Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44

Thread: The M3 Lee/Grant Tank

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default The M3 Lee/Grant Tank

    The M-3 Lee impact on the battlefield




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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker View Post
    The M-3 Lee impact on the battlefield




    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not sure where it could go since the British probably used it more than the US did in WWII, and the tank was largely withdrawn from frontline service by the time the US was in the ground war in earnest.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default The M3 Lee/Grant Tank

    Variants M3A1, M3A2, M3A3, M3A4, & M3A5


    Medium Tank M3 Lee in Camp Polk, Louisiana.


    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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    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"

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    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.



    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 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".




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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    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.


    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.pat...rmourtanks.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...
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 10-23-2006 at 07:26 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    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?


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


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker View Post
    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?


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

    -

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

    -

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    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?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    1,413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    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.

    -

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default

    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 ¡¡ ...for the amount of people inside seems a Armored personal carrier rather than a tank.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ruhr Area, Germany
    Posts
    225

    Default

    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.......

    Yours

    tom!
    Last edited by tom!; 10-28-2006 at 05:16 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    544

    Default

    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.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •