The M-3 Grant: America's Nazi Germany Tank-Killer

[@Tigersnack-m7o]

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

[@stefra8685]

mostly versus poor italian tanks....

[@MLA56]

At the time, yes. By 1944, the 75mm guns weren't effective against later-model German tanks, such as the Panzer MkIV and larger. The Western Allies relied on speed and massive numbers, rather than armor and firepower. We don't do that anymore.

[@RogerSmith-yn2gb]

Monty was a show boat and loved the idea of being on camera and in video reels as often as possible

[@Rampant_Colt]

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

[@JoeBlow-fp5ng]

Now they only look for Bigfoot.

[@davidwhitney1171]

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

[@NewYorkKnightsCombat1]

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

[@Mishn0]

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

[@vincentlefebvre9255]

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

[@Arno_L]

It's full of error, I gave up uprgading it when the ICM was issued

[@Snuffy03]

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

[@BOOOZB]

US tanks only get pride on moovies . Because in the real battle field , they only are targets for their ennemies and coffins for their crew .

[@jeffersondeleon925]

Great movie thanks for the reminder 👍🏼

[@Snuffy03]

@@jeffersondeleon925 👍

[@timengineman2nd714]

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

[@bluemouse5039]

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

[@JoeBlow-fp5ng]

@@bluemouse5039 ...and self-sealing fuel tanks which used hunreds of pounds of raw rubber per fighter.

[@RayGoettler]

This M3 Grant tank documentary was tremendous. VERY well done.

[@renaudroyer5390]

Très bon documentaire, merci pour ce partage 😊

[@VincenzoPentangeli]

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

[@Bob-qk2zg]

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

[@ElPolloDelMar1]

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

[@James-nl6fu]

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

[@davidyoung8521]

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

[@hannibalbarca2552]

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

[@Jean-PierreLacoste]

Tu m’as l’air d’un bas ass Tdc

[@ranhat2]

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

[@rustykilt]

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

[@RonOside]

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

[@DonMeaker]

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

[@noninscris]

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

[@allangibson8494]

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

[@drg5352]

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

[@manukillim200]

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

[@brianwolle2509]

excellant! my favorite tank!

[@bitterdrinker]

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

[@ColKlink-cf4ds]

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

[@Yvonlbreton]

Il est stupéfiant bien que guère surprenant que ce documentaire anglais passe sous silence l’exploit des troupes françaises à Birthday Hakeim. Ce sont en effet des troupes françaises libres, constituées de membre de la légion étrangère et de troupes coloniales fidèles au général de Gaulle qui ont défendu héroïquement le petit oasis de bir Hakeim contre les forces allemandes et Italiennes pendant près de 11 jours permettant aux troupes anglaises en retraite de se regrouper et de former une ligne de défense forte. C’est donc au prix de pertes de près de 25% du contingent français que la suite de la bataille d’Afrique du Nord a pu être gagnée par les alliés. Il s’agit d’un des actes héroïques des forces françaises libres durant la seconde guerre mondiale. Oubliée des manuels d’histoire, c’est pourtant un moment d’héroïsme français qu’il serait bon de commémorer pour retrouver un peu de la dignité française…

[@AKSnowbat907]

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

[@kenneth9874]

What empire?

[@manukillim200]

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

[@davidhafner4324]

C’est très bien! An unusually good production.

[@timengineman2nd714]

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

[@dubyacwh7978]

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

[@timengineman2nd714]

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

[@neganrex5693]

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

[@blackdog542]

M2- M3 M5 Stuart all same but different

[@Mishn0]

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

[@allangibson8494]

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

[@troutbassncat3025]

Excellent Documentary. Thanks.

[@jefvillon3050]

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

[@jim.franklin]

Factually incorrect.

[@marcalfonzetti1741]

​@@jim.franklin Je me moque des polémiques. La 1ère brigade de la France Libre tient tête à l'Afrika Korps et aux italiens du 26 mai au 11 juin 1942. Elle va tenir jusqu'au repli des forces britanniques. Et c'est factuellement vrai!

[@I_feel_just_like_a_rockstar]

@@jim.franklin - The 1st Free French Brigade under Général de brigade Marie-Pierre Kœnig defended the position from 26 May - 11 June against Axis forces of Panzerarmee Afrika commanded by Generaloberst Erwin Rommel. - In 1960, the British official historian Ian Playfair wrote : At the outset it had made longer and more difficult the enemy's temporary supply route; it had caused him many casualties and it gave the British a chance to recover from their defeat in the Cauldron. General Kœnig's brigade made a great impression upon the enemy by their courageous and enterprising resistance and their success gave a well-won fillip to the pride of the Free French, who, for the first time in the Middle East, had fought the Germans and Italians in a complete formation on their own. - The delay imposed on the Axis offensive by the defence of Bir Hakeim influenced the cancellation of Operation Herkules, the Axis invasion of Malta. Rommel invaded Egypt, slowed by British delaying actions until the First Battle of El Alamein in July, where the Axis advance was stopped. Both sides used the battle for propaganda, Winston Churchill declared the Free French to be the "Fighting French". -E.g. Hitler to the members of the German general staff in June 11, 1942: “You heard what Koch just said. Bir Hakeim is new evidence of the thesis I always defended: the French are, after us, the best soldiers in Europe. Even with its current birth rate, France will always be able to field a hundred divisions. After the war, we will absolutely have to build a coalition which may contain a country capable of military exploits such as Bir Hakeim wich stun the world”.

[@Wall-Reportersurchemindeterre]

​@@marcalfonzetti1741On n'oublie pas , nous, fils de FFL40. Fière de ce que nos grands -pères ont réalisé.❤

[@Wall-Reportersurchemindeterre]

​@@jim.franklinyes it ils correct french boys were fighting wearing british uniforme.

[@daguard411]

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

[@codyhilton1750]

I agree 100%.

[@timengineman2nd714]

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

[@daguard411]

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

[@timengineman2nd714]

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

[@daguard411]

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

[@andrewcharles459]

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

[@johnwren3976]

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

[@drewschumann1]

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

[@hokehinson5987]

Germany built tanks only at heavy locomotive facilites...maybe that's what the commenter was thinking...

[@Ralfi_PoELA]

I get what your saying but many of these automobile industries built large trucks and tractors. Ford also built various large tank like vehicles early in the 1900's just to flex and demonstrate what they were capable of producing in comparison to the other competing auto manufacturers.

[@JoeBlow-fp5ng]

Absolutely wrong. All US car makers switched to building large military vehicles including taanks and even airplanes with massive government retooling investment.

[@NewYorkKnightsCombat1]

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

[@chefchaudard3580]

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

[@allangibson8494]

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

[@thenorthby5477]

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

[@Hal_T]

Fascinating! Thanks.

[@wolfetom10]

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

[@Chris-ev7xo]

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

[@permafrostinsanity1799]

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

[@Chris-ev7xo]

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

[@lekheyduwasteland5294]

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

[@baron-3841]

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

[@Jujileok7845]

En plus de cela on peut rajouter bir hakeim qui était en réalité tenu par des forces françaises libres et non des anglais.

[@ArthurWright-uv4ww]

Interesting, thanks

[@MLA56]

The Western Allies didn't have any main battle tanks that could effectively fight Panzer MkIV or larger tanks. The Mk4 Shermans weren't, but the idea was to use their speed and sheer numbers, rather than armor and firepower. Later on when I went in the US Army myself, this played a large part in my decision to be an Airborne Infantryman. "Moving foxholes attract attention."

[@crishamedet2018]

Excellent reportage.

[@personnelente]

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

[@patrickrambeaux9796]

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

[@chefchaudard3580]

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

[@corentinlepoittevin5408]

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

[@Kawette56]

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

[@chefchaudard3580]

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

[@thenorthby5477]

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

[@kaijusushi8165]

Is it a coincidence that the M-3 Grant had both of the guns of the early model Panzers 3 and 4's combined into 1 tank?

[@JoeBlow-fp5ng]

Imagine being a crewman in a cramped Lee tank with SIX other men in that desert heat. Especially the poor guys down below who never got a whiff of fresh breeze like the commander could occasionally get up top and the tank filling up with toxic smoke when fiing the guns. Must have been pure torture.

[@superbhasard9369]

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

[@Grebogoborp]

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

[@Arno_L]

Clickbait....

[@randallwong7196]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@Nooneisinnocent575]

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

[@mikes7639]

Still better than french tanks

[@phredphlintstone6455]

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

[@blackdog542]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@blackdog542]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@jean-pierredelsemme578]

Pas valable le titre du film, le Lee/Grant face au japonais qui n'avaient pas grand chose à lui opposer ça passait mais face aux allemands il était obsolète. Sa silouhette haute en faisait une belle cible. C'est pas avec ça que les anglos-saxons allaient gagner la guerre

[@gunnere-5936]

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

[@carlrudd1858]

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

[@lazyidiotofthemonth]

No the United States never named any tank after Confederate Generals, and didn't name the tanks at all, the M3 was simply the M3 Medium, there was also the M3 Light which the BRITISH named the Stuart.

[@antoniocolaianni6690]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@maximilianosoru5120]

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

[@giuseppebiancardi926]

esattamente

[@lpi8410]

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

[@brooksroth345]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

How many of those made it to North Africa?

[@handehande6131]

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

[@boydlewis8747]

why are parts of scenes blurred out?

[@31terikennedy]

No tank can operate without infantry support and air cover.

[@serro-zl3fd]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@fcku9040]

De la propagande bon-marche......avec l'evidence a la fin, etait un bon char quand il n'y avait pas d'autre en face....

[@chefchaudard3580]

Il était meilleur que beaucoup de chars allemands ou italiens contemporains.

[@crabearmy1749]

C’est une blague ? Mdr genre ça c’est la bête noir des panzer 😂😂😂

[@mateoalvaro1435]

Hola. Podrías incorporar subtítulos en español. Gracias

[@thenorthby5477]

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

[@Napoléon-n7v]

Merci, enfin quelqu’un de sensé

[@panzerjagertigerporsche]

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

[@FairladyS130]

[@olivierpuyou3621]

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

[@1974geary]

True. MacArthur was the American jerk

[@janvandaele8283]

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

[@MrSmegfish]

He was not sent in a huff to a barren island

[@SmedleyDouwright]

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

[@Dog.soldier1950]

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

[@blackdog542]

M2 Lee M3 Grant M5 Stuart M4 Sherman (different)

[@drg5352]

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

[@Mishn0]

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

[@Mishn0]

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

[@dspap]

Tas de ferraille dépassé dès sa mise en service.

[@nickdanger3802]

Which tanks were being built in France in 1942?

[@thenorthby5477]

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

[@charleslloyd4253]

The Grant, Lee and Sherman were as far as the producers wanted to go. Because you could only get half as many heavy tanks on trains and ships. And would severely reduce their profits. It was late in the war when America started sending tanks that could go head to head with the tigers. But had to send tanks without their main guns to Briton or Europe. And install their main guns in Europe. To solve transportation problems.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

Nice rug, major.

[@antyge]

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

[@antyge]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

Right, that is why France defeated Germany in 1940.

[@Napoléon-n7v]

Si on a monté une pièce de 75 mm en casemates dans les M3 ce n’est pas pour imiter le B1 français Qui lui a une mécanique, trop souffreteuse pour être réutilisé ni moderniser Si cette pièce de 75 mm fut montée en casemate c’est pour combler à l’urgence et réutiliser les plans du M2 ainsi que les moderniser de plus, la pièce de 47 mm, montées entour, elle était le plus souvent utilisé pour faire face à l’infanterie menace bien plus répandue que les chars Quant au combat, chars contre le lit est parfaitement bien armé avec cette pièce de 75 mm pouvant détruire tous ces adversaires (sans prendre en compte l’arrivée des chats tigre qui arriveront à la fin de la guerre du désert en Tunisie) Non, moi la campagne ou le m3 je suis réellement dépassé et en Italie ou les Sherman sur plus nombreux et bien plus efficace Conclusion, ouvrez un bouquin plutôt que jouer à Word of tanks ou war thunder. Il y en a marre de ceux qui se prennent pour des pseudos experts en armement blindé, sans avoir fait des recherches sérieuses

[@mikehherron4800]

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

[@m-akuttner4300]

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

[@colvinator1611]

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

[@misterfreese3154]

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

[@thenorthby5477]

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

[@scuddyleblanc8637]

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

[@cabana123100]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@Napoléon-n7v]

Gros char nul , monsieur, nous ne sommes pas sur une vidéo de jeu vidéo, mais sur un documentaire historique de plus sont en kazmate de 75 mn peut détruire n’importe quel de ses adversaires (pz3 et 4)

[@peterclark6290]

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

[@williampatience9524]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@franck6014]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@franck6014]

Une surprise ? , c'est juste l'équivalent du B1Bis trois ans plus tard.

[@johntruman4397]

Why keep blocking out the events, its history.

[@jonhildahl9982]

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

[@jeromepattern4557]

Vous êtes sérieux?

[@piergiorgiodemarta407]

À

[@oliviermaurin3180]

Je ne vois pas bien l'intérêt de nous monter des images floutées. Pour les Jo, elles ne l'étaient pas !

[@Anton-qf9ft]

Fate un servizio, sulla battaglia di BIR EL GOBi .

[@JB-rt4mx]

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

[@markbrandon7359]

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

[@JB-rt4mx]

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

[@markbrandon7359]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@JB-rt4mx]

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

[@haricot929]

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

[@hannibalbarca2552]

Juste des faits pour le coup

[@Napoléon-n7v]

Eh bien monsieur, si vous vous prenez pour l’égal des archiviste et historiens qui travaillent au musée anglais des blindés de Boddington, on vous regarde

[@alexhayden2303]

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

[@paolocau3920]

A Sherman

[@alexhayden2303]

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

[@paolocau3920]

@@alexhayden2303 You are tight, I'm sorry

[@paolocau3920]

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

[@alexhayden2303]

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

[@zillsburyy1]

this could have been 20 minutes shorter

[@jamessills5802]

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

[@marijanmacek1244]

"M-3 Grant: morilec tankov ameriške nacistične Nemčije" He was such a Nazi tank killer that on the Eastern Front he was nicknamed the "Tomb for the Seven Brothers".

[@JRos-qc6kw]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@lorenzodieguez230]

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

[@claudioslaneesh7640]

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

[@shawnhierlihy3690]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@ericcriton2972]

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

[@nickdanger3802]

Source?

[@misterfreese3154]

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

[@Malphoeloka02]

Le canon des leclerc sont de quel pays ?

[@misterfreese3154]

@@Malphoeloka02 qu'elle est le rapport avec le sujets ?

[@misterfreese3154]

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

[@edtrine8692]

Or AA guns in the anti-tank role?

[@edtrine8692]

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

[@edtrine8692]

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

[@penfold9540]

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

[@Carl-ht7cg]

Donate to the "Wounded Warrior Project"

[@markbradford8626]

well this is 20 years old

[@johnnyg3166]

This was one of thee worst tanks of WW2

[@nickdanger3802]

Source?

[@johnnyg3166]

@@nickdanger3802 ww2 performance in combat

[@nickdanger3802]

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

[@bogusmogus9551]

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

[@klingonhoney]

M3 was definitely not a panzer killer ... quite a bit obsolete for tank warfare even in the beginning of the conflict ... you should update your Intel.

[@spectre750]

In the clip at 45:36 the film is reversed as it shows a pair of Grants with the 75mm gun in the left of the hull.🤪

[@blacksmith3958]

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