of turret and it's details can be seen well in this large image.Including the splash guard around the turret base

Spoiler

 

Comparing the above with the following you can see how the rear of the turret extends past the hull front in this position yet in the image above it does not appear to (Lighting in the image may make it appear this way)

 

 

 

Model errors

 

The M6A2E1 was built on a T1E1 hull. This was the electric drive version of the M6. In game the hull is using a slightly modified standard M6 hull, but this is incorrect. The very Bottom line drawing of the T1E1 hull shows what the M6A2E1 hull top should look like in game for the engine deck under the turret and in terms of filler caps, vents etc.

 

 

Also the final transmission drive at the bottom rear was quite different in shape between models.
 

T1E1(M6A2)

http://i.imgur.com/BgLvgQM.jpg

M6/M6A1

http://i.imgur.com/Dxztatp.jpg


The Hull hatches have large hinges, for some reason they are modeled as view ports.

 

 

 

Armor

 

Many works follow and use Hunnicutt as a source when listing specifications for the M6 series of tanks. While an excellent source it is still possible to find some errors in his works on a variety of subjects.

To give a differing perspective here are some other sources that contradict his listed figures, including the official U.S. Army tech manual for the M6 model tank.

 

History of the Heavy tank M6

 

T1 heavy tank (prototype/wooden mockup) Gives the following for hull:

 

Front: 76.2mm (Minimum)

Sides: 63.5mm

Rear: 63.5mm

 

T1E2 (production M6) Gives the following for hull:

 

Front: 127mm basis

Sides: 63.5mm forward of the engine bulkhead.

Sides: 50.8mm rear of the engine bulkhead.

Rear: 50.8mm


History of the M6A2E1 heavy tank

 

Gives the following for hull:

 

Front: 191mm basis

Sides: 66.67mm

Rear: 50.8mm

 

First Report on T1E2, Aberdeen Proving Grounds

 

Gives the following for hull:

 

Front: 127mm  basis

Sides: 63.5mm forward of the engine bulkhead.

Sides: 50.8mm rear of the engine bulkhead.

Rear: 50.8mm

 

Record of army ordnance research and development Heavy tanks and Assault tanks.

 

T1E1 (M6A2)

 

Front: 95.25mm (Or 82.55mm hard to tell if it's 3 1/4 " or 3 3/4 ")

Sides: 63.5mm forward of the engine bulkhead.

Sides: 50.8mm rear of the engine bulkhead.

Rear: 50.8mm

 

TM 927-1

 

Gives the following for the M6/M6A1 series of tanks on the Hull:

 

Front: 92.075mm

Sides: 52.3875mm forward of the engine bulkhead.

Sides: 41.275mm rear of the engine bulkhead.

Rear: 46.0375mm

 

AFV Weapons profile no. 32

 

Gives the following for the T1/M6 series of tanks on the Hull:

 

Front: 76.2mm

Sides: 63.5mm

Rear: 63.5mm

 

US Military Tracked Vehicles

 

For the T1E2 gives the following on the Hull:

 

Front: 76.2mm

Sides: 63.5 to 50.8mm

Rear: 50.8mm

 

Tank Data, Aberdeen Proving Grounds

 

For the M6A2 (T1E1) gives the following for hull:

 

Front: 127mm

Sides 63.5mm to 50.8mm

 

Development of armored vehicles Volume 1. AGF Board no 2.

 

An official publication for army use while not giving great detail and just a general overview.

 

 

Bellona MVP series 19

 

 

 

Turret

Metallurgical Examination of Sections from the Cast Armor Turret made by Continental Foundry and Machine Company and two Trunnion Pins from a Heavy Tank M6A2E1

 

Another area Hunnicutt may have an error is the listed turret specs. He has them as 191/89/208 and a 191mm mantlet. but a recent document that the Chieftain asked to be scanned on DTIC throws some doubt onto these totals.

 

The report states that a large curved section of the turret armor was tested, with a thickness of 9" (228.6mm) leading to 4 1/2" (114.3mm) Clearly the turret had much higher armor then stated in Firepower. The location is not given sadly on said armor section but considering it curves the most likely location would be from the front leading towards the sides.

 

A section of the mantlet was tested from the outside edge as well and was found to have a thickness of 3 1/2" (88.9mm) to  2"(50.8mm) more then likely from the very top or bottom where the thickness would tapper off.

 

With a 228mm turret front a point should be made that the mantlet may have in fact been thicker then 191mm at it's highest point. While not unheard of, it is unusual to have a thinner gun shield then turret front.

 

A very large turret ring/splash guard can be seen extending above the hull in many pictures of the M6A2E1, this would be more of a strong spot instead of a weakspot as it is in game.

 

Tracks

 

Track setup was quite complicated behind that 25mm armor skirt. It had a number of armored compartments to house gear such as fire fighting equipment for example. These compartments extended almost as high as the armored skirting and almost as low as the hull bottom. One would imagine they would provide more then 20mm of track armor all told even with the skirt removed, a large number of armored compartments, thick large support struts to help hold up the nearly 2000LB skirt and very little open space with a double track/bogie design making them twice as thick as say the M4 shermans tracks.

 


 

 

Speed


Listed as having a top speed of 29 kph, this was both forward and reverse due to the nature of the electric drive the T1E1 hull used.

Transmission: Electric drive with speed infinitely variable both forward and reverse.

 

Engine

 

The engine used in game is incorrect, at least in name.

 

T1 and M6 can use the following:
Wright G200 M795C9GC1: 700hp (T1 only)
Wright G2X   M781C9GC1: 825hp
Wright G200 M781C9GC1: 960hp
M6A2E1 uses the Wright G200 M781C9GC5: 960hp

 

In reality the M6A2E1 used the M795C9GC1 engine.

 

 

 

The Planned M6A2E1

 

When they proposed building the M6A2E1 they drew up plans that would have included at least 7.5" of frontal armor (191mm) to do this they would convert already built T1E1 hulls by welding on plates of extra armor over the front. This never happened the build order was tossed and in the end all they had were two M6A2E1 turrets mounted to a standard T1E1 hull with no uparmoring of any kind on the hull. The only change was the removal of the hull machine gun with a temporary cover put in place to cover the opening. In game we have the looks of what was built, but the specs of what was planned. It would be nice if the looks matched the specs.

 

Hunnicutt has a number of line drawings to show how the tank probably would have looked.

 

 

Resources:

 

images:

http://www.primeport...ndex.php?Page=1

http://svsm.org/gallery/m6

http://buickcity.blo...heavy-tank.html

 

Books:

R.P. Hunnicutt, Firepower a history of the American heavy tank

U.S. Army, TM 927-1 Technical manual Heavy tanks M6 and M6A1

U.S. Army, Development of armored vehicles Volume 1. AGF Board no 2.

U.S. Army, Tank Data, Aberdeen Proving Grounds

Robert J. Icks, Colonel AUS-Retired, AFV Weapons profile no. 32

Fred W. Crismon, US Military Tracked Vehicles

Bellona MVP series 19

 


Reports:

Metallurgical Examination of Sections from the Cast Armor Turret made by Continental Foundry and Machine Company and two Trunnion Pins from a Heavy Tank M6A2E1

http://www.dtic.mil/...tions/ADA954836

Assault Tank T14

http://www.dtic.mil/...tions/ADB965290

First Report on T1E2 Ordnance program 5535

Record of army ordnance research and development, Heavy tanks and Assault tanks

History of the Heavy Tank M6

https://www.dropbox....istory.pdf?dl=0

History of the M6A2E1

https://www.dropbox....M6A2E1.pdf?dl=0


Edited by shapeshifter, Sep 23 2014 - 15:48.


shapeshifter #2 Posted Mar 31 2014 - 14:24

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17542 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

 

Win Rate

 

The dotted line being the average win rate of the player, and the solid line the win rate while driving the M6A2E1.

 

 



RAF_Recovery #3 Posted Mar 31 2014 - 14:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11562 battles
  • 1,306
  • [R-A-F] R-A-F
  • Member since:
    07-28-2012
So what are you saying? Cause I'm not reading all that.

shapeshifter #4 Posted Mar 31 2014 - 14:41

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17542 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostRAF_Recovery, on Mar 31 2014 - 09:39, said:

So what are you saying? Cause I'm not reading all that.


TLDR: Lot's of errors on the model on a variety of areas including size. lots of evidence that armor was higher then in game. full speed reverse. Win rate bad.



Prodromus_Mortis #5 Posted Mar 31 2014 - 15:26

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9124 battles
  • 390
  • [ERAK] ERAK
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View Postshapeshifter, on Mar 31 2014 - 06:41, said:


TLDR: Lot's of errors on the model on a variety of areas including size. lots of evidence that armor was higher then in game. full speed reverse. Win rate bad.

 

 

lynnette already made a post about this.

 

http://forum.worldof...ix-in-some-way/



shapeshifter #6 Posted Mar 31 2014 - 15:36

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17542 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

View PostProdromus_Mortis, on Mar 31 2014 - 10:26, said:

 

 

lynnette already made a post about this.

 

http://forum.worldof...ix-in-some-way/


Yes a post with information I collected and spread out over many posts, this helps condense it into one post for easier viewing so it's not 10+ pages with bits and pieces posted throughout instead of the first post.



Prodromus_Mortis #7 Posted Mar 31 2014 - 15:41

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 9124 battles
  • 390
  • [ERAK] ERAK
  • Member since:
    02-01-2012

View Postshapeshifter, on Mar 31 2014 - 07:36, said:


Yes a post with information I collected and spread out over many posts, this helps condense it into one post for easier viewing so it's not 10+ pages with bits and pieces posted throughout instead of the first post.

 

ah ok, well be happy because apparently WG devs have listened to our pleas :D



Lynnette_JJW #8 Posted Apr 01 2014 - 00:43

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 6413 battles
  • 371
  • [SDGA] SDGA
  • Member since:
    03-22-2011

View PostProdromus_Mortis, on Mar 31 2014 - 16:41, said:

 

ah ok, well be happy because apparently WG devs have listened to our pleas :D

 

ya. i posted bits and peaces of what it should be like. but most of it was comparing in game statistics and how bad they go up against other tanks. all Shapeshifter is doing is bringing the more historical info to the community... and eyes of developers. sense a talk with a WG developer on the RU server. he (the developer) states that there was too little actual information and too much emotion - this saying as in too much comparing tanks and too much of what we want to see. the dev asked that we present the info on what is what with as little personal ideals to what the tank needs to be fixed with (like saying the gun needs a damage buff, or the tank needs pref MM, or the tank needs a tier drop and that sorta stuff. is what he didnt want to see)


Edited by Lynnette_JJW, Apr 01 2014 - 00:45.


amade #9 Posted Apr 03 2014 - 00:30

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12452 battles
  • 2,492
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010
Good job consolidating all that info! Hope WG will give it due consideration and result in an update to one of my favourite tanks in the near future :-)

shapeshifter #10 Posted Apr 16 2014 - 03:14

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17542 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

One other way they could balance and have it be slightly more bearable to be in tier 10 battles, is buffing the gun.

 

http://www.dtic.mil/...tions/AD0390746

 

T182 AP round for the 105mm T140 gun (Which was basically just a reworked T5E1/2 105mm) was tested in the T5E1/2 105mm guns.

 

It did 5" @ 55 deg at 1000 yards. (127mm at 55 deg at 914 meters)

 

 

An example being the T54E1 which is currently using the T140 gun and that ammo. It gets 210mm of penetration in game and 255mm with it's gold ammo.



ColinP #11 Posted Apr 26 2014 - 05:22

    Sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 16611 battles
  • 127
  • [CGN] CGN
  • Member since:
    10-02-2010

 

One thing I wished they would do to the model is place vision blocks on the TC hatch, there is not enough of them and we can assume this tank had it made it's way to production would have had more vision blocks. They could use a TC hatch from other US tank. I got mine in the pre-release package and still play it, 649 battles with it and 47% win rate.



shapeshifter #12 Posted Jul 16 2014 - 05:03

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17542 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

The line drawings show it as having vision blocks in the commanders hatch, the real photos aren't detailed enough to make them out.

 

 



shapeshifter #13 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 17:51

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17542 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

- M6A2E1 “Alien” will be buffed a bit

 

http://ftr.wot-news....7/big-storm-qa/



Duqe #14 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 19:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 18131 battles
  • 5,165
  • [TDC-H] TDC-H
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View Postshapeshifter, on Mar 31 2014 - 15:41, said:


TLDR: Lot's of errors on the model on a variety of areas including size. lots of evidence that armor was higher then in game. full speed reverse. Win rate bad.

 

Well, you fought so hard to keep it exclusive to just you folks, denying all other players on the NA server the chance of owning one themselves.

 

As a result, you're stuck with a tank that has a sample size too small for Wargaming to even consider or bother updating the tank. So, choke On your damn Mutant Six, if you're going to relish in my inability to own one, I'm going to relish in seeing you suffer under it being historically inaccurate and functionally useless. Eye for an eye, after all.

 

Sincerely,

 

Every damn World of Tanks tank collector, ever.

 

EDIT: Not a damn given about your neg reps. Your selfish greed is so very evident by the fact you went after Wargaming, and did so rather hardcore, once they released it in the shop once. I sincerely hope the tank somehow becomes involved in sapping all the fun out of the game for you. I don't care how or for how long, permanently is fine.

 

If you think I'm being too serious about this? Hah, yeah. Almost half as serious as a bunch of luck-stricken individuals that want their cake but not letting anyone else have any?



amade #15 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 23:20

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12452 battles
  • 2,492
  • Member since:
    07-16-2010

Someone is very bitter from holding a grudge several years long.

 

And thanks for the buff, WG! I sincerely hope it doesn't cause further bitterness for those who don't own it. :trollface:



Duqe #16 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 23:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 18131 battles
  • 5,165
  • [TDC-H] TDC-H
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View Postamade, on Jul 18 2014 - 00:20, said:

Someone is very bitter from holding a grudge several years long.

 

And thanks for the buff, WG! I sincerely hope it doesn't cause further bitterness for those who don't own it. :trollface:

 

Of course. I collect rare tanks. I have a KV-5, a Type 59, a Type 62, a Panzerkampfwagen H35, S35, and a B2... even a SU-85I, KV-220 and the holy grail that is the Panzerkampfwagen IV Hydrostat (no Panzerkampfwagen II J or BT-SV yet, but I'm looking). So then why wouldn't I be mad when my quest to collect all tanks is completely undermined by these A-32, Panzerkampfwagen IV/V, and M6A2E1 owners?

 

As far as I'm concerned, people like shapeshifter are worse than troll platoons and team killers. Those bother me just for the length of one battle, but them boycotting the availability of these tanks? That affects me for the entire duration I'm playing World of Tanks.



Non_Serious_Player #17 Posted Jul 17 2014 - 23:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 19656 battles
  • 4,482
  • Member since:
    07-22-2012
^ ebay you will find what you look for.

shapeshifter #18 Posted Jul 18 2014 - 01:30

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17542 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010
The only thing I have fought for is getting them rebalanced by doing research and the like on the tanks and presenting that to WG and the community. If you want to cry about about the ability to buy the tank take it to http://forum.worldof...-master-thread/ or create your own topic.

shapeshifter #19 Posted Jul 18 2014 - 02:59

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 17542 battles
  • 1,993
  • Member since:
    09-11-2010

http://ftr.wot-news....7/17/17-7-2014/

- M6A2E1 “Alien” will be buffed soon



Non_Serious_Player #20 Posted Jul 18 2014 - 03:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 19656 battles
  • 4,482
  • Member since:
    07-22-2012
^ its a mutant.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users