Questions about M3 Tank

[YankeeDog]

I must say I'm very much looking forward to playing with this and other multi-turret designs in CMAK. I have a couple of questions/speculations about the M3 Grant/Lee that I would be curious to get grogs comments and opinions upon.

1) I sometimes see the M3 listed as having a crew of 7, sometimes only 6. I would have guessed that the crew position missing in the 6-man crew was the 37mm loader, but one website I found listed the 6-man crew tasking as commander, driver, 2 gunners, and 2 loaders, meaning that someone must have done double duty on the radio. Does anybody know what the actual tasking of the 6-man crew was, and was the 6-man crew simply an expedient used when tank crewmen were in short supply, or was this a national or time period difference?

2) I understand the drawbacks of the M3's design and why Allied tankers were probably glad to move on to the M4 when it came available. However, with 3 MGs (all with protected firing positions for the Lee, at least), a 37mm gun, and a 75mm gun, the M3 would seem to be a real winner against soft (infantry) targets. As such, it would seem that managing to win the armor battle with M3s could leave a player in a really good position, since even one surviving M3 could dish out a lot of hurt very quickly against infantry targets. I'd be curious to hear any beta tester/sneak previewer comments on this!

Cheers,

YD

[JasonC]

It dishes out hurt about like a Sherman. The sponson 75 doesn't have the rapid target acquisition of the Sherman's turreted one, or the range, or the ability to fire hull down. The 37mm is useful against light armor certainly, but a marginal addition against infantry.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:
It dishes out hurt about like a Sherman. The sponson 75 doesn't have the rapid target acquisition of the Sherman's turreted one, or the range, or the ability to fire hull down. The 37mm is useful against light armor certainly, but a marginal addition against infantry. What about Canister? Did the 37 in the Lee fire this round?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
What about Canister? Did the 37 in the Lee fire this round? Probably not in NA, at least until they got to Tunisia. I don't know about Italy.

Michael

[dragonwagon]

To the russians the Lee was known as "A Grave For Seven Brothers" because of it's tendency to burn......
I have four pictures of American Lee tanks in Africa ,3 of the four show 6 guys standing in front of thier tank , so it would seem that the crew number may vary going by the photos , or the seventh crewman is taking the photo.

[YankeeDog]

Thanks Jason.

I would have thought that the fact that the M3 can actually fire from 3 MGs *and* the 75mm gun simultaneously would make it somewhat more effective against infantry than the Sherman, which can only fire from one MG and the main gun simultaneously. Of course, the additional MG firepower would only be really noticible at sub-300m ranges where the MGs have appreciable firepower, and I can also see how the less than desirable layout of the main gun might offset any advantages of the additional MGs.

Anyone know anything about the number of crew? For starters, I'd be curious to hear how many crew members CMAK assigns to the M3. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Speedy]

Just curious and it may have already been answered, but if you get gun damage on a Grant/Lee does it knock out both main guns?

[ October 12, 2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Speedy ]

[flamingknives]

Hope not - that'd be daft.
I'd expect
Front upper hull hit - Gun damaged
and
Front turret hit - Gun damaged

[Kestrl]

The M3, M3A1, M3A2, M3A3, M3A4, M3A5, Grant I, Lee I, ect all have 6 crew members ( commander, driver, Loaders (2), gunners (2) )

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/usa/m3_medium_02.jpg


Had to add a nice picture of a M3 smile.gif

[Madmatt]

This is actually something we did quite a bit of research on.

In CMAK we have the M3 Grants with 7 men crews - two gunners,two loaders, driver, tank commander, and radio operator (he was also the spare driver).

While we did find anecdotal evidence that at *some* point the radio operator's job might have been rolled over to the driver it seems that while the M3's were in combat they used 7 men, at least while in use by the US. Charles Lemons, curator of the Patton Museum, was also contacted to check our findings and he said much the same.

Due to manpower shortages, the British may have fielded some M3's with 6 men, but again, finding proof of this has been difficult so we decided to be conservative and keep the crew at 7.

Madmatt

[ October 12, 2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Madmatt:
Due to manpower shortages, the British may have fielded some M3's with 6 men, but again, finding proof of this has been difficult so we decided to be conservative and keep the crew at 7.I may be mistaken, but I have supposed that one of the reasons the Grant moved the radio from the hull to the turret was so that the TC could take care of it and thus free up one crew member.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for the response, Madmatt!

I look forward to playing with them once the game is released!

Cheers,

YD

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
Probably not in NA, at least until they got to Tunisia. I don't know about Italy.

Michael I thought the M3 only served in the line in NA? Other then in the Pacific I mean.

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
Probably not in NA, at least until they got to Tunisia. I don't know about Italy.

Michael I thought the M3 only served in the line in NA? Other then in the Pacific I mean.</font>[/QUOTE]You think they stopped using Stuarts and 37mm armed armored cars when they crossed the Mediterranean?

Michael

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
Probably not in NA, at least until they got to Tunisia. I don't know about Italy.

Michael I thought the M3 only served in the line in NA? Other then in the Pacific I mean.</font>[/QUOTE]You think they stopped using Stuarts and 37mm armed armored cars when they crossed the Mediterranean?

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]No O Great Horseman Ye, I'm talking about the M3 Medium - the Grant. I could swear I read somewhere that the U.S. Army didn't use any Grants in Sicily or Italy.

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dalem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
Probably not in NA, at least until they got to Tunisia. I don't know about Italy.I thought the M3 only served in the line in NA? Other then in the Pacific I mean.</font>[/QUOTE]You think they stopped using Stuarts and 37mm armed armored cars when they crossed the Mediterranean?
</font>[/QUOTE]No O Great Horseman Ye, I'm talking about the M3 Medium - the Grant. I could swear I read somewhere that the U.S. Army didn't use any Grants in Sicily or Italy.</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, I see the problem now. Yes, I believe you are right about the Lee/Grant not serving in Italy. I was referring to cannister being used there. I don't know whether it was or wasn't.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

I take great pride in having the best reading skills of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse :D

[CombinedArms]

What about the 75mm gun on the Grant/Lee. Is this the same 75mm we find on the Sherman, or an earlier version? Does it have the same AP capability as a Sherman? I realize the Sherman AP we've had in CMBO/CMBB is actually an averaging of two different rounds with different capabilities. Even if the gun is the same, perhaps the Grant/Lee models the earlier and less effective round?

I'm asking because if the Grant 75mm equals the Sherman's AP capability, it would be quite a capable AP gun for its period--able to kill Stugs and PzIVs with some efficiency and more than a match for the the PzIII. Only the occasional Tiger might present a serious problem. I'm assuming that no Panthers appeared in NA.

[dalem]

Originally posted by CombinedArms:
What about the 75mm gun on the Grant/Lee. Is this the same 75mm we find on the Sherman, or an earlier version?My "grog-lite" answer is: the Grant's 75mm gun is a different gun than that on the Sherman, and used older, less effective ammo as well. I would expect a lower overall antitank perormance from the Grant for those reasons (aside from it being in a simple sponson as opposed to a turret), but it was still a good antitank piece as compared to anything else the Brits had mounted on their AFV at the time.

All the above is to be ignored if a "full grog" answers, of course. smile.gif

-dale

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by dalem:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CombinedArms:
What about the 75mm gun on the Grant/Lee. Is this the same 75mm we find on the Sherman, or an earlier version?My "grog-lite" answer is: the Grant's 75mm gun is a different gun than that on the Sherman, and used older, less effective ammo as well. I would expect a lower overall antitank perormance from the Grant for those reasons (aside from it being in a simple sponson as opposed to a turret), but it was still a good antitank piece as compared to anything else the Brits had mounted on their AFV at the time.

All the above is to be ignored if a "full grog" answers, of course. smile.gif

-dale </font>[/QUOTE]No, no, no! The benefits of the 75mm was not AT performace, but the fact that it had a decent HE round, which is clearly lacking from the 6pdr, which was the standard tank and ATG at the time. Being as the 6pdr was still in use, with not inconsiderable effect, 3 years later indicates that its problem is not AT performance.

[dalem]

Originally posted by flamingknives:
No, no, no! The benefits of the 75mm was not AT performace, but the fact that it had a decent HE round, which is clearly lacking from the 6pdr, which was the standard tank and ATG at the time. Being as the 6pdr was still in use, with not inconsiderable effect, 3 years later indicates that its problem is not AT performance. Well true, but how many Brit AFV mounted the 6pdr?

-dale

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by dalem:
Well true, but how many Brit AFV mounted the 6pdr?

-dale Churchill, Valentine, Deacon, AEC Mk II

[ October 13, 2003, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Emrys]

But the 6pdr was not yet seeing front line service on a tank at the time that the Grant first appeared in NA, spring, 1942, or for some months thereafter.

Michael

[dalem]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
But the 6pdr was not yet seeing front line service on a tank at the time that the Grant first appeared in NA, spring, 1942, or for some months thereafter.

Michael That was also my thought.

-dale

[flamingknives]

Ugh, I have the reference as to when the 6pdr was introduced, and it is quite early.
Unfortunately that resides some sixty miles from where I do, so I can't refer to it.

But...
Using a backup source and the 'net, I get an in service date of 09/1941 for the 6pdr ATG, 06/1942 for the Crusader III and 03/1942 for the Churchill III, both armed with the 6pdr.
The Churchill was not used in any great numbers though, so there does seem to be a bigger gap between the M3 and the 6pdr-armed British tanks than I realised.

The M3s were still popular post 6pdr though, as they had a dual purpose gun.

[ October 13, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by flamingknives:
Using a backup source and the 'net, I get an in service date of 09/1941 for the 6pdr ATG...Irrelevant. We are discussing its use on a tank.

The second point is that "in service" here is misleading. It may well have been issued to troops in England by that date, but the earliest date I have for its use against an enemy in NA is during the Gazala battles, and then only in small numbers.

06/1942 for the Crusader III and 03/1942 for the Churchill III, both armed with the 6pdr.Again, "in service" is meaningless in the context of the present discussion. The Crusader would not have seen fighting before el Alamein, the Churchill not before Tunisia.

Michael

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:
Using a backup source and the 'net, I get an in service date of 09/1941 for the 6pdr ATG...Irrelevant. We are discussing its use on a tank.
</font>[/QUOTE]Oh pull your teeth in, I was including it for the sake of completeness and also to demonstrate why I thought that it's use might have been earlier.

Again, "in service" is meaningless in the context of the present discussion. The Crusader would not have seen fighting before el Alamein, the Churchill not before Tunisia.
The Churchill was used in NA pre-Tunisia, but only in limited numbers, as I noted (7, I think, took part in the Alamein battles. There's a report of something like 3 Churchills causing a German officer to claim that his position was under attack by a mad tank battalion)

IOW, I appear to have been mistaken, due in part to the M3 entering service earlier that I had previously thought, and the Crusader MkIII later.

The M3 was, however, in service with the British army for a significant period when the 6pdr was the standard tank gun. The post I answered to (admitedly a bit hotly) didn't specify a period, so I assumed that they meant it's whole service life.