Advertising Last completed movie pages
1942 American Car & Foundry M5 A1 'Stuart' 
Class: Others, Military armored vehicle — Model origin: 
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Minor action vehicle or used in only a short scene
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2006-12-06 01:12 |
 |
|
◊ 2006-12-06 01:18 |
M5A1 Stuart: http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m5stuart.html#M5A1 |
|
◊ 2006-12-06 01:41 |
It looks correct ..but any idea who made it.? (have to list it under some name.!) |
|
◊ 2006-12-06 02:50 |
From the site: * Cadillac Division of General Motors Corp. * General Motors Corp. * Massey Harris Co. |
|
◊ 2006-12-06 08:33 |
..Thank you.! .gif ";)") |
|
◊ 2006-12-06 10:40 |
Come on guys, you can't call this tank a "Cadillac". There should be a category (antp?) for military vehicles and equipment. This is a "Tank" and it's powered by twin Cadillac engines and transmissions (one per track). |
|
◊ 2006-12-06 12:14 |
But if it was made by Cadillac, why not list it as Cadillac? If we would list it as GM you would not have problems with that  |
|
◊ 2006-12-06 19:04 |
Would you list as a "Rolls Royce" an AEROPLANE powered by twin Rolls-Royce engines???. The "body" of this tank nwas NOT made by Cadillac, only the engines and transmissions. We should list such vehicles with a wording similar to what we use for stretched limousines and other professional cars: "Military vehicle (tank), powered by twin Cadillac motors and transmissions". |
|
◊ 2006-12-06 21:43 |
Well, I do not know how we should list that. It is Alexander that is more specialist than me into these military things and that started to use Cadillac name for some tanks, I think. -- Last edit: 2006-12-06 21:43:36 |
|
◊ 2006-12-06 23:26 |
It is the M5, probably version M5A1 (1942-44). This type was produced by 'Cadillac', 'Massey-Harris' and 'American Car & Foundry'. It was based on the M3 which was only produced by 'American Car & Foundry'. Therefore I would suggest to choose that name to keep the tanks together. Yann, I don't think it is strange to see 'Cadillac' as a tank producer. The whole industry was involved in contributing to the war effort ... and earning a good Dollar with that. In other countries you see tanks or armoured cars being produced by Lancia, Daimler-Benz, Minerva, Panhard, Daimler and even Rolls-Royce: /vehicle_32750-Rolls-Royce-40-50-hp-Armoured-Car-1914.html |
|
◊ 2006-12-07 01:12 |
Alexander, wie geht's dir ? I notice on the "Rolls-Royce" armored car [imcdb.org/vehicle_32750-Rolls-Royce-40-50-hp-Armoured-Car-1914.html] you said this: "Available Rolls-Royce 'Silver Ghost' CHASSIS [my emphasis] were requisitioned to be converted with a T.G. Hetherington designed armoured superstructure". I highly recommend that "anytp" adopt similar wording in reference to the so-called "Cadillac" tanks. Cadillac power-plants were used in both WW1 and WW2; the factory did not turn out the actual military vehicles/equipment, but only the power trains or some specific parts (e.g. for the Allison airplane engine). In WW1 there were Cadillac-powered artillery tractors, searchlight chassis, baloon winches, Liberty airplane engines. In WW2 there were the M-5 tank, M5A-1 tank, M-8 Howitzer motor carriage, M-19 gun motor carriage, M-37 Howitzer motor carriage, T64-E1 Howitzer motor carriage, an Australian government cruiser tank, the B-FT2 snowmobile, the L.V.T.III amphibian craft, the CT-20 universal carrrier, the M-42 "Duster" anti aircrfaft gun, the T-41 tank and the, M-56 "Scorpion" tank. IMHO, NONE of THESE "vehicles", nor any earthmoving and construction vehicles, fork-lift trucks, farm equipment, cartoon cars, motorcycles, mopeds etc., qualify as "Movie Cars". If they do, then we must include also "wheeled vehicles" like bicycles, tricycles, pedal cars, foot scooters, skate boards and roller skates. Any other opinions ? Of course I shall rest with the majority but really I think we are just making things unnecessarily complicated for ourselves. Just my 2 cents worth. |
|
◊ 2006-12-07 17:53 |
At first the site was listing cars only, hence the name of the site. Except for trucks & busses, I was not especially agreeing for adding all these other types of vehicles, but I am not the only one to decide here (unfortunately  ) |
|
◊ 2006-12-07 18:04 |
if you are not the only one to decide here who are the rest? us? |
|
◊ 2006-12-07 22:53 |
I guess... I do not really know actually  |
|
◊ 2006-12-08 14:21 |
Why don't you poll your contributors? Those in favour of restricting vehicles to "Passenger Automobiles", say "Cars only". Those in favour of listing ANY motorized vehicle or piece of equipment", say "Anything goes". So, Let me be your first voter : "Cars only" |
|
◊ 2006-12-08 15:30 |
It is easier to use the forum for polls. Anyway, we can't now delete all non-cars. And now that we have so many non-car vehicles, why would we delete all of these? |
|
◊ 2006-12-09 03:38 |
Indeed, it would be counter-productive to delete those " special vehicles" that have been already wholly or partly identified. IMHO, however, you should stop adding any more. The "unidentified" section is FULL of them, which shows that the majority of your contributors know nothing about them and probably, like me, have little interest in this kind of "transport equipment". But like I said, I shall go with the majority on this. |
|
◊ 2006-12-09 03:54 |
Then again, many of the unidentified vehicles also are cars from before WWII, which end up cluttering the site because few contributors know anything about them. |
|
◊ 2006-12-09 12:56 |
When they have no role in the movie (i.e. 1-star rating) I delete them if they are listed at "unknown" since too long time. |
|
◊ 2006-12-09 19:21 |
For those interested in military vehicles in general and Cadillac tanks in particular have a look here: Quote from the add text: "... The Cadillac-built M5 tank has made its name on several fronts. ..." Next to the M5 the M24 Chaffee and M41 Walker Bulldog are Cadillac products of great renown. http://www.100megsfree4.com/cadillac/cad1940/cad43s.htm http://home.planet.nl/~nagte017/Cadillactext006.html Concerning the "cars-only" idea: I would find it extremely boring (but only once, of course!). For me almost everything post 1970 is of no great interest and I prefere a 'special vehicle' to any dull 'people carrier'. And from looking at the comments it seems I am not the only one. |
|
◊ 2006-12-10 11:19 |
No matter what the ad says, or even what Cadillac themselves say, Cadillac did not "make" tanks; they were effectively "put together" on Cadillac factory premises as a cooperative effort with other manufacturers. Cadillac "made" the engines, transmissions and a few other mechanical assemblies. My interpretation of the facts comes from an article by John F. "Jack" Gordon, who was Cadillac's Chief Engineer from June 1, 1943 to June 5, 1946. He said: "The quick plunge into the business of "making" [my inverted commas] light tanks inaugurated a program between the various services and the company [Cadillac] which resulted in the completion of over thee million man-hours of engineering work on various armored vehicles during the war. As the war progrssed, the twin-engine adaptation [i.e. the power plant] was extended to other types of equipment until it was specified in production contracts for eleven vehicles "fabricated" [my inverted commas again] in eight different contracting agencies in the USA, Canada, Britain and Australia" [including, in alphabetical order: American Car & Foundry, Australian Govt., Cadillac Motor car Division of GM, Farand & Delorme, Graham-Paige, Ingersoll Steel, Massey Harris and Morris Motors]. Of course it was and still is good propaganda for the factory to assert that they built "Cadillac" tanks. But, in the end, it's only a matter of semantics. If you want to call these tanks "Cadillacs", be my guest. |
|
◊ 2006-12-27 15:40 |
Back to the vehicle...this the standard turret of the M5, with the hatch removed. The larger turret of the M5A1 is pictured here: /vehicle_72161-unknown.html |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
