30 Tons with 2 Guns: The M3 | Did it matter?

[@kalaharimine]

The film Sahara 1943 with Humphrey Bogart is a one of the best tank movies and does M3 justice.

[@markidjanivulle3680]

Look up remake with James Belushi

[@craigw.scribner6490]

One of my favorite tank movies, by all means!

[@bwilliams463]

@@markidjanivulle3680 You sure you're not thinking of '1941' with John Belushi?

[@stuartwald2395]

One of my father's favorites; we watched it together many times.

[@michaelmanning5379]

It also is featured in the opening scenes of "Five Graves to Cairo" with Franchot Tone as the sole survivor of a Grant tank stuck behind German lines.

[@chrisjpfaff314]

There is a recent series of videos from the Australian Armour guys in which they rebuild a Lee from parts. Surplus tanks were used by the farmers in Australia after the war.

[@neilwilson5785]

Well worth a look!

[@bwilliams463]

Yeah, Australia has a treasure trove of (mostly) abandoned M3s in various states of disrepair. I think this is because the M3s sent to Australia didn't see combat - for the most part - and the Americans weren't interested in shipping them back home.

[@johnnieangel99]

I believe it's a "Grant" but yes. Love the channel. The use of screens to block shaped and satchel charges that was only used by the Australians is also very interesting

[@shannonkohl68]

Given the wildlife of Australia, I can see why the farmers want a tank.

[@bartonstano9327]

In the Pacific and India / Burma it was a great tank, the Japanese had very poor anti armor, so it was great in that area.

[@CrniWuk]

The Japanese had actually some anti tank weapons, at least for their infantry in the form of shaped anti tank charges/rockets and anti tank guns, like the Type 5 45 mm Recoilless Gun, the Type 4 70 mm AT rocket launcher in 1944 or their various Typ-1-37-mm- und -47-mm-Anti-Tank guns and even some field guns in 10 and 12cm. Their own tanks have been always quite inferiour compared to the enemies they faced. At least the US and Soviets.

[@LeSpade72]

Plus it can fire in multiple directions which when supporting infantry can be useful especially with the 37 canister shot and the 75 HE

[@silentotto5099]

One point about the height, I've read that the tankers who were using it in the far east and the Pacific liked the extra height because it allowed them to better see into the dense undergrowth that they were more likely to encounter in a tropical environment.

[@PeterWilliams-p8q]

They did not face the amount of anti tank gunfire and Japanese tanks were poor early 1930's designed models. So jungle island terrain was fine for the M3.

[@coling3957]

The British using M3 in Burma did ok with them too.. but off they were using them against Japanese static defences and not tanks, at least mostly.. in North Africa they were up against panzer IV .. idk if any faced Tigers in Tunisia.

[@Franky46Boy]

Like the famous Dutch soccer player Johan Cruijff once said: "Every disadvantage has it's advantage" (and vice versa...)

[@AnthonyLee-u1z]

They were only as good as their crews. 2 cannons 37mm and 75mm ---2 30 cal. machine . Lots of firepower.

[@ddrennon]

"It looked like a damned cathedral going down the road"-An Army at Dawn, Rick Atkinson. But it kept the Allies in the fight until newer models could come into service. Great video: My Dad joined the Army in 1937 and trained on these tanks, although he went overseas in an M4.

[@gus.smedstad]

If you're going to mention the Panzer IV F2, I'd think you'd mention the Panzer III J, which was the main rival to the Grant in the 1941 war in North Africa. It changed out the earlier 37mm for a 50mm long-barrel (3m) cannon, and was the only German tank in the theater that was effective against the M3's armor.

[@ruhrpottrc-racingingermany5867]

Actually most Panzer III Js in North Africa had the shorter (L42) 50mm gun, only a few J models and the L and later models had the long (L60) 50mm gun from spring 1942 onward.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Indeed there was a 2ish year period from 40 to 42 where the M3 was on top, especially as it was the first tank with an excellent APHE shell for dealing with the biggest threat, German PaKs. 37mm AP just did nothing against them.

[@ill_bred_demon9059]

Yep. When the Grant arrived, it was the best tank on the field. Not bad for a stop gap.

[@kennethreese2193]

Minor issue when it come to countering german guns. The M2 75mm on the M3 was able to lob HE out to 6 miles and could be expected to reliable place HE with 20 yards of a target at 3 miles. Against a tank thats useles, but against an open air gun thats going to scythe through the crew and possible even destroy the gun. At any rate anti tanks guns were deadly as an ambushing weapon but once they were spotted the M3 had little trouble dealing with them.

[@gotanon9659]

Except the 75 was also equipped with an AP shell

[@kennethreese2193]

@gotanon9659 true but you dont need an AP round to kill a large flack gun sitting out in the open with its crew exposed.

[@Lunkwow]

@@gotanon9659 The whole AP debacle was also a thing, the first 75mm AP shell that came to Africa didn't work as intended and the British informed USA about it but the still needed a AP shell fast. One of the thing the did was to marry captured German 75mm AP shell from Tobruk with captured France 75mm casings that the captured from Vichy France in Syria, which worked wonders until the could be supplied with working AP shells.

[@kennethreese2193]

@Lunkwow this is not quite what happened and you seem to combining 2 different issues. Some background. The 75mm gun M2 was directly derived from the M1897 its self was just an americanized French cannon de 75 1897. The Lend Lease laws required drawing down old stocks before new material could be transfered so the early ammo provided was Great War era ammo which was intended to be fired from a field gun operating as a howitzer ie the round would fall from a high angle. Becuase of that the ammo supplied had no grazing fuse which meant that if it hit at a low angle becuase it was fired from a might bounce without detonating. The solution was to pull fuses from french ammo which was produced according to their early great war doctrine of using the 75mm as a direct fire weapon so they had grazing fuses. You could (and they did) just fire old stocks of french 75mm from the american tanks. The second issue wasent that the 75mm AP didnt work, it worked exactly as intended. The problem was that the production line for 75mm APC was still being built so we sent the 75mm AP we had in stock. 75mm AP was perfectly capable of fulling perforating the early PzIIIs and PzIV but when the germans started replacing losses with up armord tanks specficlly the Pz IIIj the old AP round had issues with deflection and shattering. That said below 500 yards even if the round shattered it would still likely kill the target through massive spall and above 500 yard it would still wound and kill crew.

[@Lunkwow]

@@kennethreese2193 Regarding the HE shell I didn't about the fuse problem. Most of what I heard was the British where happy having a good HE shell on there new tanks. I might be wrong, but I'm quite sure of the marriage between German shell and French casing, even if it was a really short story. But finding where I read or heard about is a daunting task. Spalling is quite deadly but would it still be hot enough to ignite penetrated shell casings? You don't want to leave a tank to recovered during the night.

[@davidk7324]

Wonderfully done, Mr. Wilcox. Please keep these coming. I recognize that the folks filming and editing are skilled and effective.

[@davidharrington1133]

Field Marshall Montgomery's command tank was an M3 Grant, there is one at Duxford in the UK

[@elijahschwindt7403]

Fantastic overview! Great tanks and great personality. I would really love to see this guy moving those heavy hatches open to get a sense of how tough the crews operating these machines really were.

[@hectormedel8167]

Great video and well informed!! My vote for next tank to do a walk around would be the M26 Pershing.

[@m26a1pershing7]

I second!

[@theonlymadmac4771]

Very good and balanced narration, way better than what one is used to on KZbin.

[@TallDude73]

Great video, lots of detail. The thought of the shattered rivets flying around the vehicle when it was hit made me shudder.

[@itsnotagsr]

Interesting that the limited traverse of the M3 is criticised but yet the Stug and Hetzer, both lauded, have the same issue.

[@nathanroberts355]

Australian armoured artillery museum has 2 operating m3 grant tanks and im hoping to ride on m3 lee and the m3 grant tanks at this year's Australian armoured artillery museum tank fest this year

[@johnnyzippo7109]

Very well done , the tempo is smooth and upbeat . Your enunciation and clarity , spot on . I am excited for every drop going forward , no doubt , y’all are in the big leagues now .

[@jamesrohner3792]

Such a joy to have a US tank channel now! I love all the other Tank museum channels too but I very much enjoy watching something that I have an real chance to visit!

[@brooksroth345]

The counter weight was used because the stabilization gear was designed for the m4 gun not the m3 shown here. The m4 gun was longer thereby heavier hence the added weight. As with the M4 Sherman the stabilization system was considered secret. No training or manuals were provided. Some crews figured it out most didn't.

[@ruhrpottrc-racingingermany5867]

Actually the first M3 tanks used the shorter M2 gun (31 calibers long), which needed the counter weight) while later models used the same M3 gun as the M4 Sherman tank (40 calibers).

[@joshuamyers5767]

The return of Hank the Tank

[@memesandcoolvibes9446]

Hank the Tank is back!!!

[@brooksroth345]

The grant also had an inch more armor for the turret front. When first deployed the British called ELH Egypt's last hope. After Africa the grants were deployed to the Pacific. Here its deficiencies became strengths. The high siloute allowed it to see over the tall grass. It could fire in two directions at once. The 37mm gun was devastating at close range against infantry with the canister round. The Japanese had no antitank capability to speak of. This vehicle was a value to the allies. In 1942 when deployed the 37mm gun was still effective against German armor. The Russians hated the Lee calling coffin for 7 brothers.

[@hagamapama]

The Russians had the T-34 which was superior to the lee and really did not need it very much. The British, on the other hand, who were struggling hard with getting an effective native meedium tank until the development of the Cromwell, loved the thing.

[@nate7755]

Let’s go another Hank the Tank video!!!

[@Twirlyhead]

Against the Japanese with British and Commonwealth forces it had more than "limited success against Japanese light tanks", it was generally a great asset helped not only by it's superiority to Japanese tanks but the Japanese had very little anti-tank. As an armoured gun suite in defence or in support of advancing infantry it was put to effective use.

[@richdurbin6146]

The 37mm was beginning to be obsolescent when the M3 rolled out, but it’s high rate of fire helped it’s usefulness.

[@gordonhall9871]

it could fire canister shot also

[@JENKEM1000]

And the 75 was designed to kill armor from the beginning, it was never a pure infantry support gun

[@patrickporter1864]

Plus it had cannister to fire. Very useful.

[@PotatoeJoe69]

​@@JENKEM1000 That's just not true... The 75mm was developed from the Canon de 75 modèle 1897, which was a French artillery piece made in 1897. The US took the basic design and adapted it to tank use; it even used the same ammunition as the M 1897 artillery piece. It was in fact not designed for use against armor, but by virtue of being in a tank, had ammunition designed for it afterwards to combat enemy armor.

[@John14-6...]

I was going to question what they used it for if they used the 75 for tanks

[@Sawyersmaple]

How about the M8 Greyhound?

[@ivan65t]

I always liked this tank. Cool and unusual. It served its purpose for the time it was intended.

[@kennethhanks6712]

Baldwin was indeed a locomotive company whereas Pullman and Pressed Steel were railroad rolling stock manufacturers but neither produced locomotives, just freight and passenger cars (still really "heavy weight" equipment).

[@kilcar]

Concise, accurate, informative! I particularly appreciate the absence of " mood" or " bumper music". All together, well done!

[@davidvanwagoner9027]

The limited traverse is always a knock. However, in N. Africa, with it’s unobstructed field of views, allowed the M3 to see its targets with limited tank movement

[@PanzerHistorian]

you know … your museum and representation of tank’s have a lot of potential to grow more viewer’s! just like the tank museum, if you showcase more vehicles, and explain them more often on youtube, you can DEFINETELY See more subscriber’s and more customer’s … Just focus on less known and liked vehicles, instead of just following the 1 million’d time german tank from ww2 formula

[@dougsundseth6904]

I'd like to see something about the M2 Light tanks you have. Grant/Lee, Sherman, and Stuart get covered quite a bit, but the M2 Light almost never gets a mention.

[@nuancolar7304]

Stopgap is a good name for the M3. This tank got caught up between two time periods for tanks. From their beginnings in World War I, tanks were really nothing but a mobile bunker that moved through infantry positions. But in the interwar years, innovations such as turrets, gun emplacements, armor, and sighting systems were being developed. The M3 was rushed into the fray and because so many things were being developed to make tanks better and more effective, it was pretty much obsolete from day one. To a lessor degree, the same argument goes for the Sherman. The Sherman had all the improvements the M3 lacked, but designers ignored the heavier tank designs that were appearing in Germany. Still, the sheer numbers of Shermans compensated for whatever it lacked in a side by side comparison to heavy tanks.

[@charlesfaure1189]

The Sherman's greatest attribute was that it RAN. A reliable tank that actually shows up someplace is infinitely more useful than a supertank that doesn't.

[@thurin84]

excellent! yeah, its much better to have a stopgap when you need something than have nothing at all while youre waiting for a better solution. quite a number went to australia, have you tried contacting anyone there to see if you can find the correct cupula for it? the australian armor and artillery museum recently finished restoring a grant, maybe they could help you source a cupula.

[@b1laxson]

The great success of the M3 is seen on the front and the sides. The transmission, suspension and engine methods continued on into the M4 Sherman and the tank destroyers. As an intern getting major parts right was a success.

[@20Redram00]

Excellent video on this forgotten tank

[@bkraus4829]

How about going over the history of the armored cars used by the Army leading up to and during WW2?

[@folgore1]

I built a model of the M3 as a kid. I thought it was cool that it had two cannons and could conceivably engage two targets at once! Two cannons better than one right?

[@tolik5929]

It actually did well in the desert , early in the war . Even Rommel noted several times , that they gave them a problem . Have to remember , that most of the German tanks at this time , was the panzer III , with a 50mm gun . The grant was an issue . They were not happy to see the sherman either ....but they had more panzer 4s by that time .

[@Perfusionist01]

Cool! I didn't know that you had M3 Mediums out there. I NEED to visit! More Sherman tours are always interesting to me.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

The two pounder (37mm) was still more than enough in 1940, it was by 1942 where it was genuinely obsolete. The problem with the 2 pounder in 1940 is that in North Africa, tanks armed exclusively with the 2 pounder (British cruiser tanks) had no way to tackle the most dangerous threat in the desert, the German anti tank PaKs. These retired an HE shell to quickly put them out of commission, leaving British tankers dangerously vulnerable. The M3 Grant did, of course, not suffer from this problem due to the event APHE shell it was typically loaded with.

[@joshuathomas8529]

Does the last tank you showed have an engine in it? If so what engine does it have and does it run?

[@deadon4847]

Should have paid attention when he spoke about the engine.

[@SlumberBear2k]

love that it has two main guns. When I was a kid I always thought it was such a cool looking tank.

[@hagamapama]

American interwar tanks had features that marked them as distinctly American and one of them was machine guns everywhere you could conceivably fit one. On the M2 medium the sponson gun was, you guessed it, another machine gun.

[@mattsalgado1834]

Really good video, but playback speed of .75 made it sound normal. You have great delivery, don’t rush it!

[@itsmethelauri1183]

BABE GET OUT OF BED! A NEW HANK THE TANK VIDEO IS OUT!

[@MrMikey4026]

Did your museum get some Scorpion tanks out of Washington State? How about a video of the future plans with them?

[@MIKROWAVE1]

I have an operational radio communications system for this in my Ham Shack. The General Electric radios take a bay that defined the space for the Sherman as well as the later install of the FM gear for D Day.

[@neilwilson5785]

Really interesting. subscribed!

[@callumgordon1668]

That’s a good and fair assessment of the M3. In what I’ve read of the desert campaign, the British liked them as an improvement on what they had till then and they were welcome between Gazala and the 2nd battle of Alamein. Also, service with the allies against the Japanese, for example in Burma was sterling, where it remained effective. The 88 was a problem for Allied tankers for the whole of the war. BTW, the multibank engine was also deployed in a variant of the Sherman. M4A4, which the British also liked. It was one of the variants that could be converted to take the excellent 17pdr AT gun as a Firefly.

[@tasman006]

Awsome vid and in the Australian Australian Armour and Artillery Museum' Ytube channel they have purchased and done up a few of these old warhorses which is worth the watch. Next tank I think you should do is starting the evolution of American light tanks maybe the M2 or M3 Stuart light tanks.

[@Dr.GeoDave]

Nice presentation! I need to make a trip to Wyoming.

[@johnnyzippo7109]

Bam ! You are hitting the points , the inflection is natural , no bull sh-- , Tank Museum just met its North American equal , I am so hype for this .

[@jaydeister9305]

Great video! Thank you for all the updates!

[@c1ph3rpunk]

If you look at the M2, where it came from, you’ll suddenly realize it was needed in order to get to the M4. It’s amazing how much was learned in such a short period of time.

[@dennishaggerty8155]

Do you have anything on the Stuart tank that also served in North Africa?

[@BenKlassen1]

Good presentation sir.

[@samiam5557]

The 37mm gun did have "canister rounds" available usually on load out, HE AP & Smoke also were used.

[@josephgrosso8731]

We kinda like chestnuts! One of my all time favorites! Wonderful memories of my WW 2 vet dad and uncle, who was a tanker in 3rd Division through all 4 spearheads from North Africa through Sicily, Italy and France!!!

[@tomhenry897]

Yes It filled the gap before the M4 was made Gave the British the tanks to defeat Rommel Gave the Soviets tanks to hold of the Germans

[@Triezu]

Not gonna lie, when the video started, the only thing I could think was, "why are you filming your outside model in a Dubois February, when I know there's another one inside the nice warm museum."

[@BasicRH]

Yes, our Grant and M3A4 are nice and cozy, but I didn't want to leave our Aussie Lee left out! (It was indeed very cold.)

[@tanksdkfz1010]

As an m3 medium lover, I think the m3 medium is heavily underrated

[@evh1734]

I just adore the Grant tank. It's one of those "not very useful but still cute" vehicles like the French MS406 fighter or the Finnish BT-5 with 114mm gun.

[@paulwestenskow7302]

Great video! I was there last September! I noted that you have an M103 heavy tank off in that field to the right of the building! Are there plans to do a show on that monster? Thanks!

[@AdamWeber-pi1gs]

A very good, informative video, Sir. Well done!

[@garywade1938]

Very well presented and informative.

[@PavewayJDAM]

As long as Humphrey Bogart is the tank commander, it's a fine tank!

[@lewcrowley3710]

Odd not to mention that both the short M2 75mm, and 'sherman' M3 75mm were installed.

[@matthewleys6504]

Hello Everyone, For all it's weaknesses, it's pretty handy for blasting bunkers and for a farm tractor when the war is over. Australia is grateful for each and every one!

[@davidvanwagoner9027]

In context, the British tanks were unreliable, had much thinner armor (the Matilda tanks had been virtually replaced by 1942) and unable to fire HE shells. The M3 was superior in all aspects. The HE rounds enabled, for the first time, the British an ability to defeat anti-tank guns by just needing to hit near by and let the shrapnel take out the crew or damage the gun (an AP tank round would have to actually hit the gun).

[@williamashbless7904]

I’m not so sure that rivets fracturing and being driven inside the tank is spalling. Spalling is generally the inside section of armor plate breaking off and becoming dangerous to crew and equipment inside the tank.

[@BasicRH]

Hey! Hank here: Funny enough the crew and I had a little "side bet" going on someone mentioning this- I had found the definition of spalling to be "Spalling and spallation both describe the process of surface failure in which spall is shed." And spall being "Spall are fragments of a material that are broken off a larger solid body." It was my personal opinion that since rivet shrapnel had broken off from the rivet's body it counted as a spall... hence the term. I will say we did try to find a more precise definition, but in the end decided not to change the line. Anyway, I think I owe someone a soda now. Thanks for the comment!

[@williamashbless7904]

@@BasicRH All I can say is, Riveting.

[@tonymanero5544]

@@BasicRH”grenading” like the WW2 pineapple grenade would be the descriptive term.

[@ursamajor7468]

This tank is iconic for me because of the old Haunted Tank comic books I read a as a kid. They were going to make a movie about the series last decade but the project collapsed.

[@markbeyea4063]

Nice presentation. It's good to see a young persoon with an interest in, and good knowledge about, WWII armor.

[@cseivard]

Great lesson! I learned a bunch! Thanks.

[@jefflatham3247]

The main gun on the A4 looks different , I was hoping you would mention that !

[@TellySavalas-or5hf]

Seen it in 1995 "Sahara" named Lullebelle.

[@appaho9tel]

Hank, what do you think it would have been with long caliber 75mm casement mounted?

[@HvH909]

Where is the serial number plate located inside the M3?

[@yates667]

How did these tanks fare in urban environments? I’ve always wondered if they were better or worse.

[@DeaconBlu]

Great vid! Thank You!

[@fraudsarentfriends4717]

Multibank engine was in the Sherman as well. It was the fastest tank engine available and the most durable. The radial was terrible, it was like a smoke signal to any bombing aircraft in the area while being slow from seriously lacking in power. The only reason for its use was it's light weight.The Aluminum Ford v8 was it's replacement for that reasons.

[@adamstrange7884]

It gave the British a tank that could go toe to toe with Panzer 4s it had its issues but it was goid enough the theme that won the war for the allies!

[@michaeltelson9798]

In the beginning scene of the Bogart movie “Sahara” when they scan over the tanks that look disabled, you have a view of a very rare M3, one with a cast hull. I believe the Russians called it “a grave (or coffin) for seven brothers”

[@stevesandford7442]

Nice vid. Spalling description was kinda right, but was bits of armour scabbing off the inside of the plates and doing nasty stuff to the crew.

[@johnnyjrotten59]

We have one of these on display at our barracks, the boys have been restoring it. Was Used by Australia in WW2

[@vistaredgt]

How many of the cast hull M3 variants where made?

[@Ubique2927]

There are not many people saying the Stug or Russian SPGs are not very good. The M3 was adequate enough.

[@michaelallison1255]

great video i have always been curious about this tank!! one question- where is the bathroom!😀

[@Kottery]

Awesome M3 was a good tank in a very specific timeframe. Its gun was good enough for North Africa. Its armor was good enough until the M4 could be put into service. I also love the one anecdote of a Grant commander being handed a sandwich as theyre about to crest a hill in North Africa.

[@Reylock118]

should do the pershing next. maybe somthing like the M8 greyhound/scott etc

[@corpnut2906]

Australian Armor Museum has a barn find of 3-4 M3's plus the M3 they rebuilt and they were able to use the Australian grenade screen add on plus a few other Aus Army unique items well worth to look at and maybe get plans for the add ons for your Aus Army M3 good video and I am wanting to head out this summer so I can see family in Riverton

[@tompickering]

Used extensively by the British at the Battle of the Admin Box. You can make a very good case that this was the tank which really broke the Japanese in the Far East land campaign. IMHO deserves a lot more love than it normally gets.

[@white0devil0]

I would love to see a video on some of the armored cars you have.

[@davefellhoelter1343]

must admite "I never knew" the 75 out ranged any typ of any PAK 88's at Any Piont in any battles of WWII. THANK YOU Sr! May I Have Another?

[@logicbomb5511]

M3 is pretty effective simply for the fact its the first to bring the 75mm to the fight and was at least reliable and maintainable(unlike almost all others) in much the same way the Sherman was. Also the m3 was the Red armies original IFV where its large internal capacity and crew made a great under armor carrier for dismounts, inspiring the BMP series who again are rocking the 3 guns and the machine gun blossom of death going back to the US doctrine of the M3 conception.

[@JessWLStuart]

I'd like to see a video where the components of the M3 and M4 are compared to show how the M4 was a natural progression of the M3.

[@michaelray3865]

I’ll say this for the M3, it could and did hold the Line until the M4 Sherman.got there, so I would say it’s a fine machine for the time it entered service. Better imperfect and there than perfect and “too late”!

[@ralphdeblasio2902]

The narrator is well verse and explains simply .

[@Jagdtyger2A]

ai always thought that the M3 chassis could have been used as the basis of an A+.A tank by teplacinf the small turret with a new turret with multiple AA auto cannon or quad >50 caliber machineguns. The 75 mm could be removed or left in place for infantry support

[@kimjanek646]

6:29 Why does the 75mm look so long compared to vehicle in the museum at the start? It doesn’t have a muzzle break either. The regular 75mm didn’t protrude over the front of the hull 🤔 Must be using the L/40 gun of the Sherman instead of the original L/31 of the Lee, I guess.

[@bruceschlickbernd8475]

For all its faults, it had one big advantage that the British appreciated: that 75mm gun. They could barely cram in their 57mm six pounder into their Valentines and Crusaders to replace their obsolete 40mm two pounders as it was. The Grant had relatively good armor, and was mechanically reliable. For all the funky and tall design, at its introduction it was actually a reasonably effective tank to do the job it was given: be good enough until the M4 was ready for production. That it succeeded in that task is the part that’s often forgotten: the British were quite happy to get the Grant.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Grants got completely routed in their debut at Gazala though.

[@beanmachine5940]

Excellent video! M3 Medium tank solo’s Tiger tanks any day of the week! #RankDoesNotMatter

[@lyndoncmp5751]

Tigers ate them for breakfast at Tebourba, Maknassy, Sidi-bou-Zid etc.