M3 Stuart

First post on this forum, I actually joined to ask this question, as I hope someone here would be knowledgeable on the subject of this tank. I'm conducting research on this M3 (original, not one of the variants) but unfortunately I cannot find out how many armor plates the tank was constructed from, their BHN, and overall thickness, and other statistics. Any around here know anything thing on this, or can at least point me in the right direction?
If you're curious as to why I want such specific information, it's because I'm working on a realistic video game project. I'm trying to incorporate the tank into the game as realistically as possible, which involves knowing the armor statistics to simulate realistic conditions and outcomes.
Thanks for the help,
-Beskar

 

Welcome!

M3 Stuart had the overall armor thickness of 13 to 51 mm (0.52-2 in). I don't know how much armor plates did it have but the link down below might help you.

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/M3_stuart.php

 

This site may help as well:

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m3stuart.html

 

One source I found suggested that US tank armor was often around 250 BHN. Search string was "armor plate US world war 2". The same source has a table of rolled armor BHN's compared to how thick the armor was.

Inserting "BHN" into the search phrase might help.

 

http://yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html

The link is not specific to the M3 but provide statistics for US armor as a whole.

Sources include the BIOS report GERMAN TANK ARMOUR
ARMOR HANDBOOK(1952) "The Development and Manufacture of the Types of Cast Armor
Employed by the US Army during WWII"
Briggs et al, Ordnance Corps, 1942. EFFECTS of IMPACT & EXPLOSION, and THE PENETRATION OF ARMOUR PLATE.

Code:

US cast armor was of the following BHN:

<32mm:  302-325 BHN
32-64mm:  235-269
76mm: 235-260
102-152mm: 220-250
>152mm: 200

In contrast, the following BHNs apply to US rolled armor:

25mm: 310-350 BHN
38mm: 280-320 
51mm: 260-290
64mm: 240-275
76-127mm: 240-260
>127mm: 220

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/united-states/vehicle/light-tank/m3-light-tank.asp
Always provides well researched numbers. Armor thickness is under Specifications.



Not an perfect system but easy to use. Armor hardness can be adjusted under Advanced.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/


Here's the contact info for the creator.
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_contact&view=contact&id=2&Itemid=62

 

If defining 'original' as the very first variant, then I believe the earliest M3s had face hardened turrets, replaced later in the bulk of production by RHA.
This site seems solidly based on pretty average WW2 era RHA hardness. Chimes well with the above.
What’s “RHA”

People do like to throw around Brinell & Rockwell numbers of late. Almost fashionable. Is it WoT and stuff like that which drives it?
Something charming about the test themselves. Sort of no-nonsense old-fashioned methodology. A tangible, measurable dent. Reminds me of the shot testing dent of earlier armour (faked or otherwise...)

 

"Proofing", old bean

 

Well, so they say. I'm sure I recall some testing a while back that examined armour proof marks and found very few to have any reasonable chance to have come from the much-vaunted pistol.
I always thought 'would I really want to wear armour that had already been shot at?'

(I thought I had better pics of a few. That one the best I could find but it was more related to the overwork hole at the bottom of the peascod. We have a plan to make some armour from billet this year... but now I'm rambling, and this has nothing to do with Stuarts, so I'll stop...:unsure: )

 

Thanks for all the help, I've successfully incorporated these sources along with a few a friend gave me into a set of variables (some estimates..) for the tank's armor. Thanks for all the replies,
- Beskar.

 

Weird how there is an M3 Light and M3 Grant/Lee.
The M3 Light was a honey of a tank- light , roomy and fast.
The M3 Grant/Lee incorporated a much needed increase in firepower, with the sponson mounted 75 mm (although with a limited 30 degree traverse).

 

What is weird about it? There was the M2 light tank and the M2 Medium tank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_light_tank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Medium_Tank

 

My book-
An Illustrated Guide To WW2 Tanks And Fighting Vehicles.
Chris Foss
M3 Light Tank :
Crew : 4
M3, M3A1, M3A2, M3A3...

M3 Grant/Lee Medium Tank :
Crew : 6
M3, M3A1, M3A2, M3A3, M3A4, M3A5, and variants...

The M3 (Light) is not the M3 (Grant). That is confusing.
Maybe my book has a print error.

 

the M3 Light Tank is the M3 Stuart...I wonder why they did not call it the Stuart?

 

They did. General Stuart or more commonly the Stuart or the Honey for the Brits.

 

Which is why i wonder- M3 Stuart and M3 Grant?

 

Ok...Poppy, I will put it simply just for you

Small tank = Stuart
Big tank = Grant/Lee

 

Mmm kay.
Thanks.
So buddy says: we are sending some M3's your way.
No communication breakdown there.
Pretty sure people would like a tad more info.
KISS

 

What part of "Light Tank M3" is different from "Medium Tank M3" is difficult to understand? Do you notice the words that are different in those two phrases?

U.S. Army Ordnance finally took pity on you when they decided the Light Tank M4 was confusing and re-designated it as the Light Tank M5, thus beginning the practice of numbering all tank types in the same sequence. Before that there was a separate sequence for "Light", "Medium", and "Heavy" tanks as well as the "Cavalry Combat Car", which was a tank by any other name?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL5q29wnzks

 

Hey, Pops. If M3 bugs you in US nomenclature, do not under any circumstances look up M1. It's crazy.