Building a Tank | US Army M3 Lee Medium Tank | Documentary Film | 1941

● Please SUPPORT my work on Patreon: bit.ly/2LT6opZ
● Visit my 2ND CHANNEL: bit.ly/2ILbyX8
►Facebook: bit.ly/2INA7yt
►Twitter: bit.ly/2Lz57nY
►Google+: bit.ly/2IPz7dl
✚ Watch my "Military Training Films" PLAYLIST: bit.ly/2G6XIrN
This documentary film (1941) depicts construction and start of production in the Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant. The tank being built in the film is the US Army's M3 "Lee" medium tank.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant was the first manufacturing plant ever built for the mass production of tanks in the United States. Established in 1940 under Chrysler, this plant was owned by the U.S. government until 1996. Notwithstanding its name, it was located in Warren, Michigan, Detroit's largest suburb.
The Medium Tank M3 was an American tank. In Britain the tank was called by two names based on the turret configuration. Tanks employing US pattern turrets were called the "Lee", named after General Robert E. Lee. Variants using British pattern turrets were known as "Grant", named after U.S. General Ulysses S. Grant.
Design commenced in July 1940 and the first M3s were operational in late 1941. The U.S. Army needed a good tank and coupled with the United Kingdom's demand for 3,650 medium tanks immediately, the Lee began production by late 1940. The design was a compromise meant to produce a tank as soon as possible. The M3 had considerable firepower as it was well armed and provided good protection, but had certain serious drawbacks in its general design and shape, such as: a high silhouette, an archaic sponson mounting of the main gun, riveted construction, and poor off-road performance. Its overall performance was not satisfactory and the tank was withdrawn from duty - except in the remote areas of Asia where it was used by British forces as late as mid-1944 or later - as soon as the M4 Sherman became available in large numbers. In spite of this it was considered by Hans von Luck superior to the best German tank at the time of its introduction, the Panzer IV.
Building a Tank | US Army M3 Lee Medium Tank | Documentary Film | 1941
TBFA_0016 (DM_0004)
NOTE: THE VIDEO DOCUMENTS HISTORICAL EVENTS. SINCE IT WAS PRODUCED DECADES AGO, IT HAS HISTORICAL VALUES AND CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A VALUABLE HISTORICAL DOCUMENT. THE VIDEO HAS BEEN UPLOADED WITH EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. ITS TOPIC IS REPRESENTED WITHIN HISTORICAL CONTEXT. THE VIDEO DOES NOT CONTAIN SENSITIVE SCENES AT ALL!

[@TheBestFilmArchives]

*Please consider supporting my work on my new Patreon page and choose your reward!* Find out more: www.patreon.com/TheBestFilmArchives Thank you for your generosity!

[@user-mo8hf2vo2t]

Nice film

[@rexfrommn3316]

These M3 tanks were actually good adequate tanks for 1941/42. The M3 tank had a good 37mm gun for antitank work but also had a devastating canister rounds for antipersonnel work. The M3 Grant tank served in North Africa and Sicily with both the British armies and American armies. It was rapidly replaced during the Italian campaign with increasing numbers of M4 Shermans. Many a Japanese machine gunner and sniper found out about the effectiveness of the 37mm canister round in India/Burma. The Soviets also used many M3 Grant tanks in the Lee format at Leningrad, Stalingrad and Kursk as infantry support and command tanks. The M3 was still a respectable infantry support tank at the end of WW2. The Soviets didn't like the M3 Grant/Lee. However, the Soviet Army eagerly used them in combat in secondary theaters like Petsamo much like the British in Burma/India. The M3 tanks use in secondary theaters freed up better tanks for use against the Germans Wehrmacht in Euope. So this M3 Grant/Lee saw service around the world, including the Pacific until the end of the Second World War. At least 6258 M3 tanks were manufactured with most going to the British. Many thousands more M3 chasses were made for variants for self propelled artillery. The British used a 25 pounder gun on the M3 chassis. Many M3 chassis were fitted with 105mm guns for self propelled artillery. This 105mm form of the M3 soldiered on until the end of the Korean war in both the American and Anglo allies who fought there. We have to remember too many different types of engines, including a Ford V8 engine and numerous General Motors diesel engines were first fit into the M3 and then put into the M4 Sherman tank. Most of the British M3's are thought to have been diesel versions in the majority of cases. It is too bad the American Army didn't use diesel engines for tanks in WW2. Many American lives could have been saved from burning to death when the gasoline engine/fuel tank caught fire.

[@deafsmith1006]

Like comparing fighters in WW2, one must look at the time it was introduced and what the enemy had at THAT TIME. As the war progressed both sides upgunned, uparmored, and introduced new designs. The M3, for it's time period, was a very good tank. Later, as new threats came upon the scene, it lost it's edge. Same as planes like the P-39 UNLESS they were in an environment that kept them from having to play their weaknesses against the enemy's strength. Even late in the war the P-39 did well in USSR where engagements were at low level, and in Burma the M3 did well where the Japanese had no comparable armor. Glad we had them when we needed them so badly!

[@Ocrilat]

You guys have to remember that the M3 Lee/Grant was built as an interim design while the U.S. was working out how to cast a turret big enough to hold a 75mm gun...the British needed a a tank, and couldn't wait. When introduced, it was equal to or better than the German tanks in Africa in almost every category...and was years ahead of anything in the British arsenal.

[@zolikoff]

"it was equal to or better than the German tanks in Africa in almost every category" It was only better than the German tanks in terms of the main gun and front hull armor. Which were significant advantages, obviously, because it could take out German tanks from a distance at which it was impervious to them. But it also had drawbacks: - A much higher silhouette, thus hard to hide and the turret was always exposed. - Main gun could only fire in a forward arc. - Slower and less maneuverable than German tanks. - Early versions had a big spalling problem with the armor.

[@Ocrilat]

All that is true...but you have to keep in mind the situation with tanks that the Western Allies had. British tanks were pretty bad...and the Lee/Grant was head and shoulders better than anything they had at the time. And they needed then now...not in 6 months or a year. When introduced, it was the best tank in the Western Allies inventory, and at least gave the Brits a fighting chance.

[@peterson7082]

+zolikoff less maneuverable to the Pz.Kpfw. III, it's basically equal to a IV

[@zolikoff]

Nathan Peterson Equal in speed to a IV, not in maneuverability. While both got up to the same top speed, the Lee has a turning circle of 11 m, while the IV can turn within only 6 m.

[@Ocrilat]

zolikoff In games that certainly matters...in real life not so much. Most tank engagements...especially in the desert...happened at range.The Lee had a harder-hitting gun, with a longer range than the Germans, and excellent frontal armor, where it counts in those sorts of fights.When the Lee was introduced, the Brits only had tanks with the 2-pounder. They have been mocked for their stupid cavalry-charge tactics, but the Brit tankers had little choice...either charge and get slaughtered for the chance to get into range to shoot back, or fail. The Lee gave them a weapon that they could win with. Sorry, but no Lee/Grant tank in the desert would have meant defeat for the British.

[@jojorobino5312]

Funny to see all the kids coming from world of tanks to call this tank useless and such. First of all in the game, you can't use the turret so that cut effectiveness off. But in the real world, this tank was very effective for the time. However, it was also a result of poor funding on America's part. But still proved to be deadly on the field.

[@merrickburkett2469]

The U.S. was more focused on speed than the armor of the tank, like the M4 Shermans.

[@MrChiron12]

Except the M4 actually had quite good armor. Most M4 Tanks were destroyed from the side where the armor was the thinnest.

[@merrickburkett2469]

Despite the fact that the Sherman's armor was not as good is the Tiger's or the Panthers, Sherman's outnumbered tigers 5:1, and they were much more reliable.

[@merrickburkett2469]

But yes, they did have pretty good armor.

[@MrChiron12]

Merrick Burkett The M4's armor was actually superior to the Tiger's. Sloped armor is infinitely better than flat. The M4 had less armor than the Tiger yet had almost the same effective thickness. The real difference is the armament. The Panther had great armor, and a good gun. The issue is that as you said the M4 was more reliable. You could bring all your M4 tanks into battle, but the same can't be said about German Armor. Even then Battles are different than we may think as the M4 didn't need to outnumber tanks as seen with the Battle of Arracourt.

[@surearrow]

>> The British wanted more of these in the early war, Russians, not so much (lend-lease). They were great anti-personal tanks, but not anti-tank. They were a stop-gap weapon until the M4 came out.

[@Putseller100]

This was not a terrible tank as many comments here say. One has to remember the US just started building up a tank army out scratch, where as European countries was playing around with tank forces since the 20's. It took the US only about one year to build a reasonable force, and that is pretty good.

[@gregsiska8599]

Many were converted, after the Sherman was introduced, to self propelled guns. Some of the British inventory went to India/Burma where the Japanese did not have anything to stop them. (Look up the battle of the Admin Box.)

[@kiqueenbees]

There are two of these on my way to NSW.....I often stop to look at them.....one still has the 75 mm gun! It was designed to be an infantry support with its 75mm gun and machine guns as well as anti tank with the smaller high velocity high up on the secondary turret.

[@kevinkraft5480]

The dialogue and his tone just kills me.

[@jojorobino5312]

You can thank the 40's for that.

[@WildBillCox13]

An interesting and informative--not to mention historic--visual record of a an arsenal built for the production of Armored Vehicles with special attention paid to the USA M3 Medium Tank.. The M3's 37mm gun was meant to have a secondary AA capability? Say what?

[@davidolie8392]

It had 60 degree elevation in an electrically-driven turret and fired canister shot, so seems likely. Along with the co-axial MG it might have at least been a deterrent at short ranges. This was an experimental vehicle in many respects. Some of the experiments, like the fixed bow MGs, proved to be failures, but that's the nature of the beast.

[@WildBillCox13]

San Shiki is what the Nipon Kaigun called 'em, but theirs were up to 18" caliber. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Shiki_(anti-aircraft_shell)

[@drendolnicar9816]

William Cox It was also very efective against infantry because of it capability to fire canister rounds.

[@HankLoremonger]

That feature did end up being really useful for, ah, "clearing trees" in Burma and that general area, so it's a good thing they included it.

[@darrensmith6999]

Nice to see how " Lulubelle" was built. (:

[@ph11p3540]

Not a bad for a stop gap tank designed and built under extreme short deadlines. Piece of garbage in WoT but this thing really did better in real life warfare. That puny 37mm gun saw lots of use for softening up troop emplacements.

[@l-a-c8128]

nice video

[@walt_man]

Damn I love the M3!!!!! If only that 75mm was HV like the Stug!

[@Corristo89]

The tank wasn't a new weapon by the outbreak of WW2. The British and French had pioneered its use during WW1 and hadn't slouched in terms of tank development either. France wasn't beaten because it had less and/or inferior tanks (quite the opposite), but because the French high command had never understood the use of tanks as individual fighting units. They tied their tanks to infantry units, which slowed them down and made them incapable of reacting quickly. They failed to concentrate their tanks and instead spread them along the front, which the Germans exploited by picking them off in concentrated, well coordinated attacks. America on the other hand had let tank development slog and had to learn painful lessons when American soldiers fought against the vastly more experienced German tanks. The M3 was still a succes because it was reliable, easy to make and could at least hold its own during the early stages of the war. It was a match for a Panzer II and III and was far better than anything the Japanese could throw at it, but by 1942 it was almost hopelessly outdated.

[@hagamapama]

Which is fine, because by 1942 we could move to the Sherman, which eliminated most of the Lee's weaknesses and was a competitive battle tank for most of the war, and adequate for tank battles as a reserve vehicle through the Korean War

[@techmaniac43]

good vídeo ;) a verry good pice of history ;)

[@fivenightsofrandomness9224]

Thats one tall boi

[@cartmanrlsusall]

it did provide the chassis for the Sherman so it wasn't a complete failure

[@davidjennings127]

The 75mm could be fired indirectly making it a 88mm killer,hide behind a hill and blast away.

[@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant]

The lack of workplace health and safety standards is killing me

[@mark6310]

Lulubelle!!!

[@dofuscan6757]

Hail America.

[@TheBestFilmArchives]

*COMMENT, LIKE, SUBSCRIBE!* Thank you! _If you want to get immediate updates for all my new videos that I am going to post in the future just click on this link and SUBSCRIBE:_ kzbin.info

[@weaseltown]

Why did every narrator in films and on radio and news sound like this back then?

[@41divad]

Custom of the times

[@haroldj.k1959]

Why didn't they make the 75mm gun at top? and the 37mm gun below?

[@NikovK]

At 3:00 is that explains that. The turret ring determines how much weight can be in the turret, and how large the gun can be. With the 75mm in a turret ring of that size, there wouldn't be room for a gunner and loader. That's why a 37mm was in that turret ring. Making the turret ring larger requires making the tank body itself larger, the turret larger, more weight on the top, so on. Placing the heavy gun in the hull removes the need for a large and expensive turret ring and allows much cheaper production. This is why the StuG was so prolific with its powerful 75mm; that time consuming turret ring wasn't needed.

[@merrickburkett2469]

The United States did not have a turret big enough for the heavy caliber 75mm gun.

[@Kissamiess]

Their industry was still figuring out how to manufacture a cast turret big enough for 75mm.

[@TheBestFilmArchives]

*SHARE this video with your friends on Google+, Facebook and Twitter!* Thank you! ►My channel: kzbin.info ►Google+: plus.google.com/+TheBestFilmArchives ►Facebook: facebook.com/TheBestFilmArchives ►Twitter: twitter.com/BestFilmArch

[@MrProbablyBullets]

Once you get in, you don't come out :)

[@stevenshives7204]

+LeShootingStar Yep, american tankers faced terrible losses due to superior german tanks....

[@peterson7082]

+Steven Shives You think the Pz.Kpfw IV is superior to all American tanks (referring to the Sherman)? Really? Nope. We suffered 1,399 men lost in our Armored force through out the entire war. About half were outside their vehicles. We suffered losses, but not "catastrophic" as rumors often state. And most certainly not as bad as the Germans suffered. German tanks, for the most part, we're not superior. Their tank guns were however.

[@peterson7082]

+Nathan Peterson were not* dang phone

[@nuclearsnek3749]

Steven Shives german tanks were not good, some are even worse than the allies tank. Its the superior training and veterans that made them feared

[@hagamapama]

Actually about 97% of American and British tankers climbing into the M3 and M4, climbed right back out. The Russians hated them, but that's because the T-34 was already better than the Lee.

[@chaosXP3RT]

This was back when we believed the M3 was a good idea

[@_lambert_1785]

Better than the m2 at that time.

[@chaosXP3RT]

***** Yup, but it wasn't very agile and was quickly deemed out of date

[@chaosXP3RT]

***** No, I can be defeated. But lets settle on truce for now?

[@MrJizzy181]

This comment and it's undercomments made my day! XD Greetings from Germany!

[@bmo4411]

We never thought it was a "good" idea. It was a stop-gap tank, & as such, it was the ONLY idea. It was the M3, or nothing....and it was also the tank that basically won the North African campaign.

[@rocksteel44]

...AUSGEZEICHNET!!!!!

[@seoulkidd1]

It became a SPG

[@merrickburkett2469]

seoulkidd1, yes the M7 priest SPG was built on the basis of the Lee, as well as the sexton 1 and 2 and the M4 Sherman was built on the Lee too.

[@McSkumm]

i watch this and first thing that comes to mind is that any OSHA peon that saw this would have a heart attack on the spot

[@CaesarInVa]

Exactly my thoughts. I was thinking "I bet OSHA would shit themselves if they saw these guys working without goggles". Then, my next thought, was "I bet EEOC would have a MEGA shit to see not a single woman on the assembly line".

[@hagamapama]

That's true of every WWII tank. Belton Cooper wasn't wrong, it's just that everything else was a death trap too.

[@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant]

@@CaesarInVa but they had plenty of women on the assembly lines

[@TheBestFilmArchives]

*Visit our brand NEW CHANNEL* dedicated to space exploration and aeronautics research: kzbin.info/door/jkUnpzBv-WLAlTBSURPdDg

[@user-gp1lx8rs2c]

and Sherman even had classical configuration also was inferior than T 34 with carburet engine, only one thing that Americans made best than Russia was technology of manufacturing this machines

[@peterson7082]

No it was not.

[@swampdonkey1567]

Quite the opposite actually.

[@dannymiller9845]

It was good in North Africa with a better gun

[@TheJessecarpenter]

if only they were good against tiger 1's

[@stevenshives7204]

+TheJessecarpenter No such luck, not until the T-34 was there any challenge to the Tigers...

[@1stPionPaul]

+Steven Shives The T34 was introduced before the tiger...

[@stevenshives7204]

Maybe so I only stated it was the best bet against tigers, better than the Sherman

[@adrianeng20]

tiger its was a heavy tank,develop in 1941,start build in '42 or '43, the american M3 its from start of war,1939,it was for mach panzer 1 or 2, you compare 2 thanks 3 generation away,tiger its 3'rd generation if no 4'rd one, KW-1,IS-1 and T-34 are second,and are like Shermans,Churchills,Panzer 3 and 4,M-3 its like BT-7,panzer 1 and 2, are from 1'st generation tanks

[@anthonyglennmollicasr.425]

+adrianeng20 well said

[@HH-cu2mv]

From these machine tools to french fry fat firer, sad...what happened to our country?

[@johnbrewer7221]

Too many victories. Too few enemies. Affluence and decadence, the eternal Achilles heel of a nation's success.

[@commandershepherd8987]

"To rid the world of Tyranny." That line cracks me up every time. To think that people back then actually thought defeating the Germans would somehow make the world a "better " place! How naive and truly led by the nose they were. Now because of their heroic, and I say with all honesty, heroic efforts....tyranny lives on in the very heart of our governments today. Worse now than ever before.

[@nuclearsnek3749]

Commander Shepherd people will always think their side is fighting for whats right.

[@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant]

Yet infinitely preferable to the Nazis

[@christopherderrah3294]

obsolete by the time it was built.

[@merrickburkett2469]

Christopher Derrah, it was actually well armored and armed for the time, but by early 1943, it was obsolete.

[@rileynibhroin6395]

The deformed Sherman

[@merrickburkett2469]

Declan Burns, the Sherman was built on the Lee.

[@stevenshives7204]

The only way we won any tank battles was in superior numbers, we could produce many Sherman's compared to the time it took to make a Tiger

[@otteroftoast2616]

+Steven Shives Patton's tactics were astounding as well. Can't forget Belgium and our push out into Germany.

[@otteroftoast2616]

***** You fail to estimate the power of the German Panzer S.S. Many troops were pulled from the East and put into the assault in the Battle of the Bulge. Not only were they specially trained and battle hardened, they had the best tanks in the Germany army, fresh off the lines and advanced for their time. Patton, had foresight to see the Germans would aim for the crossroads of central Belgium, and so prepared a contingency plan for just such a push. Patton, tactically, was a genius, using his tanks' strengths to shield their weaknesses and push back the S.S. The French resistance was certainly a help ;3 But really, man- who's side are you on?

[@stevenshives7204]

+Otter of Toast Yep. point noted !

[@xt6wagon]

SS did more harm to germany's ability to fight than any other single organization. Russia, Britian, and America pale in comparison to the things they did to Germany. Vital war materials diverted for dog any pony shows. Promoting only for party loyalty. Creation of "war heros" out of men who shouldn't have lead a squad much less entire units. Falsification of actual army records not just media propaganda. Russia was saved by the SS's stupidity. The US/British got as close to a free ride in France as a war can be thanks to the SS.

[@otteroftoast2616]

xt6wagon A free ride, hmm? Tell that to the troops who trudged through Hell to get through France.

[@41divad]

Corny to us today... who wrote this propaganda? That 75 mm was a weak sister... had to be upgraded

[@bloodyfranco2468]

Should be rename: *”Building a Crappy rushed tank”*

[@hopatease1]

a coffin for 7 men

[@peterson7082]

The Soviets coined all tanks they had "coffin for X number of men".

[@user-gp1lx8rs2c]

I cannot understand how americans could built so out of date tank in 41, when Russia possesed one of the the best medium tank in the world T 34

[@peterson7082]

Not even close

[@MisterFoxton]

There wasn't a tank in the German, Italian or Japanese army in 1941 that the M3 wasn't a threat to.

[@swampdonkey1567]

Basically you see america wasnt like the USSR and didn't want to fight wars. We where prepared to defend are selfs against are neighbors who both didn't have tanks. the design was decent but practically their metal was horrible. Welding sucked. Parts meant to only last 6 months. They also had no radios.

[@swampdonkey1567]

How could the ussr still be using Bolt actions? America had adopted a battle rifle in 1932 as its service rifle. We also developed the first of "assault rifles"(don't like the term) the M2 and M1A1/2(m1 carbine adopted 1940 which could easily be converted to a automatic but wasn't originally to save time the later sent field kits to do so in 1943) why didn't the Soviets have a good navy could it be they didn't need one?

[@user-gp1lx8rs2c]

@@swampdonkey1567 I talked about this ugly tank, but for you I can say that Sovet Army had semi(automatically) rifles at least two brands AVS 36 (Simonov) and AVT (Tokarev), semi rifle Tokarev was adopted to army and produced with numbers around 1 mln, but it wasn't reliable and needed time to eliminate all errors but they don't have it, that's why they produced out of date bolt action rifles

[@panzerfaust5046]

All of this work to make cannon fodder

[@davegeisler7802]

Sgt. Joe Gunn

[@YourFriendlyOfficeAssistant]

The cannon fodder outclassed anything Fritz had in 1942

[@wingitprod]

Awful tank but I love the steampunk aesthetic.

[@fares57]

Thubs up if you're here because of WOT

[@user-vn2nx1yq9e]

gay tank

[@rocksteel44]

...AUSGEZEICHNET!!!!!