Short answer: "No". See the Marmon-Herrington designs. Some of which were so horrible that they were good only for export, and some which were grudgingly put into service where they could do little harm, like Alaska. However, I am pleased that you came to the correct conclusion in the end. Oh... we'll ignore the thumbnail :) Some observations: "Defective suspension system?" VVSS may not have been the smoothest ride, but it was rugged, dependable and repairable. "Technologically basic design?" What other tanks of the era had stabilised guns and synchromesh transmissions? (Granted, the first few tanks came off the line without) Jake Devers commanded Armored Force at the time, not Army Ground forces. That was McNair, but a forgivable error. The loss of 40 M3s in a battle can be contrasted with the loss of 40 M4s at Sidi bou Zhid a couple of months later. (Or the loss of 40 Panthers to M4s at Arracourt). Sometimes you just get outfought. Operations in the Pacific after the M3 was no longer suitable for combat against the European forces are probably worth observing as well, especially given the pretty poor conditions of infrastructure and supply lines it was operating (well) in.
Let's see, you had a army of experienced tankers who looked at it and loaded useful Armor Piercing explosive ammunition (the British used the American supplied AP Solid rounds for training ) so given American lack of experience...
I'd rather not ignore the thumbnail. This is at least the 3rd one they've gotten very wrong (P-61 and CF100), and it shows a huge lack of respect for the audience they serve.
A variant of this tank using a "British pattern" turret was called the Grant. These were used almost exclusively in British Commonwealth service. . Over 1,700 of the over 6,000 produced were "Grant"s.
To convert a Lee into a Grant basically required the removal of the top machine gun turret. The British also did some minor internal configuration changes.
One correction, the British used their own version of the M3 Medium they called the Grant. The difference was that it didn’t have the very top .30 machinegun turret and the turret was enlarged to hold the radio. The separate radio operator crewman was removed making room for things like a drinking water tank, something nice to have in the desert. In the Far East campaign the Grant/Lee performed well. The Japanese didn’t have many tanks or even good anti-tank weapons which made it much more survivable. The 37mm gun was also quite effective as it had both a canister round that made it a 37mm shotgun and also had 60 degrees of elevation, allowing it to shoot up into trees in the jungle.
Never forget the most important characteristic of a tank: Availability. It comes in multiple ways. First, if you have 50k Shermans and 1k Tigers, the Sherman has much greater availability. Mechanical reliability is another. If it breaks down frequently, no good. Ease of maintenance add to that, if it takes three weeks of downtime for a week of uptime, nope. The last one, critical to the Lee, is how long to get it into theater. Instead of waiting for a superior tank later, we got a workable tank almost immediately.
There is that quote (paraphrased) attributed to a panzer officer: “Our Panther and Tiger could defeat 11 of your tanks (Sherman’s) but you always had 12.”
@@michaeltelson9798 my dad told me his uncle was a tanker in ww2 in shermans who told him the exact same thing. Except that it was 4 and 5 and to one German tank.
The Lee was a good tank. It did what was asked of it in a time of serious need. Not unlike the Wildcat, Hurricane, the P-40, and P-39 in the early war years for Aviation
What should not be heard as stupidity, the best tank Lee? This copy of the B1 BIS, too high, too wide, under-powered and de-tracked at the slightest opportunity, for the planes, if there hadn't been the Dewoitine D.520, they wouldn't have had these fighters, stopped before taking the big head when there were still FT 17s in rupture tanks in the American army in 1936, when you think that there was the Christie and that you had spun it at the Soviet, the Lee wears its name well nickname of "coffin for 7 brave"...
Nope!!! Not drunk or crazy, the Lee was 3 years late, it was riveted, its jumped into the bodywork, injuring its crew or worse, touching the ammunition, the molded turret cracked, the lack of information is driving me crazy, while there was just to improve the concept of the Cristie, which moreover gave the T 38 to the Soviets, the French warned the Americans in 1940 of the obsolescence of the casemate turret and the molded armor, to weld the armor for a better resistance, but to praise this tank does not pay homage to the poor guy who died on board, when to the Grant, I just have one thing to say, the English are capable of the best and the worst in industry, if I am asked which is the best of the M4, I answered without hesitation the firefly...^^ The Japanese tanks sound like the Italian tanks, a good joke!!! XD Ps: When we look in history, we must also look at what is hidden, it's not pretty, I grant it, but know the truth in its entirety
@yoannjollivet6022 he didn't say "best". But it shows what you care more about. I know it's your choice to talk down to people, but that doesn't make you any less of a prat. By "rupture" I assume you mean break through tank. By FT I assume you mean M1917. The US army built their own near identical model. The Grant only had a crew of 6, so the nickname has no relevance. Should I keep going with your errors or are you going to stop being a prick to people who haven't watched the same TH-cam video as you did?
@@yoannjollivet6022 It's also funny how your refer to Japanese tanks being a joke yet the defeated both Commonwealth and US forces pushing them out of the operational theatre until the Americans started island hopping after Guadalcanal. PS Read more books and watch less TH-cam as a source of your education. White washing terms like the ones you use are only spouted by people who haven't studied.
At last! Someone that doesn't use the term "Russian" when they mean "Soviet"👍👍👍 and a nuanced answer to a headline grabbing question. As others have said, the Grant/Lee did a great job fighting the Japanese with Commonwealth Forces too.
They also used the chassis for the Priest, which was a pretty successful self propelled howitzer. They made about 3500 (about 4500 with variants) of these and they served very successfully through the entire war, and beyond in some countries. So , 6258 lees, 1685 grants, and 4500 priests made from the same chassis. Not too shabby for a stopgap measure….
I was a tanker for over 23 years and fought in one in 91 and 04. Every tank has its good and bad sides. Even the M1. The Grant and Lee were made as a stop gap until sufficient Sherman's were produced. Our Army had to use them in North Africa because Roosevelt gave badly needed Sherman's to the Brits after the Gazala debacle in 42. The tank was still used in Russia, via lend lease and served until 45 in Burma, with the 14th army and did well there.
It's worth pointing out as far as the M4 is conserved. Giving some to the British ment did allow us to test it in combat. The M,4 was lacking (no wet storage for the ammunition hence Ronson and Tommy Cooker, no escape hatch and weak side armour to name a few). The British as we do had a tinker and made it better for both the Pongo's and you Septics.
It was adequate for a very short period against Rommel and later with the British against the Japanese in Burma. It's development together with the experimental M2 allowed for a reliable and available drive train in the M4.
The British 8th Army was happy to get these in North Africa. Their own tanks were mechanically unreliable and lacked a HE round. The Grant addressed both of those issues. The Soviets apparently called it “a grave for seven brothers”. The Australian Armour and Artillery Museum has a TH-cam channel with fascinating episodes restoring one to running order.
Well done, Simon! I've had a soft spot for the M3 since l saw Humprey Bogart in "Sahara" when I was a lad. It was an ugly duckling to be sure (no, it didn't turn into a swan) but, as others have pointed out, it held the line till better tanks arrived on the scene.
"For its time" is such an important consideration in the evaluation of any weapon. The M4 Sherman was arguably the best tank in theater when it arrived in Africa in 1942; by late 1944 it was struggling against the German Panthers. The Grant/Lee held its own in Africa, filled out the ranks in Russia, and dominated the China-Burma-India theater, where it climbed slopes it was not designed for, drove through monsoons, and proved once again at Imphal/Kohima that any tank is far superior to no tank, particularly when the other side neglects to bring its anti-tank guns. Pretty good for a stopgap weapon, I'd say.
I was friends with a former desert rat before he died a few years ago. He said the American tanks, including the Grant/Lee were a big improvement on the British ones they had before that.
Every time I look at the two stills of the guys jumping off the Lee or the one where a crew is standing with the 75 mm ammo, I wish I could find the movie ''Sahara''. It is one of my all time favorites. Humphrey Bogart and supporting cast, were great, and of course the storyline/plot was exceptional, pretty cool flick.
The impression I always got from the Lee is that it was a good enough stop gap that could be quickly mass produced for emergency arms shipments but it was never meant to be used by anyone long term. There was a brief moment in history where it was useful but it was quickly outclassed by better Allied and Axis tanks advancements. Everyone involved at the time seemed to be aware of this fact. Basically it was a great bandaid solution but was never meant to be the end all be all of American WW2 tank design.
Pretty much. It was good for fighting earlier panzer variants but when you get newer panzer classes and the big cats, the lee is just outclassed l; especially when you can call in Shermans instead
Another great video. If the Americans assigned a separate factor to produce mirror images of Lee tanks with the main gun on the other side, I wonder if a mixture of both designs in battle would mitigate some of the effects of have it's main gun mounted in its's side. The Lee's gun placement was better than have its's main gun centered in its's hull like German tank destroyers. I first saw a Lee tank in a Humphrey Bogart movie, The Sahara. The British called the Lee, the Grant. Their modifications included of course an internal hot plate to make tea! 😊
Never heard of this, but your main point is true for many situations. This was meant to stall until something better could be made, and it did so wonderfully. Sure, it could have been refined but the whole reason it existed was to buy time until the better Shermans could get out the door.
The Lee was an interim step all along. It mostly fougth in North Africa. They replaced the Lee with the Sherman which was a really good tank if not as good as a couple of the later German tanks. The problem is tanks on both sides came out out of phase with each other.
The aspect the British prized the most was the Lee’s reliability. They could start that tank every single morning, and drove off without mechanical breakdowns.
The M3 (whether Lee or Grant) was a good tank because it served the purpose for which it was intended, which was to quickly get a tank into action which could match the German Panzer III and Panzer IV. This is more than could be said for a number of other tank designs throughout history. Even after it became obsolete in the North African and European theatres, it continued to provide good service against the Japanese army in places like Burma and New Guinea.
Your analysis same as mine. Great in North Africa. All knew it was a stopgap. And there were other instances of problems with US ammunition , the last iteration of the Sherman (1944) was magnificent with a much better gun and armament, but a heat (high explosive) round was never produced during the war. It was still successful in Italy grouped with older Sherman’s, virtually not used in northwest Europe. Relying on The Chiefton for analysis.
@@nickdanger3802 Source: A lecture on the creation and development of the Sherman by The Chiefton. The version I was referring to was the late war m4 with the 76 mm cannon. Why the delay in developing a HEAT round? I don’t know. It went into service with only a sabot round. Don’t remember the full numerical designation of this version. Saw service long after the war, many imperfections and deficiencies of earlier versions had been corrected and improved
Who cares if an HEAT round was developed for the M4 in WW2? It already had other ammo. HEAT in those days was usually confined to howitzers needed an emergency AT round, and usually wasn't very good.
@@executivedirector7467 Yeah. Sorry I mentioned it. Actually the wording I encountered was “explosive round” which I assumed was the same as a HEAT round for the 76. I should keep my mouth shut, or keep my mouth shut. About some things that I half know, even though I don’t realize it at the time. I will also look up the exact M4 variant designation so everyone knows what I am talking about. The Chieftain, by the way is an active duty armored Lt. Colonel (National Guard?) so mistakes are mine not his
Your comment that the U.S. 75mm ammunition was bad is disproved in the picture showing three of the crewmen holding M61 Armor Piercing Capped with Tracer rounds. This round had a High Explosive charge and used the M66 Base Detonating Fuze. Another crewman has an M48 High Explosive round. Only one crewman has an M72 Armor Piercing (solid shot). We provided the rounds for Britain during that time and Canada used and produced the same rounds. Also, your depiction of the AP Rounds BOTH had a HE Charge and BD Fuzing. One of the shortcomings of the M3 was that initial batches had the M2 Cannon (the one pictured with the counterweight). This gun was shorter and it's muzzle velocity was around 1800 FPS. Later variants had the longer M3 Cannon with a 2000 FPS velocity.
Yeah, that made no sense. Especially as the british where notorious for using fillerless anti-tank ammo, as any british Warthunder player is painfully aware of...
Mobility, protection and firepower. You cannot get one without negatively affecting at least one of the other two criterias for what a good tank should be able to do.
My Uncle (Ernst) was in the Africa 15th Division and was the gunner in a Pz 3 J ….according to him when they first encountered some “Grants” (English version) they felt they were outclassed…he said that the Grant had better frontal armor he said its 75mm gun could penetrate their tanks “sehr gut”…BUT…6 months later he was in a upgraded Pz 3 M and then “der spiesse wurde umgedtecht” (the tables were turned)
Let’s remember that it was gonna be facing Panzer 2s, 3s, early 4s, and early StuGz during the starting years of its engagement. When we get later yeah it’s not great compared to rival tanks, but once the US entered properly into fighting during Italy and France they had the Sherman. Also, as we know, quantity > quality during ww2, doesn’t matter if you can make a Tiger when you have 1300 of them and the enemy has 6000 Lees and almost 50000 shermans you have to take on.
Well said. The mediocre tank that is there to provide your infantry with armoured support when needed always beats the super-duper tank that only arrives after the show. Especially since tanks only occassionally fight other tanks but rather entrenched infantry / artillery instead. Speaking of engaging entrenched infantry: unfotrunately, megaprojects forgot to mention the use of Lee tanks by the indian and british army in burma where they really excelled as bunker busters.
There was no tank on the battlefield that could take on an 88 mm gun and win until very late in the war. Tanks fighting tank was the idea but the 88 was a shock to the allies that didn't even have any competitor.
I'm not an expert but have been studying World War II and the weapons used therein for over 50 years. One point about the M3 I used to see in various places was that a huge problem was its riveted construction. When the M3 was struck by enemy fire, it was reported the rivets came apart and ricocheted around the crew compartment - to the detriment of the crew. On the other hand, it seems to me to be a case of expectations versus true needs leaving Americans dissatisfied. The British and Russians needed whatever they could get and adapted their tactics to the high silhouette and lack of a turret for the main gun.Note the Germans didn't quibble about turrets - they made more StuGs than true panzers and accepted loss of a turret for having more fighting vehicles - which they put to effective use. In many real world circumstances, attitude can help overcome or magnify obstacles.
The Australian army used the M3 Grant in the Pacific theatre. An excellent series of videos on one being restored by the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum is available on YT.
Sorry but no Australian army did have M3 Lee/Grants but were used for training in Australia and never saw combat all the tanks used by Australia in the Pacific were British Matilda's and M3 Stuart Light Tanks
The Lee/Grant was a great tank all things considered. The 75mm gun was incredibly powerful and while it was fixed in the hull, the tank itself was maneuverable enough to get into firing positions quickly. So many military historians rave about the effectiveness of the Stug III from Germany, but fail to compare the Lee to the German turretless AFVs. As far as turretless vehicles go, the M3 performed well, was adequately gunned for the service life, and scored it's share of kills. All in all, a very successful and effective tank. It filled a need, did its job, and had enough utility to remain effective into the war. It's ugly, tall, and limited compared to turreted tanks, but for what it was asked to do, it did it well.
The M3 Lee and close cousin Grant were both good tanks, transitional models that got the job done while the M4 was under development. They had a 75mm cannon for soft targets such as trucks or artillery and a 37mm cannon for armored targets. It was a product of the 30s and the M4 was surely welcomed, but they were decent.
Never heard a complaint about the M3 Lee from any Brit that served in North Africa at the time. They point out its flaws but seems they loved that 75mm gun no matter how it was mounted on the vehicle. Limited traverse is one of those stats people bring up, but its unsupported by facts. Studies with S tank later in the Cold War showed it got on target just as quick as turreted tank. High silhouette is always brought up with the M3 and M4 but never brought up with the Panther or Tiger. And yes, the Panther had a higher silhouette than the M4.
In the Burma Campaign, the M3 medium tank's main task was infantry support. It played a pivotal role during the Battle of Imphal, during which the Imperial Japanese Army's 14th Regiment (primarily equipped with their own Type 95 H-Go light tanks, together with a handful of captured British M3 Stuart light tanks) encountered M3 medium tanks for the first time and found their light tanks outgunned and outmatched by the better British armour. Despite their worse-than-averge off-road performance, the British M3 tanks performed well as they traversed the steep hillsides around Imphal and defeated the assaulting Japanese forces. Officially declared obsolete in April 1944, nevertheless, the Lee/Grant saw action until the end of the war in September 1945.
As someone who actually likes the M3 (no, I'm not claiming it was the best tank of the war, not by a long shot), I like how this video went about covering it. When it first appeared, it was actually a game changer for the Allies as it gave them something that could outgunned most of its opponents at the time and take their shots in return. This basically, though temporarily, reversed the situation as it had been the Germans enjoying that advantage in Africa up to that point. Moving on from simply rewording what the video said: My view on the Lee is as follows. The tank actually saw action the entire war as it was moved to the PTO as the ETO saw it replaced. There it devastated Japanese armor as it might as well have been a more reliable Tiger 1 against the lighter undergunned Japanese tanks. As for the tank itself, as was said it was basically a stopgap tank that when used right was very effective. It often get hate akin to the Devastator Torpedo Bomber (which more deserves said hate). Unlike the TBD, the Lee functioned well though as pointed out it suffered from issues not of the vehicle itself. While the TBD also suffered from inexperienced crews with flawed ordinance (Mk13 torps were horrible) the plane was bad itself. The Lee could be better compared to the F4 Wildcat which is generally respected. Both were early war US vehicles that functioned on par to their enemy when overall balance is considered, allowed for operational experience of crews and command to change doctrine, and more importantly held the line while their replacements gained valuable development time. This culminated in their better appreciated siblings (M4 Sherman and F6 Hellcat) entering the war with lessons learned both mechanically and operationally. Without these vehicles that held the line in 1942, 1943-45 would have been a lot tougher and possibly we'd be talking about 1946 or even 1947.
In full hindsight, this was definitely the "worst" American tank to see frontline service in any numbers. What we've lost track of is what that really implies. Even our "bad" tanks never had serious problems, because we weren't having to sort out what made a good design, we didn't push the envelope in weight or power, and even in our darkest hour, we didn't have to throw untested vehicles straight into the meatgrinder.
To me the fact that says it all is the following. As the M3 was a PLANNED stopgap they had a set number they were going to produce (then they would shut down the plants and convert to the M4). The demand for the M3 was so strong that they couldn't. Somewhere over twice the planned number of M3's got produced because (apparently according to the fighters) they were that much better than the alternatives in 1942-3. The M4 was certainly better but until problems casting a big enough turret were solved, the M3 was 'good enough.'
One major thing with the Lee that the British did, they called it the M3 Grant, and the modifications they made to the tank is also really important to note, such as an improved main turret and different main hull mounted guns on top of different and better ammunition. Could have also mentioned that the Canadians recieved the Lee and decided to use the Lee as a basis for a new tank design, designing the RAM which unfortunately never sew combat, except for the non turreted variant which was used as troop and equipment transport.
The Grant has a different turret, radio in the turret, and only six crew members. However, it mounted exactly the same weapons as the Lee variant, except for one less machinegun. Gun-armed Rams did see combat as OP tanks in Sexton regiments. But the Ram was deeply flawed by having a very small turret ring that limited the main gun size. A six-pounder was never a good choice for a tank gun. Fundamentally the only thing that made the M4 better than the ram was the M4's giant turret ring that allowed it to mount 75mm, 76mm and larger guns.
One aspect not mentioned, is that the M3 gave US industry a tank to learn how to build tanks, where the US was woefully behind at the start of WWII. Learning how to build tanks, and having your test bed actually be effective, is significant. Something had to be built while both the designs for a better tank were created, and for US industry to learn how to implement those designs. In that regard, the M3 was amazing, and it provided training for US industry, while providing decent benefit to the war effort.
It's definite click-bait-ish stuff. It's the lure based on the debate that the M4 Sherman was actually a deathtrap and therefore the worst tank in WWII. I think this is even further over-exaggerated with the big red fuel barrels strapped to the side of it. The common myth was that M4's would spontaneous burst into flames and cook the crews inside; hence a bigger risk to the users than the enemies it faced. Only problem with this myth is that diesel doesn't go up like that and it's usually ammunition that ends up cooking off, not fuel. The M3 was officially known as the M3 Medium. The Grant and Lee nickname was something given by the Allies. I can't remember which nation took which nickname, I just remember the main difference between the two was whether or not it has the second tier turret mounted or not. The British version did not have the second tier turret while the majority of the American versions had it. Second tier turret is probably the wrong term for it, but it's that turret on top of the turret.
I believe the problem was more having a gun that could shoot HE shells, anti personal the 75mm shoulder gun. More warhead volume. And high velocity AP rounds the 35mm upper gun. Anti tank. The Sherman with cannon and shell development managed to combine both into its 75mm gun.
"Seeking to incorporate their successful features such as heavy armor, powerful guns, and defective suspension systems into their own designs." Yes, folks -- he actually said "defective".
A major factor was reliability and ease of maintenance. It doesn't do any good to have 30 tanks in a company and only have 15 able to actually be able to fight when the time comes.
@@andyf4292 You saying the US didn't? They didn't want to join (the whole nation was still quite war weary after WW1 and they were also going through the Great Depression on top of that during the 30's and the US was hit quite hard by that) and would have much rather hung back and just kept supplying materials to the UK and its allies but then Pearl Harbor happened and they had no choice but to join in.
The M3 was good when it first showed up. It had the most powerful allied tank gun at that time, very reliable and maneuverable compared to any tank at that time. If they took the turret off it would have made a great tank destroyer.
It was the right tank at the right time, always a stopgap but good for what it was required for. You should also look at its service in the jungle, very effective as infantry support as well as tank on tank.
Probably because Japanese armor was terrible; most of their designs being underpowered, poorly armored and poorly armed. Granted, if you have a tank and the other side doesn't and lacks AT weapons, even a crappy tank can do well.
Actually, it was a "great tank", considering the alternative - "no tank." I am a fan of this tracked medieval fortress monstrosity. Still, I did cringe nearly every time Simon referred to it as a Lee in British service. Yes, there was a casual and ambiguous line about not wanting to "bore us with the minutia" of some slight differences, but I do think the name variants could have been succinctly covered and this episode be more historically accurate. It is actually quite fascinating (as minutia goes) that it was never the Americans who named their tanks - M-something or other, yes - Lee, Grant, no. It was always the British in WWII that named American tanks, until the Pershing in 1945. Yes, it took 4 years, but we did catch on to the value of naming our own kit. I'm glad to see that it passed muster and can even forgive the exceptionally intentional marketing click-bait of picturing an M4 Sherman (yes, a revision of sorts) with the title of "worst tank of WWII." It is someone's job to manipulatively "push those buttons'" driving clicks and comments.
It was a stopgap until they could produce and send something better. As strange as the tank was, it was still better than having absolutely nothing to provide to Allied and Soviet forces which needed whatever they could get their hands on at the time.
Didn't mention reliability and ease of maintenance versus the British and German options. There were 6000 of these and they could run and run like a Timex watch.
Certainly not a "great tank", but it was the classic concept: If you think there is likely to be a gunfight, you had better bring a gun. Please also remember that, in the early months of WW2, many obsolete and poorly made tanks were still in use, constantly being eclipsed by newer ones. The same thing, of course, applied to aircraft as well. In 1939, the ME109, the Zero, and many other bits of Axis gear were very sucessful. By 1945, they were totally outclassed by much newer American and British designs, and the vast industrial power plus the hard-earned lessons taught by combat had put the Allies way ahead of their adversaries. The Germans, in particular understood this very well, and attempted huge efforts to upgrade the Luftwaffe's equipment, but it was, obviously, too little to late.
The Grant was certainly a better version of it and you should have mentioned the incredible service the Lee/Grant provided iin Burma using canister shot in the jungle.
@@richtravis9562 The Grant was the British designed version. It removed the tiny turret on top of the turret and put a bustle in the main turret allowing the radio to be moved from the hull to where the commander and loader could access it which allowed them to remove a crew member who used to operate the radio in the hull. The 37mm canister shot is devastating and very useful for shooting nearby people you can't see in a jungle or taking out banzai charge as it famously did at Alligator Creek on Guadalcanal.
Coming up against 88s with high profile & while German's Army still being highly professional ( In the war). The high profile was a disadvantage but as touched on it was how they were used tactically in the theatre they were .. The old saying, " A tank is only as good as it's crew.
I like your presentations but can you point out which regiments fielded the Lee's at Alam Al Halfa because The Scots Greys, Fifth Royal Tank Regiment and the 2nd (I think) County of London Yeomanry all fielded Grant tanks which had some significant and obvious changes to the vehicle. Including, a better turret, removal of the top turret, re-situating the radio and reducing the crew capacity. So while I know the British army fielded Lee's, the majority were vehicles adapted to BA requirements called the Grant.
9:24 Appart from not showing the correct pictures, thats not completly correct, as the british didnt actually often fill the Ap rounds with He filler but instead with concrete, as they had problems with the fuzes and explosive filler. While the americans (wrong picture in the video) did indeed first only have the solid uncapped M72 Shot, which was of a more poor quality, as well as cince it was uncapped worse against the facehardened German armor. So befor they got the M61 Apcbc with Exp. D filler into production later on, they took german 7,5 cm K. Gr. Rot Pz (Apcbc 6,78 kg 80g of Tnt and Pent mix) and put them into the ammo caseings for the use in the M2 cannon. The irony at your statement is, that at 10:06 this picture is used, actually multiple times throughout the video showing from left to right 1x M61 Apcbc 1x M72 Ap 1x He shell and then 2x M61 again and that is an american Lee behind them.
Imagine, during the Civil War, there would later be military equipment named after both Robert E. Lee and William Tecumseh Sherman and they were on the same side
The Lee was not the tank anybody really wanted to have. But it was the tank they were happy to have when tha alternative was not having a tank at all, or having a completely ineffective tank.
The Brits sure made good use of their Grant tanks against the Italians, Germans and Japanese. I’m not sure the Lee is the worse US tank in WW2, it was after all the base for the Sherman tanks. Your presentation is very good though comparing the difference between the two ways they were utilized and equipped.
I think that you might have compared the Lee with another vehicle that was made for similar reasons. That of the Stug III. You could make the case that the Lee was an assault gun like the Stug only with a minor turret. The Stug was produced in the factory that made the PanzerIII after the PanzerIII was determined to be obsolete. The Germans wanted to keep the reliability of the PanzerIII but with an effective gun so they got rid of the turret and injected a 7.5 cm gun in the front of the hull. The gun had limited travers but it worked just fine. Apparently the Stug accounted for more allied tank kills than any other German armoured vehicle. I think the Lee would have been just as effective if it had been produced without the cavalry turret. Let’s be clear at the beginning of WWII there was this thought that tanks were divided into cavalry and infantry support tanks. The cavalry tanks had the small bore anti tank gun and the infantry support tank had the large bore high explosive general purpose gun. It’s clear that the developers of the Lee were trying to cover both tanks tasks with one tank. In truth they probably could have achieved it with just the 75 mm gun and had a lower profiled vehicle like the Stug. Of course they finally figured out that they only needed the 75mm and started making the Sherman.
The trouble with the Lee/Grant tank was that you had to move the entire tank to direct your main gun against Enemy tanks. Those extra minutes and seconds meant your Enemy had the opportunity to fire the first and second shot. Against a German 88, that is certain death. Luckily it was withdrawn after a while in North Africa. In Italy and Europe, it would have been a Pigeon ready to die.
Anyone who knows anything about WW2 tanks knows that it was good enough and did what it was required to do, despite its flaws, until it was superceded.
Here is a thought... Tank evolution really started to speed up around 1937. You could almost look at each year and see best and worst tank as they evolved/devolved.
The M3 Lee/Grant was an IMPROVISATION while the M4 medium tank was under development. Yes, that 75 mm weapon in a SPONSON on the right-hand side was a serious tactical defect, but against most GERMAN armor, it was adequate. By the time it'd face better-armed Panzer IV variants, as well as tank destroyers based on earlier German chassis, let alone the "Big Cats", it was already being replaced by the M4. The Soviets derided it as a "coffin for seven brothers", but had no problems making use of it, along with other Lend-Lease armor. The M3 would serve on throughout the war in Asia and the Pacific, mainly with the British 14th in the CBI theater, and the Aussies in New Guinea. It was still superior to just about anything the Japanese had.
What is a great stop gap measure, and bonus points that a lot of it's hull was similar to the Sherman - meaning the factories could switch that much easier to producing them. And the M3 Lee is closer to the M2 medium (with its 4x mg turrets) than it was to the M4. They took a 37mm medium thank, smacked a 75mm on the side, kept the 37mm bc why not, and jumped a generation in 6 months for US tanks, while telling manufacturing to figure out how to cast a turret ring big enough for a 75mm turret. Very American outside the box thinking.
I think the shear fact that the Lee was able function in all climates around the globe from the Steppes, to the Sahara, to the jungles of Burma means it could not have been that bad, the only reason it would be considered the worst US tank is because the tank that replaced it was so successful.
@ 4:30 you stated that the 75mm was better then the 57mm gun for AT work due to it better armor piecing round. That is incorrect the 57mm is the Ordnance QF 6-pounder which is better at AT work but did not have a HE round. The 75mm Mk2 of the Lee/Grant was adequate for the AT role and better for the Ground support due to the lack of HE for the 6 pounder. At 500m the 6 Ponder is penetratingly around 100mm when the M2 75 mm is only around 80mm the M3 pushes it up to around 90mm.
The British actually used captured German AP projectiles mated to the American cartridge case and the rifling driving bands ground down to fire out the American gun properly.
When the Lee/Grant first appeared in North Africa, the Axis didn’t have a tank able to combat it. Yes, they had the 88mm AA but it wasn’t that mobile. As the Italian Semovente began to be available in North Africa with the Ariete Division. But the Semovente could only penetrate the side armor.
There were several types of Semovente (an Italian term that just means "self propelled gun"). The 47/32, 75/18, 75/34, 105 etc. The 47/32 was by far the most numerous and the italian 47mm was a pretty good gun. But it was open topped so very vulnerable to HE fire.
@@executivedirector7467 The first Semovente were on the M13/40 family of chassis and used by Ariete Division as part of the Afrika Korps. This was a short 75/18. To my knowledge the 47/32 Semovente were on the chassis of the L6/40 light tank and actually a later development. I would reference “Iron Hulls Iron Hearts” by Ian W. Walker. These Semovente were available as no STuG’s saw service in North Africa until near the end in Tunisia and then only a handful. Remember, STuG’s are assigned to infantry units and manned by artillery soldiers. The Afrika Korps was panzer troops. See pages 110 to 112 about the Gazala Line battles.
M3 was better than anything the British had at the time in North Africa. They were grateful to get an armored vehicle that had a 75mm gun combined with a reliable powertrain and decent mobility. The Matilda had excellent armor, but a 2 pounder gun had virtually no value against infantry and a 15 mph top speed was painfully slow when facing German 88mm cannons.
Short answer: "No". See the Marmon-Herrington designs. Some of which were so horrible that they were good only for export, and some which were grudgingly put into service where they could do little harm, like Alaska. However, I am pleased that you came to the correct conclusion in the end. Oh... we'll ignore the thumbnail :)
Some observations:
"Defective suspension system?" VVSS may not have been the smoothest ride, but it was rugged, dependable and repairable.
"Technologically basic design?" What other tanks of the era had stabilised guns and synchromesh transmissions? (Granted, the first few tanks came off the line without)
Jake Devers commanded Armored Force at the time, not Army Ground forces. That was McNair, but a forgivable error.
The loss of 40 M3s in a battle can be contrasted with the loss of 40 M4s at Sidi bou Zhid a couple of months later. (Or the loss of 40 Panthers to M4s at Arracourt). Sometimes you just get outfought.
Operations in the Pacific after the M3 was no longer suitable for combat against the European forces are probably worth observing as well, especially given the pretty poor conditions of infrastructure and supply lines it was operating (well) in.
Chieftain = TRUTH. If that doesn’t convince, let’s talk track tensioning…👍🏼
I instantly thought of the “Worst Tank you never heard of” video.
We need to train the A.I. art generator on vehicle recognition.
Let's see, you had a army of experienced tankers who looked at it and loaded useful Armor Piercing explosive ammunition (the British used the American supplied AP Solid rounds for training ) so given American lack of experience...
I'd rather not ignore the thumbnail. This is at least the 3rd one they've gotten very wrong (P-61 and CF100), and it shows a huge lack of respect for the audience they serve.
Title says M3 Lee, thumbnail shows M4 Sherman
nerd
True
Click bait rage
Also it’s a grant lee
Came here to say that
A variant of this tank using a "British pattern" turret was called the Grant. These were used almost exclusively in British Commonwealth service. . Over 1,700 of the over 6,000 produced were "Grant"s.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
You beat me to it lol.
To convert a Lee into a Grant basically required the removal of the top machine gun turret. The British also did some minor internal configuration changes.
The British and Australians used M3 Lee's in the Pacific until the end of the war. Against Japanese tanks it did well.
You really should have mentioned the M3 in the Burma campaign where it also did well, and had the edge over Japanese tanks.
Every other tank had the edge over Japanese tanks.
My lawnmower is better than a Japanese tank
@TBH-nu2so I'd take my chances in the Bob Semple vs a Japanese tank.
@@DERP_Squad And you’d probably come out on top
@@TBH-nu2so Italian tanks have entered the chat....
One correction, the British used their own version of the M3 Medium they called the Grant. The difference was that it didn’t have the very top .30 machinegun turret and the turret was enlarged to hold the radio. The separate radio operator crewman was removed making room for things like a drinking water tank, something nice to have in the desert.
In the Far East campaign the Grant/Lee performed well. The Japanese didn’t have many tanks or even good anti-tank weapons which made it much more survivable. The 37mm gun was also quite effective as it had both a canister round that made it a 37mm shotgun and also had 60 degrees of elevation, allowing it to shoot up into trees in the jungle.
The British used both Grants and Lees interchangeably.
Never forget the most important characteristic of a tank: Availability. It comes in multiple ways. First, if you have 50k Shermans and 1k Tigers, the Sherman has much greater availability. Mechanical reliability is another. If it breaks down frequently, no good. Ease of maintenance add to that, if it takes three weeks of downtime for a week of uptime, nope. The last one, critical to the Lee, is how long to get it into theater. Instead of waiting for a superior tank later, we got a workable tank almost immediately.
yeah alot of german tanks broke down frequently even the Tiger....
There is that quote (paraphrased) attributed to a panzer officer: “Our Panther and Tiger could defeat 11 of your tanks (Sherman’s) but you always had 12.”
@@michaeltelson9798 my dad told me his uncle was a tanker in ww2 in shermans who told him the exact same thing. Except that it was 4 and 5 and to one German tank.
@@danielbrown9368 I think I got that from Bennet Cooper’s book. I would need to check on it.
The Lee was a good tank. It did what was asked of it in a time of serious need. Not unlike the Wildcat, Hurricane, the P-40, and P-39 in the early war years for Aviation
What should not be heard as stupidity, the best tank Lee? This copy of the B1 BIS, too high, too wide, under-powered and de-tracked at the slightest opportunity, for the planes, if there hadn't been the Dewoitine D.520, they wouldn't have had these fighters, stopped before taking the big head when there were still FT 17s in rupture tanks in the American army in 1936, when you think that there was the Christie and that you had spun it at the Soviet, the Lee wears its name well nickname of "coffin for 7 brave"...
@@yoannjollivet6022 Go home, you're drunk
Nope!!! Not drunk or crazy, the Lee was 3 years late, it was riveted, its jumped into the bodywork, injuring its crew or worse, touching the ammunition, the molded turret cracked, the lack of information is driving me crazy, while there was just to improve the concept of the Cristie, which moreover gave the T 38 to the Soviets, the French warned the Americans in 1940 of the obsolescence of the casemate turret and the molded armor, to weld the armor for a better resistance, but to praise this tank does not pay homage to the poor guy who died on board, when to the Grant, I just have one thing to say, the English are capable of the best and the worst in industry, if I am asked which is the best of the M4, I answered without hesitation the firefly...^^ The Japanese tanks sound like the Italian tanks, a good joke!!! XD
Ps: When we look in history, we must also look at what is hidden, it's not pretty, I grant it, but know the truth in its entirety
@yoannjollivet6022 he didn't say "best". But it shows what you care more about. I know it's your choice to talk down to people, but that doesn't make you any less of a prat. By "rupture" I assume you mean break through tank. By FT I assume you mean M1917. The US army built their own near identical model. The Grant only had a crew of 6, so the nickname has no relevance. Should I keep going with your errors or are you going to stop being a prick to people who haven't watched the same TH-cam video as you did?
@@yoannjollivet6022 It's also funny how your refer to Japanese tanks being a joke yet the defeated both Commonwealth and US forces pushing them out of the operational theatre until the Americans started island hopping after Guadalcanal.
PS Read more books and watch less TH-cam as a source of your education. White washing terms like the ones you use are only spouted by people who haven't studied.
At last! Someone that doesn't use the term "Russian" when they mean "Soviet"👍👍👍 and a nuanced answer to a headline grabbing question. As others have said, the Grant/Lee did a great job fighting the Japanese with Commonwealth Forces too.
The India/Burma front just doesn't get no love😢😭
@@JamesHillman-sirzethioForgotten Army anyone?
They also used the chassis for the Priest, which was a pretty successful self propelled howitzer. They made about 3500 (about 4500 with variants) of these and they served very successfully through the entire war, and beyond in some countries. So , 6258 lees, 1685 grants, and 4500 priests made from the same chassis. Not too shabby for a stopgap measure….
It was very effective in SE Asia for General Slim, as a bunker/pillbox buster against the IJA.
I was a tanker for over 23 years and fought in one in 91 and 04. Every tank has its good and bad sides. Even the M1. The Grant and Lee were made as a stop gap until sufficient Sherman's were produced. Our Army had to use them in North Africa because Roosevelt gave badly needed Sherman's to the Brits after the Gazala debacle in 42. The tank was still used in Russia, via lend lease and served until 45 in Burma, with the 14th army and did well there.
I would only add that " any tank" is always better than " no tank at all"
It's worth pointing out as far as the M4 is conserved. Giving some to the British ment did allow us to test it in combat. The M,4 was lacking (no wet storage for the ammunition hence Ronson and Tommy Cooker, no escape hatch and weak side armour to name a few). The British as we do had a tinker and made it better for both the Pongo's and you Septics.
'a coffin for 7 brothers' they called it
It existed because we hadn't figured out how to put a 75 mm gun in a turret
By 'in one in 1991' I hope you mean a tank but not an M3! :)
It was adequate for a very short period against Rommel and later with the British against the Japanese in Burma. It's development together with the experimental M2 allowed for a reliable and available drive train in the M4.
The British 8th Army was happy to get these in North Africa. Their own tanks were mechanically unreliable and lacked a HE round. The Grant addressed both of those issues.
The Soviets apparently called it “a grave for seven brothers”.
The Australian Armour and Artillery Museum has a TH-cam channel with fascinating episodes restoring one to running order.
Soviets were the last to use M3 mediums in Europe, at Kursk.
Yes they do, and they also tell the story of the Grant in aussie service.
If you ever get a chance to go to cairns definitely visit. It’s a world class collection, particularly german ww2.
@@nickdanger3802 Soviets did use it, but it wasn't used for frontline service much. Mainly used by rear units far from the teeth of battle.
And Ausarmor has two now on display and another four in storage.
Well done, Simon! I've had a soft spot for the M3 since l saw Humprey Bogart in "Sahara" when I was a lad. It was an ugly duckling to be sure (no, it didn't turn into a swan) but, as others have pointed out, it held the line till better tanks arrived on the scene.
"For its time" is such an important consideration in the evaluation of any weapon. The M4 Sherman was arguably the best tank in theater when it arrived in Africa in 1942; by late 1944 it was struggling against the German Panthers. The Grant/Lee held its own in Africa, filled out the ranks in Russia, and dominated the China-Burma-India theater, where it climbed slopes it was not designed for, drove through monsoons, and proved once again at Imphal/Kohima that any tank is far superior to no tank, particularly when the other side neglects to bring its anti-tank guns. Pretty good for a stopgap weapon, I'd say.
I was friends with a former desert rat before he died a few years ago. He said the American tanks, including the Grant/Lee were a big improvement on the British ones they had before that.
Every time I look at the two stills of the guys jumping off the Lee or the one where a crew is standing with the 75 mm ammo, I wish I could find the movie ''Sahara''. It is one of my all time favorites. Humphrey Bogart and supporting cast, were great, and of course the storyline/plot was exceptional, pretty cool flick.
The impression I always got from the Lee is that it was a good enough stop gap that could be quickly mass produced for emergency arms shipments but it was never meant to be used by anyone long term. There was a brief moment in history where it was useful but it was quickly outclassed by better Allied and Axis tanks advancements. Everyone involved at the time seemed to be aware of this fact. Basically it was a great bandaid solution but was never meant to be the end all be all of American WW2 tank design.
Pretty much. It was good for fighting earlier panzer variants but when you get newer panzer classes and the big cats, the lee is just outclassed l; especially when you can call in Shermans instead
you are correct
The British Army left all their gear in Dunkirk. So the M3 Lee/ Grant was “better than nothing.” The British loved the 75mm gun.
Another great video. If the Americans assigned a separate factor to produce mirror images of Lee tanks with the main gun on the other side, I wonder if a mixture of both designs in battle would mitigate some of the effects of have it's main gun mounted in its's side. The Lee's gun placement was better than have its's main gun centered in its's hull like German tank destroyers. I first saw a Lee tank in a Humphrey Bogart movie, The Sahara. The British called the Lee, the Grant. Their modifications included of course an internal hot plate to make tea! 😊
Never heard of this, but your main point is true for many situations. This was meant to stall until something better could be made, and it did so wonderfully. Sure, it could have been refined but the whole reason it existed was to buy time until the better Shermans could get out the door.
The Lee was an interim step all along. It mostly fougth in North Africa. They replaced the Lee with the Sherman which was a really good tank if not as good as a couple of the later German tanks. The problem is tanks on both sides came out out of phase with each other.
The aspect the British prized the most was the Lee’s reliability. They could start that tank every single morning, and drove off without mechanical breakdowns.
Damn important in combat
The M3 (whether Lee or Grant) was a good tank because it served the purpose for which it was intended, which was to quickly get a tank into action which could match the German Panzer III and Panzer IV.
This is more than could be said for a number of other tank designs throughout history.
Even after it became obsolete in the North African and European theatres, it continued to provide good service against the Japanese army in places like Burma and New Guinea.
Your analysis same as mine. Great in North Africa. All knew it was a stopgap. And there were other instances of problems with US ammunition , the last iteration of the Sherman (1944) was magnificent with a much better gun and armament, but a heat (high explosive) round was never produced during the war. It was still successful in Italy grouped with older Sherman’s, virtually not used in northwest Europe. Relying on The Chiefton for analysis.
"a heat (high explosive) round was never produced during the war."
Source?
@@nickdanger3802 Source: A lecture on the creation and development of the Sherman by The Chiefton. The version I was referring to was the late war m4 with the 76 mm cannon. Why the delay in developing a HEAT round? I don’t know. It went into service with only a sabot round. Don’t remember the full numerical designation of this version. Saw service long after the war, many imperfections and deficiencies of earlier versions had been corrected and improved
@@halporter9 the 76mm sherman didnt have apds, are you sure you are not getting it mixed up with the M41?
Who cares if an HEAT round was developed for the M4 in WW2? It already had other ammo. HEAT in those days was usually confined to howitzers needed an emergency AT round, and usually wasn't very good.
@@executivedirector7467 Yeah. Sorry I mentioned it. Actually the wording I encountered was “explosive round” which I assumed was the same as a HEAT round for the 76. I should keep my mouth shut, or keep my mouth shut. About some things that I half know, even though I don’t realize it at the time. I will also look up the exact M4 variant designation so everyone knows what I am talking about. The Chieftain, by the way is an active duty armored Lt. Colonel (National Guard?) so mistakes are mine not his
M3 Lee: Was I a good tank?
Yes, you were
Your comment that the U.S. 75mm ammunition was bad is disproved in the picture showing three of the crewmen holding M61 Armor Piercing Capped with Tracer rounds. This round had a High Explosive charge and used the M66 Base Detonating Fuze. Another crewman has an M48 High Explosive round. Only one crewman has an M72 Armor Piercing (solid shot). We provided the rounds for Britain during that time and Canada used and produced the same rounds. Also, your depiction of the AP Rounds BOTH had a HE Charge and BD Fuzing. One of the shortcomings of the M3 was that initial batches had the M2 Cannon (the one pictured with the counterweight). This gun was shorter and it's muzzle velocity was around 1800 FPS. Later variants had the longer M3 Cannon with a 2000 FPS velocity.
Yeah, that made no sense. Especially as the british where notorious for using fillerless anti-tank ammo, as any british Warthunder player is painfully aware of...
Mobility, protection and firepower. You cannot get one without negatively affecting at least one of the other two criterias for what a good tank should be able to do.
My Uncle (Ernst) was in the Africa 15th Division and was the gunner in a Pz 3 J ….according to him when they first encountered some “Grants” (English version) they felt they were outclassed…he said that the Grant had better frontal armor he said its 75mm gun could penetrate their tanks “sehr gut”…BUT…6 months later he was in a upgraded Pz 3 M and then “der spiesse wurde umgedtecht” (the tables were turned)
Let’s remember that it was gonna be facing Panzer 2s, 3s, early 4s, and early StuGz during the starting years of its engagement.
When we get later yeah it’s not great compared to rival tanks, but once the US entered properly into fighting during Italy and France they had the Sherman.
Also, as we know, quantity > quality during ww2, doesn’t matter if you can make a Tiger when you have 1300 of them and the enemy has 6000 Lees and almost 50000 shermans you have to take on.
Quality is not always better
Well said. The mediocre tank that is there to provide your infantry with armoured support when needed always beats the super-duper tank that only arrives after the show. Especially since tanks only occassionally fight other tanks but rather entrenched infantry / artillery instead. Speaking of engaging entrenched infantry: unfotrunately, megaprojects forgot to mention the use of Lee tanks by the indian and british army in burma where they really excelled as bunker busters.
And lets not pretend like the Sherman wasn't a quality tank it very much was.
There was no tank on the battlefield that could take on an 88 mm gun and win until very late in the war. Tanks fighting tank was the idea but the 88 was a shock to the allies that didn't even have any competitor.
@@JosipRadnik1 or the super duper tank that gets bombed/breaks down on a mission 😂.
I'm not an expert but have been studying World War II and the weapons used therein for over 50 years. One point about the M3 I used to see in various places was that a huge problem was its riveted construction. When the M3 was struck by enemy fire, it was reported the rivets came apart and ricocheted around the crew compartment - to the detriment of the crew. On the other hand, it seems to me to be a case of expectations versus true needs leaving Americans dissatisfied. The British and Russians needed whatever they could get and adapted their tactics to the high silhouette and lack of a turret for the main gun.Note the Germans didn't quibble about turrets - they made more StuGs than true panzers and accepted loss of a turret for having more fighting vehicles - which they put to effective use. In many real world circumstances, attitude can help overcome or magnify obstacles.
The Australian army used the M3 Grant in the Pacific theatre. An excellent series of videos on one being restored by the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum is available on YT.
Whooo! I was hoping to see another grant restoration viewer in the comments!
Sorry but no Australian army did have M3 Lee/Grants but were used for training in Australia and never saw combat all the tanks used by Australia in the Pacific were British Matilda's and M3 Stuart Light Tanks
The Lee/Grant was a great tank all things considered. The 75mm gun was incredibly powerful and while it was fixed in the hull, the tank itself was maneuverable enough to get into firing positions quickly.
So many military historians rave about the effectiveness of the Stug III from Germany, but fail to compare the Lee to the German turretless AFVs. As far as turretless vehicles go, the M3 performed well, was adequately gunned for the service life, and scored it's share of kills.
All in all, a very successful and effective tank. It filled a need, did its job, and had enough utility to remain effective into the war. It's ugly, tall, and limited compared to turreted tanks, but for what it was asked to do, it did it well.
The M3 Lee and close cousin Grant were both good tanks, transitional models that got the job done while the M4 was under development. They had a 75mm cannon for soft targets such as trucks or artillery and a 37mm cannon for armored targets. It was a product of the 30s and the M4 was surely welcomed, but they were decent.
I think that was a pretty good assessment of the Lee/Grant. And I did some time in tanks and around them.
Never heard a complaint about the M3 Lee from any Brit that served in North Africa at the time. They point out its flaws but seems they loved that 75mm gun no matter how it was mounted on the vehicle. Limited traverse is one of those stats people bring up, but its unsupported by facts. Studies with S tank later in the Cold War showed it got on target just as quick as turreted tank. High silhouette is always brought up with the M3 and M4 but never brought up with the Panther or Tiger. And yes, the Panther had a higher silhouette than the M4.
The Lee performed well during the Japanese theater, leaving that out sways the balance a bit. And if the Soviets don't copy it, they don't like it.
In the Burma Campaign, the M3 medium tank's main task was infantry support. It played a pivotal role during the Battle of Imphal, during which the Imperial Japanese Army's 14th Regiment (primarily equipped with their own Type 95 H-Go light tanks, together with a handful of captured British M3 Stuart light tanks) encountered M3 medium tanks for the first time and found their light tanks outgunned and outmatched by the better British armour. Despite their worse-than-averge off-road performance, the British M3 tanks performed well as they traversed the steep hillsides around Imphal and defeated the assaulting Japanese forces. Officially declared obsolete in April 1944, nevertheless, the Lee/Grant saw action until the end of the war in September 1945.
As someone who actually likes the M3 (no, I'm not claiming it was the best tank of the war, not by a long shot), I like how this video went about covering it. When it first appeared, it was actually a game changer for the Allies as it gave them something that could outgunned most of its opponents at the time and take their shots in return. This basically, though temporarily, reversed the situation as it had been the Germans enjoying that advantage in Africa up to that point. Moving on from simply rewording what the video said:
My view on the Lee is as follows. The tank actually saw action the entire war as it was moved to the PTO as the ETO saw it replaced. There it devastated Japanese armor as it might as well have been a more reliable Tiger 1 against the lighter undergunned Japanese tanks. As for the tank itself, as was said it was basically a stopgap tank that when used right was very effective. It often get hate akin to the Devastator Torpedo Bomber (which more deserves said hate). Unlike the TBD, the Lee functioned well though as pointed out it suffered from issues not of the vehicle itself. While the TBD also suffered from inexperienced crews with flawed ordinance (Mk13 torps were horrible) the plane was bad itself. The Lee could be better compared to the F4 Wildcat which is generally respected. Both were early war US vehicles that functioned on par to their enemy when overall balance is considered, allowed for operational experience of crews and command to change doctrine, and more importantly held the line while their replacements gained valuable development time. This culminated in their better appreciated siblings (M4 Sherman and F6 Hellcat) entering the war with lessons learned both mechanically and operationally. Without these vehicles that held the line in 1942, 1943-45 would have been a lot tougher and possibly we'd be talking about 1946 or even 1947.
Is your thumbnail guy putting the wrong vehicles in the thumbnail on purpose or do they just pick a random ww2 vehicle and say 'eh, good enough"
Exactly. They did the exact same thing with the P-61 Black Widow video.
@tartanphantom yep, saw that one too. Whats next, a nimitz class carrier in the thumbnail for a video on battleships? 😂
In full hindsight, this was definitely the "worst" American tank to see frontline service in any numbers. What we've lost track of is what that really implies. Even our "bad" tanks never had serious problems, because we weren't having to sort out what made a good design, we didn't push the envelope in weight or power, and even in our darkest hour, we didn't have to throw untested vehicles straight into the meatgrinder.
To me the fact that says it all is the following. As the M3 was a PLANNED stopgap they had a set number they were going to produce (then they would shut down the plants and convert to the M4). The demand for the M3 was so strong that they couldn't. Somewhere over twice the planned number of M3's got produced because (apparently according to the fighters) they were that much better than the alternatives in 1942-3. The M4 was certainly better but until problems casting a big enough turret were solved, the M3 was 'good enough.'
One major thing with the Lee that the British did, they called it the M3 Grant, and the modifications they made to the tank is also really important to note, such as an improved main turret and different main hull mounted guns on top of different and better ammunition. Could have also mentioned that the Canadians recieved the Lee and decided to use the Lee as a basis for a new tank design, designing the RAM which unfortunately never sew combat, except for the non turreted variant which was used as troop and equipment transport.
The Grant has a different turret, radio in the turret, and only six crew members. However, it mounted exactly the same weapons as the Lee variant, except for one less machinegun.
Gun-armed Rams did see combat as OP tanks in Sexton regiments.
But the Ram was deeply flawed by having a very small turret ring that limited the main gun size. A six-pounder was never a good choice for a tank gun. Fundamentally the only thing that made the M4 better than the ram was the M4's giant turret ring that allowed it to mount 75mm, 76mm and larger guns.
Love this tank, made quite a few models of it and variations.
One aspect not mentioned, is that the M3 gave US industry a tank to learn how to build tanks, where the US was woefully behind at the start of WWII.
Learning how to build tanks, and having your test bed actually be effective, is significant. Something had to be built while both the designs for a better tank were created, and for US industry to learn how to implement those designs. In that regard, the M3 was amazing, and it provided training for US industry, while providing decent benefit to the war effort.
So why is the thumbnail the M4 Sherman
Someone messed up lol
M3 is a Lee grant
Might be a thing with the thumbnails now... the P61 one was wrong as well lol
A M3 that identifies as a M4? There are no ‘mistakes’.
Definite AI generated
Clickbait, mate.
It's definite click-bait-ish stuff. It's the lure based on the debate that the M4 Sherman was actually a deathtrap and therefore the worst tank in WWII. I think this is even further over-exaggerated with the big red fuel barrels strapped to the side of it. The common myth was that M4's would spontaneous burst into flames and cook the crews inside; hence a bigger risk to the users than the enemies it faced. Only problem with this myth is that diesel doesn't go up like that and it's usually ammunition that ends up cooking off, not fuel.
The M3 was officially known as the M3 Medium. The Grant and Lee nickname was something given by the Allies. I can't remember which nation took which nickname, I just remember the main difference between the two was whether or not it has the second tier turret mounted or not. The British version did not have the second tier turret while the majority of the American versions had it. Second tier turret is probably the wrong term for it, but it's that turret on top of the turret.
It also seems to be the inspiration for the design of the Darlek
I believe the problem was more having a gun that could shoot HE shells, anti personal the 75mm shoulder gun. More warhead volume.
And high velocity AP rounds the 35mm upper gun. Anti tank.
The Sherman with cannon and shell development managed to combine both into its 75mm gun.
"Seeking to incorporate their successful features such as heavy armor, powerful guns, and defective suspension systems into their own designs."
Yes, folks -- he actually said "defective".
1:10 - Chapter 1 - Development
4:05 - Chapter 2 - Combat performance
13:35 - Chapter 3 - Analysis
Mate, have you seen Britain’s early war tanks?😂😂😂
Title, "Worst American Tank"...
Try reading the title properly genius.
All ot the early tanks were weaker than the late war tanks. But none could deal with the 88 mm gun.
@@alfadasfirehe was just saying have you seen he wasnt on about this video so there is no reason to a dick about it
How many tanks did the yanks even field. Three? Not exactly a huge fleet to choose from.
A major factor was reliability and ease of maintenance.
It doesn't do any good to have 30 tanks in a company and only have 15 able to actually be able to fight when the time comes.
British also had a fair bit more tank warfare experience by the time they received the M3s compared to the Americans.
Correct. Many inexperienced units will take heavy (and often needless) losses in their first campaign.
well, we did actually turn up on time for the war...
@@andyf4292 That's a pretty childish comment.
Different nations have different interests.
@@andyf4292 You saying the US didn't? They didn't want to join (the whole nation was still quite war weary after WW1 and they were also going through the Great Depression on top of that during the 30's and the US was hit quite hard by that) and would have much rather hung back and just kept supplying materials to the UK and its allies but then Pearl Harbor happened and they had no choice but to join in.
The Lee/Grant did what it was designed to do. It was a temporary stopgap and it performed with distinction.
The flawed tank you have right now is better than the perfect tank you don't have yet.
The M3 was good when it first showed up. It had the most powerful allied tank gun at that time, very reliable and maneuverable compared to any tank at that time. If they took the turret off it would have made a great tank destroyer.
It was the right tank at the right time, always a stopgap but good for what it was required for. You should also look at its service in the jungle, very effective as infantry support as well as tank on tank.
Probably because Japanese armor was terrible; most of their designs being underpowered, poorly armored and poorly armed. Granted, if you have a tank and the other side doesn't and lacks AT weapons, even a crappy tank can do well.
Actually, it was a "great tank", considering the alternative - "no tank." I am a fan of this tracked medieval fortress monstrosity. Still, I did cringe nearly every time Simon referred to it as a Lee in British service. Yes, there was a casual and ambiguous line about not wanting to "bore us with the minutia" of some slight differences, but I do think the name variants could have been succinctly covered and this episode be more historically accurate. It is actually quite fascinating (as minutia goes) that it was never the Americans who named their tanks - M-something or other, yes - Lee, Grant, no. It was always the British in WWII that named American tanks, until the Pershing in 1945. Yes, it took 4 years, but we did catch on to the value of naming our own kit. I'm glad to see that it passed muster and can even forgive the exceptionally intentional marketing click-bait of picturing an M4 Sherman (yes, a revision of sorts) with the title of "worst tank of WWII." It is someone's job to manipulatively "push those buttons'" driving clicks and comments.
It was a stopgap until they could produce and send something better. As strange as the tank was, it was still better than having absolutely nothing to provide to Allied and Soviet forces which needed whatever they could get their hands on at the time.
The lee that is shown at 11:24 is fitted with the Canadian Dry Pin (CDP) track system.
Didn't mention reliability and ease of maintenance versus the British and German options. There were 6000 of these and they could run and run like a Timex watch.
Certainly not a "great tank", but it was the classic concept:
If you think there is likely to be a gunfight, you had better bring a gun. Please also remember that, in the early months of WW2, many obsolete and poorly made tanks were still in use, constantly being eclipsed by newer ones. The same thing, of course, applied to aircraft as well. In 1939, the ME109, the Zero, and many other bits of Axis gear were very sucessful. By 1945, they were totally outclassed by much newer American and British designs, and the vast industrial power plus the hard-earned lessons taught by combat had put the Allies way ahead of their adversaries.
The Germans, in particular understood this very well, and attempted huge efforts to upgrade the Luftwaffe's equipment, but it was, obviously, too little to late.
Just discovered your channel and binged three videos in a row.
Watch Sahara, staring Humphrey Bogart, it shows a tank similar to the one you talk about
The Grant was certainly a better version of it and you should have mentioned the incredible service the Lee/Grant provided iin Burma using canister shot in the jungle.
well, i wasn't aware. details?
@@richtravis9562 The Grant was the British designed version. It removed the tiny turret on top of the turret and put a bustle in the main turret allowing the radio to be moved from the hull to where the commander and loader could access it which allowed them to remove a crew member who used to operate the radio in the hull.
The 37mm canister shot is devastating and very useful for shooting nearby people you can't see in a jungle or taking out banzai charge as it famously did at Alligator Creek on Guadalcanal.
@@JayMcKinsey The Grant was better, yes, but it's a very marginal improvement. The British army used the lee and Grant interchangeably.
"Sahara" Great film with Humphrey Bogart feathering the M3 Lee
Coming up against 88s with high profile & while German's Army still being highly professional ( In the war). The high profile was a disadvantage but as touched on it was how they were used tactically in the theatre they were ..
The old saying, " A tank is only as good as it's crew.
Remember the M3L Lee got put into production. Others did not.
I like your presentations but can you point out which regiments fielded the Lee's at Alam Al Halfa because The Scots Greys, Fifth Royal Tank Regiment and the 2nd (I think) County of London Yeomanry all fielded Grant tanks which had some significant and obvious changes to the vehicle. Including, a better turret, removal of the top turret, re-situating the radio and reducing the crew capacity. So while I know the British army fielded Lee's, the majority were vehicles adapted to BA requirements called the Grant.
9:24 Appart from not showing the correct pictures, thats not completly correct, as the british didnt actually often fill the Ap rounds with He filler but instead with concrete, as they had problems with the fuzes and explosive filler. While the americans (wrong picture in the video) did indeed first only have the solid uncapped M72 Shot, which was of a more poor quality, as well as cince it was uncapped worse against the facehardened German armor. So befor they got the M61 Apcbc with Exp. D filler into production later on, they took german 7,5 cm K. Gr. Rot Pz (Apcbc 6,78 kg 80g of Tnt and Pent mix) and put them into the ammo caseings for the use in the M2 cannon. The irony at your statement is, that at 10:06 this picture is used, actually multiple times throughout the video showing from left to right 1x M61 Apcbc 1x M72 Ap 1x He shell and then 2x M61 again and that is an american Lee behind them.
The M3 did exactly what was asked of it. It was always a stop-gap design and seeing that the Allies took the gold for WWII, it worked out ok.
Imagine, during the Civil War, there would later be military equipment named after both Robert E. Lee and William Tecumseh Sherman and they were on the same side
Great assessment!
The Lee was not the tank anybody really wanted to have. But it was the tank they were happy to have when tha alternative was not having a tank at all, or having a completely ineffective tank.
The Brits sure made good use of their Grant tanks against the Italians, Germans and Japanese. I’m not sure the Lee is the worse US tank in WW2, it was after all the base for the Sherman tanks. Your presentation is very good though comparing the difference between the two ways they were utilized and equipped.
Great video. I thought by the click-bait title this was going to be a hate fest. It is good to hear the Lee/Grant get some love.
You should look into the M59 Ontos.
You should cover the m-48 and the m-60 Patton tanks
1:18 A very young George S. Patton, Jr. posing in front of a French Renault tank in the Summer of 1918
It was the centerpiece of the movie Sahara with Humphrey Bogart, a superb WW2 movie.
I think that you might have compared the Lee with another vehicle that was made for similar reasons. That of the Stug III. You could make the case that the Lee was an assault gun like the Stug only with a minor turret. The Stug was produced in the factory that made the PanzerIII after the PanzerIII was determined to be obsolete. The Germans wanted to keep the reliability of the PanzerIII but with an effective gun so they got rid of the turret and injected a 7.5 cm gun in the front of the hull. The gun had limited travers but it worked just fine. Apparently the Stug accounted for more allied tank kills than any other German armoured vehicle. I think the Lee would have been just as effective if it had been produced without the cavalry turret.
Let’s be clear at the beginning of WWII there was this thought that tanks were divided into cavalry and infantry support tanks. The cavalry tanks had the small bore anti tank gun and the infantry support tank had the large bore high explosive general purpose gun. It’s clear that the developers of the Lee were trying to cover both tanks tasks with one tank. In truth they probably could have achieved it with just the 75 mm gun and had a lower profiled vehicle like the Stug. Of course they finally figured out that they only needed the 75mm and started making the Sherman.
Good points.
The trouble with the Lee/Grant tank was that you had to move the entire tank to direct your main gun against Enemy tanks. Those extra minutes and seconds meant your Enemy had the opportunity to fire the first and second shot. Against a German 88, that is certain death.
Luckily it was withdrawn after a while in North Africa. In Italy and Europe, it would have been a Pigeon ready to die.
Could you do a video on the M-18 Hellcat
As a retired Tank Platoon Sgt I find this video very informative.
A weapon has to be good enough. The M3 was, when it was needed most.
Tanks for that Simon!
Anyone who knows anything about WW2 tanks knows that it was good enough and did what it was required to do, despite its flaws, until it was superceded.
Here is a thought... Tank evolution really started to speed up around 1937. You could almost look at each year and see best and worst tank as they evolved/devolved.
The M3 Lee/Grant was an IMPROVISATION while the M4 medium tank was under development. Yes, that 75 mm weapon in a SPONSON on the right-hand side was a serious tactical defect, but against most GERMAN armor, it was adequate. By the time it'd face better-armed Panzer IV variants, as well as tank destroyers based on earlier German chassis, let alone the "Big Cats", it was already being replaced by the M4. The Soviets derided it as a "coffin for seven brothers", but had no problems making use of it, along with other Lend-Lease armor.
The M3 would serve on throughout the war in Asia and the Pacific, mainly with the British 14th in the CBI theater, and the Aussies in New Guinea. It was still superior to just about anything the Japanese had.
What is a great stop gap measure, and bonus points that a lot of it's hull was similar to the Sherman - meaning the factories could switch that much easier to producing them. And the M3 Lee is closer to the M2 medium (with its 4x mg turrets) than it was to the M4. They took a 37mm medium thank, smacked a 75mm on the side, kept the 37mm bc why not, and jumped a generation in 6 months for US tanks, while telling manufacturing to figure out how to cast a turret ring big enough for a 75mm turret. Very American outside the box thinking.
Useful, In the WOT game I played it more like a fixed gun tank destroyer. Hide behind tall landscape. Shoot off a few rounds and scoot away.
I think the shear fact that the Lee was able function in all climates around the globe from the Steppes, to the Sahara, to the jungles of Burma means it could not have been that bad, the only reason it would be considered the worst US tank is because the tank that replaced it was so successful.
I think it would be the electrically driven tank meant to replace the Sherman. Had no reliability.
M3 was reliable and did well in the early war
Thats an M4 sherman with a Chaffee Turret in the Thumbnail
Is
Is that a world of tanks vehicle?
@ 4:30 you stated that the 75mm was better then the 57mm gun for AT work due to it better armor piecing round. That is incorrect the 57mm is the Ordnance QF 6-pounder which is better at AT work but did not have a HE round. The 75mm Mk2 of the Lee/Grant was adequate for the AT role and better for the Ground support due to the lack of HE for the 6 pounder. At 500m the 6 Ponder is penetratingly around 100mm when the M2 75 mm is only around 80mm the M3 pushes it up to around 90mm.
The British actually used captured German AP projectiles mated to the American cartridge case and the rifling driving bands ground down to fire out the American gun properly.
And the Americans resorted to using French ammunition captured in Syria…
When the Lee/Grant first appeared in North Africa, the Axis didn’t have a tank able to combat it. Yes, they had the 88mm AA but it wasn’t that mobile. As the Italian Semovente began to be available in North Africa with the Ariete Division. But the Semovente could only penetrate the side armor.
There were several types of Semovente (an Italian term that just means "self propelled gun"). The 47/32, 75/18, 75/34, 105 etc.
The 47/32 was by far the most numerous and the italian 47mm was a pretty good gun. But it was open topped so very vulnerable to HE fire.
@@executivedirector7467 The first Semovente were on the M13/40 family of chassis and used by Ariete Division as part of the Afrika Korps. This was a short 75/18. To my knowledge the 47/32 Semovente were on the chassis of the L6/40 light tank and actually a later development.
I would reference “Iron Hulls Iron Hearts” by Ian W. Walker. These Semovente were available as no STuG’s saw service in North Africa until near the end in Tunisia and then only a handful. Remember, STuG’s are assigned to infantry units and manned by artillery soldiers. The Afrika Korps was panzer troops. See pages 110 to 112 about the Gazala Line battles.
@@michaeltelson9798 You're right - the 75/18 did precede the 47/32.
M3 was better than anything the British had at the time in North Africa. They were grateful to get an armored vehicle that had a 75mm gun combined with a reliable powertrain and decent mobility. The Matilda had excellent armor, but a 2 pounder gun had virtually no value against infantry and a 15 mph top speed was painfully slow when facing German 88mm cannons.
It was adeqaite, for the time. Sometimes "good enough" is all it takes, and for a few years the Lee/Grant was just that.
Massively impressive beard mate