Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Lend-lease tanks...

Discussion in 'Information Requests' started by Andreas, Sep 14, 2000.

  1. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    289
    No "flops" Clint! They were good as support tanks as you mentioned. But they were introduced to the Landsers as unbeatable new battle tanks which they weren´t. But i´m reaaly sure that Rommel would have been glad to have them in this numbers you had.
     
  2. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    220
    Perhaps to put it into context, if the French were somehow still fighting at the time the M3 came in, you can bet that they'd probably still have Char-Bs on the frontline, as the Soviets still would have had T-28s for instance if any had survived - The M3 wasn't so much out of date, just slightly.
     
  3. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Not a problem Ulrich, I was simply pointing out that as a "stop-gap" production tank they weren't too bad. Here is an article called; In Defense of a "Bad Tank".

    Goto:

    In Defense of a "Bad" Tank » History Net

    They did look "too tall" (10’ 3" [3.02 meters]) because of their narrow width (8’11" [2.7?meters]), but as a "stop gap" tank construction while America tried to perfect and build a full 360 degree turret for the 75mm, it wasn’t that bad really. Its two inch frontal armor and inch and a half side armor were far from "optimal", but not all that bad compared to the tanks it was built to confront.
     
  4. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    289
    Thanks for the link,Clint!
     
  5. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Ulrich, you are most welcome.

    The M3, in both configurations (Lee/Grant) was really a very small production run in US armor as we geared up for war, just over 6,000+ from April of 1941- December of 1942. When you compare that little number with the nearly 50,000 M4s of all variations in the next three years between 1942-'45 , the M3 was a stop-gap only.

    But it was what we had to offer to our allies to start off, not a "bad tank" but far from a "good tank" either. It was a stop-gap design while the other "better" things could be fitted out for above the hull, and hull design could be perfected.
     
  6. Gebirgsjaeger

    Gebirgsjaeger Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2010
    Messages:
    4,333
    Likes Received:
    289
    The most the riveted versions. I have seen some of them, no matter which type and country, they had the look of a busted sausage. But you´re right the Brits needed them hardly!
     
  7. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Double thumbs up mate? They are twins, thats for sure. I dont know when ill find my Grossdeutschland at Kursk pix-all two of them, but soon as I find them? ill let you know and will make a special CD for you and mail it to you. Ive got questions about other vehicles I have pix of too ;-)) Ill not know for sure on which tank it is for sure till I see the ppix again. I dont want to set anything in stone by saying this but, (and as my memory is bad but) I THINK the tank in question in that pix, had rivits. Just been too long since i last saw it to be sure of anything other than it was Koed by men from the GD Division at Kursk ;-))
     
  8. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Sounds like in that original thread that showed my pix od a Koed Ami tank @ Kursk, that both Brad was correct???? Im scratching my head on this one.

    Just looked at thta other thread and I cant believ e I called it a Sherman :rolleyes:
     
  9. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    One more thing that I have to say is-that damn you guys are good, on tank specs and such. ;-)) Whenever I find my other photo Cds and get copies made? im going to send a copy to whomever will feel like posting those pix for me with their thoughts on them and as to their exact designations. This quest may take months in the making though as much of my stuff is still in storage and I have no access to on a regular basis :-(
     
  10. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    220
    All cast turret and 6-pounder main gun makes it a MkIV. The Russians got a mix of MkIII and Mk IV, the only real difference being the welded turret on the MkIII, although you often see MkIIIs without a muzzlebrake, I don't think it was particularly the Mark, just the current gun supply.
     
  11. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    220
  12. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    220

    We could be able to go back through your old postings as well and ID any stuff you want more info about, although some of the photos are either no longer available or I'm having technical issues today :)
     
  13. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    855
    Hi Nigel, I couldnt actually still see the px but found the post that the pix was described in ;-)0 I CANT believe I called it a Sherman :lol:
     
  14. Spartanroller

    Spartanroller Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    220
    It's the same thing, just put together by someone with less supervision and a more artistic temperament :)
     

Share This Page