PDA

View Full Version : The M3 Lee/Grant Tank



Panzerknacker
10-21-2006, 10:03 PM
The M-3 Lee impact on the battlefield :D :D

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6493/30lgympot8.jpg


http://mundosgm.com/smf/index.php?topic=712.0

Nickdfresh
10-22-2006, 12:01 PM
The M-3 Lee impact on the battlefield :D :D

http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/6493/30lgympot8.jpg


http://mundosgm.com/smf/index.php?topic=712.0

I'm not sure this is entirely correct or fair. The M3s caught the German Afrika Corp by surprise initially, and its 75mm gun had some initial success in the Eighth Army's depleted tank corp. Certainly, the Germans found their weaknesses, but it was only a stop-gap anyway...

Perhaps the M3 needs its own thread? But this is problem-some, since I'm not sure where it could go since the British probably used it more than the US did in WWII, and the tank was largely withdrawn from frontline service by the time the US was in the ground war in earnest.

Nickdfresh
10-22-2006, 12:30 PM
Variants M3A1, M3A2, M3A3, M3A4, & M3A5

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m3lee.jpg
Medium Tank M3 Lee in Camp Polk, Louisiana.
http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m3a1lee.jpg

Date of first acceptance June 1941 Total acceptances 4724

Manufacturers
* Rock Island Arsenal
* Detroit Tank Arsenal
* American Locomotive Co.

Crew: 7 men

* Commander in turret left rear
* 37mm gunner in turret left rear
* 37mm loader in turret right center
* 75mm gunner in hull right front
* 75mm loader in hull right center
* Driver in hull front center
* Radio operator in hull center

Combat weight with T48 or T51 tracks: 61,500lbs/27,900kg

Ground clearance 17"/43cm

Armament 75mm Gun: M2 or M3 in hull right front w/50 rounds

37mm Gun M5 or M6/M24 in turret w/178 rounds

Three .30cal M1919A4 MGs w/9200 rounds

Armor: Max Thickness: 2"/5.1cm

Engine Wright (Continental) R975 EC2; 9 cylinder, 4 cycle, radial gasoline (see variants at the link for other engines)

Horsepower Net: 340@2400rpm Gross: 400@2400rpm

Torque Net: 800 ft-lb@1800rpm Gross: 890 ft-lb@1800rpm

Fuel capacity 175gal/662L

Performance

Max level road speed 21mph/34kph sustained 24mph/39kph dash

Max trench 90"/230cm
Max grade 60%
Max vertical obstacle 24"/61cm
Min turning diameter 62'/19m
Max fording depth 40"/100cm
Cruising range ~120mi, roads~190km, roads


The medium tank M3 was based on the medium tank M2, utilizing its suspension, power train, and other mechanical parts. The British version of the M3 was dubbed cruiser tank Grant I, and differed in some details. The main armament of the tank, the 75mm gun, was mounted in the right-hand sponson since no turret capable of holding a 75mm gun had yet been designed in the US. The M3 medium tank was an interim design until the medium tank M4 could enter production with its 75mm gun turret. The M3 was called Lee I by the British.

Source (http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3lee.html)

Panzerknacker
10-22-2006, 01:20 PM
Off course I was kidding. I know for sure one thing, the russian wich had to face the best german antiarmor weapons hated it, they called "The grave for six brothers" :neutral:

Panzerknacker
10-23-2006, 05:56 PM
M-3 Lee in the URSS.

There were two M3 "Lee" modifications that has been sent to the USSR: the M3A3 and M3A5 with diesel engines. There was about 300 units were sent by two ways: through Murmansk seaport (Russia) and through Iran.


The M3A3 and M3A5 tanks served in 13th Coprs of 1st Tank Army.

http://x402.putfile.com/2/5218350259.jpg

The 134th Tank regiment with 4th Guard Cossack Corps were put in action near Mozdok (Caucasus) against the German "F" Corps. The company commander captain P.I.Nikolaenko and the tank commander 2nd lieutenant V.N.Gretzky have won the Hero of the Soviet Union stasus for their brilliant action in 12-14 December 1942 against German troops near Norton village. The "Lee" tanks fought near Kharkov, in Kalmyk steppes, in northern Caucasus.
In general, the Russians met the M3 tank without any delight. Having a large silhouette, with extremely poor passableness on Russian roads, with the relatively weak engine (only 340 h.p. while T-34-76 (http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_76_2.html) had 450 h.p. engine), besides sensitive to fuel and oil marks, this tank didn't cause any delight at the Soviet tankeers, but the most important drawback was its rubber-metal tracks. During a battle the rubber burned out and tracks collapsed. As a result - tank become immobilized. The Russian tankeers called them as "Grave for six brothers". As an example here is the official report from 134th Tank Regiment commander: "The American tanks in sands works extremely bad, their tracks are continuously falls, tanks sink in the sand, that's the problem to make it move. Due to 75 mm gun mounted in a mask instead of turret we are forced to turn tank to the left and right to make a shot so it sink in the sand deeper and deeper and cause more and more problems during gunfire and maneuvring".

http://x402.putfile.com/2/5218414485.jpg




It is necessary to note, that neither USA, nor the GB did not use the M3 "Lee" tanks so intensively as Russians, because battle tension in Africa and Western Front was rather from the East Front. The Russians didn't re-paint those tanks but used with its US painting. They only replaced US white stars with Soviet red stars. All other reginstration and tech inscriptions left in English.

www.russianbattlefield.ru (http://www.russianbattlefield.ru)

http://mundosgm.com/smf/index.php?topic=101.30

Nickdfresh
10-23-2006, 07:10 PM
There is no question using the M3 into late 1942 and at Kursk in 1943 was suicidal to it's crew, the Soviets actually called in "the grave of SEVEN brothers." ;)

But when first introduced into the Desert War, I do believe I've read the British Eighth Army had some good, if limited, successes with it. Also, I think the tank was pretty successful in a mostly anti-infantry role in Burma well into 1944, since the Japanese had a severe lack of effective anti-tank weapons and a feeble tank corp.


The Grant tank was once called the tank that saved the British in North Africa, as it arrived in time effectively combat the German armour.

The story of its use in the British Army started back in July 1940 the US drew up plans for the production of a new medium tank, the M2A1, but it was recognised that any new tank should be armed with a 75mm gun. It was pointed out that it was no possible to fit a 75mm gun into the turret of the proposed M2A1 as it was designed only to hold a 37mm gun and as no turret has as yet been designed to mount a gun of this size. However, in the previous year an experimental tank with a hull mounted 75mm gun had been built and it decided this was a good starting point for the new design. Based upon this a design was produced in which the 75mm gun was mounted in a traversing sponson on the right side of the hull, while a 37mm turret was to be retained on top of the hull, offset to the left. The design was produced at great speed and by March 1941 it was complete, with the first pilot models being available three week later.

Meanwhile, in June 1940 the British purchasing commission went to the US to buy tanks for the British Army, hoping the US would agree to produce British designs, but the US Government was adamant that their tank facilities were needed to US designs only. This mean that if the British were to buy tanks in the US they would have to be US designs, with the latest being the M3 Light (Stuart or Honey) and the M3 Medium. The British bought both, but with one modification to the latter, which was to have the turret was altered to contain the tanks radio and the machine gun in the cupola on the turret was removed to improve the silhouette.

In October 1940 the contracts were signed and the first deliveries started in early 1942 and went straight to North Africa and were used in May 1942 in the Gazala battle. Since the British gave their tanks names the modified M3 became the General Grant and the unmodified M3 became the General Lee. They received a mixed reception, with them proving reliable, but with the 75mm gun mounted in the hull this meant the hull had to be exposed to the enemy to fire it, thus preventing the tank adopting a hull down position. Nevertheless the 75mm gun gave the British crews parity with their German opponents and also the capability to fire HE shells at last as well as armour piecing shot from the larger gun.

http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/Equipment/Armour/Granttank.jpg
Grant Tanks advancing through water.

The tank feature to main weapons, a hull mounted 75mm howitzer, offset to the right hand side in sponson, with a 37mm gun in the turret offset to the left of the tank. When it was eventually replaced by the M4 Sherman it went on to serve in Burma and the Pacific theatres, but a few were modified to carry search lights and became known as Canal Defence Light (CDL) Tanks in the European theatre of action. These had the turret replaced by spotlight. Some used to illuminate night crossings of Rhine and Elbe in 1945 and some of this variant were sent to Far East but never used. Other versions include Grant Command, some of which had turret gun replaced with dummy gun and extra communications equipment was added; Grant Scorpion III, with the 75mm gun removed and an anti-mine device added and Grant Scorpion IV, which was effectively the same as Scorpion III but with 2nd Bedford engine added.

From: http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/equiparmourtanks.htm

The M3 was a useful early 'stopgap' against the first generation war panzers, and Italian tanks; but certainly its effectiveness was eclipsed by upgrades to the Panzer MkIV, and she was completely outclassed by the Panthers and Tigers. The Soviet M3s were victims of the success of the T34, which forced the Wehrmact to fully uparm and modify all of their tanks...

Panzerknacker
10-27-2006, 11:29 PM
Interesting, I guess that the 75 high explosive shells were welcomed for the english tankcrews wich had only the ridiculous 40mm (2 pounder) and 57 mm (6 pounder) none of these with HE ammo (crazy englishmans)

And by the way... what was the 7 crew layout ( honestly I tough it was six), I mean I know that it have a driver an a comander (wich also served the 37 mm turret gun)

What the 5 other guys do? :confused:


British M-3 in africa, passing a burned out Pz I, the tallnes of the U.S tank is more than evident.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1731/dibujotp0.jpg

George Eller
10-28-2006, 01:36 AM
Interesting, I guess that the 75 high explosive shells were welcomed for the english tankcrews wich had only the ridiculous 40mm (2 pounder) and 57 mm (6 pounder) none of these with HE amoo (crazy englishmans)

And by the way... what was the 7 crew layout ( honestly I tough it was six), I mean I know that it have a driver an a comander (wich also served the 37 mm turret gun)

What the 5 other guys do? :confused:


British M-3 in africa, passing a burned out Pz I, the tallnes of the U.S tank is more than evident.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/1731/dibujotp0.jpg
-

From what I've read it had a crew of 6: commander, driver, loaders (2), gunners (2).

-

Nickdfresh
10-28-2006, 08:49 AM
Crew: 7 men

* Commander in turret left rear
* 37mm gunner in turret left rear
* 37mm loader in turret right center
* 75mm gunner in hull right front
* 75mm loader in hull right center
* Driver in hull front center
* Radio operator in hull center

The extra guy was the radio operator...not a very efficient tank, was it?

George Eller
10-28-2006, 12:26 PM
Crew: 7 men

* Commander in turret left rear
* 37mm gunner in turret left rear
* 37mm loader in turret right center
* 75mm gunner in hull right front
* 75mm loader in hull right center
* Driver in hull front center
* Radio operator in hull center

The extra guy was the radio operator...not a very efficient tank, was it?
-

I missed that. Your source from the following website shows a crew of seven.
(The books I have show 6)

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3lee.html

IIRC, the M4 Sherman had a co-driver/hull gunner that doubled as the radio operator.

-

Panzerknacker
10-28-2006, 04:59 PM
Thanks boys, I have the book "Britishe panzer" of waffen arsenal and it say 6, I think that the mistake done by the author (Uwe Feist) is to say the the tank chief also served the 37 mm gun, but seems to be a two place turret.

I read somewhere that the late models wre reduced to a 6 men crew...wich was eliminated I dont know.



not a very efficient tank, was it?



Sure dont กก :neutral: ...for the amount of people inside seems a Armored personal carrier rather than a tank.

tom!
10-28-2006, 05:13 PM
Hi.

A little bit o.t. but one of the first tanks the japanese army destroyed during the 1944 Imphal operations was a british medium M3 destroyed by a captured light M3 of the 14th Tank Regiment....... :twisted:

Yours

tom! ;)

redcoat
10-28-2006, 06:08 PM
Thanks boys, I have the book "Britishe panzer" of waffen arsenal and it say 6, I think that the mistake done by the author (Uwe Feist) is to say the the tank chief also served the 37 mm gun, but seems to be a two place turret.

I read somewhere that the late models wre reduced to a 6 men crew...wich was eliminated I dont know.
.
The Lee had a 7 man crew. The Grant had a 6 man crew.
The British had the radio moved from inside the hull to the upper turret, this removed the need for a dedicated radio operator.

Nickdfresh
10-28-2006, 09:50 PM
The Lee had a 7 man crew. The Grant had a 6 man crew.
The British had the radio moved from inside the hull to the upper turret, this removed the need for a dedicated radio operator.

A-Ha! I figured something as much, my specs were from the initial US base model. I think seven men in one tank is a waste, six is too many really.

Digger
10-29-2006, 03:38 AM
For a short time the M3 Grant was a shock for the Germans in the western desert, but once they worked out it's deficiencies the M3 did not prove to be too troublesome in the tank vs tank role and was relegated to infantry support.

The thing that I find intriguing is the shortcomings of the petrol engine in combat were obvious and yet this feature was carried through to the more numerically and important M4 at a great cost in men and machines.

Regards to all,
Digger.

Panzerknacker
10-29-2006, 01:35 PM
Thanks for the aditional info Boys, aniway 6 or 7 men is a lot of people for me.

Lee in Tunis, the seven men standing in the front now have sense.

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/3341/leeoy0.jpg

Scan from "El carro medio Sherman"- Osprey del Prado.

Panzerknacker
10-31-2006, 12:43 PM
German newsreel showing some destroyed M-3s in The tunician front.

http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C0055BA58DF030103009D21A8C05F06000000&inf=822320&outf=920280&funktion=play250k (http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C0055BA58DF030103009D21A8C05F06000000&inf=822320&outf=920280&funktion=play250k)

Firefly
10-31-2006, 03:04 PM
The British version had thicker frontal armour too.

redcoat
10-31-2006, 04:39 PM
The British version had thicker frontal armour too.
Only on the upper turret front(76mm for the Grant, 51mm for the Lee)
the max frontal armour on the hull was the same (51mm).

Panzerknacker
10-31-2006, 08:36 PM
I noticed that some ones have muzzle brake for the 75mm gun, are those Grants ?


-----------


Another video, this time against the Mark V Panther, a very unfair comparative. :rolleyes:


http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/kontrollklfenster.php?&PHPSESSID=&dmguid=08E92C00FF3BA5CD030103009D21A8C0101B000000&inf=186040&outf=255760&funktion=play250k

http://www.wochenschau-archiv.de/bilder/08E92C00FF3BA5CD030103009D21A8C0101B000000/f000194400.jpg

tom!
11-01-2006, 06:33 AM
Hi.


I noticed that some ones have muzzle brake for the 75mm gun, are those Grants ?

.......

http://static.flickr.com/51/125207889_02eea5fb86.jpg

Like this?

Afaik this is a counter-weight to stabilize the gun.

Yours

tom! ;)

Panzerknacker
11-01-2006, 06:49 PM
Well, in the first video I have seen some holes in the top of that gun, I tough that it was some kind of "Mundungbremse".

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/4363/afsfdoj3.jpg

George Eller
11-05-2006, 01:29 PM
-

M3 Lee/Grant Tank

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3153/m3leegrant01fn8.jpg
From: "Chariots of Iron: Fifty Years of American Armor", Wiliam Butler and William Strode, Harmony House Publishers, 1990, ISBN 0-916509-59-1, (p 34 )

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/3128/m3leegrant02rt8.jpg
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 108 )

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/3885/m3leegrant03my5.jpg
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 109 )

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/2287/m3leegrant04tg2.jpg
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 110 )

(CONTINUED BELOW OR NEXT PAGE)

-

George Eller
11-05-2006, 01:30 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE OR PREVIOUS PAGE)
02
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/4877/m3leegrant05gt8.jpg
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 111 )

http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/4233/m3leegrant06gi8.jpg
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 112 )

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/8988/m3leegrant07az4.jpg
From: "British and American Tanks of World War II", by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, Arco Publishing Company, 1975, (p 113 )

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/7475/m3leegrant08yu1.jpg
From: "Tanks of World War II", by Chris Ellis, Chancellor Press, 1981, (p 43 )

(CONTINUED BELOW)

-

George Eller
11-05-2006, 01:31 PM
-

(CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
03

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/5756/m3leegrant09kh4.jpg
From: "Tanks of World War II", by Chris Ellis, Chancellor Press, 1981, (p 44 )

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/6803/m3leegrant10kf0.jpg
From: "Tanks of World War II", by Chris Ellis, Chancellor Press, 1981, (p 45 )

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/4834/m3leegrant11ns1.jpg
From: "Tanks of World War II", by Chris Ellis, Chancellor Press, 1981, (p 46 )

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/305/m3leegrant12nr9.jpg
From: "Tanks of World War II", by Chris Ellis, Chancellor Press, 1981, (p 47 )

-

Panzerknacker
11-06-2006, 08:25 PM
Thanks, Now I can apreciate the diferences between a Grant and a Lee. :)

George Eller
11-06-2006, 11:45 PM
Thanks, Now I can apreciate the diferences between a Grant and a Lee. :)
-

Within the next few days I plan to post more on the M4 Sherman as well. ;)

-

Panzerknacker
02-19-2007, 06:50 PM
M3 in action ¡¡. The Tank Raid on Djedeida Airfield, 25 November 1942


By Andrew Arthy (bookie190@hotmail.com (bookie190@hotmail.com))

Introduction

One of the more dramatic events of the early stages of the Tunisian campaign was the American tank raid carried out on Djedeida airfield on 25 November 1942. Caught by surprise, the Luftwaffe suffered many losses on the ground, yet surprisingly the raid did not badly disrupt German air operations over the battlefield.


http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6724/m3inactionkr3.jpg

The Raid
On 25 November 1942 the British and Americans began a three-pronged offensive that aimed to capture or isolate the two major Tunisian ports, Bizerta and Tunis. The central prong was Blade Force, a brigade-sized group that was to move from Béja to Tebourba, and then was to meet the 11th Infantry Brigade Group (IBG) in the area of Djedeida, before pushing on to Tunis. The offensive began in the morning, and Blade Force moved forward at 07:00 with a spearhead of more than 100 tanks from the 1st Battalion, U.S. 1st Armoured Regiment. In the afternoon, 17 American M3 tanks of Company C (Major Rudolph Barlow) on a reconnaissance mission pushed through German forces at Tebourba and El Bathan, and arrived at Djedeida airfield at about 16:30.[1] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftn1)

When the Americans realised the opportunity that they had, they quickly moved onto the airfield and began crushing or shooting up the many Axis aircraft located there. The tank crews claimed 20 or more aircraft destroyed, and shot up buildings, supplies, and the defending German troops. After the attack, the tanks fell back to join the rest of Blade Force, which bivouacked near Chouigui overnight. The American tank force lost two men killed, one tank and its crew missing, and a number of other M3s damaged.[2] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftn2)

The Luftwaffe units based at Djedeida on 25 November were I. and III./J.G. 53 with Bf 109 Gs, and II./St.G. 3 with Ju 87 Ds. Most of II./St.G. 3 had moved to Djedeida on the afternoon of 20 November, although some of the unit’s Ju 87s were still at El Aouina airfield near Tunis on 21 November. III./J.G. 53 moved from El Aouina to Djedeida on 21 November, and on the morning of 25 November the Gruppenstab, 1. and 2./J.G. 53 moved there from Sicily.[3] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftn3)

On 25 November II./St.G. 3 flew four successful missions and 48 sorties against vehicles and tanks. At 15:05 a second Ju 87 escort mission began, and the Ju 87s and Bf 109s returned to Djedeida at 16:15. Shortly afterwards the American tanks appeared.[6] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftn6) There was great activity, as the fighter pilots ran to their aircraft to take-off. Arndt-Richard Hupfeld of 1./J.G. 53 recalled:

There was a mad scramble when British tanks at­tacked our base. Messerschmitts took off in every direc­tion. All of a sudden I saw a '109' coming straight toward me - a head-on collision would have been unavoidable had the other aircraft's cowling not flown off just as it was about to lift off, whereupon the other pilot closed the throttle and did not take off. I just cleared the other air­craft and thus avoided a catastrophe.[7] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftn7)

Some Bf 109 pilots got into the air and began to strafe the tanks, including Ofw. Hans Kornatz of 2./J.G. 53 in his Bf 109 G ‘Black 5 + ‘. The I. and III./J.G. 53 pilots claimed to have set eight tanks on fire by strafing.[8] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftn8) Lt. Jürgen Harder of 7. Staffel was another pilot who took off and strafed the tanks, and he wrote in a letter home on 27 November:

We were at a rather exposed forward airfield, and at about 16:30 a big surprise raid by tanks hit our base. Suddenly there was shooting; 800 m away there were 20 tanks rolling toward us. I just made it to my machine and took off 200 m in front of the leading tank. To make a long story short, the fellows drove over the field firing wildly, setting the aircraft on fire and shooting up everything. And how!

Several aircraft got airborne and it happened that six were already in the air after Spitfires that had made earlier strafing attacks. Now we set upon the tanks, Me's dove from all sides. It was a terrific scene, and machines burned on the ground below. We succeeded in setting five tanks on fire - two of them by me. Our men crouched down in their slit trenches and let the monsters roll past. Every­thing went according to plan: the serviceable trucks fled the field overloaded and all reached Tunis by the next day. One could call this good luck in bad - no aircraft lost and no men. It's a good thing that we were in the air and were able to beat off the attack; otherwise it would have gone badly for the Gruppe. All this happened 30 km from Tunis and we all figured that our encirclement would be completed during the night.[9] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftn9)

Although there are some inaccuracies in Lt. Harder’s account, it does give a good idea of the chaos caused by the appearance of American tanks at Djedeida.

[1] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftnref1) Howe, US Army: Northwest Africa, pp.299-300

[2] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftnref2) Howe, US Army: Northwest Africa, p.300; Prien, JG 53, p.508

[3] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftnref3) BA-MA RL 7/30, Records of the Führer der Luftwaffe Tunis, p.19; Prien, JG 53, p.507

[4] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftnref4) BA-MA RL 7/30, Records of the Führer der Luftwaffe Tunis, p.33; H. Kornatz, Logbook

[5] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftnref5) Film C. 2027/I

[6] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftnref6) BA-MA RL 7/30, Records of the Führer der Luftwaffe Tunis, p.33; Kornatz, Logbook

[7] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftnref7) Prien, JG 53, p.508

[8] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftnref8) BA-MA RL 7/30, Records of the Führer der Luftwaffe Tunis, p.33

[9] (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=89836#_ftnref9) Prien, JG 53, p.508

GermanSoldier
02-22-2007, 10:04 PM
By the time 1,000 M2A1 Medium tanks tanks were ordered in mid 1940, they were shown to have indequete armor and armament by the events unfolding in Europe.1 to match the newest German Tanks that had 75mm guns, the Ordnance Department wanted a 75mm into a M2A1. However there just wasn't enough space in the turret. Based on the experiments with the T5E2 a 75mm M2 was installed on the right side of a modified M2A1

A wooden mock-up for the M3 design was completed in August 1940. The board had the MG sponsons removed and the turret lowered.

The chairman of General Motors (also a member of National Defense Advisory Committee) convicted the US government that the auto industry should be used for massed tank production as the governments factory at Rock Island wouldn't be able to keep up with demand. The government built a factory in Detroit that was run by Chrysler.

The M3 was ordered straight from the drawing board (July1940) and Baldwin and the American Locomotive Company each made pilot models by April 1941. Production began in August 1941 and ended in December 1942. A total of 6,258 were produced.

It was intended only as a stopgap tank before the M4 Shermans arrived. When the M4 started production the M3 was designated Substitute Standard in October 1941. In April 1943, they were classified as Limited Standard and in April 1944 were classified as obsoete.

Chrysler leased a 113 acre site for a new factory in Warren, Michigan.
http://i9.tinypic.com/3y3oh36..jpg
CREW
At the left front sat the driver with the gearbox beside him. The driver also operated the Twin MGs in the hull.

Engine
The engine was in the rear with the fuel tanks on each side of the engine compartment .

Main Armament
The turret can be rotated by hydraulics or by hand. The cupola normally rotated with the turret but could be rotated by hand.

The driver and the radio operator occupied the front of the hull. The 75mm gunner sat on the left of the gun. The 37mm gunner, gun loader and commander were in the turret. Both guns had gyrostabilizers and periscpic sights. The driver's door and the pistol ports had protectoscopes for indirect vision.

An auxillary generator provided electricity when needed.

75mm gun had muzzle velocity of 1,920 ft/sec, range of 13,090 yards, and penetrate 2.9 inches at 1,000 yards. Muzzle velocity of 1,850'/sec and weighed 14.4 lb.

37mm gun had muzzle velocity of 2,900 ft/sec, range of 12,850 yards, and penetrate 1.8 inches at 1,000 yards. Muzzle velocity of 2,550/sec and weighed 1.9 lb.

Where Used

Were first used the Philippnes. Then they were used in North Africa, including Kasserine Pass. In the Pacific they were used at Makin Island by Marines.

Supplied to Britian and Russia (1,400) as Lend-Lease. 750 were sent to Australia.

Used for battle of Gazala on May27, 1942. Many were used at the Battle of Alamein that took place from October 23 to November 4, 1942.

Ace Tankkiller
02-23-2007, 12:17 AM
They are definitely a very intersting tank.Have always been intrigued by these tanks,probably because they are kinda odd looking and they were in the Battlefield 1942 expansion pack "Battlefield 1942:Road to Rome"which was prolly the Grant version.Maybe because it was in one of my favorite games lol makes it more intersting for me.

http://www.fcenter.ru/img/softarticle/2003/apr/05/23323.jpg

Maybe this is of topic,I am not sure.

Nickdfresh
02-24-2007, 09:27 AM
One can tell the tanks were sort of thrown together hodge-podge of available parts. It's really an ugly tank with many limitations. Still, it held the line and did exactly what it was designed for, serving as a stopgap until better, related designs could be produced (which limited the factory retooling necessary to produce the M-4).

Panzerknacker
02-24-2007, 09:41 AM
The high profile wich made the center of gravity very tall continue however. :neutral:

Panzerknacker
05-23-2007, 08:23 PM
M3 Captured in North Afrika and tested in the Kummersdorf german proving grounds, the mm of armor are stenciled in the hull plates.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/5264/m3leewx6.jpg

Walther
05-23-2007, 10:52 PM
Crew: 7 men

* Commander in turret left rear
* 37mm gunner in turret left rear
* 37mm loader in turret right center
* 75mm gunner in hull right front
* 75mm loader in hull right center
* Driver in hull front center
* Radio operator in hull center

The extra guy was the radio operator...not a very efficient tank, was it?

Military radio transceivers back then were a bit fiddly to use. They operated mostly in the HF range, which, while having a good range given the right antennas, is very prone to disturbances. Also radio traffic back then was often carried out in the modulation mode CW, this means carrier wave morse code.
Then the radios were not yet quartz stabilised, the frequencies tended to drift and needed constant adjustment.

Jan

BDL
05-24-2007, 01:32 PM
Military radio transceivers back then were a bit fiddly to use. They operated mostly in the HF range, which, while having a good range given the right antennas, is very prone to disturbances. Also radio traffic back then was often carried out in the modulation mode CW, this means carrier wave morse code.
Then the radios were not yet quartz stabilised, the frequencies tended to drift and needed constant adjustment.

Jan

Even in Clansman kit from the early 1980s - present, HF is a crappy frequency range to have to use. Good range, as you said Jan, but the white noise is horrible to have to listen to on radio stag and it is far more vulnerable to interference than the VHF sets.

Panzerknacker
11-09-2007, 09:08 AM
The "cathedral" ...I mean M3 lee interior. the top turret Mg must had some troubles engaging entrenched infantry at short range.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/1581/m3bu6.jpg

Scan Osprey "new vanguard 113"

Nickdfresh
10-03-2008, 09:26 AM
Bump!

HAWKEYE
12-04-2008, 06:57 AM
Only films featuring the M3:

Bogart in Sahara:
http://www.evesmag.com/bogartxx.jpg

Jim Belushi remake of "Sahara"
http://www.tvmovies24.com/images/programmes/92354/sahara_wide.jpg


And there was this one, unfairly I think, comparing the M3 to a Panther:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aoMGdAJKso

Panzerknacker
12-04-2008, 07:03 AM
Jim Belushi remake of "Sahara"


I saw it some years ago, no the biggest budget but still a good movie.

PanzerschreckLeopard
10-24-2009, 01:43 PM
I need to draw one...

flamethrowerguy
10-24-2009, 02:03 PM
I need to draw one...

Then you should definitely get some extra help, this thing has a weight of almost 30 tons!

Nickdfresh
10-24-2009, 07:33 PM
Reactivated. For some reason I couldn't post in the Archive room. :confused:

Deaf Smith
10-25-2009, 07:59 PM
While I see they did some R&D to make the M3 into a flame tank and AAA tank, you know they should have followed the Germans ideas and turned it into a 90mm tank killer.

That is an 'assault' tank with a forward firing 90 mm with fixed transverse. Not sure if it would have been able to fit it in the middle of the chassis, but still, taking out the 37 and .30 cal gun, should have saved enough weight to allow it, plus make it alot lower in height.

Deaf

tankgeezer
10-26-2009, 12:32 AM
The thing must have been an Admiralty design, I'm almost surprised the interior pic doesnt show a telegraph.. :)
As for installing a large bore gun in the super structure, I'm not sure the hull could stand the strain of it. Cant use a field gun, it may not have the strength required to fire the hotter loads of A.P. shot munitions, and the recoil system will need modification,as well as the suspension. Then there is the question of ammo storage, placement for efficient loading and case disposal. It may end up looking like this inside,,,