B, H, M, MT Why? Market Forces.

They are just so similar in size, weight, and HP.

Did the old farmer think to himself, "Golly, if I only had 3 more horsepower. I should have gotten the B."

Just seems redundant. Straighten me out.

You missed the L and LA for small tractors. They were built by the Wagon Works and were sneered at as a "nontractor" by the Waterloo Works. The L brought 10.4 horse to the party in 1939 and the LA upped it to 14.3 in 1941. The L and LA were marketed as a 1 row machine to truck farmers.

The H was built by the Waterloo Works for the 1939 year. It was built to be a VERY low cost tractor. It came out at 14.4 horse. It was marketed as a 2 row machine. The "B" had increased in HP to meet demand and Deere felt they had left the market for a very small 2 row machine behind. The "H" filled the gap.

The M was introduced in 1948 and replaced the L, LA, and H. It had 20 horse.

Not a lot of redundancy mwhen you really look at it. I'm sure other much smarter than me can add more to my explaination.

You hit the nail on the head. When those tractors came out, there was a place for every one of them. The thing to remember, at least up 'til the M came out, is that these tractors were replacements for a team of horses (which were often traded in on the tractor). Farms were small back then, and an 'H' could be all the power one needed for 80 acres. Dad farmed 215 acres with a styled 'B' and a team of horses with the help of a hired hand in the summer. After the war broke out, he lost the help of the young, single hired hand, and Grandpa had to go back to work for a few years.

Stan