Man,. this tank is something,. it event served well years long after WW2,.
Needing a tank now the US rushed to build the M3 Grant. The Grant design centered on the M2 75mm cannon, a good weapon in the first few years of the war. Unfortunately, there was no time to design a turret for that weapon, so the M3 carried a casemated 75mm with limited traverse, and the 37mm turret off the M3 Stuart light tank. Despite its high silhouette and riveted construction, the M3 proved mechanically reliable and the 75mm was appreciated by Britsh tankers.
I’m wondering if you wrote this or are you quoting a source? Since the naming of the vehicles was a distinctly British thing you should know that the M3 was first called the “Lee” and when it was up graded with a roomier cast turret that variant was named the “Grant” as far as I know the Grant version was only used by the British. Neither the Lee nor the Grant had a turret from the M3 “Stuart”.
Lee on the right Grant on the left
M3A1 Stuart, note the turret:
The one thing about the M4 brewing up was that we used 100 octane aviation gas in our tanks where the Germans did not. This tended to fire up quicker than the poorly refined fuel they were using. The Germans would also keep shooting a tank until it burned so that it could not be put back into service (note most photos show multiple hits, why if it burned from the first one?). A burned tank’s armor was compromised by the intense heat, unburned tanks could be back in sevice in two or three days depending on how long it took to get it back to a service depot.
As the Russian report stated, the M4’s ammo did not explode during a fire like the T-34 's did. This must mean that the newer wet storage methods were working.
I like how on the first picture, there are blocks in front of the track. I don’t think those blocks would put up much of a fight if the tank started to move.
They would if it was just rolling down a grade but not if it was under power.
That’s true, which is why I never said they couldn’t, but would only be hard pressed.
Anyway, how would the design of the turret affect the tank’s preformance? If the gun fits in one, why use time you could be using to build the first one to build the other one?
The British wanted to move the radio gear up into the overhanging turret and eliminate the 7th crewman. It also, though just barely, lowered the tank’s silouette.
That thing had 7 people in it? Wow… that must have been cramped.
Check out the M3 Lee thread there’s 3 pages of info on them.
7 guys
Sweet, nice caption too.
The Americans did have a better tank than the Sherman. It was called the A-67 prototype. Due to its high costs the prototype was not mass produced and the Sherman had already been canvassed as the best tank by political lobby groups that had an economic interest in its production. There were fewer than 200 A-67’s built but there appearance in the battle against Rommel proved them to be much superior than the Sherman. As far as I know, it was cheaper to build the Sherman because it wasn’t known that there was a better tank at the time. Refer to recent released declassified articles on U.S. tank prototypes:2007 Military files.
Hi Herman, welcome.
On topic, was the A-67 in any way related to the M-27 tank? The M-27 was the genesis of the T-20/23 projects which ultimately paved the way for the Pershing/Patton series of tanks (but the M-27 was rejected by Army Ground Forces Command, for no real good reason)…
Bump!
the gun was waek and the armor was ok
It was very mobile, and easily produced tank. It wasn’t meant to take on the heavier tanks(Tiger and King Tiger), it was more of an infantry support tank.It could also be easily modified into other forms, ex.: Crab, Crocodile, etc.
it was fast,had ok armor, and great agility, an ok gun as well
It was also highly upgradable, into variants such as the “Firefly” or “Easy-Eight” with the 76mm gun. Provided it had tungsten ammo, and applique armor, the tank was pretty much a dead wash with the Soviet T-34…
The great weakness of the tank, the fact that it was never improved until after Normandy was a mitigatable fault…
A site with a lot of very nice pictures of pretty Shermans:
http://anonymous-generaltopics.blogspot.com/2008/05/m4-sherman-medium-tank.html
Sherman was actual counterpart of T-34. The medium mass-prodused tank.
Having the better electrical equipment but bit thin armor and speed ,Sherman did has an soft carriage.
BTW it was still effective agains Tigers.
I read a story of soviet panzer vet who told as group of lend-lise Shermans were hunting for german Tiger in ambush.
The group of 2-3 Shermans wait the moving Tiger. First Sherman open fire under bottom of Tiger, targeting the track. If track was broken( if not the first Sherman retreats, rest Shermans start to fire on Tiger , covering first) the Tiger stops and turn the turret searching the first Sherman that fired.First Sherman move back , hiding in ambush.In that same time other Shermans open fire , targeting side of Tiger where the armor was weaker.
This tactic helped to destroy the figure of Tigers in the East.
It was risky tactic but our boys always were desperate , you know.
The other way of fight with Heavy germans panzers was to shot the Fire-Ammo down under bottom the Tiger, set it on fire.
i found this picture of a sherman in iraq isnt that wierd
It’s probably an Israeli Super Sherman. I wonder why the truck has the Polish flag though.
Probably because it is Polish? The Poles were among about 3 countries to provide troops for the original invasion of Iraq, and have been there intermittently since.