M3 Medium Tank: A Modern Antique

The M3 Medium Tank Grant/Lee is a bit of an oddball it combines features that are modern and dated at the time it was put into service.
Disclaimer: I was invited by the Tank Museum at Bovington in 2017, 2018 & 2019.
Check out their Channel here: / thetankmuseum
»» GET OUR BOOK ««
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Fletcher, David; Zaloga, Steven J.: British Battle Tanks: American-made World War II Tanks. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2018.
Zaloga, Steven: Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II. Stackpole Books: Mechanicsburg, PA, USA, 2008.
Hunnicutt, Richard Pearce: SHERMAN: A History of the American Medium Tank. ECHO POINT Books & MEDIA: Brattleboro, Vermont, USA, 2015.
#M3MediumTank,#M3Grant,#M3Lee

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Want to see more videos with content from museums? Want AD-FREE early Access? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. More info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv - » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv

[@daviddevries8242]

I don't understand why you didn't even mention the M2 medium directly.

[@tokul76]

Myths of American armour. Brits did not use General in tank names

[@kommandantgalileo]

Modern features like reliability

[@the7observer]

US: Here's our M3 medium UK: NO! We want Matildas! US: OK, I will give you my M2 mediums then UK: You know what? The M3 isn't that bad...

[@ArcticTemper]

American naming convention 🤢

[@randomuser5443]

@@ArcticTemper M1, which one? No one ones

[@christiandauz3742]

I wonder how WW1 had fared if the UK had M3 Tanks at the start of the First Great War?

[@Edv1718]

The Soviet hated the M3. They prefer the Matilda and the Valentine tank.

[@roberthoward9500]

@@Edv1718 In 1939 and 1940 the Matilda 2 was a bloody good tank, probably better than anything the Germans had. The problem was the Panzer 3 and 4 had a lot of room for improvement and the Matilda 2 did not.

[@ThePTBRULES]

The M3 is clearly the most well thought out, well produced, and successful stop gap tank. That being said, it was still a stop gap.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Apparently it was a tall, narrow gap!

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

The Russians hated the damn thing though. Grave for Seven Brothers was its nickname in Red Army service. Overall I'd say that the British were the only ones to have gotten any good mileage out of the thing.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 "Coffin for seven brothers". The Brits had no decent medium tanks, so yes they were grateful.The Soviets had T34 and KV1

[@looinrims]

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 have you ever seen that from a primary source though?

[@looinrims]

@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 which weren’t even available much in 1941 considering like 40% of all medium tanks for the reds were British

[@shermanfirefly5410]

Soviet's comment on M3 Lee: "The inside of the tank comfortably accommodate 7 crewmen, and also can carry 10 soldiers armed with submachineguns in summer conditions. The tank can be used this way to transport submachinegunners. While carrying troops, all tank guns can fire. Dropping off the 10 soldiers through the side hatches takes 25-30 seconds. Side hatches provide convenient entry and exit for the crew and soldiers."

[@classifiedad1]

So they used them as ersatz BMPs?

[@shermanfirefly5410]

@@classifiedad1 Sort of the case, though Soviets are unhappy about its high profile and weak armor

[@classifiedad1]

@@shermanfirefly5410 the BMP does have weak armor tho. IIRC, standard practice with BMPs were to ride atop or walk alongside them.

[@shermanfirefly5410]

@@classifiedad1 Yea, I know, but I think during WWII the concept of IFV doesn't exist yet....Right? So maybe they would compare it to a normal medium tank(like T34), which have a lower profile, or a infantry tank(which have lot more armor)

[@johnshepherd8687]

@@classifiedad1 More like the Merkava.

[@greernelson7419]

The M3- the epitome of "He's confused, but he's got the spirit"

[@billrich9722]

No.

[@Ok-fj4mv]

@@billrich9722 why

[@billrich9722]

@@Ok-fj4mv Why what?

[@dynamicworlds1]

Less "confused" and more "industrialized MacGyver engineering"

[@CS-zn6pp]

The M3 has "designed by committee via flag signal" written all over it...

[@jmackmcneill]

I want to say as somone relativily new to welding... the importancenof welding armour plate being NEW technology cannot be overstated... the metalugy of armour plate is frankly a Black Magic to people who just weld mild steel for a living.

[@chefchaudard3580]

I would add that casting parts as large as a hull was also something new that required top skill and experience..

[@tamlandipper29]

Thanks for the insight. Can you elaborate?

[@billwilson3609]

@@tamlandipper29 Improper welding techniques will weaken armor plate which will result in welds being unable to withstand the impact of projectiles.

[@sheeplord4976]

@@tamlandipper29 armor plates are really thick and need really strong welds. Making welds with no imperfections in such thick, dense material is really hard.

[@uni4rm]

The idea of wielding tanks together was not new. It was simply more expensive and not integrated into production lines yet. So instead of taking half a year to a year to put out zero tanks, they sent out the M3 bolted together, which was just a modified M2 with a 75mm clapped in the hull.

[@nonamesplease6288]

The M3 was a mad lad of a tank. One American soldier in North Africa said it looked like a 10 story building coming down the road. But it held the line until the Sherman, and it was appreciated at the time and dominated in Burma.

[@gerryjamesedwards1227]

When the Scammel tank transporters had a Grant up, the combination was very tall indeed. Care had to be taken on tight bends not to tip the load.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

I think it was fortunate that even though it was completely not what the British wanted, it was still better then anything they had themselves. And the ability to fire high explosive rounds was a nasty surprise for the Afrika Korps in 1942. And of course the Japanese sucked at armored warfare so it was the proverbial one eyed man in the land of the blind. But then again the Sherman was like what the Tiger was to the Japanese. And even the Mathilda II still did very well against the Japanese. The Russians though LOATHED the M3. Grave for Seven Brothers was what they called it. Considering they had a superior tank already in the T-34 I can see why Red Army tankers would feel being given an inferior clunker.

[@zf9903]

@@Zorro9129 I mean in general the T-34 was, all-around, a more capable vehicle. Lower profile, better armor, and you need less people to man the thing. The Lee is accepted, historically, as being a successful design -for being a stopgap-. The T-34 was undoubtedly less comfortable and it arguably had less of an ability to hold multiple angles of fire (something which I'm not sure the Lee/Grant ever did doctrinally anyway) but its pedigree is clear in that it received upgrades throughout its service life and was overall just as prolific and effective as the M4 Sherman in WWII. I say "just as effective" knowing that the T-34 is a more survivable vehicle, however I am also taking into account that the M4 Sherman is far more versatile. Howitzer variants, tank destroyers built on its chassis, SPG's, up-armored versions... For the U.S., the M4 wore many more hats than the T-34 did for the soviets. Anyway, your claim that the T-34 was less effective than the M3 Lee is simply false save for in a select few circumstances, all of which involve the fact that the Lee has 2 armor piercing cannons and is generally more comfortable to operate. Otherwise it is vastly inferior in all regards. Although... Perhaps you're right, if what you're getting at is that the Lee was the direct progenitor of the Sherman and by that merit alone it's better. ;)

[@demonprinces17]

Had no compatition in burma

[@timonsolus]

No, actually it was a British soldier in North Africa who said that the Grant looked like a cathedral coming down the road.

[@bozo5632]

M3 co-starred with Humphrey Bogart in the great but under-appreciated WW2 film "Sahara."

[@Ralph-yn3gr]

So that's what that movie was called! Thanks! I'd been trying to remember it for a while now.

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

The problem with the film is the same as the Odyssey. The Adriatic is NOT that big. The tank should have had at most, what, 3 hours of fuel. Add a few jerry cans and stretch it out to 5 hours. But they spend DAYS driving around looking for any sign of their troops. It almost feels like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

[@Incab]

LoL beat me to the post. My favotire Bogart film of all time. Got it on VHS and DVD.

[@bozo5632]

@@Incab Now I'm gonna have to watch it again. Favorite Bogey film? That's a tough one. I might have to watch them all lol.

[@billd.iniowa2263]

Great film. It really draws you in. I'm glad it's BnW. It wouldnt be the same if colorized.

[@jfdavis668]

The layout of the M3 would have been explained if you showed the preceding M2 Medium tank. The M3 removes the 4 machine gun sponsons and replaces the one with the 75mm gun. It's the reason the driver is still in the center.

[@charlesadams1721]

Yep, the M3 was the tank for the motorcyclist, if you were a driver. (the driver say astride the transmission.)

[@jakobc.2558]

"Look there is something coming out from behind the hill" "Small 2 man turret, 37-ish mm gun, must be some kind of light ta-" "Wo WTF? What is that hull? Why is it so tall? Is that a gun in the hull?

[@edi9892]

Similar to what the Brits thought about their naval radar seeing two fast moving spots and then learning that Bismark and Eugen are no small ships...

[@charlesadams1721]

To be fair, in the late 30s (when the first thinking was formed even to envision the tank) everyone thought the 37mm gun was the best tank gun out there. No one, not the Brits, the French (who liked their 25mm), not the Soviets, not the Italians, not the Japanese, certainly not the US. Everyone still was operating with at the 'experts', the French thought was an optimum design. Also, the Brits, and various other nations had hull-mounted quasi-artillery guns, and the Germans went all-in with the the Stug weapons. Let's not use 2020 (or 1945) thinking to judge the best thinking of the design and production of the late 1930s. Remember, anything built and delivered to Europe and N. Africa from the US in 1940 had to be designed in 1939 at the latest.

[@iansneddon2956]

@@edi9892 Yeah, big ships. Overly big. The Royal Navy had better naval architecture. They could fit more firepower in their ships than a German ship of equivalent size, and built more ships. The Royal Navy was not particularly afraid of Bismarck. Concerned about the damage Bismarck could do to an undefended convoy and the quantity of resources that would be needed to protect convoys until Bismarck could be sunk, yes, concerned about that. Biggest problem was how to make Bismarck stand and fight. Before 1936 Germany had two fast battleships compared to the 12 slow battleships, 3 battlecruisers and five aircraft carriers the Royal Navy had (with Ark Royal under construction. BTW, one of those battlecruisers, 24 year old HMS Renown, had a run in with the two German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau (both ships larger than Renown) in 1940 and sent them both running. In 1936 Germany laid down Bismarck, Tirpitz and Graf Zeppelin. In response, the British began construction on five new fast battleships and four more aircraft carriers.

[@edi9892]

@@iansneddon2956 AFAIK, Germans were able to pack more firepower on smaller cruisers and make pretty fast battleships. Bismark put up an incredible fight and was only technically defeated by its opponents, but was sunk by its own crew to prevent capture.

[@jakobc.2558]

@@charlesadams1721 um...not exactly. The reason why nobody developed a bigger AT gun then 37-40mm caliber was more technological limitations then anything else. Germanys biggest anti tank gun untill 1941 was their 37mm which was laughably terrible. They didnt addopt the 50mm untill late 1941 and the early pz.IVs and StuH/StuGs had the short barreled 75mm gun which had the muzzle velocity of a T-Shirt cannon and was not a anti tank gun. So when the M3 Lee was delivered to north africa in 1941 the biggest and meanest german AT gun out there was the 50mm which was still not very common so the 75mm hull gun was the best anti tank weapon you would see on the western allies vs. axis front and the 37mm was still powerfull enough to destroy german tanks frontaly at relatively close range (although in north africa you were ofcourse almost never fighting at that range). By the time the M4 Sherman arrived, the PAK 40 was just starting to be used.

[@mariano98ify]

"He is out of the line but he got a point"

[@tessjuel]

0:52 - "Modern features like reliability" Love that phrase, can I steal it?

[@douglasstrother6584]

(phone rings) "Yellow! This is Lend-Lease. Whacha need?" "'allo, Mate. We could use some of those tanks." "How many?" "Ten, if you got them." "Sure, Mac, 10 dozen." "No, just 10! We can't afford that many." "Listen, Pal, we have minimum order requirements, but I'll tell ya what ... since I like you guys. Pay for ten now and the other two later. We'll even throw in fuel, ammo, spare parts, manuals, more ammo & fuel, SPAM, eggs, bacon and SPAM."

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

The M3 was a stop-gap design while the M4 was under development. Per my Dad, an armored crewman before the M3 was deployed. When the tank was developed, the turret ring was problem. This "antique" rudely surprised the Africa Corps, outgunning the German tanks.

[@nepete7]

Yes, Rommel said it was an unfortunate surprise at Gazala. Had the British massed their armor instead of having individual battalions and regiments fighting the whole DAK the M3 might be seen as a winning tank.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@IvanSorensen the English army, the ones in the tank loved it and the M3 for their mobility and reliablity. The complaint side primarily have read about where the height making it easier to spot and the 75 mm gun placement which made it harder to fire from hull down. They developed a trick they would open the breach and look down the barrel to see if it cleared the terrain and then they'd load and fire and back up.

[@billrich9722]

This sounds an awful lot like what the video just fucking said.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@billrich9722 I wrote this in response to the title, before clicking play. the title is misleading.

[@billrich9722]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer I don’t feel like it is.

[@andyb1368]

Considering the US had the ridiculous M2 medium in 1940, I was always impressed that we were able to develop from it the M3 fielding it a year later and the M4 a year after that. The M3 was not great, but it was probably the best that we could have done in the time available given where our tank development was at in 1940.

[@iansneddon2956]

Great point. You fight wars with what you have. Taking longer to produce a better weapon could mean letting the enemy win for several months until you are ready.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

For contrast, look at Humgary which also attempted to upgun an interwar medium (namely the škoda t21), and ended up with something not much better. The catch is, they did this in 1942. You could.go a lot worse than the M3.

[@andrewklang809]

Rommel said the M3 was better than the Pz.IIIs he commanded (and presumably, the short-barreled Pz.IVs). For a stopgap to be viewed by the enemy as better than what a continental power, three years into fighting, could field is mighty impressive. And, as others here have said, the M3 was in regular use in New Guinea and Burma right up until the end. You can't say that isn't a good design.

[@andrewklang809]

@@Zorro9129 The early-war Panzers were perfectly functional for their job. To quote/paraphrase Guderian: "the speed of a Panzer is a weapon all its own". And the Panzer IIIs and IVs were good designs for the early war. Only when they met heavily armored Matildas or Chars or T-34s did they struggle. But they still managed, in an operational level. Leave the tank destruction for other arms, be the mobile infantry support, be the fire brigades. The 50mm Pz.IIIs were good designs in the mid war. The long-barrelled Pz.IVs were good up until the end. The M3 was the equal of the best Pz.III. The better Pz.IV was superior to anything until 1944. For a stopgap, the M3 was fine. It helped to hold the line. It was a front-line tank-killer, AND a late-war infantry support tank. Rivets and all, it got the job done. Not the best, but good enough for when it was needed.

[@ericgrace9995]

@@andrewklang809 And so was the Matilda 2. Only 2 tanks started the war and finished it. Pz IV and the Matilda 2.

[@patrickcloutier6801]

For the benefit of anyone interested in the M3 Lee's performance in Soviet service, I translated a segment from a Russian-language video that treats that topic to some degree. This is the video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWGtdpiDh72VqZI This is the English-language version (I hope without any fatal errors): 3:10 "In 1942 a critical situation developed with regard to ammunition. In April only 1,200 rounds of [75mm?] ammunition had arrived, but for the tanks which had been delivered, 40,800 rounds were required. A similar problem developed for rounds for the 37mm cannon. 3:25 The first account from the front [about the M3 Lee] came at the end of June 1942, from the [Soviet] 114th Tank Brigade. In it, it was indicated that the American M3 Medium Tank was agile and fast; thanks to the rubber-metal tracks it had quiet movement. On the march, the average speed was 30-35km per hour. The armament was acknowledged to be fully sufficient for battle with tanks. 3:49 Minuses of the armament that the tankers did not like, were the small supply of 50 rounds and limited horizontal traverse [for the 75mm gun]. The large dimensions of the tank made it very difficult to put troops on the tank. Also, it was revealed that a 45mm anti-tank round, from a distance of up to 1 kilometer, could defeat the frontal armor of the American tank. A significant minus was the large quantity of [букв 4 зины], which was attached inside [to protect the crew] from [traveling] impact. When hit by shells, it was often burned, poisoning the crew. Also, the paint inside the tank burned, and the extremely unkind nickname of a "mass grave for six" did not appear out of nowhere. After studying the report, the order came to remove as much as possible of the spongy substance from the fighting compartment. Let's move on to combat use. 4:44 23 May [1942] unit(s) of the 114th Brigade, together with the 242nd Rifle Division and the 64th Tank Brigade, forced the Siverskiy Donets River [Ciверский Донец] and partly liberated the village of Chepil [10-15 miles NW of Izyum]. They succeeded in completely taking the village on 25 May. For that time, the M3 Lee crew under the command of Lieutenant Mimotin destroyed 4 German tanks, and another tank crew (killed in battle) destroyed 3 tanks. The energetic actions in the region of Chepil allowed the penetration of the German ring of blockade and the escape of several units from encirclement. The Brigade stood out in the July battles, when on the 14th German troops went over to the attack. The enemy committed up to 240 tanks to battle. A company under the command of Senior Lieutenant Glazkov, which consisted of 5 x M3 Stuarts and 2 x M3 Lees, was able to repel three attacks, at a cost of 17 [enemy] tanks [knocked out], of which four burned and two were destroyed. 5:46 In a completely different setting, the crew of Lieutenant Savva was on a path for battle with the 192nd Tank Brigade to the front, in May 1942, but for almost 2 months did not take part in any action. Poorly organized joint operations with the infantry let the tankers down. The third Volkovskaya Offensive Operation became a genuine catastrophe for the Brigade. On 5 July at 5:30 in the morning, the Brigade, supported by the 149th Rifle Division, jointly moved into battle with the 68th Tank Brigade. The infantry, cut off by enemy fire, moved extremely slowly. This led to the tanks turning back several times and suffering additional losses. 6:26 Colonel Petrov, the CO of the 192nd Tank Brigade, committed the main group of Stuarts, which were performing the role of reserve, to battle. The political commander of the Brigade had to get out of the tank, in order to lead the infantry behind himself the 6th and 40th. The shock group succeeded in taking Kabbala and Bliz Noska and made contact with the German line of defense, destroying [enemy] firing points; the artillery, which should have supported the action of The Brigade [with its] fire, lost orientation. That became the reason for the loss of 6 tanks to friendly fire. Toward the end of the day, the Germans counterattacked. In the course of day, the [192nd Tank] Brigade had lost 40 tanks, a portion of which became German trophies. 7:07 The sad history of the 192nd Tank Brigade was repeated on different sectors of the front. On 3 August 1942, the 92nd Tank Brigade received an order to move to the region of Verkh Sevastyanova. Thus for the [Brigade] the sharply famous and grievous Sichevskaya Operation began. With varying fortunes, the Brigade attacked until 6 August, still not reaching Zubtsova; at this point, of the Brigade, only 4 x M3 Lees and 6 x Stuart tanks remained. On 30 September 1942, the 241st Tank Brigade, having 24 x M3 Lees and 27 x Stuarts, began to advance jointly with the 343rd Rifle Division, in the direction of a dairy farm and the Noskina Ravine. In the course of the fighting for Stalingrad, the Brigade broke away from the infantry and hid itself behind hills, disappearing. As it turned out, it reappeared later in the region of the dairy farm. The German 3rd Motorized Division was dug in [here]. From the beginning, 10 [Soviet] tanks were lost on a minefield; then the rest were lost in the course of a battle with anti-tank guns. After the attack, only 2 tanks returned. 8:18 The M3 Lee was used by the Red Army in 1943, on the southern face of the Kursk Salient, where the [Soviet] 245th Tank Regiment. It was namely here where the blow by a German group, which included 200 Panther tanks, struck. Usually, that battle is described as a massacre of American tanks. In reality, in the very first day of the fighting, the Regiment suffered heavy losses, but by no means with empty results: on 5 July the [Russian] tankers destroyed 1 x Tiger, 13 x Panzer IIIs, and 10 x light tanks, and as 4 x anti-tank guns. The Soviet tankers did not know about the attacking Panthers; it turned out that on 5 July, 5 x Panthers were knocked out. It is worth mentioning that on the second half of 1942 the USSR received tanks armed with the M3 75mm cannon. These cannon had a vertical stabilization system and could pierce the side of the Tiger tank from up to 600 meters. 9:15 On 1 June 1944, 143 x M3 Lees remained with the troops. These tanks fought until the very end of the Great Fatherland War. On 1 January 1945, 118 x M3 Lees remained. One tank even managed to participate in the war against Japan. In all, the Soviet Union received 957 x M3 Lee. The tank received a derogatory nickname. They outrageously called it a 2 or 3 level "watch tower", also [ВГ-7: верная гибель семерых], VG-7, or "certain doom for 7", [БM-7 братская могиль семерых] BM-7, or "a grave for 7 brothers", or "a grave for 6 brothers", because sometimes there was no radioman. Nevertheless, despite its drawbacks the M3 Lee played its role. In 1942, when the German panzer wedges had penetrated deep into the country, when Soviet industry did not have time to provide the front with the new T-34 and other [tanks], the M3 Lee went into battle, often as the first and the last [vehicle]. And never forget the bravery and courage of the Soviet tankers, who fought in these tanks." 10:17

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

thank you!

[@georgepantazis141]

Thanks 🇭🇲

[@Mortablunt]

Spasibo bolshoe vam! I am glad the Red Army got good use out of the M3 tanks.

[@VosperCDN]

M3 Grant/Lee is my favourite early tank for looks, just something about it has visual appeal.

[@porsche911sbs]

same, it's very weird looking

[@Spencer481]

M3 Grant; He's a little confused, but his heart is in the right place

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

US: How many guns want? British: No. US: How about this? British: Wtf, that’s worse! You know what, give me the last one.

[@JokiMBS]

"So, how much guns do you want on a tank?" -"Yes"

[@iansneddon2956]

Just don't let the US Navy design it or you'll end up with something like the T-35 heavy tank. "Add guns until they fill all available space, then make it larger!"

[@JokiMBS]

@@iansneddon2956 lol, a land Battleship is a choice for a true gentlemen

[@catfish552]

"And how many machine guns?" "Oooohh yes!"

[@billrich9722]

Oh. Another person with this truly original comment. I can only imagine how many times you've been punched during casual conversation.

[@billrich9722]

@Mialisus Why? Why would anybody have to imagine that kind of thing? Why would anybody want to imagine that kind of thing? Or is that just what kids today are programmed to say when somebody criticizes them? Let me try it. Ahem. Imagine regurgitating the same thing as millions of other smooth-brained waffle-faces just because you saw some other brainlet say it before you. But you don’t have to imagine that, do you? You live it.

[@TrollOfReason]

Ah, the M3. My favorite stop gap tank.

[@fazole]

In Rick Atkinson's book, "An Army at Dawn", about the North African campaign after operation Torch, he related that one soldier complained it looked like "a cathedral coming down the road".

[@Bochi42]

I love the Grant. Kind of like a utility infielder/outfielder who can pinch hit and run and makes an unnoticed & unrecognized career of it. Forgotten hero who really did make a big difference for the team. That's baseball talk but I'm guessing other sports have the same sort of players who go unappreciated by most fans.

[@porsche911sbs]

offensive linemen in football

[@katharinelong5472]

Fourth line in hockey

[@eldorados_lost_searcher]

Defensive halfback in soccer.

[@rwaitt14153]

@@porsche911sbs I was thinking more a Steve Tasker type special teams ace.

[@hadrianbuiltawall9531]

1941 - fixed main guns are so yesterday. 1945 - Stug would like to say something but its far to busy killing tanks.

[@Mortablunt]

Ich möchte mal sagen, aber ich bin zu beschäftig.

[@fennicfox4600]

I was not expecting KZbin to recommend this at 2:30 in the morning, but I'm glad they did. The m3 is almost completely ignored except by PC tank games, model kits, and anime.

[@rileyernst9086]

I love the original design of the Lee, it's so stupidly over the top you gotta love it. A pair of MGs in the hull, so the driver can throw the tank around like a maniac spraying lead everywhere, the commander and 37mm can get in on the action with cannister, the coaxle and the commander's cupola machinegun, the vehicle is covered in window/firing ports so any temporarily free crewman can fire out with his tommy gun. And even with all that you also still have a 75mm gun!

[@Idahoguy10157]

According to The Chieftain the 37mm gun and turret were added at the insistence of the US Army Infantry Board over the objection of Ordinance Branch. At that time the 37mm was the standard anti-tank gun in multiple armies

[@tedarcher9120]

I think what they should have done is put a 57mm cannon in the hull and a 75mm short howitzer in the small turret

[@foxymetroid]

@@tedarcher9120 The smaller gun was in the turret because the ring was too small for a turret housing a 75 mm cannon. The larger gun was in the hull because that was the only place they could put it.

[@swampdonkey1567]

Well if they have anything to do with the naval ordinance buera then the army board for sure made the right call.

[@Macrochenia]

@@tedarcher9120 They didn't want a 75mm howitzer. The point of the M3 was to get a tank that could get the 75mm multi-purpose gun into combat while the kinks in the M4's turret were being worked out.

[@ddraig1957]

Considering how quickly it was put into production,it wasn't that bad. At least it was mechanically reliable,unlike the Panther which was similarly rushed in to front line service.

[@billwilson3609]

The production of the M3 allowed the engineers to finalize the design of the M4 chassis and power train. That allowed Chrysler and the other plants to start producing the M4 at the same time they were producing the last M3's of their contract. The same chassis was behind the last one for a M3 but had a different superstructure set on top to be welded in place.

[@thatguybrody4819]

It's a lot better than most give it credit for.

[@douglasstrother6584]

A Tamiya model of the M3 Lee was one of the first tank kits I built as a kid.

[@zainmudassir2964]

Seen an M-3 in Pakistan Military Museum. It served in British Indian Army in World war 2 in Burma.

[@leonst.7471]

The m3 was the stopgap tank the allies needed at the time since the Sherman's weren't ready yet

[@JimmySailor]

The M3 and M4 frequently get criticized for their height. But they were only made that tall to fit the R9 Radial engine. The Radial, as an air cooled design was far less likely to overheat. So yeah the lumbering American behemoths were passing broken down Brit’s in their liquid cooled tanks. Tanks that mostly only packed a 2 pounder anyway. So in the desert the M3 was the best tank because it reliably got into battle.

[@tlmoscow]

A classic case of, if it’s stupid, and it works, it isn’t stupid. I’m hoping to find one someday and turn it into a tiny house.

[@mattwoodard2535]

German upon seeing an M3 for the first time. "Hey, why is that hill moving?"sm

[@mikelezcurra810]

The M3 Medium may have become obsolete rather quickly, but when it showed up in North Africa in 1942, the Brits saw it as a godsend, being far superior to their own tanks. Afterwards, it remained very useful in the Pacific theater.

[@Pocahonkers]

You forgot the most antique feature about it: The hull mounted machineguns. A basically useless concept at its introduction already, lthough funnily enough some nations desperately held onto that concept into the cold war. I guess the US just had too many machineguns and didn't know where to put them, an emergency that previously resulted in the M2 Medium.

[@catfish552]

The Cult of the Machine Gun reigned strong. Those things even made it to the early Shermans.

[@swampdonkey1567]

Hersey you can't ever have to much dakkha

[@douglasstrother6584]

American tanks get bagged-on for being too light in armor and armament compared to others. They were the best tanks that could be transported on the floating railcars known as Liberty and Victory ships.

[@MaskHysteria]

This is an underappreciated comment. "The Americans should have developed heavy tanks earlier" completely overlooks the logistical aspects of, then, shipping those heavies to Europe (they'd be no better than the Sherman in the Pacific). From transport capacity to crane loads to rail capability to ancillary manufacturing and supply it was a gargantuan task. By the time the Pershing was put into the field the war was nearly over.

[@frankgulla2335]

Nice concise summary of hte Me Medium tank from WW2. Thank you

[@darvennej4495]

Fascinating in detail. I believe the Grant/Lee was called by the Brits and Yanks ''the Cathedral '' for its known display in the light of the desert . Only produced from 6/1941- 12-1942 ? 18 months and five variants to boot .I was amazed in the past of hearing of the crew of 6-7 ? one busy tank! I always heard of the Grant ? but the version Lee? had more of just two cannons ,and the Grant was a top with 3 guns !..Better armor and durable it kind of disappeared after the War in Italy in 43 for service .Though one looks at the ''lighters ''of the Sherman era, the Grants ,Lee M3's were Timex's "took a licking but kept on ticking''. One wonders overall it was all about production that won out and maneuverability with the Shermans.

[@prechabahnglai103]

M3 Lee/Grant selling points: Does it run? -yes Does it have the 75mm gun? - yes Can we get it now? Yes Pretty much.

[@ModellingforAdvantage]

Great coverage, thanks.

[@Raptor747]

Considering that the M3 was a stopgap tank that was rushed into production by a nation that had not done much in the way of tank development for many years, the M3 was a sterling tank. So much so that it remained viable and useful up to the end of the war, and would still have been a threat to take quite seriously by Germany even in 1945. Its 75mm gun was excellent and useful in engaging soft and hard targets. Its 37mm gun, while quickly becoming underpowered by 1942, was still useful as a weapon to attack the flank of enemy tanks or soft targets. It was fairly reliable, decently quick, had respectable armor, a good engine, and was not difficult to repair, maintain, or recover, and it was not expensive or too heavy. It was designed for a specific purpose--to do the job well enough until the Sherman could be completed and produced in substantial numbers. And it succeeded in that role very well.

[@nickdanger3802]

The M3 was in front line service in Asia to the end of the war. Not bad for a clapped together stop gap.

[@randomcoyote8807]

It did its job even as it was in the process of being outclassed. Great video!

[@TenOrbital]

These were the mainstay of the two armoured divisions of the Australian armoured corps formed in 1942 to oppose a Japanese landing. With half as many Stuart light tanks. As the US army re-equipped with Shermans they shipped some of the surplus Grants and Stuarts to Australia. The new divisions conducted maneuvers in inland NSW in mid-1942 around Narrabri (NARR-a-brye). Plus Matilda 2s in separate army tank brigades for infantry support. All these tank models outclassed anything the Japanese fielded in WW2. The Matildas were later used extensively in PNG and the Pacific campaign in support of Australian ‘jungle divisions’. They tried Grants and Stuarts but they weren’t suited to off-road jungle use, they tended to get stuck. As the threat of invasion faded the armoured divisions were progressively disbanded and converted to commandos for service in the Pacific. But one medium tank brigade remained stationed in Perth until the end of the war. If you drive to Adelaide through Victoria, someone has placed the rusting hulks of a Grant and a Matilda in a field by the highway.

[@agentorange6085]

Tank Graveyard in Australia: Grant & Matilda Relics in Murrayville kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5vbYmuBrNV0jKM kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKGtppmEmtqhlbc

[@drinksnapple8997]

For all its issues, the M3 was a better tank than anything deployed by the Italians, Japanese, or British-built.

[@shermanfirefly5410]

Nope, Both P40 and M43 are depolyed by italians, yet they are still a lot better than M3 Valentine was also a rather fine tank of its time, and it was built by British

[@matchrocket1702]

The movie Sahara, starring Humphrey Bogart, features an M3 Medium Tank. It's one of my favorite movies.

[@mr.gunzaku437]

This is my brother's favorite tank! Don't you love doing really well in this thing in WoT or WT? I sure do! It's fun to play!

[@cheshire4856]

Yes.

[@linnharamis1496]

Fascinating episode about military technology - thank you!📸👍

[@nomadnametab]

uncle Bob learned to drive tracks in the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s. when they opened M3 production he got a job test drving them when they came off the line.

[@HereticsRight]

The M3 is my favorite tank! I just love the combination of new technology, the lack of certain technology, and the desperation needed to put it all together.

[@rb239rtr]

Canada needed tanks at the start of the war, and built the M3 under license, These were called RAM- but changed the design to cast armour and a large turret with gun. The M4 made the Ram obsolete, so many of these were converted to armoured troop carriers and other specialty vehicles

[@draconian6692]

Casting was great during the time! Production speed and lack of worrying about differiental hardness defects like the russians had overhardeneing their t34's

[@michaeldunne338]

"Armored Thunderbolt" is a good book, so not surprised to see excerpts from that work by Zaloga. The tank always looked a bit like an odd "Franken-tank" to me, even when first catching sight of one in the Bogart film "Sahara" years ago ... Seem to me, the relatively decent durability of the engine/drivetrain was probably the big benefit of this make, especially for operating in the tough environment of North Africa and the Middle East, where equipment could wear out pretty quickly.

[@looinrims]

“Today I’m not at Bovington...” Sadly

[@johnharrison6745]

It's an unsung hero, actually.

[@ReviveHF]

Add in TOW missiles and 30mm Bushmaster autocannon, then this thing is really usable in modern war.

[@unclebob6728]

thank You!

[@Trancefreakeh]

I appreciate this :)

[@bezahltersystemtroll5055]

my favourite WWII tonk together with the Stug 🥺😎

[@billrich9722]

I find myself wondering when purposefully misspelling simple words in a way that makes one sound like a brain damaged child became popular.

[@conservativemike3768]

Quirky, yet oddly satisfying.

[@markkringle9144]

I knew about these variants, but this is the best presentation of the M3 I have ever seen. It was over too soon!

[@thomasfarrell5396]

This needs more comment on how well these tanks performed in Burma (Myanmar). But as usual f'ing brilliant.

[@billrich9722]

I had no idea the design for this beast was so quick and just how many were made over such a short time. Damn. Put into proper context, America panic-shat a serviceable tank in the time it took France to lose the war.

[@MaskHysteria]

I would have gone with "sharted" but "Panic-shat" is, actually, better.

[@chrishill3536]

i would say it a good stop gap tank

[@nickdanger3802]

New/old or old/new? While some see the M3 medium as a great leap backward, In 1940 and 1941 the USSR, Germany and Britain fielded tanks with multiple turrets. see T35

[@whelk]

When your choice is between this tank and no tank....

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

Or a tank that breaks down every couple miles with a 40 mm gun.

[@johnludmon7419]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer yes and the Americans produced 6000 of them in 18 months then some 40,000 Shermans . That and it was from a virtual standing start American tank production had been stymied for most of the 1930’s by weight restrictions and infighting.

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

@@johnludmon7419 My Dad was a part of the testing crews at Ft Benning. He preferred the Christie suspension.

[@johnludmon7419]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer the Christie suspension was very good in terms of ride quality and speed just that the Christie didn’t endear himself to the army and the tank that he was selling wasn’t very good. The British put it into the cruisers and the Russians into the BT series .The British tanks suffered from reliability problems due to the engine (the Liberty Bus engine from the 1920’s ) but the tanks were otherwise quite good for a pre-1940 design. We have the benefit of hindsight but those making the decisions at the time also had to deal with both the political situation and what could be made .War was coming and the need to re-equip underfunded armed forces was a must and America got 2 more years than everyone else.

[@relectric69]

Good video

[@rileyernst9086]

The fuses on iniyial batches of 75mm HE rounds that arrived in North Africa were also unsuitable. They were swapped for fuses from French ammunition captured in Syria. It's a case where the 8th army benefited greatly from the Australian tradition of stealing literally any/everything you can get away with.

[@maxkronader5225]

Sure it was an outdated concept and not up to the standards of the most advanced types; but you gotta admit, it's Steampunky as hell and it would be awesome to have one!

[@peternielsen3792]

👍Good: we immediately scored a direct hit on enemy tank 😒Bad: after 31 hits tank is still operational... 😡Ugly: after 252 hits tank is still not immobilized...

[@michaelbagley9116]

The M3 did some some interesting results and successes. In particular, the conflicts in places like Burma.

[@scottdewey3544]

Thanks for this useful discussion. Speaking as somebody interested in the history armored warfare in the Second World War in general, and also as a citizen of the United States in particular, I've always been curious about the M3 Grant/Lee and its somewhat primitive configuration (main weapon in the hull, only a much lighter weapon in the (very small) turret), along with the various limitations of the later legendary (but perhaps not deservedly so) M4 Sherman tank. [The Sherman Firefly, although an adaptation on the fly, was admittedly special and better in standing up to the competition.] I already know, from earlier study, that nobody but the Germans and Russians understood various key aspects of armored vehicle design, such as the angling of armor. Yet the Grant/Lee, with all its flaws, was key to the Brits holding on in North Africa before El Alamein and also going on the offensive after El Alamein. So it was a very useful stop-gap. [And the later Sherman was not as much better as it should have been--so, for those who sympathize with the Western Allies, thank heavens they ultimately achieved overall overwhelming air superiority, because their armored vehicles really didn't do it!] [To it's credit, the Grant/Lee could have stood up very well against just about anything that the Japanese offered in China and the Pacific, but the Japanese, also, were focused on other things and never developed tank designs anywhere close to the standards of the Germans and Russians who were engaged in the really huge, horrific tank battles of the Second World War. And, of course, as successful and dangerous as the Japanese were, they were never perceived as more than a secondary threat, in terms of overall military and strategic planning, compared to the Nazi Germans. The Japanese naval and naval air forces gave the Americans and Brits a run for the money for a time, but, for all their suicidal heroism, Japanese ground forces did not. Especially not their tanks. Maybe their armored pill-boxes and tunnels.]

[@alexbell9443]

The fact that this tank was actually taller than the tiger which was a really tall tank

[@Mestari1Gaming]

The Italian's had their own M3 Lee that was called the Fiat-Ansaldo M11/39!

[@JohnRodriguesPhotographer]

The turret on that tank if I remember correctly had two Breda machine guns note Cannon. The only cannon in that tank was the hull mounted one. I think it also had less armor and a more primitive suspension system. I know the Italians felt like it was obsolete before it hit the field.

[@Mestari1Gaming]

@@JohnRodriguesPhotographer They were still very similar to one another in design. Hull mounted cannon and a turret capable of rotating 360 degrees.

[@togglefire3537]

I remember the first time I came across an M3 and it was while playing the game battlefield 1942 road to rome. This was back before I really started to get into the history of tanks and I thought it was the ugliest thing I've ever seen. Never once used it because I didn't like how the main Cannon only faced forward LOL

[@uni4rm]

I'm surprised you found a source that said the 2 pounder was good. It had such a short effective range that when the 5cm PZIII's showed up, they outranged the 2 pounder, and the 40mm AP would bounce off the PZIII while it could punch a hole in the British tank no problem. The only tanks not immediately threatened were the heavy matildas and churchills, when they showed up.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

> I'm surprised you found a source that said the 2 pounder was good. really depends on when you look at it, if I remember correctly it was better than the 37mm of the Germans when it came to armor-piercing capabilities, although one could argue that does not mean much.

[@baryonyxwalkeri3957]

What can you say about the soviet opinion on the vehicle, as it was sent to the soviet union via lend lease too? Is the quote from the soviets calling it a "Mass grave for six brothers" a myth or not? Also, if it is real, it might shine some more light upon when the crew size was reduced. Thanks a lot for your videos, they are really interesting to watch.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Zaloga noted that quote is alleged, I asked Peter from Tank Archives, he didn't find it so far. I will keep my eye out.

[@baryonyxwalkeri3957]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Awesome, thank you!

[@billwilson3609]

I think that was post war Soviet propaganda. The Soviet tankers liked it due to being mechanically reliable and could be quickly repaired because the US shipped over plenty of spare parts along with automotive engineers to train the mechanics and figure out quick remedies for problems they encountered out in the field.

[@sparks2022]

Wasn't there something about the HE shells not exploding if the tank caught fire? The crew of a hit tank could still use the tank as cover if it was stuck in open ground. The explosive used in Russian shells would eventually explode but the American shells just burned

[@billwilson3609]

@@sparks2022 The Soviet tankers did say that the US cannon rounds would cook off one by one with a "pop" that just ejected the shell so was safe to hide beneath their disabled US tank. That was preferable to getting away as far as possible from a disabled T-34 since the Soviet rounds would detonate to set off the rest in a massive explosion that would blow out the bottom of the tank hull and throw off the turret. The US 75mm rounds did have a tendency to separate when being handled which caused the propellant to spill out. The official US Army instructions for dealing with that problem was to wet down the spilled propellant with water until it could be cleaned up later. That job was given to the bow gunner/assistant driver who kept buckets of water and full canteens handy if ever needed. The wet stowage system helped out when the shell came off while the round was being removed since the loader could feel that happening so let it drop back inside where the propellant ran out into the water. The cartridge stuck out higher so the loader knew it was useless.

[@kevinyaucheekin1319]

There were 2 pounder and 6 pounder HE shells, available to the 2 pounder and 6 pounder AT guns. The 2 pounder HE shell was of medicore performance. The 6 pounder HE did offer a somewhat effective and lethal HE shell.

[@Uchilsson]

I always tought it would be better tank if they remove the turret. Lower profile, less stres to engine and transmision ane less ground pressure.

[@andrewklang809]

Then it would be an awkward assault gun/tank destroyer. Hardly a match for the StuG III. It was already well-built for an infantry-support role. Fascinating to hear how the Burmese Theatre re-purposed the 37mm gun as a canister shot/shotgun to use against trees and anyone hiding in them.

[@prechabahnglai103]

The army guys were vehemently against removing the turret because of its anti-infantry capabilities. Plus the “cult of machine gun” mindset added another 2 machine guns on top of that. Credit: The Chieftain

[@draconian6692]

My fav tank of all time❤❤❤❤

[@Ocrilat]

What I find interesting is how clueless the British high command was in what made a good tank (accepting the M3 more or less against their will), compared to how quickly the British/Commonwealth troops and commanders on the ground in North Africa saw the M3's benefits over the tanks they had been using.

[@classifiedad1]

The M3 wasn’t a great tank, but it was at least a tank that tended to work. Which means you’re more likely to actually have it in the right place at the right time.

[@Ocrilat]

@@classifiedad1 Well, the main tanks in the desert when the M3 was introduced were the Mathilda II and the Crusader II. Compared to them, the Grant was an adamantium hover-tank with a side-mounted laser cannon lol.

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

Ahahaha! I love how the first proper AT shells from the M3 were captured german shells. that's amazing.

[@kshatriya1414]

One thing I find very odd with the M3 is that they riveted the armor but then they also welded the rivets on the inside of the tank so the rivets wouldn’t (Just my half educated guess) shoot into the tank if hit... I don’t know if that was something they added to the design later in the war or if it was like that in the beginning, But either way they put down more weld lines around those rivets than they would’ve put down if they actually just welded the hull lol

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

When it first arrived in the hands of Allied soldiers in North Africa, the M3 Grant/Lee tank was seen as a God-send because it was such an upgrade over the previous equipment they had been issued. Termed the "Grant" medium tank in U.S. service, it was called the "Lee" in British use. It's small fully-rotating turret containing the M5/6 37mm gun and the fixed sponson containing the 75mm gun and other features were design compromises made to get a tank into production as quickly as possible. Its high silhouette and sponson mounted gun meant that fighting the tank from hull-down position was problematic, and the riveted (not welded) construction condemned many men to wounds or death when enemy shells hit their tanks, as these became lethal projectiles at times. The design had narrow treads and uninspired off-road performance. Yet its larger gun and decent protection in comparison to some competing designs made it well-liked at least until its replacement, the M4 series, came along later in the war.

[@robertstallard7836]

Agreed. My father fought in one in the Western desert. They liked them, not lease because a) they were relatively reliable and b) because even with a six-man crew, there was a fair bit of room inside. People always seem to comment about the "fighting ability" of a tank and, whilst that's important, a crew spends far, far more time maintaining it and living in it than fighting in it. Day-to-day reliability and easy maintainability are, for most crews, just as important.

[@philstaples8122]

The British liked it, well the guys that used it, for the first time they had a effective HE round to deal with infantry and AT guns ( from the 75mm ), the 2pd gun used in pretty much every British tank of the time was really good against enemy tanks of that time but most of the time throughout WW2 tanks were dealing with infantry, AT guns, buildings or fortifications for that you heed HE or later HESH, that worked really well against both armour and fortifications and did a relatively good job against infantry ( not as good as HE as the case of a HESH found is soft so doesn't produce as many fragments as an HE round ). I was a former tankie in the British army and have been fortunate enough to talk to some of the old boys of the desert rats.

[@andrewklang809]

Why couldn't the British develop a HE shell for the 2 pdr? Was there something about the gun that made it unfeasable, or was the hidebound British High Command unable to see the usefulness of such until far too late?

[@ianwhitchurch864]

@@andrewklang809 You can fit less than a grenade's worth of TNT in a british 2lber shell. The best the Russians did was to turn the smoke launcher in the 2lber Valentine into a 50mm mortar

[@CharlieNoodles]

The more you learn about the M3 the more you appreciate it. It’s a shining example of the design adage that perfect is the enemy of good. Sometimes the best solution isn’t the perfect solution, it’s the solution that’s good enough now. To understand the M3 the context really can’t be overstated. By July of 1940 Britain had suffered an embarrassing defeat in France which saw it leave the bulk of her armored vehicles behind as they fled Dunkirk. Britain needed tanks and they needed them ASAP. The US had also seen what had happened and realized their own fleet of tanks were completely inadequate. Both nations needed a medium tank armed with a 75mm gun. That tank would eventually be the M4, but that would take too long. So they took the existing M2 and modified it. They placed the gun in the hull because it was the only place it would fit and called it the M3. For all it’s obvious problems the M3 did the job it was asked to do. And the crews who fought in her actually kind of liked it. She was reliable, she would start first time, every time, run all day and be ready to do it again in the morning. Her 75mm gun may not have been the best, but it gave the British troops a tremendous boost in firepower. The M3 was there when Britain needed her most, and when she was obsolete for the European battlefields, they shipped off to the east to fight the Japanese which freed up Shermans for the western front. The M3 may not have been a perfect tank, but she was good enough, and when your back is against the wall good enough will do.

[@thatguybrody4819]

The design was actually also a bonus as the Germans despised it's inability to be flanked with the 75 keeping the tank in front busy and the 37 following the flanker.

[@fulcrum2951]

I find the m3 grant to be the best stopgap armor

[@comradefriendship]

"A Modern Antique" Nothing clickbaits better than an oxymoron

[@billrich9722]

We have differing definitions of clickbait.

[@shermanfirefly5410]

Fun fact: During the great patriotic war, soviets use M3s as IFVs Due to its sheer size, soviets managed to pack 10 infantry man into that tank without even reducing the ammo storage space Now consider this : you see such a thing rolling down the road , and when you tried to use panzer faust against it, 10 angry soviets jumped out of the tank

[@johnneill990]

"soviets managed to pack 10 infantry man into that tank" No, the crew compartment had a heater you could not keep the freezing SOBs out.

[@shermanfirefly5410]

@@johnneill990 Lmao, I mean, they actually tried to fit 17 man in "The inside of the tank comfortably accommodate 7 crewmen, and also can carry 10 soldiers armed with submachineguns. The tank can be used this way to transport submachinegunners. While carrying troops, all tank guns can fire. Dropping off the 10 soldiers through the side hatches takes 25-30 seconds. Side hatches provide convenient entry and exit for the crew and soldiers."

[@johnneill990]

@@shermanfirefly5410 No they they were crammed it there like sardines cause it was F'N COLD and they wanted the body heat. Even a fart was welcomed cause that's hot gas and it was that cold!

[@Ocrilat]

Other benefits included a good frontal armor, up to 4 machine guns, and unlike the 2-pounder the 75mm outranged many German tank guns (if I remember correctly it was comparable in range to the German long 75, which was pretty rare in Libya/Egypt.

[@EricDaMAJ]

Indeed. People forget the Flak 88 was in really short supply and 50mm was the German standby in the desert.

[@mikepette4422]

6000 of these tanks were built. Just think of this a second. The Germans didn't build that many more Panzer 4's through the whole war I think barely 8000. So this agreeably inferior tank was used in large numbers almost similar to the germans main battle tank. It's incredible how much US industry was just so overwhelming. That the tank nobody wanted got built in numbers that rivalled the tank the Germans really needed. Once the US was in the war there was never a chance for the Nazi's. And yes thats a good thing. US industry for the win.

[@Zorro9129]

I wouldn't say the basic M3 was inferior to Pz.IV variants at the time, though it certainly was by the time of the F2/G. But true, the scale of what the Germans were up against was truly unwinnable. Imagine an American/German alliance, though, that would've been equally unbeatable.

[@brianlong2334]

Over 8,500 4s, with over 1,100 stug4s, 2,000 jagdpanzer, Sturmpanzer over 300, and a few hundred more other like AA versions. About 12,000 all versions. Compared to the m3/Sherman's about 66,000 all versions. One of the biggest problems was the German industry wasn't fully mobilise behind the war till 1944. Germany built about 20,000 tank's in 1944 out of there total under 50,000... The bombing campaign also destroyed about 30% to 40% of German tank production that year alone, tiger 2 production alone was halved about 600+ were destroyed on factory floors why still under construction, I personally believe this also help to degrade the Germany tank armour as heavy bombing would put stress on the metal but not necessarily been visible or just looked cosmetic. The USA by comparison built 37,000 tank's in 1943 there best year and total about 106,000.

[@militanttriangle2326]

If its mid to latter 1942 being a crew member in an M3 aint all that bad. it could be A LOT worse. What is crazy is a few months later this thing utterly outclassed for the European theater. How quickly that happened is mind bending. However, I think the M3a1 is sort of an oddly sexy tank.....

[@jasonisbored6679]

I remember that the 75mm anti-tank shell (or perhaps the fuse) was French, and meant for regular anti-tank use by regular artillery, which would explain why they were able to use it in sufficient numbers. However, this may be the case for the m4 Sherman as it was used in Europe, not against Germans in Africa like the m3, or it may be completely wrong. If someone knows something about this, please share with me!

[@Slashgibber]

So, Rich Evans cameo when?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

That would be awesome!

[@fredorman2429]

As a modeler I like the M3 in all its variations. It’s intricate and interesting to the eye, particularly in the Bovington desert camouflage. In terms of effective military hardware this is analogous to picking a race horse because one likes the name. Nevertheless I like it.

[@charlietipton8502]

I think this was a great tank at the time for three reasons. 1. They could make a bunch NOW. (Reason enough. There was no competitor available in the numbers needed.) 2. They were reliable. 3. The 75mm reduced the German range advantage. It served its purpose well until the M4 could be produced.

[@benjaminrush4443]

Wow this tank looks sharp ! Actually it is an excellent looking piece of engineering - for the time. Too bad they didn't design this tank entirely like the technology of the top turret ? Good Review. Thanks.

[@billd.iniowa2263]

Really fun to play in wargaming. It cant be snuck up on from behind. A very iconic tank in N Africa.

[@josefgordon7712]

I was always so mad when I first played WoT that you couldn't use all three guns 😅