Yeah, it's not that it lacks in any other measures like crew size or amount of machine guns. The British version was way better, to begin with. 45-50mm hi-velocity anti-tank gun and 5 crew members would make good enough tank a really good one.
And it was a good tank on top of that. One of the best in the world for a year or so. Look up the old Bogart film _Sahara_ , an M3 plays one of the leading roles, and they used an actual M3 to film it, when it was still a brand new tank.
The love of MGs on tanks is nothing compared to their love of AA guns on ships. When they refitted the Richelieu they absolutely ladled 20mm and quad 40mm AA onto it.
Great series of videos Nick! I've been wondering: how did a tall lad like yourself get around the height restrictions for US army tankers? Do they have waivers for the tall yet determined?
I don’t believe there are any. I served in the mid 80’s, and I knew a few lanky Soldiers who somehow managed to fold themselves up enough to fit into M60A3’s.
Nick explains this in one if his videos. He "misstated" his height on the paperwork when initially putting in for tanks and nobody ever called him to task for it.
I hadn't watched this one, but was looking at the 1944 Burma campaign. Of course the Chieftain had done a tour. But the description of the M2 as a mobile machine gun nest with a 37mm gun on top to deal with tanks is precious. It made me chortle out loud.
I love this thing in WOT. Yeah it's got that handicap of a turret and the strange main gun placement, but I didn't do too bad in it and when you survive a game, you get a sense of accomplishment in it. That feeling only increases when you do well in it! Lol!
Haha yes I've climbed inside that very tank in cairns, curater is a great bloke very friendly really good museum they even have a shooting range where you can shoot mg42's Brens etc.
My uncle commanded one in North Africa. At Kasserine, they rigged a cord to both triggers and fired straight ahead, at enemy infantry , until the belts were exhausted.
Just watched it the other day. Maybe that's why TH-cam is recommending this to me again? Was better than I expected, I watched the whole thing in one sitting, which is unusual for me.
It measures miles, the testing it. That's how you calibrate speedometers and odometers, and verify fuel consumption, oil consumption, etc. You saw them attaching those to every car they ran through tests at magazines like _Car and Driver_ until a few years ago when GPS equipment became good enough to replace it. How else do you exactly measure distances traveled?
I really like the idea behind the M3, the lack of a coaxial machine gun seems to be the biggest problem it has. Was there insufficient room inside the turret for a 30 calibre? Maybe a slightly larger or redesigned turret might have been possible. Also I had no idea there was a museum like that in QLD, I really want to holiday in cairns now.
+Marc83Aus M3 Medium Lee/Grant both have a .30 cal M1919 coaxial MG in the turret. The particular tank in the video might have had it removed as part of its decomissioning.
In many nations it's preferred if museums don't have functioning weapons. They need to either be disabled or removed. Most machine guns you find on museum tanks are dummies that don't work. A museum is allowed to have weapons but it needs a high amount of security to prevent theft and needs all kinds of licences. So most chose to just disable the weapons. Smaller weapons like rifles are often put behind protected glass so that they don't have to modify them and possibly ruin the historical significance.
Something about this monstrosity of a machine is so charming to me. I wanna see it upgraded, with a welded hull, better engine, HVSS, and a reworked forward crew compartment to allow for better armor sloping, and possibly even more traverse for the 75mm.
Can you hear the response of tank mechanics in early WWII being told they had a great 'user interface'. Hey, I'm not using my face to work on this thing.
It ❤️ was years before I realised that the Sherman was a Lee/Grant with a 75mm gun in a fully rotating turret. The same engine and suspension should have been a big clue. ❤️
The entire point of this tank is that it has a fucking 75. Like WTF actually goes through the heads of people like you? Or maybe you just don't know that an M3 Medium and an M3 Light aren't the same thing? And apparently didn't bother to watch the video at all. They probably thought "man that tank is a killer, thank God I'm in the newest, most modern tank our military has available, and we have this great big 75mm gun". Not sure which M3s Mediums were facing the Tiger though unless it was in the East. When they introduced the M3 Medium in Africa all Germany had was Pz IIIs and IVs, and this totally dominated them for months. But the time they sent Tigers over they were already reequipping with the M4 Medium.
Amazing to think the US went in just 4 years from fielding this M3 in 1941 to fielding the M24 in 1945. Although the Germans made some slight advances in those years also...
@@agentkaos1768 I'm referring to the M24 Chaffee, not the M4 Sherman. It's not a direct tank-to-tank comparison, since the Grant was a medium tank and the Chaffee a light one. It's more a comparison of how sophisticated tank design had become.
Hello Chieftain, always when I see such a thing as welded machine gun ports on this tank I wonder if those spots are actually harder to penetrate than the rest of the armor. When I think about sloped armor I wonder if there ever have been considerations about a plate fin armor type, where you apply additional armor with spaces in between (that are supposedly not being larger than an incoming, lets say, 75 mm projectile) . I am sure this question has already been answered somewhere, but I have not come across it yet. Thank you :).
+Soviet Santa Thanks for the correction! Apparently that was their commentary about how easily it caught fire under combat and killed everyone inside. This was a lend/lease tank and they hated it.
+Shkotay D I think it generally was more than 6 brothers. The russians also used them as armored personnel carriers, so basically they stuffed an entire infantry squad INTO the tank in addition to the crew who still had to drive and shoot while basically being crammed together like sardines in a can.
I would have at least alluded to the story about BEF tanks facing Rommel in 1940 without an HE capability to counter 8.8 cm Flak guns. For all its faults, the M-3 could have changed the course of that particular battle and there were plenty of similar situations in North Africa.
srry chieftain for being late. i just loggin my WOT profile. i wanted to tank(thank) you for you service in the army. also to all the great vets in WOT. yous videos are awesome, and your bloopers are funny. keep enlightening us with the knowledge of tanks :D.
I'm not sure if this applies to you talking about the Grants 37mm stabilizer around 15:45, but the Shermans stabilizer had even more issues, I don't know if these would also apply to the Grant. Ordnances official line was that it "was not precise enough to permit the Sherman to fire on the move but rather helped the gunner keep the reticle on-target during movement, so that when the tank stopped to fire, the gun would already be roughly aimed in the right direction. Gunner who had been extensively trained on maintaining the gyrostabilizer felt that it was a worthwhile feature, but due to combat attrition, more and more replacement gunners were not familiar with the system, and it fell into disuse in some units in late 1944" - Source 'Panther vs Sherman: Battle of the Bulge 1944: Zaloga, Page 28' However the reality was much, much worse. 1.The gyrostabilizer took at least 5 minutes to spin up before it could be engaged. 2.Once it was spun up, the gyrostabilizer could not be left running for extended periods of time because of wear and tear on the system. 3.Before the gyrostabilizer could be used at all, it had to be calibrated. This process took a trained gun crew about 20 minutes to accomplish. 4.Calibration of the gyrostabilizer had to be performed at least daily, and more often under conditions in which temperatures were very low or very hot, when they changed much during the day. 5.Fine tuning the calibration could be done only when the main gun was fired. 6.Depending on many variables, fine tuning might require the discharge of one to three rounds on average. 7.Once the gyrostabilizer was fine tuned for HE rounds, for example, it had to be retuned to use a round of different weight like shot or smoke. 'TK-525 Operation and Maintenance of the Gyro-Stabilizer. Chassis Group, Tank Department, The Armored School, Ft. Knox, KY. (2-16-44-500)' Further reports suggested that not even trained crews used the thing, opposite to what Ordnance officers suggested who also possibly suggested it was much better than it actually was claimed to be in manuals. These reports seem to of been self-serving and intended to obscure the fact that the system was essentially worthless in combat. Not surprisingly they managed to leave out these few important details when claiming the gyrostabilizer worked just great when the crews were properly trained and motivated to use it.
+kloppanator Not usually. But it's regularly on Tuesdays at 4pm Pacific. Anything else is a target of opportunity, subscribe for email notification of launch
The official documentation may have stated the name was Grant and not General Grant, but here's a link to an official British tank recovery training video in which the M3 is called the General Grant. th-cam.com/video/XvgkqdQvqq8/w-d-xo.html
Grant, Sherman and Sheridan didn't care to be called general nor be saluted when out with the troops. Grant was Grant, Sherman was Uncle Billy and Sheridan was Phil. They also wore civilian clothes and boots while wearing a general issue coat to resemble contract mule skinners that drove supply wagons for the Army so they could blend in with the crowd in case snipers were lurking somewhere.
@ 9:20 -- Don't be daft! You don't disassemble the whole track to flip to the unworn treads, you unpin one link, loop the track around the other direction & mount it on the opposite side of the tank!
It's not the direction that needs changing, it's the side: Inside to outside. That means that all the end connectors need to be flipped 180 so that the guide horns are still on the inside.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Sorry, the smiley somehow went missing off my post. It was supposed to be a joke [turning the tracks inside-out, since the guide horns on the inside of the treads would then end up wrong-way out. But the idea would work if someone had just thought about how to make the tracks properly in the 1st place!] ;-D
Thank you. Now that you say it, I can see it. I did not realize how far back it was, and thought it was about the size of a Ferret. Still, with only four road wheels on the tracks, I imagine it isn't exactly large.
Milometer. Used in vehicle testing to verify distance traveled (and therefore speed as well). Not all vehicles have built in odometers, they aren't always very accurate even when they do.
Slainte, Chieftain. You mentioned rubber baby buggy bumpers on the tracks? where did the US get it's rubber from during the war? and the more I look at the Grant, I more I like the Sherman.
I would so put another sponson on the other side, two more to the rear & regular M4 sherman turret on the top, just for the lulz :D Oh, and two MG casemates to the sides, one to the rear, one in rear turret face, four fixed MGs to the front and quad fifty for AA defence :D
Is it really true that the rivets could pop off and bounce around in tanks like these? Does anyone out there know if that's more than just a myth? I've heard it both ways and have always wondered....
@@stuartdollar9912 I'm sure you're smart and mean well, but a simple assertion that "it happened" is basically what everybody says. What I'm interested in seeing is a clear and evidence-backed statement from an expert or some reliable eyewitness account that leaves little room for lingering doubt about the facts. Otherwise, to me, the "ricocheting rivets danger" will remain an unverified myth. As for the reason why they eventually stopped riveting tanks and switched to other means to put them together, there are advantages to welding, at least, which might explain the change in production methods that have nothing to do with the alleged dangers of rivets These advantages include: Welded joints provide greater strength, compared to riveted joints. The time required for welding is relatively less compared to that required for riveting. Welded joints are more leak-proof compared to riveted joints. The load carrying capacity of welded joints is higher than that of riveted joints. Welded joints generally weigh less than riveted joints. Anyway, thanks for trying to help. 🙂
Filmed in the world's only tank museum/Bird sanctuary.
That's what you get for loosing the emu war. Birds run the place now.
That's the Australian East coast for you
It's awesome loved the bird noise
All sparrows need to die
A slight altercation kicked off in Europe.
Well that's a lovely understatement.
You may remember it. It was in all the newspapers.
Interesting
Yes, we had a bit of a tiff... somewhat of a spat... some would even go so far as to label it a quarrel.
anti infantry death blossom of doom......and this I why I watch you.
ANything ending in "of doom" is going to be good.
Yup.
"Anti-infantry death blossom machine gun vehicle of doom" Seriously dude, that is the T-shirt you ne3ee to be selling!
I love the designation.
About the best thing I can say about this beast, aside from it's reliability and that it's well built, is that it looks cool as all Hell.
When in doubt, add another turret on top!
then your tank gets too tall
The russians were better at that :P they had tanks with 4 turrets ;)
Yes but you needed it to out all those guns on the tank.
@@jackbean4384 Yeah well using a super tall radial engine kind of ended the idea of a sleek low profile tank.
Yeah, it's not that it lacks in any other measures like crew size or amount of machine guns. The British version was way better, to begin with. 45-50mm hi-velocity anti-tank gun and 5 crew members would make good enough tank a really good one.
The Lee/Grant is my favorite tank.
It's just so delightfully weird.
Mine too 👍
You’re delightfully weird
And it was a good tank on top of that. One of the best in the world for a year or so.
Look up the old Bogart film _Sahara_ , an M3 plays one of the leading roles, and they used an actual M3 to film it, when it was still a brand new tank.
Its a AIDBMGVD or as nick calls it, the Anti Infantry Death Blossom Machine Gun Vehicle of Doom
The love of MGs on tanks is nothing compared to their love of AA guns on ships. When they refitted the Richelieu they absolutely ladled 20mm and quad 40mm AA onto it.
Gotta let everybody on the crew exercise their second amendment rights.
“Come 1939, a slight altercation kicked off in Europe...”
Lololol!
Great series of videos Nick! I've been wondering: how did a tall lad like yourself get around the height restrictions for US army tankers? Do they have waivers for the tall yet determined?
I don’t believe there are any. I served in the mid 80’s, and I knew a few lanky Soldiers who somehow managed to fold themselves up enough to fit into M60A3’s.
I served with some vert tall soldiers in M-1s. I am 6’.
Nick explains this in one if his videos. He "misstated" his height on the paperwork when initially putting in for tanks and nobody ever called him to task for it.
I hadn't watched this one, but was looking at the 1944 Burma campaign. Of course the Chieftain had done a tour. But the description of the M2 as a mobile machine gun nest with a 37mm gun on top to deal with tanks is precious. It made me chortle out loud.
I don't think the music on the background is needed, especially while the host is talking.
How true... So many documentaries ruined this way. That's all the more shameful when the material's good in the first place!
I'm glad so many people agree. :)
I think the musics meant to cover up all the birds squawking in the background
I like the music. It gives a kind of interesting felling to the video. Makes me watch them all :)
JoeDurobot I think the music prevents other channels stealing their footage ?
Solid Last Starfighter reference. You get a thumbs up.
Will you at some point do a video or two on the Churchill tank?
I love this thing in WOT. Yeah it's got that handicap of a turret and the strange main gun placement, but I didn't do too bad in it and when you survive a game, you get a sense of accomplishment in it. That feeling only increases when you do well in it! Lol!
The M3 Medium family is gimped in WOT because you can't use the 37mm. The games mechanics just don't support it being used to it's potential.
Yay, another one so soon! Thanks Chieftain!
Haha yes I've climbed inside that very tank in cairns, curater is a great bloke very friendly really good museum they even have a shooting range where you can shoot mg42's Brens etc.
I love the M3, it’s my favourite tank
My uncle commanded one in North Africa. At Kasserine, they rigged a cord to both triggers and fired straight ahead, at enemy infantry , until the belts were exhausted.
Anybody see Sahara with Humphrey Bogart?
Timothy Meyer was pretty good, and a remake with Jim Belushi isn't bad either
No
Just watched it the other day. Maybe that's why TH-cam is recommending this to me again? Was better than I expected, I watched the whole thing in one sitting, which is unusual for me.
2:18, why is the tank towing it's own personal bicycle wheel?
Training wheel for new drivers, duh
Probably external speed indicator?
@@logion567 Speed or mileage.
Rickshaw variant proposed for anticipated sales to Chinese Nationalists.
It measures miles, the testing it. That's how you calibrate speedometers and odometers, and verify fuel consumption, oil consumption, etc. You saw them attaching those to every car they ran through tests at magazines like _Car and Driver_ until a few years ago when GPS equipment became good enough to replace it. How else do you exactly measure distances traveled?
I really like the idea behind the M3, the lack of a coaxial machine gun seems to be the biggest problem it has. Was there insufficient room inside the turret for a 30 calibre? Maybe a slightly larger or redesigned turret might have been possible. Also I had no idea there was a museum like that in QLD, I really want to holiday in cairns now.
+Marc83Aus M3 Medium Lee/Grant both have a .30 cal M1919 coaxial MG in the turret. The particular tank in the video might have had it removed as part of its decomissioning.
In many nations it's preferred if museums don't have functioning weapons. They need to either be disabled or removed. Most machine guns you find on museum tanks are dummies that don't work.
A museum is allowed to have weapons but it needs a high amount of security to prevent theft and needs all kinds of licences. So most chose to just disable the weapons. Smaller weapons like rifles are often put behind protected glass so that they don't have to modify them and possibly ruin the historical significance.
Something about this monstrosity of a machine is so charming to me.
I wanna see it upgraded, with a welded hull, better engine, HVSS, and a reworked forward crew compartment to allow for better armor sloping, and possibly even more traverse for the 75mm.
It's called a M4
Can you hear the response of tank mechanics in early WWII being told they had a great 'user interface'.
Hey, I'm not using my face to work on this thing.
Thanks. I know this is an older video but I finally got to it.
Good enough for Humphrey Bogart,[Sgt. Joe Gunn] in Sahara, good enough for me...
Yes! I've wanted this for ages!
It ❤️ was years before I realised that the Sherman was a Lee/Grant with a 75mm gun in a fully rotating turret. The same engine and suspension should have been a big clue. ❤️
Ooh, could you please do an episode on that specialist Churchill in the background?
What is it? A bridging variant?
I wonder what the crews of the Grant / Lee, with its 37mm gun, thought when they first came up against against a Tiger with a 88mm gun.
I think they thought 'oh shit!'
75+37 = 112, so this is better right? You can hit him twice as often!
they thought “ah, crud, turn the hull 75 towards it!”
Probably the same as Tiger crews when they saw Jabos overhead.
The entire point of this tank is that it has a fucking 75. Like WTF actually goes through the heads of people like you? Or maybe you just don't know that an M3 Medium and an M3 Light aren't the same thing? And apparently didn't bother to watch the video at all.
They probably thought "man that tank is a killer, thank God I'm in the newest, most modern tank our military has available, and we have this great big 75mm gun". Not sure which M3s Mediums were facing the Tiger though unless it was in the East. When they introduced the M3 Medium in Africa all Germany had was Pz IIIs and IVs, and this totally dominated them for months. But the time they sent Tigers over they were already reequipping with the M4 Medium.
Would love to see some vids on the M3 Stuart...
I wonder if they could have fit a 57 in this without too much work. That would have been interesting to see in action.
Im hoping we see where you can fit a girl volleyball team in the next episode :)
+zuigmeschraal wrong tank. You're thinking of the Type 89.
+TheChieftainWoT Call me impressed, your GuP creds reign supreme.:D
+TheChieftainWoT wait you mean you watched girls und panzer ? thats awesome lol
+inisipisTV Check the credits reel on the movie.
+TheChieftainWoT Will do, Chief. Thanks.
Amazing to think the US went in just 4 years from fielding this M3 in 1941 to fielding the M24 in 1945. Although the Germans made some slight advances in those years also...
The workhorse from 1942 on was the Sherman...which was produced in far greater numbers than both combined.
The Sherman was fielded in 1942 in the African Deserts with the British. The was the year when the shift between M3 to M4 if I remember correctly
@@agentkaos1768 I'm referring to the M24 Chaffee, not the M4 Sherman. It's not a direct tank-to-tank comparison, since the Grant was a medium tank and the Chaffee a light one. It's more a comparison of how sophisticated tank design had become.
@@donjones4719 ah, I forgot the 2 in the M24. My brain just deleted it. My bad,
@@agentkaos1768 You'll have to try harder to Get Smart. ;) :D
Of course, such a thing has never ever happened to me. :)
Hello Chieftain,
always when I see such a thing as welded machine gun ports on this tank I wonder if those spots are actually harder to penetrate than the
rest of the armor. When I think about sloped armor I wonder if there ever have been considerations about a plate fin armor type, where you
apply additional armor with spaces in between (that are supposedly not being larger than an incoming, lets say, 75 mm projectile) .
I am sure this question has already been answered somewhere, but I have not come across it yet.
Thank you :).
What is going on with your paragraph placement here??
Wasnt this the one called "A grave for 6 brothers" by the russians?
+Shkotay D Close. It was a coffin, not a grave.
+Soviet Santa Thanks for the correction! Apparently that was their commentary about how easily it caught fire under combat and killed everyone inside. This was a lend/lease tank and they hated it.
tommycooker by the germans..:/
+Juan Contreras The tommycooker term was for the M4 Sherman.
+Shkotay D I think it generally was more than 6 brothers. The russians also used them as armored personnel carriers, so basically they stuffed an entire infantry squad INTO the tank in addition to the crew who still had to drive and shoot while basically being crammed together like sardines in a can.
I hope you someday find an S-tank and talk about it, it's an interesting vehicle.
congratulations Wargaming, you made a perfectly good presentation unlistenable rubbish with your damn music.
Please please please turn down the “music”. It adds nothing at all
Amazing vid!!!
I would have at least alluded to the story about BEF tanks facing Rommel in 1940 without an HE capability to counter 8.8 cm Flak guns. For all its faults, the M-3 could have changed the course of that particular battle and there were plenty of similar situations in North Africa.
srry chieftain for being late. i just loggin my WOT profile. i wanted to tank(thank) you for you service in the army. also to all the great vets in WOT. yous videos are awesome, and your bloopers are funny. keep enlightening us with the knowledge of tanks :D.
Einfach genial. Klar komische Form hat er 😊. Aber er hat seine Sache trotz allem gemacht
um wait wasn't part one already uploaded last week or whatever?
That was on WoT's channel
This tank is great! In WarThunder...
+Christian Brekmoe git gud scrub and play wot... im kidding the m3lee and m3 grant suck... #Matildaisbestheavy
+Christian Brekmoe Well, I think a 75mm with crazy DPM,standard accuracy and RoF is not that bad. (That fucking turret though....)
+Jelly Johnson The biggest problem is the turret you mentioned. It makes the tank extremely tall and it's pretty much a tumor.
Cohac I enjoyed playing the M3 Lee, it just forced me to play more tactically unlike the M4E3A2...
+Christian Brekmoe Yeah WoT only lets you use the 75mm not the top gun also RIP WoTs not superior controls
More MG's = more fun.
Anyone else super curious in what looks like a Churchill armored recovery vehicle in the background? 15:38
Lots of birds in Austrailia eh..? They do quite a lot of chirping
This was the first tank my dad fought in in N Africa.
@TheChieftainWoT Will you be doing the M36 Jackson at all in the future?
Hold up, what's the story behind the emo one? I'm loving the look of it
You can't fool me - that's the Army Surplus Special.
I'm not sure if this applies to you talking about the Grants 37mm stabilizer around 15:45, but the Shermans stabilizer had even more issues, I don't know if these would also apply to the Grant.
Ordnances official line was that it "was not precise enough to permit the Sherman to fire on the move but rather helped the gunner keep the reticle on-target during movement, so that when the tank stopped to fire, the gun would already be roughly aimed in the right direction. Gunner who had been extensively trained on maintaining the gyrostabilizer felt that it was a worthwhile feature, but due to combat attrition, more and more replacement gunners were not familiar with the system, and it fell into disuse in some units in late 1944" - Source 'Panther vs Sherman: Battle of the Bulge 1944: Zaloga, Page 28'
However the reality was much, much worse.
1.The gyrostabilizer took at least 5 minutes to spin up before it could be engaged.
2.Once it was spun up, the gyrostabilizer could not be left running for extended periods of time because of wear and tear on the system.
3.Before the gyrostabilizer could be used at all, it had to be calibrated. This process took a trained gun crew about 20 minutes to accomplish.
4.Calibration of the gyrostabilizer had to be performed at least daily, and more often under conditions in which temperatures were very low or very hot, when they changed much during the day.
5.Fine tuning the calibration could be done only when the main gun was fired.
6.Depending on many variables, fine tuning might require the discharge of one to three rounds on average.
7.Once the gyrostabilizer was fine tuned for HE rounds, for example, it had to be retuned to use a round of different weight like shot or smoke.
'TK-525 Operation and Maintenance of the Gyro-Stabilizer. Chassis Group, Tank Department, The Armored School, Ft. Knox, KY. (2-16-44-500)'
Further reports suggested that not even trained crews used the thing, opposite to what Ordnance officers suggested who also possibly suggested it was much better than it actually was claimed to be in manuals. These reports seem to of been self-serving and intended to obscure the fact that the system was essentially worthless in combat. Not surprisingly they managed to leave out these few important details when claiming the gyrostabilizer worked just great when the crews were properly trained and motivated to use it.
When's part two coming out, can't get enough
I always thought this was a short 75 HE only. Apparently it's the same cannon as the Sherman M4?
For most of the run, yes. Very early M3s had a slightly shorter cannon.
Hey Nick, do you post an announcement anywhere when you decide to stream?
+kloppanator Not usually. But it's regularly on Tuesdays at 4pm Pacific. Anything else is a target of opportunity, subscribe for email notification of launch
+TheChieftainWoT Ah ok, don't check my email that often. I've found twitter is very useful for finding out when people start streaming.
The official documentation may have stated the name was Grant and not General Grant, but here's a link to an official British tank recovery training video in which the M3 is called the General Grant. th-cam.com/video/XvgkqdQvqq8/w-d-xo.html
Grant, Sherman and Sheridan didn't care to be called general nor be saluted when out with the troops. Grant was Grant, Sherman was Uncle Billy and Sheridan was Phil. They also wore civilian clothes and boots while wearing a general issue coat to resemble contract mule skinners that drove supply wagons for the Army so they could blend in with the crowd in case snipers were lurking somewhere.
Would it have been better if they had kept either just the 75 or just the 37?
I seen the m3 grant tank at the Australian armoured artillery museum
Hey Nicolas the fuel tanks , in US or Imperial gallons? lol
15:58 chieftain look out! your arch nemesis the jgpz 38(t) is right behind you!!!
gotta ask whats the point of what looks like a bicycle wheel sticking off the trailer htich of the M3 in the black and white photo at 2:16?
@ 9:20 -- Don't be daft! You don't disassemble the whole track to flip to the unworn treads, you unpin one link, loop the track around the other direction & mount it on the opposite side of the tank!
It's not the direction that needs changing, it's the side: Inside to outside. That means that all the end connectors need to be flipped 180 so that the guide horns are still on the inside.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Sorry, the smiley somehow went missing off my post. It was supposed to be a joke [turning the tracks inside-out, since the guide horns on the inside of the treads would then end up wrong-way out. But the idea would work if someone had just thought about how to make the tracks properly in the 1st place!] ;-D
When will we enter M4's hatch?
H ah ..accurate description of an M2 Medium.
@TheChieftainWoT, the 'r' in Cairns is silent just to let you know
what vehical was that behind him with the flak gun
SPG. Yeramba
@@TheChieftainsHatch that was quick thank you for the info
If they had squeezed another cannon on the other side - it would increased its cool factor .
I kinda like the asymmetry. It reminds me of asymmetrical pauldrons on milanese plate armor
The tripods are mounted whare you were standing on my model never seen one with them on the back
is that a Churchill crab behind you when you are on the roof of the grant
What's that little camo thing with the iron cross in the background at the end of the video?
The Jagdpanther 38t?
Thank you. Now that you say it, I can see it. I did not realize how far back it was, and thought it was about the size of a Ferret. Still, with only four road wheels on the tracks, I imagine it isn't exactly large.
What is that beast in front of the M3? Not the hetzer but the locomotive tank looking thing?
Churchill ARV I think
Nick, Did you play Comand Decision ? Didn't you live in Dublin ?
+bullred200 WoT Yes, and I still live in Dublin, just Dublin, CA now.
+TheChieftainWoT thanks what do you thing of it
+TheChieftainWoT i am triying to adapte it for modernwarfare very fun!
+bullred200 WoT Already done, sort of. See if you can grab Combined Arms, which is CD3 for moderns.
+TheChieftainWoT thanks do you still play?
YES FINALLY!!!....wait......what's the difference between M3 Grant and M3 Lee?
+Themoustar15 the grant i the british version
oh ok
+Chickenvagglevobble both were used by the British.
The Grant had a bigger turret.
The Grant removed the machine gun turret on top and made an elongated main turret to put the radio in.
What is the wheel at the back of the m3 lee on 2:15
Milometer. Used in vehicle testing to verify distance traveled (and therefore speed as well). Not all vehicles have built in odometers, they aren't always very accurate even when they do.
Slainte, Chieftain. You mentioned rubber baby buggy bumpers on the tracks? where did the US get it's rubber from during the war? and the more I look at the Grant, I more I like the Sherman.
I would so put another sponson on the other side, two more to the rear & regular M4 sherman turret on the top, just for the lulz :D
Oh, and two MG casemates to the sides, one to the rear, one in rear turret face, four fixed MGs to the front and quad fifty for AA defence :D
They should have gave the driver a ball mount MG
is that the 3inch gun carrier in the background at the end
Nope, the only 3" GC left is in Bovington's hands.
That's some sort of Churchill mine clearer or ARV
What was that M3/4 variant behind you? Looks like a howizter of some kind...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeramba
Would love to see some vid on kpz70 or mbt 70.......heavy tank
How much was that thing driven? the track pads are totally shot
It's rubber. It decays. Especially in UV light, like outdoors.
@@justforever96 If i recall correctly 3 years later, they were immensely worn down, uv degradation wont cause that
The Brits must of laughed their arsses off when we showed them this contraption. We redeemed ourselves the Sherman series
That spg next to the m3 looks interesting
carl westernut Its a sexton II
Sexton hale
I've been wondering what the turretless tank behind the Sexton(?) is since I saw this on the wot channel. A Ram Kangaroo?
That's what it looks like
It is a Yeramba. The Yermaba was an Australian M3 variant armed with a 25 pdr.
What's with all those birds? Is the museum next to some kind of zoo?
Australia m8
Only tumbleweed is missing.
2:18 What is that bike wheel 4? Does anybody knows?
Measuring. It’s a calibration tool, as I recall.
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you Nicholas! U r awesome!
2:08 what is that bicycle tire on the. Back of the tank for?
It was a metering gauge, as I recall, for testing/measuring distances.
I CAN'T W8 FOR PART 2
Chieftain, what is that behemoth in the background @15:55?
+joshstew85 Churchill Flail (mineclearer), FV3902 or Toad
+1SLUGGO1 Churchill variant was my guess too. did they make a Churchill recovery model?
Is that a churchill bridgelayer in front of the grant?
Toad mine flail
TheChieftainWoT Wow cool. I have never seen one before
Is it really true that the rivets could pop off and bounce around in tanks like these? Does anyone out there know if that's more than just a myth? I've heard it both ways and have always wondered....
Definitely happened. There's a reason they stopped riveting in favor of cast or welded armor.
@@stuartdollar9912 I'm sure you're smart and mean well, but a simple assertion that "it happened" is basically what everybody says. What I'm interested in seeing is a clear and evidence-backed statement from an expert or some reliable eyewitness account that leaves little room for lingering doubt about the facts. Otherwise, to me, the "ricocheting rivets danger" will remain an unverified myth.
As for the reason why they eventually stopped riveting tanks and switched to other means to put them together, there are advantages to welding, at least, which might explain the change in production methods that have nothing to do with the alleged dangers of rivets These advantages include:
Welded joints provide greater strength, compared to riveted joints.
The time required for welding is relatively less compared to that required for riveting.
Welded joints are more leak-proof compared to riveted joints.
The load carrying capacity of welded joints is higher than that of riveted joints.
Welded joints generally weigh less than riveted joints.
Anyway, thanks for trying to help. 🙂
If you absolutely had no better tank available would you use this or the equally bad Mark V from ww1
We should protect the Cenotaph. I dont think Churchill would of liked a statue. But I do think Churchill deserves a VC. He was selfless.
What is that tank to the right? AA ordenance? Huge elevation on that thing.
DaOneJoel Sexton II 25dr SP
Correction, apparently it's a thing called a "Yeremba"
Every time the Cheiftan makes Cairns sound like Karens I have a chuckle.
What is the (bicycle?) wheel behind the M3 used for at 2:16 ?
Measuring mileage.
@@justforever96 thank you sir
Is this James Belushi "Lulubelle" from Sahara?
Well, not that specific tank, but the same type.
It's a mobile armoured and armed, garden shed.
The Grant is great and all... but I still would love to see an ELC.
+The InfinitySkull IIRC, that tank was never really built and exists only in blue-prints.
Actually, one does in fact exist at a tank museum in France.
I checked and you are correct. Sorry.
It okay.