WW2 M3 Stuart Light Tank footage Part 1.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- WW2 M3 Stuart Light Tank footage Part 1.
The M3 Light tank was developed after the American tank designers realized that the Light Tank M2 was becoming obsolete and set about improving it, the M2 was based upon the prototype T2 light tank built by Rock Island Arsenal, after it became clear that the US Army was ill-prepared as far as armored vehicles, training and tactics went. and in 1939 it became clear that a new model, which could be favorably compared to the European models, had to be studied for mass production.
The upgraded design, had thicker armor, and for the time the M3 was heavily armored for a Light Tank, it also had modified suspension and new gun recoil system and would be called the Light Tank M3. Production of the vehicle started in March 1941 and continued until October 1943.
The M3 was initially armed with a 37 mm M5 gun and five .30-06 Browning M1919A4 machine guns, on top of the turret in an M20 anti-aircraft mount, in a ball mount in right bow, and in the right and left hull sponsons. Later, the gun was replaced with the slightly longer M6, and the sponson machine guns were removed.
It was supplied to British and other Commonwealth forces under lend-lease prior to the entry of the U.S. into the war.
■ So want to help keep me and the channel going, maybe by beer or coffee?
Please consider buying a cup of coffee!
www.buymeacoff...
■ Support me on my Patreon
patreon.com/Panzerpicture
■ Or buy me a Coffee www.buymeacoff...
■ Store: teespring.com/...
■ Information obtained from several sites.
■ Wikipedia
■ tanks-encyclopedia
■ the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers
■ preservedtanks
■ pantser.net
■ the.shadock.free.fr/Tanks_in_France
■ Some music is from the TH-cam Audio Library.
■ Music used:
EpidemicSound.com
Copyright fair use notice
All media used in
this video is used for
the purpose of education
under the terms of
fair use.
All footage and images
used belong to their
copyright holders.
Excellent work thank you
The M3 Light tank was developed after the American tank designers realized that the Light Tank M2 was becoming obsolete and set about improving it, the M2 was based upon the prototype T2 light tank built by Rock Island Arsenal, after it became clear that the US Army was ill-prepared as far as armored vehicles, training and tactics went. and in 1939 it became clear that a new model, which could be favorably compared to the European models, had to be studied for mass production.
The upgraded design, had thicker armor, and for the time the M3 was heavily armored for a Light Tank, it also had modified suspension and new gun recoil system and would be called the Light Tank M3. Production of the vehicle started in March 1941 and continued until October 1943.
The M3 was initially armed with a 37 mm M5 gun and five .30-06 Browning M1919A4 machine guns, on top of the turret in an M20 anti-aircraft mount, in a ball mount in right bow, and in the right and left hull sponsons. Later, the gun was replaced with the slightly longer M6, and the sponson machine guns were removed.
It was supplied to British and other Commonwealth forces under lend-lease prior to the entry of the U.S. into the war.
And it came with a free decoder ring in every box..lmfao
What a waste of good steel..
@@m998hmmwv7 it was far from a wasted of steel, you do realize the only things axis powers were developing were mostly obsolete tanks, the Japanese were the only ones making good tanks, the Italians had tankette that weren't really that good and the Germans were producing tractors and obsolete tanks like the Panzer I and II.
@@PanzerPicture The Panzer I was greatly underrated. Bernhard Kast of Military History Visualized rates it the most important German tank of WWII.
@@thethirdman225 Just because the Panzer I played an important roll doesn't mean it wasn't obsolete.
and it seriously overrated with people still thinking that it destroyed garbage French tanks by the dozen, when in reality the French tanks were one of the most advanced tanks of it's period, with the Panzer I having relatively weak armour and obsolete light armament.
Because the Germans were hopelessly outdated in their early tank design, sticking to machine guns on here tanks when everyone and there mother was placing anti tank guns on their tanks. Not even talking about sloped armour which the Germans were 10 years late to that party.
@@PanzerInsight Jesus Christ. Where did I say any of that?
I remember the haunted tank comics was a Stuart tank.
Omg me too!! Lol!
I still have some of mine ! I subscribed to it when I was a kid.
Yes the first one , it change After when the Stuart was destroyed .
The tank was already haunted by the Ghost of the général Jeb Stuart !
I must say that I really enjoyed watching this lovely video with all those M3 Stuart tanks jumping all around and having fun to tumble one, at least the driver was showing off that it was "no big deal"...! Nowadays it would have been an state affair! I must say that the M3 Stuart was a speedy affair..! Keep posting such lovely videos and again merry Xmas 🧑🎄🧑🎄
Back then they really go apeshit with these newsreels, there os also a picture from a newsreels were they jump a Stuart onto a car. I would really like to see the footage of that.
i like these old videos with the old presenter voice
Those rollover tests are most interesting to me
They were actually tank trap testing.
Bravest story of Stuarts in action was Nov. 1942 at St Josephs farm near Djeideida Tunisia. Col. Frank Waters lost half his tanks while engaging PZ 3's and 4's .The rest of his force circled around the panzers and used the 37mm "squirrel guns to destroy or put them out of action. Very expensive victory indeed.
I really enjoyed the tank in the parade with the M3 queen riding in the commander's hatch. What a piece of Americana!
I wonder if her name was Honey....🤔
Maybe she was Miss Honey.
Honey Stuart. Sounds like a Bond girl.🙄
I think America 🇺🇸 had a love for parades and only they would have think to put a queen (Miss Honey is very appropriate!)on the commander's hatch on a white M3! I agree with you: it was really America 👍👍
nice, real history
I made this tank model at Tamiya ．
useful for scouting not much else
reminds me of when Krupp convinced Hockiss that 25mm would be more than adequate in the future.....
And it would have been, if open war hadn't came. Who was supposed to predict the average tank would go from an inch or less to over 4 inches of armor in like 5 years? The 37mm and 25mm were excellent AP guns, it is stupid to judge them because they were not good enough to defeat the later armor that was adopted specifically to defeat them. I suppose you think Hotchkiss should have just skipped all the nambly pambly and gone straight to a 90mm AP gun, even if most tanks of the day were still vulnerable to AP rifle-caliber ammo or at least .50 caliber rounds? Sure, it is far, far, far bigger, and heavier, and more expensive, and it wont fit in any vehicle chassis we have in service or in any vehicle our bridges will carry. But think of all the room for expansion!
The 25mm was a powerhouse and an extremely feared anti-tank weapon in the first couple years of the war. Thats all it needed to do.
@@justforever96 Who did not think War was not upon them in Europe at that time?
@@justforever96 Nicely said
👍
Would be fun to have one on the farm lol. But not so good for war... unless you can hide behind a broken down or blown up one.. might be a little better then a jeep..
You do realize this was one of the fastest, and best armoured tanks of it's time when it came out.
@@PanzerInsight 1941-1943 it may have been light and fast but it was a death trap. Was this supposed to be compared to something like the tiny Japanese tanks?
This type was already replaced by 1942 the development would move extremely fast and these tanks were more developed upon the knowledge of the the Spanish Civil War. The Japanese tanks were developed years before this and were light years ahead of their time in 1933. But the Americans never really based there tank development on those tanks.
@@PanzerInsight Not at all. The Stuart was still giving excellent service in the Pacific campaign and eventually Normandy. It was a much under appreciated tank. Anyone who rates it on how it would perform in tank v tank combat or who thinks that must be the ultimate arbiter of its capability doesn’t really understand what this little tank was about.
@@thethirdman225 Archived documents about the Stuart in the Pacific beg the differ, it's tracks were not wide enough for the Pacific jungle, also the gun under preformed, and this is well documented with the field development of the Satan, a flamethrower tank mainly developed because of the short comings of the Stuart.
They call it a tank I call it a target
Target for what? German tractors and the Panzer I and II. Don't forget the M3 was developed in the 30s.
All tanks were targets. But if you are just doing the lazy thing and comparing it to a Panther then you’ve rather missed the point. Stuarts did excellent work from the deserts of North Africa to the jungles or South East Asia and finally, Normandy. They were good tanks, if rather cramped and short on range.
When it come to light tank I think Stuart ain't that bad compared to T26 and panzer 1 and 2 tho ye no tank is perfect all of them had flaw
Call it what you like, we can't stop you from making a fool of yourself.
Its funny how the moment you slap tracks on a vehicle, people start judging it solely based on how well it could stand up in a toe-to-toe slugout with battle tanks. If it had been given wheels and called an armored car, people would think it was a fine machine. But since it has tracks, it is a _tank_, and therefore is only intended for killing other tanks. No other considerations matter, right? What else could a tank possibly be used for? Strange how there was a wide variety of even less-well armored vehicles in the middle of the WWII battlefield, and most of them got their crews home safe. Wonder how, since they couldnt even stand up to a .50cal, let alone an 88mm.
You know whose job WAS to go toe-to-toe with tanks? AT gun crews. They had NO armor, or at best a self-propelled gun with very thin armor. Yet it was not a suicide mission. They probably killed more tanks than tanks killed of them. How is this even possible?They were totally unprotected! No armor and they couldnt run away without hooking up their gun to a tow rig first.
If they mostly lived out the war, I think M3 Light crews could be content enough.
Which they were. Crews dont love 'death traps', and everyone loved the Stuart. Explain that one.
Like you say, they have to be used properly and with right strategies .They were only a light tank ,and this had to be taken into account. Going up against heavy artillery.like in the end of the film, was a big mistake
Damn our Troops were so brave....Too go against a 37mm, 75mm, 88mm? and an occasional 50mm too boot..
When the British first used them in the desert the 37 was more than adequate to deal with most Axis armor. It was fast and reliable, too. Not for nothing they called it Honey.
@@nonamesplease6288 agreed, just Rommel used what little was getting too him- better...luckily, our code breakers keep their supply very limited...
@@nonamesplease6288 but they used it poorly...Bad tactics....
Totally not what it was intended for. It was a scout tank and it was pretty good at it, though it was a bit short on range and creature comfort.
@@nonamesplease6288 It was never intended for tank v tank. It was a scouting tank, similar in concept to the Soviet BT-7.
It was a tank that really shouldn't have been successful, but surprised everyone when used right. The British loved them as reconnaissance vehicles.
My Uncle was killed in one in WWII at Villas Bocage...he went up against Wittman in his Tiger and tried to jam it under his tracks to halt his advance. RIP Lt Rex Ingram (County of London Yeomanry)