Le M3 Grant : Le tueur de chars de l'Allemagne nazie

Le M3, surnommé Lee ou Grant par les Britanniques, est un char moyen de conception américaine utilisé par les Alliés au cours de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.
Année de conception : 1940

[@Rampant_Colt]

This is a 20+ year old History Channel documentary. This is when History Channel used to be worth watching. Now it's the "reality TV" network

[@Snuffy03]

Hollywood paid homage to the M3 in its 1943 film, Sahara. Humphrey Bogart and his crew had and his crew had a temperamental M3 named Lulabelle. A marvelous film.

[@user-di6hy5bb5x]

That 75mm gun was a KILLER in the 1940 desert. Great doc showing strengths and weaknesses of the tank.

[@davidwhitney1171]

For all you model builders out there (like me), Tamiya still offers a somewhat simplified, but nonetheless very detailed, 1/35 scale model kit of the M3 Lee version. Unlike newer tank kits, from Tamiya and other model companies, it is still reasonably priced at about $25 US.

[@NewYorkKnightsCombat1]

And 1:35 is the size of traditional plastic toy army men!

[@Mishn0]

@@NewYorkKnightsCombat1 I think they were 1/32. But that's still close enough to work with 1/35.

[@vincentlefebvre9255]

​@@Mishn0The 1/32 was by Monogram. I still have it.

[@VincenzoPentangeli]

You don't see many stories from other than the main theaters of war. It was very interesting and also about the lesser-known Lee-Grant tank.

[@timengineman2nd714]

Note about the Japanese Light Tanks: The US at first thought they were heavily armored since they could often take a hit from a 75mm AP round and basically ignore it! Sometimes the tank would stop (driver killed) or stop shooting (Tank Commander/Gunner killed) but the only thing that would really stop the tank was a hit on its (small) engine!!! The US quickly learned what was happening, that unless the AP shell hit something solid, like the engine or the main gun, the AP would go through both sides of the tank and hardly even slow down!! Then the US figured out that using the short time delay setting on the HE shell's fuse would allow for basically one shot kills!

[@bluemouse5039]

That's why early in the war the Allies couldn't figure out how the Zero fighter plane was so fast, maneuverable and had a extreme range , then when they recovered a operational Zero and could study it found out the Japanese omitted things a Allied aircraft designer would never leave out such as armor protection for the gas tanks and pilot, but the Japanese did to save weight,

[@crishamedet2018]

Excellent reportage.

[@thenorthby5477]

Je viens de regarder le documentaire : Le deux seuls points négatifs que j'apporterais: - Le manque de détails concernant la conception l'agencement du char. - Les images qui defilent durant les commentaires, notamment lorsquon nous parle des panzer 4 aufs J2, et quon nous montre à plusieurs reprises des chars PANTHER !!!

[@davidhafner4324]

C’est très bien! An unusually good production.

[@hannibalbarca2552]

Un japonais, avec sont sabre, qui saute sur un chars , américains et tue le pilote, et le tireur 😮 sérieux ! J imagine la scène ! Impossible de faire plus badass que ce samouraï

[@Hal_T]

Fascinating! Thanks.

[@bitterdrinker]

Something rarely mentioned about the Grant was that its gun underperformed in early engagements owing to poor ammunition. H.E rounds failed to explode as they were fused for howetzer use and anti tank rounds shattered when they hit German face hardened armour. The British were forced to use stocks of captured French ammunition from Syria and converting German anti tank rounds captured at the first battle of Tobruk. The Grant could have been far more of a decisive weapon than it was.

[@ranhat2]

Source of the blurred images--if you, pls give link to see less fuzz! But amazing and rich video material; stunning that the M3 was so valuable. Many revelations throughout this video. Amazing overall, a higher level reality than all standard fare.

[@rustykilt]

the censorship is courtesy of KZbin and was not part of the original documentary. Censorship by KZbin is becoming increasingly prevalent.

[@timengineman2nd714]

Considering "The Cult of the Machine-Gun" I'm surprised that the M-3 75mm did NOT have a Co-Axial .30 machine-gun and let the (located in the hull) Radio Operator have a hull mounted .30 (like in the M-3 Stuart/Honey and the later M-4 Sherman/General Sherman (UK Service/US Service)

[@lpi8410]

Les noms des chars americains sont en fait anglais. Ainsi les americains n'utilisaient pas le nom Sherman, ils disaient M4. De même les americains n'utilisaient pas le nom Lee ou Grant. Les anglais utilisaient le nom Lee pour désigner le M3 avec la tourelle d'origine et ils utilisaient le nom Grant pour la version avec tourelle modifiée.

[@dubyacwh7978]

Interestingly, there were 2M threes. There was also the M3 Stuart light tank.

[@timengineman2nd714]

Plus the M-3 Halftrack and the M-3 Tank Destroyer...

[@neganrex5693]

I got an M-3 tank model and to me it looked like a tank that was a little WW-1 and WW-2. My wife told me it was so ugly it's cute. LOL.

[@blackdog542]

M2- M3 M5 Stuart all same but different

[@Mishn0]

The US's use of M3, M1, etc. is just like the British use of Mk.1, Mk.2 etc. You need the rest of the nomenclature to know what's being talked about. A "Light Tank M3" is not the same as a "Medium Tank M3" or a "Sub Machinegun M3" Just like you need to know that a Spitfire Mk.1 is not a Lancaster Mk.1 or a Hurricane Mk.1 ...The "M" just means "Model" which means the same as the British "Mk" for Mark. (The USN used "Mk." for a lot of things too)

[@allangibson8494]

@@Mishn0Not to be confused with the P-38 or P-51 can opener’s… (both US army issue during WW2).

[@OCEANSIDEGANGBUSTER]

The M3 was a pre-war model with a light gun. The large gun you see on it was an improvisation to make the produced tanks useful until the Sherman could be fielded. Placing the large gun on the right is due to it's size that would not fit in center of tank.

[@DonMeaker]

M-3 had a stabilized 37mm for offensive use against antitank guns. The M-3 also had a 75mm gun when the PZ III had a 50mm gun.

[@noninscris]

​@@DonMeakermais c'était quand même se la merde contre du panzer4 et plus évoluer. Donc des char non obselette. Il était bien dans le désert quoique chiant à maintenir contre le sable à cause de sa conception

[@allangibson8494]

The M2 was the prewar medium tank. (The US Army would like to forget the M1 Medium…) The M3 was a bodge while the turret needed for the 75 mm gun was developed. It entered service in August 1941 after the war in Europe had beefed going on for two years. The M4 used the running gear developed on the M2 and perfected on the M3 with a new turret.

[@drg5352]

It was a stop gap tank made during the war, using the M2 chassis and a big 75mm gun stuffed in a side-mounted sponson. Reliable, but obsolete before it rolled off the line. It was built solely because Britain needed tanks yesterday, and the Shermans weren't ready yet, due to the turret holding the 75mm not being ready. The M2 was the interwar model with only a 37mm main gun, and was obsolete before the war, if it ever could be considered not obsolete. It saw use only as training tanks.

[@manukillim200]

@@DonMeaker Panzer III armed with long 50mn gun was effective..the 37mn gun was inefective the 75mn on the bottom side too..

[@lekheyduwasteland5294]

Le titre de la vidéo, c'est une blague non? Et Montgomery "excellent général"? Entre Caen qui devait être conquise le 6 juin au soir mais qui sera prise au final plus d'1 mois après ou Market Garden "réussie à 90%" , je rejoins les commentaires plus bas: ça ne peut-être évidemment qu'un reportage anglais.

[@baron-3841]

Meilleur que le déserteur De Gaulle qui a abandonné ses hommes pour se mettre à l'abri

[@louietuna4352]

Great story and well told. Thank you! “You go to war with the army (tanks) you have, not the army (tanks) you might want or wish to have at a later time.” ― Donald Rumsfeld

[@James-nl6fu]

The only good thing about the M3 is that they usually fought Panzer 1s,2s and 3s. Against Panzer 4,5 or 6s the odds became suicidal. No one expected it's fuel tanks or ammunition racks to burn or explode so easily. When hit rivets would fragment causing injuries to the crew. The British never allowed their military *50Calibre machine guns in case they hurt the enemy. They recommended the *30Calibre or bad language instead. Tank crews had to rely on their team work and ingenuity simply to survive.

[@andrewcharles459]

Every time I hear statements like "America's vast car industry became a tank production line," I know the film maker hasn't done his homework. Automobile assembly lines are not equipped to assemble 20 or 30 ton tanks. Locomotive production facilities are.

[@johnwren3976]

Chrysler began delivering M3s that summer. (The M3 Lee was the first design made at the Detroit Tank Arsenal in Warren, MI. This factory was built in early 1941 with taxpayer money and leased by Chrysler.

[@drewschumann1]

Well... You aren't quite as informed as you think you are

[@daguard411]

The weight of the train locomotives used in the interwar period really throws a wrench into reasoning that one fellow gives on why the tanks HAD to be light. If the bridges couldn't carry the weight, they would simply reroute to a line that used locomotives that weighed about 40 tons.

[@codyhilton1750]

I agree 100%.

[@timengineman2nd714]

This is an often misquoted fact. What was the issue were the highway bridges OVER the railroad tracks! They couldn't hold 20+ ton tanks!

[@daguard411]

@@timengineman2nd714 Which is why things were/are sent by rail.

[@timengineman2nd714]

@@daguard411 Also, often interpreted incorrectly was why it took so long for the US Army to move a bunch of M-48 tanks from Fort Knox to Fort Campbell. It wasn't the weight of the M-48s that was the problem, it was finding flatcars WIDE Enough for the M-48s!

[@daguard411]

@@timengineman2nd714 Why are you bringing up a tank that was developed in the 1950's into a conversation of road and rail in the interwar period? As for the M-48's, for a long time even boxcars have been rated for 80 tons, and if whom ever was in charge of the movement didn't think to remove the tracks and road wheels, or even ask the maintenance shops to add side rails or I-beams to take a wider load on the railcar, they were pretty fuckin' stupid.

[@AKSnowbat907]

The same tank with a new turret, made by request of the British empire. They moved the radio from the hull to the turret. Gave it to the commander and removed the radio operator. That vehicle was the M-3 Lee. US Grant ROBERT E Lee.

[@ColKlink-cf4ds]

Good documentary, but they neglected to mention also that Lees were sent to Russia on lend lease, also as a stop gap, until they got their factories into full production.

[@NewYorkKnightsCombat1]

I wonder if the French Char B-1 Bis had any influence on the design. It also had a heavier gun mounted on the right side of the hull and a lighter gun in the turret. But unlike the M2 Lee/Grant, the gun could not traverse, forcing the driver to be the one to aim the main gun.

[@chefchaudard3580]

I don't think so. Or only loosely. The war demonstrated that a big gun was necessary on tanks, and the only way to obtain them was to mount it on an existing chassis. Designers did not have time to design a turret, hence the sponson. It was a stopgap. Note 1 that the B1 ter that was supposed to replace the B1 bis had some traverse and got rid of the complex Naeder system used to steer the tank. Note 2 a french historian thought that the Churchill was inspired by the B1 bis, a low velicity gun in the hull, an antitank gun in the turret. According to him French and British engineers worked briefly together before the fall of France. Don't know if it's true, though.

[@allangibson8494]

The Australian Sentinel was designed by a French engineer who moved to England and worked on putting the British 17 pounder gun onto the Sherman (replicating the Sentinel AC-4 that he designed a year earlier).

[@Nooneisinnocent575]

tueur de char ? Avec sa silhouette haute et ses plaques rivetées c'est un cercueil

[@mikes7639]

Still better than french tanks

[@phredphlintstone6455]

On top of that, it was the Sherman that did all of the heavy lifting in the end.

[@blackdog542]

The Germans called it "a coffin for six brothers" Rivets breaking and bouncing around causing many casualties.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@blackdog542 Soviets reportedly called them "coffin for seven brothers" and yet they used them as late as Kursk.

[@blackdog542]

@@nickdanger3802 Well either I stand corrected or both sides had a little dark humor at the crews expense. Nothing like driving something into battle that was most likely designed by someone who would never take it to battle, built by the lowest bidder, and all ten years before the war started. Charge ahead boys!

[@Chris-ev7xo]

At about the 36 minute mark they show a Japanese tank with continuance or quick fire of the main gun ,what tank is it and what gun ? Anyone have an answer

[@permafrostinsanity1799]

You asked what tank that particular Japanese tank is, it’s a Type 89 medium tank I-Go (Chi-Ro), it’s main armament was 57mm type 90 gun.

[@Chris-ev7xo]

@permafrostinsanity1799 thank u . It can fire a shell that fast one right after the other . That can't be a loader , like an Abrams, it's got to be some kind of a belt or tray

[@wolfetom10]

Good show, but the closed-captioning is terrible. Not only does it not stay in sync with the video, the transcription is far from accurate. I only mention this because I am partially deaf. I can hear most of the dialogue in a video, but need closed-captioning to help fill in the gaps. It's not helpful when the CC lags and the transcription is so far off from the audio.

[@brianwolle2509]

excellant! my favorite tank!

[@manukillim200]

Grant and Lee were catastrophics on battlefield... russian called him cofin for 7 camarades

[@misterfreese3154]

Ils présentent Kasserine comme une victoire américaine mais de souvenir, ils se sont fait cassé la bouche par les allemands a un tel point que le general qui dirigeait a été envoyer dans une ecole d instructions pour les jeunes recrues et a plus toucher a un commandement de toute la guerre. Pour ceux qui savent pas, quand tu est général et qu'on t affecte a ce genre de tâche c'est que ton etat major a une bien faible opignon de toi 🤣🤣. Sinon pour le M3, c'est une solution logique pour les US. Ils ont rien a cette époque et le M2 est totalement obsolète et inutile. Deja que le M4 (de base et faut attendre les améliorations) est dépassé par ce qui se fait dès 1942 en europe. Le Lee et Grant servent surtout a avoir un véhicule sur le terrain produit en masse et surtout avoir des retours d expériences du combat et des équipages entraîner. Regardez un peu la tete des char américain avant guerre et vous comprendrez qu'il valait mieux envoyer du M3 que ces horreur ahah

[@thenorthby5477]

Certes Mais en 42, que ce soit avec un M3(ça commençais à se compliquer avec l'arrivée du pz 4 aufs j2) ou un M4A1, ça passait crème pour les alliés. Les M4 étaient correctement armés et protégés et faisaient jeu égal avec tous les models de panzer 4. Surtout avec l'arrivée des mideols M4a2,a3, et a4 et leurs blindages avant inclinés (comme vous l'avez écrit)

[@randallwong7196]

For all it's troubles if it wasn't built then some other tank would've been used in it's place for certain battles. Would the Eighth Army have been better off using Crusaders? ( Mk. I not better off, maybe not much difference with Mk. IIIs ) The M3 ( Grant/Lee ) was certainly better than a version of the Stuart.

[@nickdanger3802]

December 1941 170 M3 light tanks in North Africa, 108 in the Philippines.

[@carlrudd1858]

The British seem always to be in a sort of hushed rush to string as many words together as possible with as little wind behind them as required to accomplish such effect.

[@gunnere-5936]

The closed captioning across the bottom, doesn’t match up with what the narrator and guest speakers are actually saying. ( 2 M3’s is the proper way of saying it )

[@personnelente]

Why the blurred images? If they can't be shown, why use the images at all.

[@nickdanger3802]

22.39 "He (Montgomery) waited until he had at least 2 to 1 numerical superiority"

[@antoniocolaianni6690]

Ma non è vero che era il killer dei carri tedeschi . Era una trappola mortale per il suo equipaggio; troppo alto per essere nascosto è troppo leggero di blindatura.

[@nickdanger3802]

Their appearance was a surprise to the Germans, who were unprepared for the M3's 75 mm gun. They soon discovered the M3 could engage them beyond the effective range of their 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 5 cm KwK 39 of the Panzer III, their main medium tank. The M3 was also vastly superior to the Fiat M13/40 and M14/41 tanks employed by the Italian troops, whose 47 mm gun was effective only at point-blank range, while only the few Semoventi da 75/18 self-propelled guns were able to destroy it using HEAT rounds.[24] In addition to the M3's superior range, they were equipped with high explosive shells to take out infantry and other soft targets, which previous British tanks lacked; upon the introduction of the M3, Rommel noted: "Up to May of 1942, our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent."[25]

[@maximilianosoru5120]

Di questi tempi la verità e soggetta al padrone 🤭non possono non vantare gli Americani in ogni loro mezzo e arma

[@giuseppebiancardi926]

esattamente

[@mateoalvaro1435]

Hola. Podrías incorporar subtítulos en español. Gracias

[@31terikennedy]

No tank can operate without infantry support and air cover.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

Nice rug, major.

[@superbhasard9369]

... un peu confus, désordonné ce tuto ... le titre annonce : "Le M3 Grant : tueur de chars nazis" ... et on se retrouve en Birmanie, en Inde, avec des épisodes de luttes sans char ... à parler d'histoire ... ou du tank Sherman ...???...

[@Grebogoborp]

The Burmese section is talking about the service of the m3 against axis powers and how effective it was as an anti infantry and fortification platform due to the potent HE shell and relatively thick armor it’s relevant to the tanks service and reputation as it was an area of significant and relatively distinguished service

[@thenorthby5477]

Marrant le nombre de "specialistes" qui ecrivent tt et n'importe quoi Sans rien y connaître

[@davidyoung8521]

Talk to the US tankers who survived Kasserine pass. Talk about riding in a Purple Heart box! The Grant and Stuart tanks were outclassed by the German tanks. The British discovered that the 88 AA gun was deadly at incredible ranges. We swarmed the Germans with production.

[@jemacofra]

"cercueil pour 5 frères"

[@douglasbuck8986]

Drugs were involved in making the title of this video.....

[@patrickrambeaux9796]

Ça, un tueur de chars, encore un, qui s'y connaît 😜😜😂😂

[@chefchaudard3580]

Lorsqu'il est utilisé en Afrique du Nord, c'est le meilleur char qu'aient les Britanniques. Avec lui, ils peuvent enfin détruire tous les chars allemands, jusqu'à 1000, 1500m. A une distance ou ceux ci ne peuvent pas répliquer.

[@corentinlepoittevin5408]

La reine du désert c'est le Matilda pas le M3..

[@Kawette56]

​@@chefchaudard3580le M3 Lee se faisait démonter en boucle par les Pz4 et les Tigre Allemands.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@Kawette56 il n’y a eu de Tigres que sur la toute fin, en Tunisie, en petit nombre. Le Pz IV jusqu’en 1942 n’est équipé que d’un canon de 75mm court, impropre à la lutte antichar. C’et la variante F2, livrée en petit nombre en Afrique du Nord, au printemps 42, qui surpasse le M3. Et encore, il reste vulnérable à son canon de 75mm. Donc, non, les Tigre et Pz IV n’ont pas « démonté » les M3, qui sont de toutes façons en cours de remplacement par des Sherman quand ils apparaissent

[@thenorthby5477]

​@@Kawette56un vrai spécialiste de l'histoire. Et des combats de chars!

[@antyge]

les ricain qui accepte jamais quand quelque chose est d inspi fr le lee est le petit frére retarder du b1 et b1bis moin blinder et rifter (lifter pour les grand frere) il etais en plus bien plus haut et large et plus large le canon en tourelle etais moin puissant de meme que les obus bref quand les ricain modifie un truc c est pour le faire en pire

[@antyge]

@@1919emiliano ouais heureusement les français était a bir hakiem et on sauver le cul de je sais pas moi 95℅ DU DES ANGLAIS EN 40

[@nickdanger3802]

Right, that is why France defeated Germany in 1940.

[@jonhildahl9982]

41:42 Vinegar Joe Stilwell watching the blurred out casualties. I really dislike the censoring of these historical documentaries. I think it does a disservice to the fighting men when casualties are blurred out. It gives the impression to the less informed that war is all fun. The visuals can be shocking & gruesome but that is the reality of war.

[@penfold9540]

Well, not quite. It couldn't go "hull down" and use it's main gun. So basically it was exposed to use it, and if static basically toast. Tha being said it was better than what the British had att.

[@SmedleyDouwright]

I don't think the Americans called the tank either Lee or Grant. Those were British names as was Sherman for the follow on American tank. I prefer the British names because the American system was more confusing. How many different M3s were there?

[@Dog.soldier1950]

The Americans called the M3 the Grant. A slightly modified version for the Brit’s and Commonwealth was the Lee

[@blackdog542]

M2 Lee M3 Grant M5 Stuart M4 Sherman (different)

[@drg5352]

@@Dog.soldier1950 No, the British called the M3 the Grant. They referred to the M3's in US use the Lee. The US never used either name for the tank, though it's tankers referred to it as the Iron Cathedral. The US name was M3 Medium Tank. Nothing Else. To differentiate it from the M3 75mm gun, M3 Halftrack, M3 Light Tank, M3 Portable Toilet, M3 Ass Scratcher, M3 Grease Gun, and M3 Dildo. The US was not very creative with their names, with multiple M1, M2, M3, M4, M5 and so on designated "names" across every single thing they used. The US didn't adopt naming their tanks until after the war. The bulk of M3 production was the initial riveted hull models. M3A1 was a small (300) run of cast hull models, with the A2 (12 untis) have a sharp angled welded hull. A3 had a diesel engine and an improved welded hull, and the A4 was the model that got the famed and rock solid Chrysler Multibank; 5 Plymouth flathead six cylinder engines on a common crank, making 430hp. The Hull is described as stretched welded. The A5 had a pair of GM diesels in it. 6258 M3's of all models were made; roughly 2/3rds the original M3 model. The M3 was also used in a wide range of models built on it's chassis. Canada built the Ram on the M3 hull. The 105mm Howitzer Gun Motor Carriage M7, or M7 Priest, conducted services and molested German altarboys from the M3 chassis. A 155mm GMC M15 was built on the M3. M31 Recovery Vehicles were M3's with a heavy crane and dummy guns. The British built a command vehicle out of a Grant, as well as the Grant Scorpion minesweeper. Aussies built a self-propelled gun on the chassis as well, using the 25 pounder, which was in service into the 50's. Some 1300 M3's, along with a few M31's, were sent to the Soviets as part of Lend Lease, though they were unimpressed by it. Some of these were captured and used by the Germans as well.

[@Mishn0]

They called the Lee the "Medium Tank M3". The M meant "model" so it was the "Medium Tank, model 3". Not confusing at all if you understand the nomenclature. You can't confuse "Medium Tank M3" with "Light Tank M3" or "Halftrack M3" if you use the complete description. No different that telling a "Spitfire Mk.I" from an "SMLE Mk.I" But people so love to make fun of the Americans. Covers for their insecurity I think.

[@Mishn0]

@@drg5352 A lot of the unfavorable official reports of lend/lease equipment were politically motivated. You couldn't give any credit to the foreigners' contributions to the defeat of the fascists in the Great Patriotic War if you could avoid it. That would be treason!

[@peterclark6290]

The tank will always be an infantry support weapon. Who else can hold ground? Which is the tactical point of warfare. Fundamentally it is mobile artillery, close quarter heavy gunnery. The Infantry can operate without tanks, the opposite is never true. A tank on infantry assault would pucker the butthole of even the most experienced crew. Tanks merely extend the capacity of infantry. A solely tank on tank battle is feasible, perhaps even necessary but at some point survivors will need to return 'to the lines'. The same argument can be extended to air and naval forces. Infantry determine when the war is won or winnable.

[@panzerjagertigerporsche]

From stop-gap to war hero, the story of the Amerian M3 Medium tank

[@FairladyS130]

[@mikehherron4800]

It would have been better to eliminate the subtitles or have the subtitles match the spoken dialog. As it is, the mismatched subtitles and dialog are a very big distraction. This distraction kept me from enjoying the video.

[@m-akuttner4300]

Tap the "CC"button to turn off the closed captioning. 🙂👍

[@Bob-qk2zg]

The defeat at Dunkirk and later the surrender at Singapore gave the British army an awful reputation. Only the victories in Africa redeemed them and I hope American tanks helped brave men be proud again.

[@TheYeti308]

M3 = Knocking device .

[@Svannuta]

C'est un véhicule obsolète dès son arrivée dans le conflit

[@child666able]

Ça ne l'empêcha pas d'être utile et de participer à la victoire.

[@mikes7639]

Still better than nothing and better than anything the french could make

[@BenoitCoppin]

@@mikes7639 again French bashing, Somua S35 and B1 Bis are solid tanks against Panzer’s…

[@Svannuta]

@@mikes7639 Wanna talk about the tommy cookers ?

[@badbotchdown9845]

​@@mikes7639 Sherman was made about plans from Frenchs

[@lorenzodieguez230]

il grampe for bien...dans le pacific il make a great boulot

[@jamessills5802]

The supply issue was because the German Naval Code was broken.

[@olivierpuyou3621]

Pour affirmer que Montgomery était un "grand" général ce ne peut être qu'un reportage britannique 🤔

[@1974geary]

True. MacArthur was the American jerk

[@janvandaele8283]

Un reportage britannique mensonger.....Mdr !!!!

[@MrSmegfish]

He was not sent in a huff to a barren island

[@haricot929]

On nous raconte beaucoup pour si peu de vérité...!!

[@hannibalbarca2552]

Juste des faits pour le coup

[@alexhayden2303]

Which does Bogey drive in the movie, 'Sahara'?

[@paolocau3920]

A Sherman

[@alexhayden2303]

@@paolocau3920 Don't think so. Try this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Lee

[@paolocau3920]

@@alexhayden2303 You are tight, I'm sorry

[@paolocau3920]

@@alexhayden2303 *You are RIGHT, I'm sorry

[@alexhayden2303]

@@paolocau3920 ?? Not yet over the yard arm here! Watch the movie and enjoy.

[@ivanbonarelli3112]

La risposta sovietica ai nazisti fu la coppia T34 e KVI, non esiste confronto con il Lee Grant. Altro discorso con lo Sherman M4, specie nella versione inglese Firefly. Saluti.

[@scuddyleblanc8637]

The great depression was in the 30's. The 920's was quite the opposite. The US was quite rich then.

[@edtrine8692]

Or AA guns in the anti-tank role?

[@edtrine8692]

The British did have a 90mmAA gun? Even when they controlled the air they never used it in the anti-tank role?

[@edtrine8692]

Like the German 88 and the British QF 3.7 inch AA gun, the M1A1 was used against tanks in combat but, unlike the others, it could not be depressed to fire against them. (This is something I didn't know?)

[@websitemartian]

good

[@LOLOVAL-os3pq]

@LOLOVAL-os3pq 2 minutes ago (edited) the tank during the first world war was quite badly used, not to mention the crossing capacity and pathetic speed, the tanks during the second world war began to demonstrate a real utility BUT, the Germans developed anti-tank weapons effective portable as well as an 88 mm anti-aircraft gun which in tense shooting was formidable! in June 1944, the infantry had to accompany the tanks precisely in Normandy because the Germans had positions in each hedge of trees which began to be fatal for the tanks alone, the infantry was responsible for defending the tanks! during the Vietnam or Korean war, the infantry used a telephone set installed at the back of the tank in a box, there was a long wire which allowed an infantryman to see what the tankers saw badly since the inside of the tank, the episcopes or the slots do not help to have an exact idea at 360° around a tank! today, the tank has become obsolete, even Western tanks, anti-tank weapons have become so effective, whether it's the JAVELIN, the AKERON MP (MMP) or the NLAW, which hits the top of the armored vehicle, where it is more fragile! not to mention the mines that have always existed, and more recent IEDs! we can also talk about helicopters with anti-tank armament like the Apache or the Tiger, or planes capable of dealing with targets on the ground, for example the American A10 with its frightening cannon and these depleted uranium shells, or a Rafale with its 30 mm cannon which ravages everything on the ground, there are also laser-guided bombs, precise to the nearest meter, imagine a 1 ton boom which arrives at enormous speed on a tank, the tank is pulverized, even without explosives, just the kinetic energy is enough, 1 ton which reaches several hundred km/h, it ravages everything! the heavy tank, today in 2023, it is totally outdated! it is expensive to buy, it is very expensive in maintenance (a Leclerc tank costs 250,000 euros per year in maintenance), it is difficult to move, by plane, an An 225 carries 1 or 2, brought a regiment not an An 225 will last for days, not to mention the risk of this plane being shot down by a missile or by cannon fire! by boat, a French BPC carries around forty Leclercs, with the enormous risk of being sunk by a mine or a torpedo (40 tanks destroyed at once), by train or road, at the slightest river including the bridges have been destroyed, it is necessary to bring means of crossing (bridge or floating barge) with always risks! the French armored JAGUAR with its 40 mm gun pierces 152 mm of steel at 1000 meters, 142 mm at 1500 meters, it also has a launcher of 2 AKERON MP missiles and two in reserve, enough to destroy 4 heavy tanks at 5,000 meters and damaged many others by destroying tracks and guns!

[@dspap]

Tas de ferraille dépassé dès sa mise en service.

[@nickdanger3802]

Which tanks were being built in France in 1942?

[@markbradford8626]

well this is 20 years old

[@Bingo551]

If you can get all the tanks and Fuel and ammo where was the aircraft to take out the 88's..?.Smh? P40's..?

[@franznarf]

Bel titolo immagino traduttore automatico

[@thenorthby5477]

À tous les PSEUDO spécialistes des blindés de la seconde guerre mondiale, renseignez vous avant d'écrire nimporte quoi! Ça vous evitera de passer pour des ignares. Les seuls adversaires que le M3 a pu rencontrer jusqu'à la fin 42 étaient: - Des panzer 3 aufs J canon de 50 L/42 , blindage frontal de 50mm. PRINCIPAL CHAR DE L'AFRICA KORPS. - Des panzer 4 aufs E avec un canon de 75 L/24 court, et un blindage avant de 50 mm char secondaire durant cette période! BREF RIEN D'INQUIÉTANT pour les M3 modernes, bien pensés, armés de leurs deux canons et correctement blindés contre les canons de 50 d'en face... Tout ce qui détruisait les M3 à longue distance (et c'était chose courante sur lesurs hautes silhouette dans les vastes étendues désertiques ) c'était les canons de DCA de 88! (Ce qui est judicieusement expliqué dans ce documentaire !) ... Et ouais!😅

[@Bru.B]

Une copie de B1 bis en résumé...

[@chefchaudard3580]

Pas vraiment, si on excepte l'arrangement général.. Le canon du B1 bis n'avait pas vocation à être utilisé en antichar, le 75 du M3, oui. Techniquement, ils sont très différents, la caisse du M3 réutilisant celle du M2 qui ne doit rien au B1 bis. Leur doctrines d'emploi sont, aussi, très différentes, celle du B1 datant d'avant guerre, celle du M3 prenant en comté les premières leçons du conflit.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@chefchaudard3580 Merci

[@serro-zl3fd]

Jamais entendu parlé de cette histoire à base M3 grant tueur de chars .... Encore une mythologie écrite par les Alliés comme ils sont l'habitude d'en faire à la chaine... Le seul char capable de rivaliser avec les chars lourds allemands étaient le fameux firefly anglais seulement en 1944.

[@nickdanger3802]

Not "British firefly" because everything Lend Leased remained the property of the US until lost, consumed or destroyed per Article V of the master Lend Lease agreement of 1942. 1,335 M4's with US 76mm gun LL to Britain. Why Tankers preferred 75 over 76mm kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4uuqaCipceqp80

[@jefvillon3050]

La position "Britannique" de Bir Hakeim !! Vous savez trés bien que cette position était tenue par les troupes de Français libres du général Koenig, qui résistérent 15 jours durant face à l'Afrika-korps ...mais vous voulez garder toute la gloire pour vous !

[@JB-rt4mx]

It was a death trap with rivets pelting the crew or just blowing up..certainly No Killer...LoL

[@markbrandon7359]

When it arrived in the western desert with the British it was the best tank in Africa

[@JB-rt4mx]

It never outclassed the Panzer III with the 50mm canon and certainly the Panzer IV with the 75mm canon would make a Grant into a soggy crumpet..lol

[@markbrandon7359]

@@JB-rt4mx 1st of all the Grants 75mm gun (not cannon) was more powerful than the 5.cm L42 gun of the Pz III and certainly far more powerful than the 7.5cm L24 gun of the Pz IV which could be considered a howitzer as it's short barrel length (L24) meant it had a low velocity more suited for indirect fire fact is the Pz IV was designed as an Inf support tank not a tank Vs tank. And the Grants armor was considered thick at that time reading reports of the battle of Gazala the Pz III's had difficulty penetrating the Grants armor and in Russia cries for more powerful anti tank guns had begun much earlier it wasn't until Rommel faced the Grant that he to cried out for better guns leading to the Pz III L60 and the Pz IV L43.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@JB-rt4mx 2,887 M3 mediums were Lend Leased to Britian. Their appearance was a surprise to the Germans, who were unprepared for the M3's 75 mm gun. They soon discovered the M3 could engage them beyond the effective range of their 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 5 cm KwK 39 of the Panzer III, their main medium tank. The M3 was also vastly superior to the Fiat M13/40 and M14/41 tanks employed by the Italian troops, whose 47 mm gun was effective only at point-blank range, while only the few Semoventi da 75/18 self-propelled guns were able to destroy it using HEAT rounds.[24] In addition to the M3's superior range, they were equipped with high explosive shells to take out infantry and other soft targets, which previous British tanks lacked; upon the introduction of the M3, Rommel noted: "Up to May of 1942, our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent."[25]

[@JB-rt4mx]

Thats why they used them in Sicily and Salerno and Anzio and Normandy and Caen and Falisse and Metz and Saint Lo and Market Garden and Hurtgen and Scheldt and Remagan and the Dramatic Montgomery Force that Rescued the Battle of the Bulge.. oh varsity

[@davidbaron8330]

It was a toy compared to the Panzer III, never mind the Tiger and Panther.

[@corentinlepoittevin5408]

Surnommé le cercueil roulant par les tankistes américains, un très très mauvais char... Il était là pour compenser l'attente du M4 car déjà dépassé à sa sortie pour le M3

[@blacksmith3958]

Non mais c'est n'importe quoi le M3 était une bouze (pas de tourelle et surtout un blindage riveté qui envoyait des bouts de rivet partout en mode bombe frag dans tout l’habitacle au moindre coup au but) , c'est d'ailleurs pour ça qu'il n'a pas servit longtemps et a vite été remplacé, un des seuls char qui arrivait à la hauteur des chars allemands c'est les KV-1 Pour les autres types (T34, sherman) c'est la masse qui a fait la différence pas la technique du char.

[@donaldgrant9067]

I believe the American leadership stuck to long with the tank being thought as a troop support role way to long. And a tank that could have spear headed an attack should have been developed before Normandy.

[@Chris-ev7xo]

It's was called a tank destroyer like the M10, M18, M36 those were your spear head tank destroyers. M4 SHERMAN was for Infantry support role

[@donaldgrant9067]

@@Chris-ev7xo No those were to break up German tank spear heads. That is the reason they are called Tank Destroyers. Very lightly armored, too lightly armored for a spear head.

[@SmedleyDouwright]

From what I heard, the US Army thought the 75mm gun M4 tank was good enough until they ran into large forces with Panther tanks in Normandy, when they started fielding M4 tanks with the 76mm gun. By then there was less than a year left to the war in Europe.

[@donaldgrant9067]

@@SmedleyDouwright They knew before Normandy. First they got their butts kicked at Caserine Pass fighting Pz 4's. The second battle of Caserine pass Patton used truck Tank Destroyers with a WWI French 75mm to win that fight. The military even saw the Tiger in North Africa, have you heard of Tiger 131? They also had intell. from the Russians what they were up against. So no the sorry sob's knew and still sent them in there. Go look it all up and you will find that is the truth.

[@SmedleyDouwright]

@@donaldgrant9067 The British were successful with their Grant tanks. The USA failures in Tunisia were mostly from inexperience and bad tactics. Patton was a replacement general there. He did better. The 75mm guns used in the M3 and M4 medium tanks were similar to and developed from the French gun. Tiger tanks were not invulnerable. 131 was lost. Germany made less than 1500 of them. I think the USA thought the Tiger was a rare oddity. The USA also encountered Panther tanks in Italy before Normandy, but thought of them like the Tiger. Mistakes were made.

[@brooksroth345]

Are you kidding me the Grant was by no means the best tank. It was better than anything the British had but by no means better than the German ones. It died horrible when up against the Pz IVG with the 75mm L43 guns and the PZ IIIL with the 50mm L60

[@nickdanger3802]

How many of those made it to North Africa?

[@handehande6131]

Les allemands avaient peu des deux modèles que vous évoquez, le nombre compte aussi . A la condition que le gap technologique ne soit pas trop important

[@tonyplu5]

Les russe l appelait un cercueil pour 7 frères... Alors dire le tueur de chars allemand😂

[@nickdanger3802]

Yet they were still using them as late as Kursk.

[@colvinator1611]

Why on earth are the video producers acting like nannies by censoring the unpleasant scenes of warfare ? They decide what we can and can't watch. This ruins a good amount by leaving out reality. I switched off when his happened.

[@JRos-qc6kw]

Imitation du char français B1 bis. Silhouette trop élevé , blindage riveté, chaque rivet se transformant en dangereux projectile si le char était touché, canon sous casemate avec un champs de tir restreint . Les étasuniens aurait du étudier les défauts du char français avant de le fabriquer. Aucune comparaison possible avec le panzer IV allemand.

[@nickdanger3802]

On B1 LOW velocity 75 was aimed and fired by the driver because it could not be adjusted for horizontal. One man turret. Although the Panzer IV was deployed to North Africa with the German Afrika Korps, until the longer gun variant began production, the tank was outperformed by the Panzer III with respect to armour penetration.[83] Both the Panzer III and IV had difficulty in penetrating the British Matilda II's thick armour, while the Matilda's 40-mm QF 2 pounder gun could knock out either German tank; the Matilda II's major disadvantage was its low speed.[84] By August 1942, Rommel had only received 27 Panzer IV Ausf. F2s, armed with the L/43 gun, which he deployed to spearhead his armoured offensives.[84] The longer gun could penetrate all American and British tanks in theater at ranges of up to 1,500 m (4,900 ft), by that time the most heavily armoured of which was the M3 Grant.[85] Although more of these tanks arrived in North Africa between August and October 1942, their numbers were insignificant compared to the amount of matériel shipped to British forces.[86]

[@samossa100]

CE TITRE EST COMPLETEMENT LOUFFOQUES . Ce blindée n'était pas à la hauteur contre des panzers IV, lors de la batailles de kasserine il ce sont fait détruire comme de vulqaire conserve.😪

[@Carl-ht7cg]

Donate to the "Wounded Warrior Project"

[@ericcriton2972]

Dépassé,Il s'est fait laminer en Tunisie, c'est un char dépassé en 1941 copié sur le b1bis français

[@nickdanger3802]

Source?

[@misterfreese3154]

@@nickdanger3802 les faits en faite .. et le canon en casemate c'est inspiré du b1bis car c'est directement issu des rapports d exp de la campagne de France. Tout comme le Sherman est directement issu du somua pour le blindage moulé

[@mohamedbentayeb7854]

Le canon des leclerc sont de quel pays ?

[@misterfreese3154]

@@mohamedbentayeb7854 qu'elle est le rapport avec le sujets ?

[@misterfreese3154]

@@nickdanger3802 lit le wikipédia de la bataille de Kasserine et va directement au bilan et tu aura ta source de base

[@cabana123100]

c'est quoi ce titre ""tueur de char",un char completement dépassé des sa mise en service, un gros char nul...

[@nickdanger3802]

It was the best tank in North Africa in significant numbers for a few months until superseded by the M4. It was the second-best tank in significant numbers for the rest of the North Africa campaign.

[@franck6014]

Engin obsolète et dangereux pour son équipage , dont le seul mérite est d'avoir préparé les chaînes de production du Sherman.

[@nickdanger3802]

Their appearance was a surprise to the Germans, who were unprepared for the M3's 75 mm gun. They soon discovered the M3 could engage them beyond the effective range of their 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 5 cm KwK 39 of the Panzer III, their main medium tank. The M3 was also vastly superior to the Fiat M13/40 and M14/41 tanks employed by the Italian troops, whose 47 mm gun was effective only at point-blank range, while only the few Semoventi da 75/18 self-propelled guns were able to destroy it using HEAT rounds.[24] In addition to the M3's superior range, they were equipped with high explosive shells to take out infantry and other soft targets, which previous British tanks lacked; upon the introduction of the M3, Rommel noted: "Up to May of 1942, our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent."[25]

[@yabbadabbadoo8225]

So good these light tanks to this day remain Front Line weapons lol, in which world? 😂😂

[@claudioslaneesh7640]

Video mediocre. Manca tutta la parte degli oltre 3000 lee/grant ceduti all Urss...

[@stuartjarman4930]

Utter nonsense about the panzer IV's, as the E and F1 models had been encountered many times by the British since the start of the campaign, in the support companies of German panzer III battalions. The only game changer was then longer barreled 75mm gun and a modest increase in armor

[@subterfusion4005]

Whipped the Axis's best May -Aug 1942

[@luiseduardosalazar1402]

It was not a good design, too high silhuette and other failures like the main gun unturn...it was taken off service when the M4 Sherman got ready

[@nickdanger3802]

It was a stopgap until casting and machine tools could be made that were large enough to make a turret large enough to fit a 75mm. M3 medium was licensed for production in Canada as Ram. It was "improved" by eliminating the 75 and fitting a 2pdr which fired only AT shot.

[@jaiddareli6380]

#NÂZÏĖ #ÏÂVÂÏ #ÂÏ #TÂBĖRNÂCLĖ #PYRÂMÏD #ÂÏ #ÏÂVÂÏ #JÂÏSŪS

[@williampatience9524]

Piece of junk. The Panzer IV with the 75mm long barrel could penetrate Grant from any angle.

[@nickdanger3802]

Please list all of the tanks HV 75's could not penetrate from any angle.

[@karelloskot8284]

Legrační tank , ale Amíci si myslí, že rozhodl válku.😂

[@nickdanger3802]

The Panzerkampfwagen 38(t), originally known as the ČKD LT vz. 38, was a tank designed during the 1930s, which saw extensive service during World War II.[3] Developed in Czechoslovakia by ČKD, the type was adopted by Nazi Germany following the annexation of Czechoslovakia.[3] With the German Army and other Axis forces, the type saw service in the invasions of Poland, France and the USSR.[3] Production ended in 1942, when its main armament was deemed inadequate.[4] In all, over 1,400 Pz. 38(t)s were manufactured.[4] The chassis of the Pz. 38(t) continued to be produced for the Marder III (1942-1944) with some of its components used in the later Jagdpanzer 38 (1944-1945) tank destroyer and its derivative vehicles.

[@mirkomocetti2079]

Ennesima inesattezza che viene propagandata perché di questi carri gli Italo Tedeschi ne distrussero in abbondanza ed il motivo era perché questo mezzo peccava su ogni aspetto, velocità, blindatura,cannone ed eccessiva altezza. Soprattutto i flak 88 e il90 mm antiaereo italiano furono micidiali contro gli m3. Certo bisogna ammettere che quando fece la sua comparsa nel deserto al primo impatto col cannone da 75 ebbe un certo successo, questo si,ma poi gli presero le misure e fece il suo come altri carri inglesi stop, dire che ha fatto strage di carri tedeschi è sbagliato. Questi documentari spesso raccontano una storia artefatta, dove si enfatizza molto da una parte e si sminuisce l'altra...

[@nickdanger3802]

Their appearance was a surprise to the Germans, who were unprepared for the M3's 75 mm gun. They soon discovered the M3 could engage them beyond the effective range of their 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 5 cm KwK 39 of the Panzer III, their main medium tank. The M3 was also vastly superior to the Fiat M13/40 and M14/41 tanks employed by the Italian troops, whose 47 mm gun was effective only at point-blank range, while only the few Semoventi da 75/18 self-propelled guns were able to destroy it using HEAT rounds.[24] In addition to the M3's superior range, they were equipped with high explosive shells to take out infantry and other soft targets, which previous British tanks lacked; upon the introduction of the M3, Rommel noted: "Up to May of 1942, our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent."[25]

[@giuseppebiancardi926]

esatto...era praticamente inutile

[@giuseppebiancardi926]

esatto...era praticamente inutile

[@davidyoung8521]

The Germans called them Tommy Cookers. Warm the Panters with hordes of Shermans.

[@allangibson8494]

The Germans did no such thing. Just like the myth of the Sherman being dangerous - German tanks suffered a higher fatality rate than the American crews (because the German crew couldn’t exit the tank if hit).

[@shawnhierlihy3690]

Love the title..."America's Nazi Germany Tank-Killer". Ya sure, I'd rather be in a Grant than a Tiger.

[@nickdanger3802]

Lord Addison "Most of our tanks-British-produced tanks-were equipped with a 2-pounder gun. The heavier American tanks, unfortunately too few in number, very excellent machines I believe, were equipped with good guns, but few if any of the British-produced tanks have 6-pounder guns on them." below 552 Hansard CONDUCT OF THE WAR. HL Deb 01 July 1942 vol 123 cc551-613

[@johnnyg3166]

This was one of thee worst tanks of WW2

[@nickdanger3802]

Source?

[@johnnyg3166]

@@nickdanger3802 ww2 performance in combat

[@nickdanger3802]

@@johnnyg3166 Their appearance was a surprise to the Germans, who were unprepared for the M3's 75 mm gun. They soon discovered the M3 could engage them beyond the effective range of their 5 cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun, and the 5 cm KwK 39 of the Panzer III, their main medium tank. The M3 was also vastly superior to the Fiat M13/40 and M14/41 tanks employed by the Italian troops, whose 47 mm gun was effective only at point-blank range, while only the few Semoventi da 75/18 self-propelled guns were able to destroy it using HEAT rounds.[24] In addition to the M3's superior range, they were equipped with high explosive shells to take out infantry and other soft targets, which previous British tanks lacked; upon the introduction of the M3, Rommel noted: "Up to May of 1942, our tanks had in general been superior in quality to the corresponding British types. This was now no longer true, at least not to the same extent."[25] After British Commonwealth forces in Europe and the Mediterranean began receiving M4 Shermans, about 900 British-ordered M3 Lees/Grants were shipped to the Indian Army. Some of these saw action against Japanese troops and tanks in the Burma Campaign of WWII.[20] They were used by the British Fourteenth Army[37] until the fall of Rangoon,[37] regarded as performing "admirably" in the original intended role of supporting infantry in Burma between 1944 and 1945.[37][38] In the Burma Campaign, the M3 medium tank's main task was infantry support. It played a pivotal role during the Battle of Imphal (March to July 1944), during which the Imperial Japanese Army's 14th Tank Regiment (primarily equipped with their own Type 95 Ha-Go light tanks, together with a handful of captured British M3 Stuart light tanks as well) encountered M3 medium tanks for the first time and found their light tanks outgunned and outmatched by the better British armour.[39] Despite their worse-than-average 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,[37] nevertheless, the Lee/Grant saw action until the end of the war in September 1945.

[@bogusmogus9551]

I remember a cartoon in one of the magazines like Yank or something with two American soldiers looking at it and saying "looks like a tank designed by a committee"