Grant vs Lee | Which was the better M3?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 พ.ย. 2022
- The Americans created the M3 Lee. The British demanded that their versions of the M3 were different and thus the M3 Grant was created. But what was the need for these changes? Why couldn't Britain use the M3 as designed? In this video I delve into the differences between these two iconic vehicles and try and answer these questions as well as a very important one - which was better?
MORE INFO:
the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_mi...
Any feedback is greatly appreciated, I'm always trying to improve.
If you enjoyed the video please leave a like - and if you want to see more like it, I'd encourage you to subscribe!
Credit to these excellent articles:
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/us...
the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_mi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee
All content is presented in historical context for educational purposes. All footage is owned by it's copyright holder and is used in this channel under "fair use".
Music:
EpidemicSound - www.epidemicsound.com - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
The British approach to the M3 was to give the radio to the tank commander. The US approach to the M3 is give the driver two static mounted machineguns.
If that's not american i don't know what is
And this is why the grant was superior
The only disappointment i have is that they're not M2 Brownings.
@@kekkoinen Oddly enough the first post WW2 tank the Soviets designed they also decided to mount as many machineguns on it as they possibly could.
@@bigblue6917 but then decided to get rid of all that and install a vodka mini bar.
The M3 Grant for the first time in WW2 gave the British the the ability to destroy Axis anti-tank guns at long range with the highly accurate 75mm gun. In previous British tanks, the 2 Pounder and 6 Pounder guns did not have an HE Shell, and to destroy an anti-tank gun they had to hit it directly. The 75mm shell could destroy the gun and kill the crew in its blast radious of up to 35 meters. This was important because anti-tank guns destroyed more British tanks, than did German tanks in a 4-1 ratio.
Everyone experienced this getting mauled by AT guns. Lindybeige has a video how 21 6 pounders took on 100 panzers and won. You are right about the 75. After it was introduced the Germans had to develop a dedicated AT only carriage for the 88. The dual purpose AT/AA could be shelled into oblivion.
At the risk of a glaring oversimplification the strategy is almost rock scissors paper with tanks taking on infantry, infantry trumping guns and guns dominating armour. Each branch has its mission.
Thanks for the added Info.
Having a Vet buddy who lived this and delt with AP and HE problems. My buddy told me the AP was "Plentiful" and HE was very Limited, so he "Learned!" to Shoot AP a little Low and Turn the EARTH into a Weapon of Shot and spall on relatively soft targets saving the HE for the "Right Time?"
He Survived and was a 6'2" tanker.
I read one account that suggested the ratio might even be higher. The standard tactic for the Germans was a caterpillar movement. The anti-tank guns would be set up in a position to provide overwatch while the tanks would move forward to the next favourable piece of ground and hold it until the anti-tank guns could move forward and get set up so the process could be repeated. If the tanks came under fire while on the move they'd fire their guns but, lacking stabilizers, they were expected to miss. They did provide the distraction so that anti-tank guns, firing from stable prepared positions, could fire on the enemy with less chance of being spotted and coming under return fire. The result was a lot of allied tanks were reported as being destroyed by the tanks when they'd actually been killed by the covering guns.
@@silverjohn6037 It was a common German tactic to uses their tanks as bait to lure British tanks onto their anti-tank gun positions. Rommel, by way of code breaking, was well aware of British battle plans in advance and so could set traps. Thats how he got his nickname "Desert Fox".
I like how you mention the commander machinegun was replaced with a smoke launcher on the Grant and then show an image of the Grant with an added machinegun along with it.
Hahaha I did notice this! In field modifications making me look stupid…
@@RedWrenchFilms American doctrine at the time was to cover their tanks with as many machine guns as possible, because.... reasons. The original M3 was even supposed to have two in the hull. I think they were still stuck on the idea of using them as infantry tanks or something. It was however evident to the British that having three machine guns for use against infantry were never going to get used and just took up valuable space and added weight.
The M3 light tank actually had more machine guns than crew.
There was however a desire for an anti-aircraft capability... which also proved to be completely ineffective because it is very difficult to shoot down a fighter-bomber that is coming right at you. It also turned out to be the case that fighter bombers were fairy ineffective against tanks, and the safest place to be was inside the tank behind its armour, not on the outside operating a machine gun.
It was decided that there might be more possibility of shooting down enemy aircraft if tracer rounds were used. This didn't actually increase the hit rate by much, but did have a psychological effect. It turns out that German and Italian pilots didn't even know they were being shot at until the British started using tracer. So anti-aircraft guns suddenly became very effective, not because they shot down more aircraft, but once pilots saw lines of tracer coming at them, they were far less cocky and would keep a greater distance making them less effective.
So a copula machine-gun turret doesn't make much sense, while an anti-aircraft mount does and was a feature adopted on most American built tanks, all of which, from this period, were influenced by Commonwealth combat experience.
Another fun fact, it was the confusion caused by the Americans have an M3 light tank and two different M3 mediums tanks, that lead to the British naming them after Civil War Generals. Yes, the British named America's tanks.
One was better at attacking north and the other south, hence, why you needed both.
lol
Another reason that the British liked the General Grant/Lee was that it was mechanically reliable. With the loss of almost all their tanks in the retreat from France, new tanks were ordered "off the drawing board" and consequentially had major reliability problems. The Six Pounder AT gun had been designed but not yet put into production. It was a 57mm gun and superior to the 50mm gun on the later Panzer III's. So production of the Two Pounder (a 40mm gun) was continued so that troops had something to fight with.
A 2 pounder is 40mm, a 6 pounder is 57mm. Imperial logic probably makes sense, but in an alternate universe.
One of the changes Australian Grants had (not sure about the British ones) is that they put a large drinking water tank in the place where the radio operator would sit in a Lee. That had to have been nice to have in the western desert and in the Pacific jungle fighting.
An advantage the Lee/Grant had in the jungles was that the 37mm gun could be elevated to 60 degrees. This made it good for clearing the treetops of snipers when using its canister shell.
The Australians didn’t use the Lee or Grant in South East Asia - they were left in Australia for training. The Australian army’s preferred tank was the Matilda II - because it had armor that could shrug off all the Japanese Army antitank guns and could punch holes in all the Japanese tanks with its 40mm cannon without difficulty.
The Australians didn’t use the Lee or Grant in South East Asia - they were left in Australia for training. The Australian army’s preferred tank was the Matilda II - because it had armor that could shrug off all the Japanese Army antitank guns and could punch holes in all the Japanese tanks with its 40mm cannon without difficulty.
@@allangibson8494 although many of the Matilda tanks deployed by the Aussies had the 2pdr replaced with the 3" CS gun, instead. At the School of Armour in Puckapunyal (near Seymour in my home state of Victoria), there is an example of every type of Matilda that Aussies used, including the flamethrower variant and the "hedgehog", with its rear deck-mounted bank of spigot mortars
The British Grants would have had a tea point there.
In an early episode of Hogans Heroes, one of these (I'd have to go back and check if it was a Lee or a Grant) was passed off as a "Tiger tank". That still bothers me more than it should.
This was always a problem, in the pre-CGI era. If it was not for the Yugoslavians maintaining large inventories of Shermans and Sherman derivatives long past their prime, there would be no WWII tanks in films, besides T-34s, at all. "Tobruk" used M47 tanks for all nations' AFVs. "A Bridge too Far" used early Leopard tanks with flat plates to (poorly) disguise their cast turrets. As "Kelly's Heroes" only ever had one in the shot at any time, they could get away with a single mock up of a Tiger. A film out of the former USSR whose name escapes me needed an entire formation of German tanks, so they added sheet metal to give T-34 turrets the correct shape. If you thought substitutes for German tanks were bad, it was Imperial Japanese aircraft that suffered most, as few, if any, Imperial Japanese aircraft survived in presentable, let alone flyable, condition. Every Japanese aircraft was played by a military training aircraft, like the 'Texan".
It was actually am M7 Priest self propelled gun.
Yes I remember that. As I knew the difference, it annoyed me too.
@@PitFriend1 Good to know. Regardless, the effect is similar to riding up on a cow and calling it a Lipizzaner stallion.
Well, it makes sense once you consider Tigers are extremely rare, extremely heavy, and much more complex.
It's bothersome because, well, when you want to see a Tiger, you want to see a Tiger, and almost every other tank of the era looks like scrap metal in comparison.
Even went tank technology surpassed the Tiger's square body, it had already cemented itself in as a legend.
"Sir, our tanks can't defeat our enemy's armor!"
"What can we do? The only gun we have is just this giant anti aircraft gun!"
"Good idea sir!" :)
Then there are such stories like from eastern front where, in early service, a Tiger withstood a barrage from soviet guns for, I think, over 2 hours, and was able to retreat under its own power.
No tank can match the mystique around the Tiger.
In the CBI Theater, the Grant became the analog to the StuG. With no significant armored opponents, they could trundle up to Japanese hard points and go BANG. For the bonus round, the 37mm had a canister round available.
The 37mm canister round was a significant advantage in the Pacific. Given how close combat often was, the 37mm canister shell could be used relatively close to friendly troops. It's relatively small size and weight meant that they could carry lots of it and thus afford to use it against anything suspicious.
@@Crosshair84 Very true. US 37 mm gun M1 towed anti-tank gun was used extensively in the Pacific. A few canister rounds let loose into a banzai charge created a hell of a mess.
Good video. The only subjects I would've included was that the Grant/Lee 75mm gun gave the British an effective anti-personnel weapon. They could engage German AT guns at a respectable range. British designed tanks rarely carried HE rounds and the 6 pdr HE round had a lot to be desired. And, the 75mm gun's limited traverse wasn't really a disadvantage considering the Germans deployed turretless AFVs throughout the war with considerable success.
Thanks Neil!
I have read in some sources that very limited amounts of 6 pdr HE were shipped to Africa. Something to look into. 37mm cannister had a bad habit of scattering shot if handled roughly when moving from stowage to the gun. I have seen photos from Guadalcanal of damaged cannister rounds.
@@wacojones8062 My understanding is pre-war British tank policy.
The tank's main gun was to combat other vehicles. Anti-personnel work was done by the machine guns. The support tanks were used to engage non-armor but fortified targets. Thus tanks only or mostly carried just AP rounds.
This was valid pre-war when anti-guns had limited range, not much greater than machine guns. During the war though, the anti-guns grossly out ranged the MGs, making this doctrine obsolete. The tanks had to close before their MGs were useful while in full range of the AT guns.
Doctrine is a bitch to change. When the British used Am tanks, a more feasible mix of rounds was carried.
Missing is the use of M3 on Eastern Front. It is a fascinating story. Was generally despised but used anyway because of "throw the kitchen sink" situation in 1942 and first half of 43.
I like the M3. It was such a fascinating attempt to fuse together the dominant doctrines of Infantry Tanks and Cruiser Tanks and the emerging engineering that would become the M4, all in one. One foot in the future, and the other foot trying to hold down as many present roles as possible. An oddity that could have only existed in a specific set of circumstances for a short window.
It was always known that it was a stopgap. The M4 was the tank the US Army wanted, but until they could be put into production we needed something else. The M3, for all its obvious flaws, was the best western allied tank available in the summer of 1942.
Look up " The unipolar madmen leading us to Hell " on yT.
Insightful and hypocrisy.......
@@cosmoray9750 Looks like some LibRight bullshit.
While the British-style split hatch was definitely used on some US Army Shermans, the American tanks had a ''Manhole Cover'' style hatch that pivoted on a single point and the whole disc of the hatch swung over. To close, the hatch was swung back over the opening and battened down. It was embedded with periscopes that gave the TC a 360* view when buttoned up.
Early M3s also had a pair of .30 Cal Browning MGs in a fixed forward-firing aspect to be controlled by the Driver. As they could not elevate or traverse, they were deleted.
Early M4 Shermans actually had those dual .30 cals as well! But they were also soon deleted.
@@RedWrenchFilms As did early M3 Stuarts. In sponsons on each side of the cab. But their only use would be for ''Playing Chicken'' with Enemy Vehicles on a 2-lane road. A tactical situation that rarely presented itself in real-world combat.
It was thought that those fixed guns would be useful for suppressing fire on enemy positions during an assault.
@@petesheppard1709 The problem was they couldn’t be pointed at the opposition with any accuracy as they were bolted to the tank hull.
The Australian AC2 Sentinel had a similar concept but the water cooled Vickers could be aimed by the co-driver.
@@allangibson8494 They were controlled by the driver by pointing the tank at the intended target. As we all know, the idea didn't pan out, though the Soviets also tried it in the T-54.
Grant vs Lee, Sherman vs Stuart, it was the British who adopted these naming schemes, and the Americans followed suite, up till then the American's only had number designations for equipment. 😊😊👍👍
Many American sons and grandsons of Confederate veterans hated the name 'Sherman' and insisted it be called by its official US Army designation.😆
@@AnthonyEvelyn No doubt. Southerners of that era produced many die hard Confederates, not to mention pig headed bigots' under the guise of preserving "Southern Traditions!". I guess they could have always requested to be downgraded to crew the more advanced Light M3 version, the Stuart, as enlisted didn't have a whole lot of choice in those matters. 😁
@@AnthonyEvelyn Well screw them, they lost.
@@AnthonyEvelyn oh no did the poor little slavery lovers get their feelings hurt
@@AnthonyEvelyn "Atlanta? What Atlanta? This is just a bunch of kindling"
Union stays winning, Dixie stays losing
Coffins for seven brothers, as the Soviets called them. In British service in Europe they ended up as recovery vehicles or gunless as command vehicles in Italy. Both benefitting from the extra internal space compared to the M4. Plus they were the mounts for the top secret Canal Defence Lights. To illuminate the night battlefield and blind the enemy’s vision. So secret that the regiments were never used until the crossing of the Rhine in 1945.
Still used in Burma to the end of the war.
The canal defense lights were high powered lamps that used a high speed shutter to produce a strobe light effect that affected the defenders and the attackers. Those were pulled out of action but still useful for nighttime illumination of bridges and rail lines being repaired.
The soviets did like them, just they had trouble as some did not have, or were not able to read, the manual along with the extra escape hatches being welded shut and some having a flammable coating applied. The tanks when fielded properly did good but ot was a logistical mess as they got them later on and just converted a lot of them into troop transports and such.
The humor of choosing the name Grant vs Lee demonstrates that even during the horror of WW2 British Wit was no less sharp.
Lee represented tank warfare better than Grant. The tank and Lee stood for mobility and tactical initiative.
@@tims2501 but grant out maneuvered lee in the end…
@@tims2501 you know what the Grant, the Union, and the U.S.A. Represents? More quality stuff beats less stuff.
@@peterni2234 "Tons more serviceable stuff beats a tiny drip of quality stuff." There, fixed it for ya! 😁
Both were great generals. Lee was a superior tactician. But grant understood logistics. Lee almost joined the union if I'm not mistaken. It was his home state that decided the internal conflict.
"Maybe those brits with their irritating modification requests, might have known their stuff after all"
Suddenly remembering how many times the British kept trying to add extra turrets on their tanks
Pastaboo extra fun fact of the day: there is a slight myth that the M3 (and Sherman) were immune to the M13/40 and M14/41. They could actually pen frontally, albeit only at close range. Which didn't happen often considering the environment. Otherwise, Italian tank crews main tactic in fighting them was what they did against Matilda's: aim at the treads and then call the truck mounted artillery (or Semovente's) that would follow close behind.
@CipiRipi00 I was mostly referring to British tank development as a whole
Semovente was generally a term for self propelled guns including some similar to the Stug, not just truck mounted artillery.
@@youtubemodsaresnowflakelef7692 I see the confusion that sentence could make, but I meant the M series tanks were followed by actual truck mounted artillery (such as the Lancia ro 100/17 or Lancia ro 90/53) or the Semovente (specifically the 75/18).
@@OneLastEcho fair enough
@CipiRipi00 The Murricans had to learn the hard way at Kasserine Pass and the aftermath, and they were extremely lucky that by this point the Heeresgruppe Afrika (Army Group Africa, by this point, not "Afrika Korps" it was only that initially with two UNDERSTRENGHT divisions, that sent the vastly superior Brits running, but then became Panzerarmee Afrika and finally Armygroup Africa) was only a mere shadow of what it had been, was barely getting supplies anymore & simply didn't have the strenght, supplies/logistics etc to follow up on their success.
Or they would've learned an even harder lesson, and a much more costly one.
But the Brits were oven slower learners, and it took them getting swept off the continent not once but TWICE + multiple defeats in Africa and Asia, to finally learn theirs. Without all the weaponry shoved up their bungholes by the Murricans, they probably would've learned WAY too late.
The Australia armour and artillery museum are currently taking apart a Grant/Lee and doing a full restoration on it - they tend to post on youtube what they have been up to
Interesting to see the 19 set. I am actually old and wrinkly enough to have operated one of these back in the early 60s, but as an infanteer (would not get me into one of those big targets, much safer outside. I suspect the tankies said exactly the opposite).
"A moving foxhole attracks th'eye." - Bill Mauldin's Willie and Joe, on being infantry vs. tankers. ='[.]'=
Great job producing this, enjoyed watching, thanks very much! 👍
Thanks Phil it means a lot :)
Very interesting video clearly highlighting the main differences, but I loved the quote with the cheese sandwich, reminded me of a lot of the quite honestly batty war stories my grandfather and his brothers would tell me as a boy.
I'm just shocked that they didn't stop for a cup of tea
At a time like that the Commander probably passed gas and the guys in the hull who couldn't see what was going on were screaming "Plug Him UP!"
Awesome job to get to the point on this historical vehicle!! I knew the Brits had named the General Lee, but I never knew of the differences in the two versions of particularly the same tank. A real eye opener for an old tanker to learn. Thanks for the details. Regards, Bert
Thank you so much for your comment Bert! Hopefully will see you in the next one.
Had this same question for as long as I’ve known the Grant and the M3 lee were separate vehicles. But I never understood WHY?
Many thanks for the making of this video friend 👍🏻
Great! A ton of information in a quick, no-nonsense format. I wouldn't have been upset if you had gone into more of the differences, though...😎
Aw cheers Pete I appreciate it
Excellent video and detailed overview. Great job!
I'd say that the M3 was a strange mix of a light tank packed into a medium tank chasis, all of that with an added Tank Destroyer gun in case of tank clash.
Oddly enough, it could perform pretty well if specific tank ambush tactics were developed, and the medium and rapid firing 30mm ment that it was a very good anti-infantry car.
Of course, M4 sherman (and any major contender's medium tank with 75mm or larger gun like Panzer IV ausf F or later, Cromwell and T-34) with a coaxial machinegun had a large advantage over the M3, since it had all around 75mm firepower, so it was pretty obsolete for 1944 standars...
M3 could have still performed decently in some scenarios up until the end of the war, but the Allied production was so large-scale that they could afford to replace a tank so widely constructed by another... something the axis couldn't have really afforded, that's why Panzer IV was upgraded so much and kept being produced up until the war end instead of being replaced but the larger and better Panzer V Panther.
Frankly, I love the Grants/Lees. To me, they're like unsung heroes.
They weren't what anyone really wanted, and they were clumsy, inelegant machines that were quickly and easily improved upon. But they were there when they were needed, and they remained useful up to the very end of the war. The Japanese and Italians were never capable of countering them, and even the Soviets found use for them in the very different circumstances of the Eastern Front (in the Arctic particularly).
To tweak a famous quote: "Better to be on hand with ten Grants/Lees, then be absent with ten thousand Shermans".
Good short video. Detailed, and to the point.
Thanks!
Very nicely done, and all while avoiding any opinion or 'analysis' not based on actual fact. Thank you for posting this.
Such a nice comment, thanks so much.
This is a nice addition to the Australian Arms video of rebuilding an M-3. I have been watching as they slowly restore an M-3 and it really shows how it was built and the obvious weaknesses that it had. It has always boggled my mind that the big gun was not originally mounted in the turret. But as you pointed out, this was a stop-gap tank and was better than nothing. Our ally, Britain, proved to be a big influence not only on this tank but on the famous Mustang engine as well.
They didn't mount the big gun in the rotating turret because they where still making the factory machines that could make turrets large and strong enough to withstand the recoil
It seems to a SP howitzer with a AT gun in a turret on top. 37mm was a common size for a AT gun leading into WW2 using AP projectiles.
I've read in a number of different sources that at the time they were producing the Lee/Grant, there was some problem with making a turret large enough to mount a 75mm gun, and that's why they went with a sponson mounted gun instead.
But, none of those sources ever elaborated on exactly what that problem was.
So, either they lacked the facilities to make such large castings, they lacked the machine tools to cut a turret ring of the required size or perhaps both.
Of the two, it strikes me that cutting the turret ring was more likely the problem, but that's just a guess.
@@silentotto5099 I know the French two-man tank had a rotating turret but it only had a 37 mm gun in it. I think mounting the 75mm gun was also a big problem trying to fit it into the turret
@@rudyyarbrough5122 I suppose designing and manufacturing a suitable mounting for the gun could have been the problem too.
I've looked around the net on numerous times over the years trying to find the definitive answer, but so far I've been unable to find out for sure.
Great video and explanation...I honestly never knew the difference!!
Thanks for watching!
I really enjoyed this video, great explanation.
Thank you so much!
I'm guessing since the British were in combat already, they had some good reasons for modifying it. There's nothing more annoying than trying to command when somebody else has control of the comms. When you look at most american combat scenarios, the guy with the radio is almost always with the commander. Communications have to be fast.
Excellent video as always.
Thanks!
Thanks for a nice video.
My knowledge of the M3 was limited to the movie "Sahara" and a general idea that this was an early WWII American tank built to get something in the war right away.
The main gun with a limited ability to traverse was always a question mark for me about how efffective that was likely to be.
The video answered mu uestions, and the comments added more useful information.
Thank you, one and all!
The Australian armor Museum is restoring one right now and has a whole series of vids here on TH-cam
Great comparative video on an important mid-war tank!
Australia operated both M3 Lee and Grant variants as the deliveries were made from Lend-Lease orders originally placed by the UK who were keen to get anything they could from the Americans. By the end of 1942 we had received about 502 diesel and petrol Grants and about 255 petrol Lees. Most were used to train and equip local defence formations as they weren't really suited for the jungles of New Guinea, Borneo, and Bouganville. Imperial forces out of India did use M3 variants in Burma, however.
I'll be posting videos of the M3 Lee and Grant examples at the Australian Army Tank Museum next week - hope you'll take a look!
Aussie Grant Training Video: th-cam.com/video/rz4pAfSM90w/w-d-xo.html
Thanks Salame!
Brilliant video. 📹
Thank you for sharing. 😊
The amazing story about how a single tank destroyed an entire division of enemy tanks with nothing but a cheese sandwich
Mark Felton presents…
That would be ration tinned cheese aka ‘cheese possesed’ or ‘tinned soap’.
@@RedWrenchFilms that dude cracks me up sometimes lol!
Don't forget the cup of tea. He was English, so he'd have needed to stop halfway through, and have a brew.
And since this is before Boiling Vessels, there is a chance that that’d get shot up while making the tea.
Good fast Info , no bs , nice voice. Good job mate
Thanks 😊
Nice video, keep it up!
First time atyour channel. I enjoyed the video, and gathered some new info I didn't know. Thank you for making it.
Thank you very much for the kind words - hope you’ll stick around for any new videos!
I love these odd looking tanks. Having guns and extra turrets everywhere makes them look more like landships out of a steampunk setting.
This was good. I'm a Panzer rearch guy, so as as American it's nice to see concise stuff on our tanks.
Thanks Adam!
Clearest explanation of this topic I've ever found.
The famous armour commander field Marshall Montgomery was using a M3 Lee tank during the battle of El Alamein in 1942
I think he used an M3 Grant actually! The tank, “Monty”, is on display at the Imperial War Museum I think?
@@RedWrenchFilms Yes, search
IWM M3A5 General Grant II (Monty's)
nice work, keep it up sir
Moving the radio to the turret made room for the teapot in the hull.
Very good video. Most interesting.
Thanks Clive
You always want a loaders hatch... the main problem with these tanks was when deployed on flat Sands. . They stood tall and we're easily slaughtered by 88s at extreme range.. other than that.. if used correctly they were decent machines... always wondered what an assault gun type would have been like.. with just the 75 in the hull and more armour.. plus a roof mg..
That last bit about the M4 turret was a nice addition, good video
Thanks Mike!
Quick and concise, thanks.
Thank you!
Great video!
very good, nice work
Nice video! You just got yourself a sub.
Great job
I alway thought when I was younger that the difference was the Lee had the 37 mm and the Grant was fitted with the 2 pounder (40 mm)
Excellent video.
Thanks Steve!
I found your channel because of this video's success and binged everything else you've made.
Thank you so much 😊 I’m glad you enjoyed - any feedback?
@@RedWrenchFilms no active feedback, but I do appreciate the lack of music. It's informational, clean, and engaging.
being a drachinifel fan I'm probably biased
@@m.streicher8286 haha thank you - the thing is there is actually music on this one it’s just too quiet to hear! The next video will have louder music so I’d love to hear what you think when it comes out tomorrow.
Nice work. Thank you.
Thanks David!
I never even realized that they were different tanks. I had always assumed that it was one tank that had two names for more or less the same reason that most American Civil War battles have two names. Two different groups of people having their own preferred name for the same thing.
Excellent and Outstanding!!!
Thank you so much Nigel it means a lot
Good & Quick. Thanks.
Lovin the content Mr Wrench.
Thank you Mr Jelly B!
Can we stop for a moment to marvel at the remarkable engineering of the factory gantries being able to shuffle tanks down the line relatively smoothly and quickly?
Great video.As I UNDERSTAND IT,the commanders cupola was given to the Canadian Ram vehicles for the asset driver.
Cheers William!
👍👍 many thanx. The 3rd & 4th /13 Armor Reg. Used the M-3 in N. Africa (I think). All 3 are fabulous, M-3, Lee MkI & Grant MkI. Super vid.
Thanks so much Michael!
Thank you for your hard work and excellent research! And while I'm at it, God bless Ireland!
Actually the British NEVER used the word General in the name of any tank! (They were worried that there just might be an actual General Grant out there somewhere....)
They used the names of famous leaders, but without any titles, except perhaps, the Black Prince (who was Prince Edward, Prince of Wales. But I have no Idea of what Roman numeral would have followed his name if he had lived long enough to become King..)
The Black Prince, Edward, was the eldest son of Edward III, so he would have been Edward IV if he kept his name.
@@watcherzero5256 Thanks!
His death shows why you shouldn't operate a ship while drunk!!!
@@watcherzero5256 I believe he drowned in what is called the White Ship Disaster....
@@timengineman2nd714 He died in 1376 after suffering a 10 year illness, it was recorded at the time as Dysentery but may to modern medicine have been more likely to be Malaria, Typhoid or bowel disease. The White Ship disaster was in 1120.
@@timengineman2nd714 The one who died in the White Ship disaster was William Adelin who was William the III or IV Duke of Normandy depending on the scholar and would have been if he lived William the III of England.
A great clip.
Great video
Thanks Paul!
Loved building this as a model.
Nice Video!
Sure, the M3 wasn't perfect but it was a certainly a step up for the Brits. Plus, what's the beef about the 75mm being mounted in the hull? The Stug III is touted as masterpiece and its main gun had similar movement limitations. Certainly the M3's silhouette is a major disadvantage but its 75mm could successfully take on any German tank and AT guns in North Africa before the introduction of the Tiger I.
A neat movie 'starring' the M3 is the 1943 classic "Sahara" with Humphrey Bogart and an excellent supporting cast. You've probably already seen it but its worth a re-watch.
If i had to guess, the problem with it might have been that unlike most turretless tank destroyers, the M3s gun was mounted in the bottom half of the tank, so it could get blocked by terrain when more than half of the tank was still visible.
The stug was intended as a defensive vehicle. It wasn't a "tank" as such. It was used as mobile artillery and as an anti tank weapon. It wasn't designed for combat over open ground. It's very low silhouette made it easy to conceal and its high powered gun made it a killer.
Shortages of materials in late war Germany meant that tank manufacture was at a premium and you could build three stug's for every tiger. Ironically it probably wouldn't have been much use in the desert where the M3 initially did so well.
@@fus149hammer5 I don't see why a stug would do worse in the desert than something like a panzer 4.
A stug would be horrible at urban combat due to the lack of a turret, but lacking a turret doesn't put you at any more of a disadvantage in an open area. Since oyu can easily see where the enemy is, so you can just face them, and your lack of turret is no longer an issue.
@@jojomaster7675 If you are in the middle of a tank battle in the Western Desert with two hundred tanks kicking up a sandstorm in every direction you don't have the luxury of time to pivot your tank round to take aim at a moving target. You need a turret you can traverse quickly over a wide arc to attack targets of opportunity.
@@davidjones332 Seems oyu don't understand how battles are fought in the desert.
There aren't "tanks every direction". Unless you've been ambushed and are surrounded, enemy tanks are likely going to be in one direction, which should be your front. And since it's an open desert with huge visibillity, tank battles are going to be fought over distances of multiple kms.
So in the end, you should be able to position yourself in such a way to make all the enemies you're engaging stay inside your gun's firing arch.
And it's very likely that if the enemies are moving, they're gona be moving towards or away from you, not side to side. So that likely won't be a huge factor either.
👍😎.. always wondered about this.. thx
My pleasure Alfred! Glad you enjoyed
The reason for the Lee/Grant was the British in North Africa needed tanks now, and not tomorrow or next Tuesday. Originally the British requested the U.S. manufacture Mathilda II and Crusader II, which was rejected. The theory makers wanted cruisers and infantry tanks, not a medium one. But when the troops in the field got their hands on the Lee/Grant...it was a revelation. For the first time against the Germans, they had a tank that was better than what the enemy could deploy, could finally outrange them, and had a tank that could fire devastating HE rounds at those AT guns and 88s. They also had a tank that didn't constantly break down.
The thing slowing down the Sherman was neither the Americans nor the British had ever cast a turret large enough to house a 75mm gun. It took time to work it out.
The Brits did need to solve some teething issues with the M3, in particular with the 75s ammo, but it was a good tank when it was deployed, in the theatre it served in. I also love one of the nicknames the tankers gave it, 'The Iron Citadel'.
As to which was 'better', both variants were more or less equal. The biggest change, the placement of the radio, was just a matter of differing doctrine.
They converted well into various support vehicles and spg's. Whilst not being ideal, the British were in desperate need of a tank that had good HE ammunition and against the Japanese the were pretty much one of the best tanks around along with what Matildas went east.
Thank you
Subbed ....thanks , Hi and maybe a little more detail , but good one !
One notable difference between the Lee and Grant on the 37mm Gun Elevation, the Lee variant does have a slightly deeper depression than the Grant Variant, lastly, the MG turret is basically the same caliber as the Co-axial MG at the 37mm turret. Yet, on the M4 Sherman, the M2 Browning is known to be on the roof in front of the commander's hatch. The Sherman's hull was based off the M2 Medium
Excellent. Thank You. Incidentally, in early 1945, the U.S. introduced the M-26 Pershing tank. This was the first U.S. tank that was Officially named after an American general. It was the Brits that named U.S. tanks after American generals. The U.S. apparently decided that wasn't a bad idea.
I’m glad you enjoyed Robert! I did a relatively short video on the “M26 Jumbo” a few weeks ago and should’ve included this!
@@RedWrenchFilms I will look for it. Thank You again
@@RedWrenchFilms I just hope they don't name a tank "The Westmoreland". Thanks Again
You know what. Canada should name their tanks american generals. While america Canadian generals
I can't help but think there should've been a left-hand and right-hand version of these tanks, positioning them on the respective flank mixed in with Sherman's
4:10😅 Having a bad day takes on a whole new meaning in combat!
We have a Grant tank in Kohima ( used in the battle of Kohima 1944) now a war memorial .
" Coffin for 7 brothers " the Russian tankers called the lendlease Lee's they received .
Both it and the Churchill were modeled on the Char B design , considered the best Allied tank at the time. The Churchill even copied the French track/suspension system . It wasn't really the " stopgap " as described in the video.
Excellent video thank you .
You may have looked into the Canadian tank "Wolverine"?
iirc mounted a 6pdr /57mm but otherwise like sherman
a riveted sherman. used only for training as the need for stopgap tanks was covered.
i don't think any wound up as kangaroo transports but maybe?
The 37mm could also fire a canaster shell, a big shot shell, that worked great for Japanese snipers in palm trees.
The Brits were absolutely correct to delete the additional mg turret on top of the main turret w/ the ATG. One less crewmember crowding into each tank ultimately meant more tanks could be crewed & fielded.
In the Pacific the Grants weaknesses became strengths. By having 2 guns it could fire in two directions at once. The 37mm canister round was very effective. It's height allowed it to see over grass etc. Also the Grants armor was effective against Japanese AT guns and the pathetic Japanese tanks.
True my friend...
There was also a very rare version of the M3 Lee with a cast hull. In the opening scene if the Humphrey Bogart film Sahara as they scan what is supposed to be destroyed vehicles the rare beast can be seen, for a second.
The British wanted the radio with the commander to which the turret was reshaped and thought the little machine gun turret useless. The gunner had more room, a loader added and the commander could command.
The useless bow machine guns were operated by the radio operator. Having the radio low in the hull caused static problems from what I understand.
The Germans still had problems with either versions and utilized the Ariete Division’s Semovente with their short 75mm gun against them, but still in side attacks.
This was pretty good
Thanks :)
4:52 I think they can still fit a bit more additional armour
The only thing not so good about the M3 Grant turret was one inherent in the overall tank design, that the "tank killer" gun was mounted in that hull sponson instead.
Tanks a lot.
My pleasure Abraham
The two British Grant versions, is there any info on which model 75mm and 37mm model guns were fitted? Whether they were all M3 75mm? Any info would be great thanks you
They used the same guns as the Lee, the 37mm M5/M6 and 75mm M2/M3 depending on the model
So with the british grant it's only 2 models (I and II) which used which?
Great video, thanks. Much appreciated is the absence of unwelcome, annoying, juvenile, "entertaining", "music" Keep up the good work (yes, I appreciate the many hours spent making these documentaries).
Grant was better simply because its Lee improved by actual war experience, reduce work load on commander, get commander better visibility and awareness, remove 1 crew member so its less crowded. What spec sheet wont tell you but is very important in tanks combat performance is whether tank is working with or against the crew
Go on the Aus Armour channel, they are restoring an M3 Grant to running condition.
"And someone hands me and cheese sandwich" that caught me off guard
One of these tanks is still in Kohima where the British and the Japanese fought in the WII war.
They were a result of specific design and manufacturing problems. They did their job