The British Lee tank (that is not a Grant)

[@Link2edition]

"The Americans had this idea that you can never have too many machine guns." Had?

[@theunqualifiedgamer2344]

Yea fr this is still current 🤣🤣

[@franciscodanconia3551]

I can relate to this. I've never once thought, "You know, I really don't need this machine gun," but I have often found myself thinking, "An M61 Vulcan would be really useful right about now."

[@xordus]

I feel quite certain that there were Brits in the Grant who at some point thought "we sure could use a machine gun right about now".

[@prestonang8216]

Mark my words, the successor to the A-10 will be propelled by the recoil from 20 GAU-8 Avengers.

[@martinmccoy9661]

I swear one day we’re going to mount a GAU avenger onto a Hummer with three extra Browning’s

[@rastas3742]

The reason the Lee/Grant had the gun in the hull was because they weren't confident that they could cast a big enough single piece turret to house a 75mm gun. They knew they needed the 75mm, but they were really pushing their casting technology and experience. So it was the armour that held back the Sherman introduction date and required the interim M3 Grant, not the gun.

[@nepete7]

Yes, and the gun on this particular Lee is the exact same gun on the Sherman, not a “howitzer” but a purpose designed tank gun.

[@renegadusunidos6151]

true

[@MWSin1]

@@nepete7 The British might have had more of a tendency to call it a howitzer because before the M3, they usually had gun tanks (typically armed with 2 or 6 pounders, for attacking enemy armored vehicles) and howitzer tanks (armed with 3 or 3.7 inch howitzers, for providing smoke and HE). The American 75mm was the first tank gun in British service that could adequately fulfill both needs, but the M3's 37+75 combination makes it look a lot like a gun/howitzer combination.

[@arobotguy9316]

Ok boomer

[@rastas3742]

@@arobotguy9316 ?

[@bandaid6550]

I could watch Lindy explain how to make a Turkey sandwich, and I'd still be entertained.

[@innovativeatavist159]

New vid idea...

[@benjaminpont220]

Absolutely

[@benjaminpont220]

When people ask you where your British accent came from

[@aaronbasham6554]

He would have to go on a 10 minute talk about Roman sandwiches before eating the sandwich mid preparation

[@Christopher-N]

Sounds like an invitation to Clint Basinger of *LGR Foods* (Lazy Game Reviews) Tanks, gaming, and sandwiches? Sounds like a good time to me.

[@edgarbanuelos6472]

US Tanks: More machine guns! British Tanks: I wonder if there's a more convenient way to brew tea during a battle.

[@flitsertheo]

As he mentioned the gearbox got pretty hot so you could boil the water on it.

[@edgarbanuelos6472]

@Shark Tank - with a side of fries.

[@theother1281]

@@muxite6035 Difficult to balance a kettle on a hot barrel.

[@theother1281]

You gotta have priorities.

[@Nutzkie2001]

American military: "What? The Brits are adding electric boiling vessels to their Challenger II tanks now? That's a great idea! We'll equip the Abrams with an espresso maker!"

[@namewarvergeben]

Whenever an 'e' falls off. Then it becomes "le tank" and belongs to the French

[@JoahTheThread5ive]

I thought it became a French tank when you added an f.

[@harbl99]

Granted. (sorry)

[@keithlee7735]

Oi!

[@loddude5706]

'Incoming!'

[@chinsawjosh]

I thought it needed a white bit to be a French tank

[@keeperofthecheese]

I so wanted to see the chieftain pop his head out in the background, mumble something about track tensioning, then dip back down again.

[@davidtuttle7556]

Actually youd only see him popping up if "Heavens, the Lee's on fire! Time to exit the tank!!"

[@mattwilliams3456]

David Tuttle “Blimey, vehicular combustion is occurring!”

[@CanadianCCP]

Chieftain is cancer and needs to go away. Hes a videogame virgin and nothing more.

[@mattwilliams3456]

CanadianCCP Please tell us there is a security camera pointed at your home to capture the moment it is reduced to rubble by an Abrams

[@dragonsword7370]

I'd have preferred if the chieftain could have corrected Lindy about the overall disdain of the gyro stabilizers. It's not that they didn't work but they were considered so top secret the army didn't print out alot of manuals to operate the damn things. The gunners that figured out how to get them working loved them but it was such a widespread issue and with lend lease compounding the issue of state secrets they finally just ditched them for most of the war.

[@christopherg2347]

The US had not kept up with Tank designs, as a result: - The M2 light and medium tanks were outdated garbage - The M4 would need 6 more months to develop and retool factories - They needed a 75mm gun - They needed a few thousand tanks basically *yesterday* And that is how the M3 Lee was developed! It was a actuall, driving stopgap measure.

[@thatoneguy8355]

And then Canada showed up with the stop-gap part 2

[@utGort]

Funny how that stopgap tank turned out to be the best tank in North Africa when it was introduced.

[@timonsolus]

@@utGort : Indeed. Because the Grant had two things no other British tank had in mid-1942 - a 75 mm gun, and a good HE shell. Finally, a British tank could shoot back at Axis anti-tank guns from long range itself, instead of being completely dependent on the artillery to do that job (especially when the artillery got left behind, out of range, during an advance.) One interesting point about the early Grant (Mk I) - its American-made AP shell was crap - it kept shattering on German face-hardened armour. So the 8th Army came up with an ingenious solution. They had a large stock of German (Panzer IV) 75 mm ammunition, captured earlier during a British offensive. They took the American AP shell, removed the poor quality US shell from the cartridge, and mated the excellent German Panzergranate 39 AP shell to the US cartridge. And it worked brilliantly! Now the Grant could penetrate the face-hardened armour of German Panzer III's and IV's, and from a decent range. (The British sent some of these German shells to the Americans, to help them design better AP shells of their own.)

[@TheLastSterling1304]

@@timonsolus That can also be said about the afrika korps. Their main tank was still the 5cm armed panzer III which the grants outranged. Even the long 7.5cm panzer IV was still rarer than the grants.

[@christopherg2347]

@@utGort Biggest fish in a small pond, maybe? A environment with long firing ranges would benefit that tank. And if they could outrange the Opposition in practice, that even negates the guns weakness. And the focus on reliability and repairability helps on strategic levels too.

[@paradox7358]

I love how Lloyd is somehow always wearing the same colour as the tank he's talking about.

[@nonoun9619]

Something tells me he likes beige

[@Paldasan]

Camouflage

[@vincedibona4687]

@@nonoun9619 And dancing the Lindey.

[@g1g3l]

@meh doggo happ Nikolas Lloyd

[@leefrost5856]

Only top Documentary narrator's pull that off. David Attenborough is always wearing same light blue shirt and beige chinos💯🇬🇧

[@ArmourgeddonTanks]

Thanks for coming and making a great video! We are glad you enjoyed the Lee! Its now fully restored we did a four part series on our youtube channel.

[@winstonchurchill237]

“French houses being blown up by the British, that sounds alright!” Most British words ever.

[@RagbagMcShag]

Wasnt it friendly fire actually though

[@Paldasan]

I laughed, and then looked around because I'm sitting in a public place.

[@Aurora07]

I did have a chuckle!

[@cabbagecabbage5047]

That’s why we shouldn’t skip Lindy’s sponsors

[@keithmitchell6548]

Not really because since the Crimean war the British and French have been close allies.

[@b.v.brian4479]

that litle tank at 8:44 scared the shit out of me XD almost jumpt up XD

[@krasa6945]

same :D

[@Calaeth]

At least I'm not the only one.. Shame on Lloyd for using cheap jump scares!

[@loddude5706]

Lt. Gruber.

[@CanadisX]

had exactly the same issue xD

[@thanksfernuthin]

Dammit! I thought I could keep my shame to myself. But you had to say something so I'll have to admit with everyone else. The tiny tank image and noise scared me!

[@PanzerDave]

The Lee was actually quite successful and quite useful in the Pacific theater. Particularly, the multiple cannon and machine guns meant that it could put out a good weight of shell in many directions, simultaneously if necessary. Thank you so much for pointing out the various interior details that are rarely shown or discussed. Cheers from a former cavalry and armour officer in the U.S.

[@samholdsworth420]

Well he is English, not French

[@samholdsworth420]

Also you must not have watched the video because he mentioned this at the end!!!

[@Activated_Complex]

The orange paint scheme and “stars & bars” on top is generally a giveaway that you’re looking at a Lee. You can also check the stowage racks. If they’re full of bourbon bottles, it’s a Grant. No disrespect to US Grant, there. The man was a hard-drinking hero.

[@LHRStormKeeper]

@@Dan-wt7jx I think you're thinking of a Sherman, Dan.

[@ben-jam-in6941]

Dan It was definitely Sherman who burned his way through Georgia all the way to the sea. He also was a hard drinking gentleman. :-)

[@JacobN-hg8tv]

If its a Lee it will do really really well in battle until one engagement that becomes massively important and isnt up to the job after losing its right hand tank, and then end up losing. If its a Grant it will have a really rough patch but its number 2 tank, a Sherman will help it out and then it will be able to do well and win, please don’t tear apart my lack of knowledge on the Civil War

[@justarandomtechpriest1578]

@@JacobN-hg8tv it will do well until it doesnt arrive in time or well but eventually fall under siege due to lack of reinforcements and supplies

[@michaelmckinnon1591]

Yeah no kidding, he drank 10 gallons of 100 proof whiskey (which uses sour mash) and 10 gallons of 100 proof scotch (uses sweet mash) a day according to the autobiography of Grant's aide de camp during the US Civil War.

[@CruelDwarf]

The most interesting thing about M3 is that Soviet assessment of the tank found that you can put 11 soldiers inside and tank will still retain its combat capability.

[@kukulroukul4698]

:))

[@ScienceDiscoverer]

So, it was APC than!

[@glennsimpson7659]

And they nicknamed them ‘Grave for seven brothers’

[@jfarrar19]

How many more could fit on it as riders?

[@nickdanger3802]

As I understand it. 1,386 M3 mediums were shipped, a substantial number were lost in transit. USSR used the M3 medium and M3 light (1,676 shipped) in front line service as late as Kursk. If they did not like them as tanks, they could have removed the turrets and used them as SP guns which they lacked or removed the turrets and guns and used them as APC's which they also lacked. USSR converted 300 captured Pz III's and Stug's into the SU 76i (link below) which was basically a Soviet Stug. But no effort was made to use the turrets from knocked out M3 mediums and lights on Soviet light tanks (T60, 20mm gun) which would have required only an adapter ring which would have been easier and faster than building new turrets. It is always easier to bitch about something than it is to do something about it. tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet-su-76i.php

[@Psiberzerker]

1 fewer crew also cuts down on the pileup, when everyone has to deass the tank. Yes, these are profession tankers, and they have deass drills, but you'd be amazed what all you can forget, when the tank is on fire, and starting to fill up with smoke...

[@torinjones3221]

'Argh the tank is on fire'

[@Lo-tf6qt]

"Oh bugger, the tank's on fire." At least one crew member's going to have a significant emotional event in the Lee/Grant

[@Psiberzerker]

@@Lo-tf6qt Somebody's been watching Inside the Chieftan's Hatch! Yeah, the tank filling up with smoke is definitely a SEE. For pretty much everyone involved, but the Driver, and Commander are typically best seated for getting out first. (Why it's called the Cheiftan's Hatch) The gunners, and Loaders generally don't have as good access, because of the breach, and sights in the way, and the floor hatches range from awkward to impossible. (They're honestly used more for discarding empty casings than emergency egress.)

[@Psiberzerker]

This model was multiple guns, multiple gunners/loaders, even without the forward MG station, so had a problem with too many crew, not enough hatches. Even with normal mount, and dismount, the general rule is: "First one in, last one out." (I wasn't a Tanker, I was a Fluid Systems Specialist, but I worked with SPA, and their crews. So, I heard a lot of war stories, including SNAFUs just in regular deass drills.)

[@barongorn]

@@Psiberzerker Actually I think the driver and maybe radioman/machine-gunner had it the worst for getting out quick. The driver's vision hatch is too small for any but the smallest and most desperate. The hull gun crew have a hatch right above them, and on early models the M3 had 2 side hatches that were later deemed bad weak-points. The side doors were first welded over, but the later ones were built without them. The model in the video appears to be the latter.

[@catfish552]

Pro-tip for telling apart a Lee and a Grant even without the turret: The Lee has an antenna mounting on the hull, because that's where its radio is. The mounting is a roughly hemispherical cup on the rear left of the upper hull, it's visible in the video from 19:20 onward, just to the left of Lindy there. A Grant hull won't have this, since it had the radio in the turret and thus the antenna on the turret roof.

[@alm5992]

"There are tales of guns like this (37mm) knocking out Tigers..." Tiger crew: Did you hear someone knocking? *opens hatch to see* AT guns: Cheerio, have you got time to talk about our lord and savior: 37 millimeter?

[@andrewmagdaleno5417]

Lmao!

[@yomauser]

Yep, and king tigers too, destroyed by a small Greyhound like this 19:13

[@thelittlestmig3394]

@@yomauser Mark Felton has a video on this.

[@neilwilson5785]

A Mark two or mark three in the desert would not like this 37mm baby knocking on the door, no sir.

[@greyscaleb1537]

@@yomauser that's because it shot the rear at close range idiot

[@MajesticDemonLord]

Lindy talking Tonks. *Bliss* See's video length is only 20 minutes *Just a Quicky today then*

[@khoiminh5597]

ah yes there is a homeless Tank crazy person in our garage sir . No sir he's talking to himself sir

[@princey_06]

Khoi Minh i know this is a joke but that quite rude :/

[@breadsticks1655]

Nice pfp

[@henri.stach1208]

Hes talking to us to teach us something about tanks. Be nice to him

[@khoiminh5597]

@@henri.stach1208 dude that's a joke dude light up

[@royalirish4208]

That shadow board in the background at 18min reall bothered me they had spanners hanging on the nails for hammers.

[@barryeaton8907]

That is some serious OCD 😜

[@thechumpsbeendumped.7797]

Royal Irish 2 possibilities 1 they knew that area was going to be filmed and wanted to screw with those of us with OCD, the evil bastards. 2 they found out that the answer isn’t always a bigger hammer.

[@conmcgrath7502]

Gaah! I hadn't noticed but I 'went back' to see.....dammit! Now I'm haunted by the specter of missing tools......... time for the apprentice to get a swarfega shampoo! I remember the days when every tool had 'a back on it' ie it comes back here..........I'm off now to check my socket sets, just to be sure an imperial didn't get mixed with a metric (shudder). I had just about recovered from ' the missing 5mm Cobalt drill bit crisis' and now this! It's too much (I have PTSD from the time my favorite electrical side-cutter was borrowed by a numpty who used it to cut stainless steel wire.....the horror, the horror...........) mind you, the sinner wasn't very impressed (or very clever) when he levered the padlock out of his tool-box......the compressed spring launched the top layers all over the workshop......

[@dot2562]

And jumpers for goal posts, have some friends who were in the royal Irish.

[@JohnJ469]

@@conmcgrath7502 And so begins another man's eternal hunt for the elusive 12MM socket.

[@josephmeltzer2726]

I love this video because it really gives you a sense of scale as to how big the tanks really were. With all the miniatures and videos I looked at as a kid, I always thought WW2 planes and tanks were about the size of a car. But not really, they’re much bigger

[@jeroylenkins1745]

They put the 75mm gun in the hull in a sponson because they didn't have a turret/turret ring combination that could fit the 75mm.

[@seanmalloy7249]

I seem to remember the problem being that they couldn't cast turrets big enough to hold the 75mm, and the Ordnance Board had already shot down the idea of using a welded turret, so they made the M3 Medium with a sponson gun as a stopgap while they worked frantically to improve their casting technique. And then they didn't have enough of the right 75mm gun they wanted to mount in the sponson, so you got another stopgap with a shorter barrel, to which they bolted a weight at the muzzle so that it would balance (the rest of the mechanism having been balanced for the weight of the longer barrel).

[@boobah5643]

@@seanmalloy7249 Yeah, the Grant was a whole lot of 'but what can we build *now?'*

[@itsapittie]

@@boobah5643 Sometimes "pretty good right now" is better than "really good a year from now."

[@kyle857]

Every comment in this particular thread is correct.

[@blairbuskirk5460]

Perfection is the mortal enemy of good enough for right now.

[@TheRealGuywithoutaMustache]

Never have I been looking forward to learning about a tank until now

[@CAPNMAC82]

The Sherman, M-4 medium, suspension was derived from the Lee/Grant M-3, Medium, chronologically.

[@Maus5000]

M3A4 to be specific, which had a longer hull with the Chrysler A57 engine and subsequently weighed more than other M3 types.

[@aleksanderdomanski222]

It got to my attention too. Early Shermans used Lee's suspension not other way round. Someone making that type of video should know that.

[@lindybeige]

@@aleksanderdomanski222 In my defence, I did say this on-screen with a caption.

[@MrPhantomby]

Just found this channel again after a couple of years and I'm so glad I did, time to binge all the tank videos!

[@robertthweatt1900]

The wiring in that stabilizer is, I believe, a Westinghouse Silverstat automatic voltage regulator, one of the first successful AVRs for generators. It is a shunt type regulator.

[@CAPNMAC82]

You use two flywheels in gyros as one "damps" the other, which better "averages" out the inputs.

[@michelguevara151]

"french houses being blown to bits by british Tanks, sounds good!" as a Frenchman, Sir, I protest! think of the wine cellar , Sir, have you no pity!?!!

[@stickemuppunkitsthefunlovi4733]

Listen napoleon, theres only 2 things the English hate, one is germans, the other is well, you already know...

[@michaeledmunds7266]

@@stickemuppunkitsthefunlovi4733 And people who misspell colour. And missing tea time. And they're also not fond of Argentinians.

[@TheThingInMySink]

Oh calm down, of course they will leave the wine cellar intact, they're only gonna shave off a floor or two.

[@michaeledmunds7266]

@Colin Cleveland I have no idea man, I just work here.

[@vincedibona4687]

Lindeybeige has already said that the best use for a Frenchman is to "hold" British arrows, so... I don't think he has any pity.

[@danielburgess7785]

Radial engines required much less time to warm up. Gen. R. E. Lee was an engineer by training, not cavalry.

[@seanmalloy7249]

They were also intended to be cooled via a several hundred-mile-per-hour airflow over the piston cooling flanges, which was an ongoing problem with the M3 and M4 Medium, where the engine was in a closed box -- hence the great honking fan attached to the engine to pump as much air as possible across the engine for cooling.

[@jimwestberg4771]

The Ace of "Spades" as he was called due to his excellent record of building fortifications

[@danielburgess7785]

@@jimwestberg4771 You say "excellent" I say unneeded and expensive. And it was 'King of Spades.'

[@mpetersen6]

@@jimwestberg4771 He was also called Granny Lee at one time

[@jimwestberg4771]

@@danielburgess7785 In the context of the futility of the war yes but his fortifications were known to remain even after extensive shelling and difficult for union forces to breach. True on the king of spades, an over sight on my part.

[@Daekar3]

Lloyd, I love listening to you do ads. Nobody makes them as enjoyable and in-context as you do!

[@Glove513]

Best ads ever. If he comes to the states he could have a full time job as “ that British ad guy” if he wanted. He’s the modern embodiment of Monty Python. By the way, I think this is, hands down, Lindy Beige’s best video ever. I have watched it about 6 times already. He proves, by walking through it, that surplus M3s could have been, should have been, the first MICVs (Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicles) if they pulled the turrets and mounted all the extra machine guns around the turret ring. It should have easily fit the standard twelve man US Army infantry squad plus the three man crew. Could you imagine an MICV with a 75mm, one .50 cal and four M1919s coming at you going cyclic? That would keep anybody’s head down.

[@Hetschoter]

4:30 The original "howitzer" or "houfnice" in czech were used for direct fire, so in this sence the gun was used and categorized as intended (for those interested).

[@eruantien9932]

One correction Skipper; the 75 mm gun on the Lee/Grant was basically the same one used on the Sherman (and in the Churchill NA 75 conversions), which we always call a general purpose gun. The gun used on the early Lee had a slightly lower velocity (1929 ft/s vs 2031 ft/s, or 588 m/s vs 619 m/s for our continental compatriots), but later Lees and Grants had the exact same gun as the Sherman. The only reason they put it in the hull on the Lee was because they didn't have the machinery to make a turret ring big enough at that point (they were working on it though), and both us and the Americans knew that they needed tanks *now* rather than in 6-12 months.

[@mitchverr9330]

Also ammunition was a key change, the early M3s got pretty poor AP and HE rounds shipped with them, which got fixed for later on.

[@Ciderwinder]

It's a Lee, I Grant you.

[@BOBXFILES2374a]

Owwwwwww!

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Don't knock the 2 pounder, it could defeat up to 70mm of armour at 60°. That's the panzer 3 dead and the panzer 4 except the hull front. "If you met a panther" Then your grant reached 88mph and was equipped with a flux capacitor.

[@michaeledmunds7266]

Well, it has to get back to the future somehow...

[@Ocrilat]

Where did you get the 70mm of armor penetration figure? Am I right to assume that this is at 1000 meters (which is the traditional distance these figures are tied to)?

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@Ocrilat Just the wiki page. 70 is it's max penetration. At 900m it's 57mm at 60°

[@MostlyPennyCat]

@@Ocrilat So, at 900m your can kill a panzer 3 But a late panzer 4 you need to be 100m of you're attacking the front, every other side your can kill it at 900m. So I guess maneuvering is much more important that penetration anyway.

[@Ocrilat]

@@MostlyPennyCat Yea that makes more sense...I'm looking at a penetration value of about 42 mm at 1000 meters. Don't get me wrong, the 2-pounder was a fine weapon when it was introduced, but by the time the Grant entered service, it was more or less useless. The Grant and then Shermans were the buffer until the excellent 6-pounder was able to be fitted to British tanks in any real numbers.

[@MajesticDemonLord]

Also - Is there any chance of Lindy teaming up with Ian McCollum (Gun Jesus) from Forgotten Weapons? Preferably over a Beverage (or several) for at least 2-3 hours.

[@alexdunphy3716]

I'd watch that

[@alexfogg381]

I too would watch that video.

[@mjisabelle18]

How about Lindy and Ian on Hot Ones? Separate episodes of course.

[@sondreus24]

It would be 5 minutes of Lindy bantering against french guns and 2 hours and 55 minutes of Ian absolutely destroying him with his research.

[@MajesticDemonLord]

@@sondreus24 I fail to see a problem with that scenario.

[@kyle857]

The M3 was always a stopgap solution. The M4 with the 75mm in the turret was what the military really wanted, but they had to wait for the development of a turret large enough to fit it.

[@kirotheavenger60]

Track extenders aren't grousers! Grousers are to give you extra grip, generally on ice. Track extenders were, well, extensions to the track to improve flotation.

[@StuSaville]

Duckbill type track extenders are designed improve grip as well as reduce ground pressure so it is absolutely correct to call them grousers.

[@Maus5000]

@@StuSaville No, it isn't correct. Grousers for M3/4 VVSS are absolutely not the same as track extenders, aka duckbills. Two entirely separate items.

[@HerrGausF]

Grousers were around from the start, duckbills were invented and hurriedly mass-produced in late 1944 to help with the soft ground in rain-soaked Western Europe. By that time no M3 mediums were left in service in the ETO.

[@UnbeltedSundew]

17:23 Haha, I love the fact that the tool board is not only missing many of it's tools but that the few tools that many that are hanging there are the wrong ones.

[@harpercharlie]

"French houses being knocked about by British artillery.... That sounds alright." Wow!

[@alm5992]

Yeah, I had to go back on that part.

[@YorkyOne]

@@alm5992 They are French. Is that a problem?

[@robwalker4452]

@@YorkyOne lol

[@michaeledmunds7266]

Yeah, he leans pretty heavily into the common British stereotype of hating the French.

[@pumbar]

Don't most French people live in caves?

[@tarnvedra9952]

4:14 That was a common belief, however when tested it was discovered that relatively soft steel of track links increases shell normalization and actually lowers the relative armor thickness when hit at non-90 deg. angle.

[@conmcgrath7502]

Interesting.......

[@alexdunphy3716]

I'd like to see that empirical evidence for that because it doesn't seem to make theoretical sense. To increase normalization, a larger rotational force has to be applied to the round, which usually decreases penetration by stripping away more of the KE of the shell as well as increasing the cross section of the shell relative to the armor.

[@dwavenminer]

There is still one good reason to do it though: moral. If the crew thinks it will help, they might actually fight...

[@conmcgrath7502]

@@alexdunphy3716 'what he said......' (meaning you), hence my 'interesting' comment...I know from experience that if you want to drill steel, to get a proper start point, just marking and laying down some masking tape will help to place the center-punch where you want it and also help center the drill bit, I know kinetic anti-armour rounds will behave differently; 'knee-jerk' logic would suggest that the more materiel between the round and the interior, the better....hence I am intrigued.....isn't the very essence of Chobham Armour based on the principle of various 'stuff' dissipating energy and yielding through different vectors? A worthy sir, I am agog

[@jeffk464]

@@conmcgrath7502 only way to figure this out is to test it. Just have to find 10 or 20 M3 tanks and shoot them over and over again in both configurations. ---> GO

[@Tracks777]

awesome content

[@bentleymitchell8846]

I love this guy, with that accent, its as though I'm on a tank safari. All he needs are cargo pants and a pith helmet : )

[@VelikiHejter]

ACTUALLY, god I love that meme, Japanese did develop some fairly good tank designs but never produced them since there was shortage of materiel and navy and aviation had the advantage on those. Furthermore their tiny WWI technology tanks were more then adequate for fighting lightly armed Chinese they mostly fought. Until they didn't and tanks like M3 and M4 used HE shells to literally blow them open....

[@ieuanhunt552]

Looking into Japanese tank designs I got the impression that in the 1930s they had very effective tanks and tactics. But through attrition in China and a greater focus on the Navy as time went on the tank corps atrophied.

[@Hiraghm]

My favorite weapon against Japanese armor was the P-40 Kittyhawk...

[@brendanrisney2449]

"Americans couldn't have enough machine guns." Yeah, the M2 would have to agree...

[@kyle857]

Also the B-17.

[@wildward93]

@@kyle857 yeah but they were USEFUL on the B-17. About half a dozen MGs on the M2 Medium were completely pointless 99% of the time.

[@michaeledmunds7266]

@@wildward93 they did have the added effect of making the M2 look like some kind of giant spiny death rodent. Plus?

[@wildward93]

@@michaeledmunds7266 more like goofy to me. Sure would scare the hell out of infantry to see one barreling towards them though.

[@nickdanger3802]

Tank Chats #24 Vickers A1E1 Independent | The Tank Museum Five turrets, Five machine guns. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYTalWp_mL5sgaM

[@denovemportem]

A close story to yours: As a kid, I thought the Lee was the "no side skirts" version of the Grant, thanks to Hasegawa´s 1/72 kits box art... :P

[@BlacktoothgrinUA]

I could hardly imagine how could crewmen survive inside such a moving kiln in a desert. Even with those water tanks.

[@rayceeya8659]

Despite violating Tank building rule #1, "One Turret per tank", the Lees and Grants weren't that bad.

[@pedrokantor3997]

Bandblade operator: One turret per tank? Hah heresy!

[@rayceeya8659]

@@pedrokantor3997 And that's what happens when you make a tank to look cool for a game.

[@nepete7]

Well, it only HAS one turret, the 75 isn’t in one! The designers were not planning on a turret at all, Armor Force insisted on one with an anti-tank gun despite the additional height.

[@rayceeya8659]

@@nepete7 That's interesting to know. So what you're saying is they originally intended to build a tank with no anti-tank gun? Not really much of a tank at that point.

[@kyle857]

@@rayceeya8659 The main purpose of tanks was to support infantry on the attack. The antitank was a secondary (but still important) role.

[@Nightdare]

19:22 "No one had checked" Reminds me of that Tallboy (or Grand slam) Gate Guardian that turned out to be a live bomb

[@bobthebomb6498]

I believe there was a 16" naval shell that spent years as a drop-test weight before someone discovered it was live!

[@richieb7692]

There was also some German incendiary bombs on display for quite a few years in the Leeds Armoury, that turned out to be fully live The only reason they hadn't gone off, was the delay fuses were damaged

[@TheRiskyBrothers]

8:10 ish. You could say that the turret crewman was also performing the duty of predryer and thus keeping the rain out of the engine.

[@jackvernian7779]

dust filter too

[@usedcarsokinawa]

Great presentation! Not overly detailed, very entertaining and informative! Like going to a museum with your uncle! Glad I found your channel!!

[@turnerjensen2620]

“Radial engines: they worked!”

[@sean640307]

particularly well when compared to the disaster that was the early model British Crusader, the tank that gives all British tanks such a bad name. The problems with the Crusader I and Crusader II are legendary. They were sorted out by the time of the Crusader III, but the reputation was permanently tarnished and etched in history!!

[@michaelmckinnon1591]

Which you'd know if you've ever seen a DC-3/C-47, B-17, B-24 and numerous other radial engine powered aircraft.

[@alloutoftea]

You do a great job with your ads (and naturally with material you're actually here for). I don't skip the ads. You're delivery makes it worth listening to. Thank you Audable for paying him!

[@ccmyart]

They were incredibly effective in the far east against Japan.

[@CarrotConsumer]

An armored scooter would be useful against infantry.

[@alecblunden8615]

@@CarrotConsumer The Japanese had tanks, but would have saved some trouble if they had made them with can openers attached.

[@Nightdare]

@@alecblunden8615 You sometimes didn't even need can openers to take out Japanese light tanks

[@BOBXFILES2374a]

That's because Japanese tanks were made by the same company that made tin wind-up toys in the 1950s.....

[@elan344]

"There were a number of problems with this, one being that it really didn't work very well." I fucking died.

[@jacobb.9181]

"You hit the wrong car!" "What?" "You hit the wrong car! That's someone's actual vehicle!"

[@flitsertheo]

RIP BL58ODY, a 2008/2009 Birmingham registered Vauxhall.

[@Zorro9129]

Lindybeige: "Putting so many people in one tank is a bad idea." War Thunder: "Ima stop you right there."

[@Dragon.7722]

"Hull machine guns are useless" The Elefant/Ferdinand-Tank wants to have a word with you.

[@wildward93]

Hell, the sheer usefulness of a hull MG is part of the reason why the Ferdinand BECAME the Elefant.

[@lindybeige]

I didn't say that, but twin MGs that cannot be aimed are close to useless.

[@matthewnunya8483]

For the love of pete.....fixed hull mounted mgs were useless (what lindy meant).........and yes the U.S. really did that with a few tanks. Clearly hull mgs that could pivot on the other hand were better though hull mg mounts in general are a bad idea in most cases.

[@wildward93]

@@lindybeige few days late reply but yeah that's true. But if nothing else they are better than no MGs at all. Especially on a TD like that.

[@jacobbuxton932]

I love when he does videos on a specific tank. Especially when it’s one of my favorite tanks

[@kiwiruna9077]

It's really really easy to tell a Lee from a Grant the Lee is spelt Lee and the Grant isn't.

[@ianwilkinson4602]

Brilliant :-)

[@justarandomtechpriest1578]

the lee is from the south the grant is from the north

[@fatdad64able]

You forgot to mention that the Grant is spelled Pershing. (I think).

[@Wombatmetal]

The Lee didn't get its suspension from the Sherman, it came from the T5 medium tank prototype, which also ended up contributing to the design of the M4.

[@jackflanagan903]

I do love when Lindy claims that the Lee was based on a Sherman tank. Especially since Sherman tanks did not enter product until two years after the Lee.

[@jim7297]

I stopped watching when he said that. I went down to the comments to see if anyone else caught that fact. I like this guy but you have to get it right or what is the point?

[@jackflanagan903]

@@jim7297 Yup. Lindybiege is a historian in the broadest possible sense of the word.

[@perperson199]

@@jim7297 he just misspoke. What he meant was clear from the rest of what he said

[@jim7297]

@@perperson199 Okay I will buy that. He seems like a nice enough guy.

[@caelestigladii]

I saw this video's thumbnail a few days ago but only opened it now. I did't realize until now that it was from lindy. It's always nice to hear educated ramblings.

[@rubbers3]

Ah, 37mm... A tank cartridge that made more sense in aircraft like Yak-9T or P-63.

[@KnifeChatswithTobias]

The grousers were long iron bars that attached to the tracks for traction and not duckbills. The Lee/Grants were always a stop gap and were still about the best thing the Brits could get at the time and was also better than most everything the German's had at the time, especially in the desert. The only thin it had to fear was an 88. Very cool video. Love to see a follow up!

[@skodavaclav3477]

Lee, the "lets combine disadvantages of normal tank with disadvantages of tank destroyer"...

[@HSMiyamoto]

It is important to note that even the most complacent officer in the U.S. Army did NOT think the M3 was the ideal super-weapon for tank-on-tank battles in Europe. The 75mm on the M3 was sponson-mounted solely because the turret on the M3 was too small to accommodate it. The M3 was built because the M4 was not ready in time for the British campaigns in North America. It is amazing that the M3 went from drawing board to prototype in nine months, and the first tanks rolled off the production line four months later! The M4 just barely made it into British hands in time for El Alamein. In fact, the M4 outnumbered the M3s in the Order of Battle for Monty's big debut. Over 1,000 M3s were also sent to the USSR, and nearly 1,000 made it there. The M3 should be considered one of the most successful "stopgap" armored vehicles ever made, right up there with the Pzkw I and II. Moreover, the M3 was in service until the end of the War, because it was shipped to the Pacific, where it faced an enemy that lacked strong AT defenses.

[@keithlee7735]

Lee a damn good name - I must watch this one!

[@kiisu74]

See, and I think Keith is a damn good name.

[@lucassstuff]

I believe that Lee in the French museum that you refer to as a command tank is in fact an M31 ARV roughly mocked up to look as a M3 gun tank. The door with the fake gun where the 75mm should be and the extra spare road wheel mounts to the front of the tank were all modifications done when they converted M3's to M31 ARVs.

[@FolgoreCZ]

I like the tradition of naming AFV's after Civil war generals. Lee, Grant, Jackson, etc. I especially love generals Wolverine and Hellcat, among the others. :-D

[@Nightdare]

Of course there have been a lot of General Failures among them

[@johnknapp952]

Wolverine and Hellcat weren't considered tanks but were tank destroyers I.E. self propelled anti-tank guns. The Jackson was a light tank that replaced the M3/M5 Stuart light tank.

[@FolgoreCZ]

@@johnknapp952 Too bad I specifically said AFV's instead of tanks, Captain Obvious.

[@christopherrasmussen8718]

I lived down the road from Fort Dix NJ when I was young. One scrap yard had one of these out front on display. The motor and turret were missing. The main gun was plugged up with lead. My friends and I would get in and play tank and had so much fun. One day the yard sold out and the tank was gone.

[@ExUSSailor]

The Sherman suspension was based on this. This being the earlier design

[@Maus5000]

The "Sherman suspension" is actually just M3A4 Lee suspension. M3A4 had a longer hull and a heavier engine, requiring a heavier duty suspension, and predates the M4 tank. Both types of suspension were used on M4 tanks anyway; very early production tanks had the 'light duty' M3 bogies. One such M4 can still be seen at Bovington

[@bullettube9863]

Lindybeige as usual is a bit exuberant in his descriptions. The Grant/Lee was no different then early designs from Britain, France, Italy, and Germany with it's mixed gun battery and loads of MGs. Because of the belief that WW2 would be a repeat of WW1 trench warfare, all prewar designs were similar. When first introduced in North Africa, it was the most powerful tank in the desert, easily outgunning German and Italian tanks. Plus because it could fire HE rounds from both guns, it was a very effective infantry support tank. It was the right tank at the right time, just in time!

[@grgr105]

Alternative title: Lindybeige playing with pieces of a disassembled tank

[@genebohannon8820]

Lindeybeige is an armoured Peter Pan

[@soulslaveone]

Love LB`s videos! No background music, (thank god) and packed with knowledge.

[@timpyrules]

5:48 The British then proceeded to develop and manufacture the Churchill Tank lol

[@wyattroncin941]

the stabilization system did indeed work, but it was considered top secret and no one was taught how to use and maintain it. when tank companies took the time to figure them out, they saw better results than even ordinance expected. yes they still had to stop to fire, but they could get on target before stopping to fire, allowing a very rapid first shot compared to not having it. but again, no one was taught to use them and so they were often disabled or disposed of. thanks, ordinance. You can keep your magnetic torpedo detonators as well.

[@FirstMetalHamster]

No, it's not based on a sherman, the sherman was based on it.

[@KevinSmith-ys3mh]

Soon after, the Canadian Ram tank design was built on the M3's lower hull and drivetrain. And SP guns of 105 & 155mm for USA, 25pdr for UK mobile arty units served to wars end. Priest, Sexton, arty tractors, radio and command variants, etc. Pretty good long life for a stopgap rush job! Gets a bad rap for not being "the supertank uber alles" especially by the Russians but beggars can't be choosy; and anything with a big enough gun to kill panzers at longer ranges and mechanical reliability to get to the battle, fighting thru to win, and pursue or repositioning for advantage without mech failure is a huge plus in 1942.

[@mrbomb2815]

Yeah, I dunno if you can read but he did put a disclaimer in the video.

[@MonkPetite]

Being a warbird mechanic Iw wonder about the gun stab system 22:12 I think you need two flywheels to stabilise. One is elevation sense in pitch and one is to sense sideways tilt. Due to the position of the unit at the gun it moves with gun elevation. So both fly wheels are working the vertical stab only. It doesn’t know what the rotation / traverse is of the gun and turret. This is what makes is unreliable. If you traversed during driving, the gun gyro’s need time to stabilise , there is too much input at one time. What must happen if you rotate/ traverse the side motion gyro will tilt and produce signal to compensate. This is actually an unwanted signal. Maybe the input of the gunners hand is that compensation. I can image that the crew where “gimballed” by this all. Nevertheless I love to learn more about these systems.

[@christopherpappas7474]

Lloyd, what the HELL did you do to my car?? You said you were just using it for a couple of days and I see you rolling over it with a damn tank...??? OMG...! You sir are now off my Christmas list... :)

[@alexandergaus493]

I love that your videos aren't stiff. They're funny and informative- I wish school would have been like this😂

[@lpsp442]

You know, speaking of David Mitchell: It occurs to me that I don't know who is the older out of the two - Lindy or Mitchell?

[@dancollins4755]

This tank kicked butt for about six months in N. Africa 42-43.

[@wytfish4855]

12:23 reminds me on the_chieftain's story about how his crew ran around the field with a live round inside the breech

[@Magicannon_]

The gun gyrostabilizer was also included on the Sherman and had a similar dubious legacy. The device did actually somewhat work; it's not amazing when firing on the move, but it was at least possible. The advantage mainly came in being able to make an aimed shot when the tank came to a stop faster. Without stabilization the gun and sight would be bouncing around longer and the gunner would have to wait. Thing was, it was deemed important enough to be considered secret tech. As such the crews weren't really trained on how it worked nor did they have manuals to consult. Some gunners would feel like it was harming rather than helping and thus preferred them to stay off. For crews that did figure it out, they apparently liked it.

[@HavocHerseim]

08:00 : how to make battlefield air conditioning sound terrible.

[@Gillsing]

Hey, those tanks look kind of similar to Bonaparte in Dominion Tank Police. Well, mostly their tall turrets off to one side I guess.

[@bannermanigans]

Ah, delightful car-smashery!

[@StutleyConstable]

One point about the radial engine I am not sure many people know is that it could be used to save the crew in case of fire. I used to volunteer at the Patton Museum and we had an M4 named 'Cindy'. She was equipped with a radial engine and my first ride as assistant driver (or bow gunner or whatever you would like to call the position to the right of the driver) I was concerned about being able to escape in case of a fire because the hatches were so small. The driver assured me there would be no problem, adding that he could blow the fire out of the back and keep the crew compartment more or less safe for long enough for everyone to escape simply by putting Cindy in neutral and revving the engine. Now, this would not have been effective if the fire were in the crew compartment, but we were not in combat. If there were going to be a fire during a demonstration, it would be in the engine compartment.

[@SandRhomanHistory]

you, i like you. you're the coolest uncool person i've ever seen.

[@Hiraghm]

He's the 14th Doctor. Tell the BBC.

[@Hiraghm]

don't recall if I said this the first time I watched this video but a bit of trivia that I was reminded of when Lindybeige spoke of the rivets being driven into the interior of the tank... Robert Lee Scott decided the title for his book "God is my Co-Pilot" while laying on his stomach having rivets dug out of his back. He'd been flying his P-40 Kittyhawk in combat with the Japanese, and one of them got several explosive shells (20mm?) into his plane. They hit the armored back of his seat, and instead of going into his back, they drove the seat's rivets into his back. (Apparently the doctor working on him had asked if he flew up there all alone... later after Scott explained how he got the rivets, the doctor concluded, "no, you weren't alone up there")

[@mattwoodard2535]

Actually US gun stabilizers were fairly good. But it seems no one bothered to train the crews how to use them. sm

[@ThePTBRULES]

They were a secret technology. Too secret...... literally why they didn't train the crews how to use it.

[@gso619]

That is the most military thing ever.

[@sillyone52062]

The trained crews were killed or injured. The replacements didn't have the training.

[@matthuckabey007]

This man makes the world a better place.

[@edi9892]

Aren't riveted tanks extremely vulnerable to explosives? I've heard of a 75mm HE making a tank completely fall apart! Also, the rivets broke off and caused mayhem to the crew.

[@Beuwen_The_Dragon]

Yes and no, as any real explosion that would cause a riveted tank to blow out or 'fall apart" would likely be just as fatal to a welded tank with similarly thick armour. There are also plenty if examples of welded tanks knocked out, with their welds blown. Moral of the story, DON'T GET HIT. ^.-.^

[@edi9892]

@@Beuwen_The_Dragon the story I've heard was that a AT crew tried to shoot a suddenly approaching riveted tank and forgot that they had loaded HE instead of AP from their previous assigned target, but it did far more damage than the AP. AFAIK, rivets are far more weak points than any decent weld (though a bad weld could break from temperature changes or a bumpy ride). Also, dishonorable mention to the Titanic...

[@absolutmauser]

The Lees had the advantage of outranging German tanks in North Africa, who would not have been able to put effective HE or AP fire on the Lee until they’d been well within the Lees range for a while. The German 88mm Flak guns converted to AT use brought enough HE to the party that welded vs riveted didn’t matter that much. If the 88 got a hold of you, you were probably toast. So technically yes but by the time the Germans upgunned their tanks, the Brits and Americans were using welded tanks, and then they were largely being puctured by AP rounds anyway!

[@edi9892]

@@absolutmauser Shouldn´t HE (and HEAT and HESH) be of near the same effectiveness at long range? You could literally fire them for several kilometers, whereas some tanks could be pierced with a 75mm from only maybe 100m. Obviously, ballistics and time of travel would make it hard to hit a moving object at long range, but that would also apply to the Lees...

[@absolutmauser]

Apparently the 50mm guns on the German tanks in North Africa were pretty garbage in terms of HE performance.

[@chakatfirepaw]

Cupola/commander's hatch MGs have two purposes: Close defence against flanking infantry and close defence anti-air. While they aren't great in either role, they are a lot better than not having one when the armour gets caught out by itself. The advantage a cupola gives is that you can keep using it when the infantry gets close enough to start tossing grenades and the hatch would have to be closed. As for calling a gun on a tank a howitzer even though it was for direct fire, that's actually correct. The guns on tanks and SP guns tended to be either based on AT guns or howitzers leading to high-velocity guns being termed "guns" and low-velocity guns being termed "howitzers". In the specific case of the M3 medium tank the 75mm was actually based on a rejected AA gun, but its low muzzle velocity places it as a howitzer in terms of being mounted on a tank.

[@pjabrony8280]

I'll also recommend David Mitchell. That Mitchell and Webb Look is a great series.

[@Dudemon-1]

That M&W Look is Peak Mitchell, but he's still great.

[@WG55]

Or for audio, "That Mitchell and Sound."

[@A.J.K87]

The 75 on the Lee was most definitely an anti tank gun. Yes it had a very good HE shell, but the whole reason for the Lee was that they needed a bigger gun to deal with new german armour in North Africa. The sherman would mount the same gun.

[@andrewfischer8564]

"sahara" bogart and his m3 tank take on the africa corp

[@anthonyantinarella3360]

Great movie...even the remake with Belushi.

[@kokomokid4006]

LULUBELLE

[@MrKing-nn6sb]

@Colin Cleveland did not know that, you just made my day!

[@andrewfischer8564]

@Colin Cleveland try and watch with fresh eyes. the belushi version is just passable

[@Hiraghm]

They did a remake of that that wasn't tooo bad. But for a movie and a tank I didn't think I would like, I ended up liking both.

[@attackofthemaybe]

the purpose of the gyroscopic stabilizer was not for firing on the move. when a tank is moving and comes to a stop, the suspension compresses and the gun would lurch forward and back again. the stabilizer allows you to aim on the move and when the tank is stopping, you can keep your sights on target allowing you to get your shot off quicker.

[@henke7864]

1:14 Wasn't the M4 Sherman based on M3 Lee? A lot of vehicles was based on the M3 Lee bottom half. Later those vehicles used M4 bottom half's instead.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

^yeah classic lindy cringe again

[@joemontgomery6658]

There’s a correction on the screen when he says that

[@Lowekinder]

Watch it again, read the words on screen.

[@binaway]

and the M3 itself was based on the earlier M2 with a 37mm main gun and up to 9 Browning machine guns. Some in a fixed position, like a fighter plane, with the driver having to maneuver the entire tank to aim at his target.

[@henke7864]

@@binaway I know. M2 Medium tank has more guns then crews that can mann them :D

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

7:30 - I thought that was because the British Shermans usually had the Chrysler A57 multibank 30-cylinder engine.