"Lee" vs "Grant" [Archive] - Battlefront Forum

CombinedArms

10-13-2003, 03:08 AM

The real grogs will be along soon to straighten us all out, but here's what I think happened.

The Brits named the first of these tanks they got "Lees" (as they also would name the Stuart and Sherman--and the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, etc.) Then, they named their modifed-coupola version the "Grant." The modified Grant tanks served against the Africa Corps and became famous. Meanwhile, unmodified tanks were shipped to the Russians and used by the Americans in the Torch invasion. These were all Lees, in the sense that they weren't the modified version. On the other hand, since the name hadn't been officially used by the Ami's, the were officially just M3 Medium tanks.

Because of the fame of the Africa Corps battles (and maybe because he was the Union general??) the name Grant has tended to predominate in popular discourse to cover both tanks, which were in most respects quite similar. Many tanks that the British would have termed Lees are probably now loosely referred to as Grants.

I'm personally not going to bust a gut whatever BFC chooses to call them, but that's the history as I understand/recall it. Can't seem to find my reference books at the moment. Glad the Brits stopped this name switching from version to version because if they'd given a new name to each successive version of the Sherman (Meade, McClellan, Burnside, Beauregard), we'd all be hopelessly confused. :D

[ October 13, 2003, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

Pvt. Ryan

10-13-2003, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by TANK ACE:
why they do that? british not have any good generals? They reserved those names for beef dishes.

Wallybob

10-13-2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TANK ACE:
why they do that? british not have any good generals? They reserved those names for beef dishes. [/QUOTE]Which explains why we don't have "Beef Montgomery".

Michael Emrys

10-13-2003, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by CombinedArms:
The Brits named the first of these tanks they got "Lees" (as they also would name the Stuart and Sherman--and the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, etc.)I would be delighted to know where you got all this information from. In fact, if you could provide me with direct quotes regarding each and every name you list above, I would be absolutely ecstatic.

;)

Michael

flamingknives

10-13-2003, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Bruceov:
Now, one more question. Was this tank junk. Was it effective. In picking tanks for the Brit in a QB would it be better to select a British model. Depends what you want.

The British tanks used concurrently with the M3 were mostly armed with 6pdrs, and as such had a bit better AT performace, but their HE was nothing to speak of, and the armour wasn't too hot. They were faster than the M3 though.

The M3 gives you some HE to kill ATGs with and as such was much appreciated by the British.

Originally posted by: TANK ACE
actually the names grant and lee came from the Americans that used them after the Civil war Generals, southerners named them lees, northerners named them Grants, and others called it the M3 purple heart boxAll sources I've seen attribute the names to the British and the difference to slightly different models.
The 'purple heart box' was the name given to the M3 halftracks mounting a 75mm gun and used as tank destroyers, at least according to "An Army at Dawn"

atiff

10-13-2003, 08:13 AM

I'm still amused that the Germans called the M3 the "Pilot" for a while.

CombinedArms

10-13-2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CombinedArms:
The Brits named the first of these tanks they got "Lees" (as they also would name the Stuart and Sherman--and the Mustang, Thunderbolt, Lightning, etc.)I would be delighted to know where you got all this information from. In fact, if you could provide me with direct quotes regarding each and every name you list above, I would be absolutely ecstatic.

;)

Michael [/QUOTE]All this stuff is pretty much common knowledge, but, to oblige a fellow CM battler no request is too much.

Regarding the British tendency to name American tanks, this site gives a quite thorough review of the British names for every US medium tank:
Sherman Register-British Designations (http://web.inter.nl.net/users/spoelstra/g104/gbdesig.htm)
Actually, it covers more than just Shermans--also Lees, Grants and other medium tanks. A Google search should get you to info on Stuarts, Jacksons and such.

Similarly, this website here (http://http://scalemodel.net/p-51d.asp)
is one of many that confirms the British named the Mustang. "The first production model was completed within one year and shipment was made to Great Britain in November 1941. The RAF named it the Mustang."
Many sources confirm, as well, that the British named the Lightning. But I think memory was playing a trick on me with the Thunderbolt. That appears to be an American name (and that makes sense, since the British never really flew many Thunderbolts, while they took early deliveries of the Mustang and Lightning.)

As I understand it, the US military was taking a businesslike, numerical approach to designation of weapons. A tank was an M3 or an M4. A plane was a P51 or a P38. They didn't need names. The British felt a need for names of weapons that they were often the first to put into combat, and they were good at them (consider the Spitfire and the British "C" tank series). So the British names filled a vacuum and they stuck. Later, the American military adopted the British approach to naming tanks and they're still named after American Generals.

[ October 13, 2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

Monty

10-13-2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Wallybob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TANK ACE:
why they do that? british not have any good generals? They reserved those names for beef dishes. [/QUOTE]Which explains why we don't have "Beef Montgomery". [/QUOTE]HEY ! Watch it old bean !

;)

Monty

Michael Emrys

10-13-2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by flamingknives:
The British tanks used concurrently with the M3 were mostly armed with 6pdrs...Um, you need to be a bit more careful about that, I think. At the time of the Gazala battles, all the British built tanks were still using the 2pdr. I don't think the 6pdr was found in quantity prior to Second Alamein, and even then it was not universal.

Michael

Michael Emrys

10-13-2003, 06:22 PM

I shall be looking into your sources when I get some more time. In the meanwhile...

Originally posted by CombinedArms:
As I understand it, the US military was taking a businesslike, numerical approach to designation of weapons. A tank was an M3 or an M4. A plane was a P51 or a P38. They didn't need names....Is demonstrably false. Although I agree that the Mustang was given its name by the British who commissioned its construction, the Americans had an existing tradition of naming their airplanes, going back at least a dozen years. For instance, the P-38 was originally called the Skybolt and this name was given to it by concurrance between Lockheed and the USAAF. I'll have to dig up some references to cover how the name change to Lightning came about. But to reiterate, both the Air Force and the Navy were quite accustomed to naming their own planes.

I have also read that 'Lee' was the name given to the M3 by the Americans and the Brits changed it to 'Grant' when they added the modified turret, but I shall be looking more deeply into this. I also understand that the Sherman was named before it entered British service but that too I shall be reëxamining at your prompting.

Added later: Okay, I got out my Chamberlain & Ellis and they agree with you about the naming of the tanks. This is a point in favor of your position, but since they are sometimes mistaken and may have not felt the matter warrented close examination, they may have erred here as well. I regard the question as still open, but as I too am willing to go only so far to pick a nit, I will for the time being retire from the field on this.

smile.gif

However, I remain adamant that the US with few exceptions (and the Mustang was one; the Liberator may have been another) named their own airplanes.

Michael

[ October 13, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

CombinedArms

10-14-2003, 02:12 PM

Well, Michael, nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion--and I'm a bit surprised by the intensity of your tone.

Anyway, I'll concede that the Americans, with such prominent exceptions as the Mustang and Lightning, named there own airplanes if you'll concede that the British named such tanks as the Lee, Grant and Sherman. You seem to want to distrust your own sources as well as mine on this one--ultimately, I think you're going to have to satisfy yourself on this point. ;)

Michael Emrys

10-14-2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by CombinedArms:
Well, Michael, nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion--and I'm a bit surprised by the intensity of your tone.Mmmm? I was a bit surprised by the flippancy in yours to be frank. But I hope we can shake hands and agree that no offense was intended on either side.

Anyway, I'll concede that the Americans, with such prominent exceptions as the Mustang and Lightning, named there own airplanes if you'll concede that the British named such tanks as the Lee, Grant and Sherman. You seem to want to distrust your own sources as well as mine on this one--ultimately, I think you're going to have to satisfy yourself on this point. ;) I fully intend to...in due time.

You see, I have become accustomed to reading in various sources assertions considerably at variance with your own, and am at some pains to resolve the differences. It seemed at first incredible that the position that you held could be true, but I admit that it is a stronger one than it first appeared and you may not simply be quoting some oddball factoid picked up on the internet (of which I hope we can agree there is an abundance). Again, no offense is intended. I'm just trying to explain what you describe as "intensity".

Michael

Siege

10-15-2003, 12:05 AM

Thankfully I just read myself some good info on all the topics at hand here....so I can pretend to be a Grog today, but am more of a G.I.T. (Grog in Training)

The main difference between the Lee and Grant tanks was in the turret. The original US M3 Medium tank was called the "General Lee" by the British in their smart move of giving names to things in order to boost morale of the crews. However they felt the Lee was overly tall and had some problems. They had a new turret designed that removed the upper coupola/mini-turret. The rear of the turret was extended to add in a radio for the commander and they also fitted an internal 2in smoke mortar. The lower hull had a driver periscope added, as the US version of the tank had only a hatch with a viewing slit for the driver. This modified version was called the "General Grant".

Coincidently, they only named their US made tanks after US Generals. The home-brew stuff got appropriately British names. We only picked up the trend later on with the Chaffee and Pershing lines, everything earlier got their names from the Brits.

From what I have seen, the tank performed very well in combat from the outset. The rush into production made it the first western allied tank with a 75mm gun and the armor was also adequate for the time against early PzIII and IV with the short 50mm and short 75mm guns. The biggest improvement was the HE shells that the M3's could fire against AT guns. The 2pdr had only AP shells which were useless against anti-tank guns. The main drawback was slower speed and higher maintenance needs as compared to other tanks. The article I am reading states "overall, they were thought to be as good or better than the panzer IV with armour protection bagainst the 50mm gun better than that of the crusader". I know Rommell had a few comments about the shock he recieved from the introduction of the Grant/Lee series.

Oddly enough this article also says that the Sherman tanks were originally called the "Swallow". No idea where THAT came from. One major positive trait the Grant/Lee had was armored ammunition storage, something that early Shermans lacked and was a major contributor to their reputation.

As to the naming of Airplanes, most pre-war US airplanes were un-named, and later aircraft were almost universally named by their manufacturer. The Mustang being one of the major exceptions. The original US name for the Mustang was "Apache", however after the British name caught on the Apache name was only appied to the A-36 dive bomber version of the P-51. Curtis started the US naming trend with their "Hawk" series of biplane fighters and "Helldiver" biplane dive-bomber. The names were used for advertising of oversea's sales and company recognition with customers. By the time hostilites began, all the other manufacturers had jumped on board and gave the names to the aircraft themselves. Most companies liked to apply some type of theme to their names to aid brand recognition....Grumman had their Cats, Bell used the "Aero" prefix (aerocobra, aerocuda, aerocomet), Vought had been using the name Corsair since the late 20's for an earlier series of scout/bombers, Curtis put "Hawk" in just about everything they could.

From my sources, the "Lightning I" of the RAF was a P-38F and the "Lightning II" a P-38G, while the P-38D was the first to be called "Lightning".

-Hans

[ October 14, 2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Siege ]

Stalin's Organ

10-15-2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Monty:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Wallybob:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TANK ACE:
why they do that? british not have any good generals? They reserved those names for beef dishes. [/QUOTE]Which explains why we don't have "Beef Montgomery". [/QUOTE]HEY ! Watch it old bean !
[/QUOTE]Not just beef - baked dishes too - like baked beans!! :D

SgtMuhammed

10-15-2003, 07:28 AM

At the beginning of the war the U.S. was quite utilitarian about naming tanks. We had such inspiring names like "Medium Tank M3," or "Light Tank M3." Which were sure to stir the passions of their crews. The Brits, being a little more personally involved with their weapons, started naming them. So history remembers the Grant/Lee, the Stuart (or Honey, as in that is a honey of a tank), and the Sherman (originally the rousing Medium Tank M4, brings a tear to your eye doesn't it).

With aircraft we had little better tradition in that we actually did give them names. The Brits were better at it though. The change from the Apache to the Mustang is understandable as the P-51 and the A-36 were radically different aircraft even though they shared the same airframe. The original name for the Lightning was the "Electra," which brings to mind such stiring images as blenders and vacuum cleaners. Truely an image to take to war. I think the Brits figured that even though the early models sucked like a vacuum if they gave it a better name maybe pilots wouldn't mind dying in it, so was born the Lightning.

The U.S. lack of naming skill continues to this day. The official name of the F-16 is the "Fighting Falcon," which the crews hate. Thus it is shortened to the more acceptable "Falcon."

Ant

10-15-2003, 08:18 AM

The U.S. lack of naming skill continues to this day. The official name of the F-16 is the "Fighting Falcon," which the crews hate. Thus it is shortened to the more acceptable "Falcon."The more common unofficial name for the F-16 in the USAF is the 'viper'

SgtMuhammed

10-15-2003, 08:44 AM

Or the "Electric Jet." Don't know if that one is still in wide use. Haven't talked to any 16 drivers in a while.

flamingknives

10-15-2003, 08:51 AM

F-15 "Eagle"
F-4 "Phantom"
F-22 "Raptor"
F/A-18 "Hornet"
V-22 "Osprey"

Yada yada...

Determinant

10-15-2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by flamingknives:

V-22 "Osprey"
Named in honour of the 'Men at Arms' series one presumes?

Michael Dorosh

10-15-2003, 04:45 PM

The CF-18 is unofficially known as "Hornet" also, but cannot be officially called same, since in French (Canada's second official language), the literal translation of "Hornet" is "useless drone"...

Private Bluebottle

10-15-2003, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

The U.S. lack of naming skill continues to this day. The official name of the F-16 is the "Fighting Falcon," which the crews hate. Thus it is shortened to the more acceptable "Falcon." Its called the "Fighting Falcon" because Dassault, very cleverly 10 years before the F-16 started production built an aircraft called, yes, you're right, the "Falcon" and copyrighted the name.

Something else Americans can blame the French for... :D

Siege

10-15-2003, 11:07 PM

Don't forget that Curtis was the first with a "Falcon", they had a series of mail planes and civilian biplanes in the late 20's early 30's. Either way, "Fighting Falcon" is a lame name.

One of these days I really want to look up one French airplane with a name we have all come to love. They actually had a prototype fighter called "Grognard"!!!!

-Hans

lcm1947

10-16-2003, 07:27 PM

From what I have seen, the tank performed very well in combat from the outset. The rush into production made it the first western allied tank with a 75mm gun and the armor was also adequate for the time against early PzIII and IV with the short 50mm and short 75mm guns. The biggest improvement was the HE shells that the M3's could fire against AT guns. The 2pdr had only AP shells which were useless against anti-tank guns. The main drawback was slower speed and higher maintenance needs as compared to other tanks. The article I am reading states "overall, they were thought to be as good or better than the panzer IV with armour protection bagainst the 50mm gun better than that of the crusader". I know Rommell had a few comments about the shock he recieved from the introduction of the Grant/Lee series.
--------------------------------------------------
While the above is true it must also be pointed out that this tank was very tall and therefore over exposed to enemy guns/tanks. Also, and I believe this the main problem of the tank was that it didn't have a turret thereby the cannon couldn't move except for a very limited range really hurting it's abilities in tank against tank battles. Anyway, that's what I just picked up in reading "An Army At Dawn".

JLF

10-16-2003, 09:48 PM

Check out the diff. between Lee and Grant at these links >>

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm3med.htm (Lee)
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/uk/fgrant1.htm (Grant)

Cheers

Private Bluebottle

10-16-2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by lcm1947:
The 2pdr had only AP shells which were useless against anti-tank guns.

Actually the 2 Pdr did have a HE round. Problem was, it wasn't very good and it wasn't issued.

While the above is true it must also be pointed out that this tank was very tall and therefore over exposed to enemy guns/tanks. Also, and I believe this the main problem of the tank was that it didn't have a turret thereby the cannon couldn't move except for a very limited range really hurting it's abilities in tank against tank battles. Anyway, that's what I just picked up in reading "An Army At Dawn". The main problem the British Army found with them in the Desert was that they couldn't adopt a hull-down position. The best you could achieve was tracks being covered by terrain. The position of the main gun precluded the vehicle hiding behind terrain and still firing.

And before you suggest that wasn't a problem as the desert was flat, then you need a crash course in physical geography. ;)

Siege

10-17-2003, 12:08 AM

Oh, the Grant/Lee series did have major shortcomings without a doubt. They were overly tall, had very limited fields of fire and were maintenance intensive. Even before they were in production it was considered a temporary design until the facilites were ready to produce Shermans. My point wasn't that the M3 was a great design, more that it wasn't as bad as commonly believed and in fact did a respectable job until more capable designs were fielded. It is an excellent case of "whats coming is much better, but we need something NOW".

-Hans

IntelWeenie

10-17-2003, 06:13 PM

What? No one has said anything about the funniest modern US warplane name!

the B-1 "Lancer" is the official name, but what do crews call it?

The "Bone" (B - one, get it?)

Determinant

10-17-2003, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

The U.S. lack of naming skill continues to this day. The official name of the F-16 is the "Fighting Falcon," which the crews hate. Thus it is shortened to the more acceptable "Falcon." Its called the "Fighting Falcon" because Dassault, very cleverly 10 years before the F-16 started production built an aircraft called, yes, you're right, the "Falcon" and copyrighted the name.

Something else Americans can blame the French for... :D [/QUOTE]A splendid story, if true. Perhaps the Americans can blame themselves for being so lawyer-whipped that they paid any notice? While not wishing to blow any trumpet for BAe at least they went ahead and 'named' the Euro-Fighter Typhoon despite the nay-sayers who pointed out that an aircraft of that name had killed rather a lot of Germans in the War and therefore wasn't very 'Euro'. Tee hee hee. It should of course be the Euro-Fighter 'Parsifal'. ;)

von Lucke

10-18-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Siege:
Oh, the Grant/Lee series did have major shortcomings without a doubt. They were overly tall, had very limited fields of fire and were maintenance intensive. Even before they were in production it was considered a temporary design until the facilites were ready to produce Shermans. My point wasn't that the M3 was a great design, more that it wasn't as bad as commonly believed and in fact did a respectable job until more capable designs were fielded. It is an excellent case of "whats coming is much better, but we need something NOW".

-Hans The M3 was designed, developed, and put into production in slightly less than six months --- no doubt something of a record.

Check out the M2 Medium tank that the M3 was based on. Looks like a Stuart on steroids (it has four MG sponsons --- one on each corner of the hull):

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/mediumtanks/usmt-M2.jpg

[ October 18, 2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

Pilsudski's Revenge

10-19-2003, 03:54 PM

In one of the first times Rommel's forces met the Grants - they paid a price for it...

In late May of 1942, Rommel went on the offensive.

Initially, the 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars regiment got badly mauled by Rommel but they took 30 German tanks out and did a fair amount of damage to Rommel's anti tank guns. The 8th did as best it could considering they were just waking up and having breakfast when the Germans were spotted a mere 4000 yards away.

The British 3rd Royal Tank Regiment also ran into the 15th Panzer Division. The "A" squadron of "Honey's" cover the right flank while the Grants of "B" and "C" squadron took advantage of a small ridge, as best they could and waited for the Germans come closer. At 1300 yards - the Germans stopped and the Grants let fly with everything they had...they did a very good job considering they were going up against the entire 15th Division.

In his journal Rommel wrote:

"... the advent of the new American tank had torn great holes in our ranks. Our entire force now stood in heavy and destructive combat with a superior enemy."

General von Mellenthin [who served on Rommel's staff], talked of the Grant "as being a far more formidable fighting machine than any of the Afika Korps had so far encountered; of German tanks taking a severe hammering, of rifle battalions being obliterated, of supply columns being cut off from their Panzer division, and of Grants and Matildas pressing attacks to the muzzeles of the anti-tank gusn to wipe out the crews." {from the book "The LEE/Grant Tanks in the British Service" by Bryan Perrett}.

These tanks did have their negatives as mentioned earlier. They did "brew up" quite a bit due to the fuel and thin armor. There were mechanically pretty reliable but they were fuel guzzlers.

One of the Grants that took part in the morning fracus of the 3rd Royal Regiment, came limping back to the recovery area. It was hit no less than 25 hits "recorded" in it's armor.

It's a funky looking tank that could have done better in North Africa, if the British had used them more effectively but the Grant certainly took Rommel by surprise...

[ October 19, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Pilsudski's Revenge ]

Shortround

10-23-2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by von Lucke:
The M3 was designed, developed, and put into production in slightly less than six months --- no doubt something of a record.Don't think so.

First design proposal came 13 June, 1940 (OCM 15889). Pilot turrets (on M2 chassis) were first demonstrated 20 December, 1940. Production drawings were 90% complete at this time (including the Grant - whose characteristics had already been established).

Initial design was completed 1 February, 1941. First pilot moved under its own power, sans turret, 13 March 1941. It arrived at Aberdeen Proving Grounds where the turret was installed on 21 March.

First production pilots did not arrive until 5 May, 1941.

The Grant configuration was established by L.E. Carr during the summer of 1940, to include the British standard 54.5 inch turret ring. Crew space was expanded, with more headroom, plus the shifting of the radios to the bustle.

On that last note, I hope the improved "efficiency" of the British version is modelled somehow.

[ October 22, 2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Shortround ]

General Bolt

10-23-2003, 02:31 AM

I've always said Lee was the better general and Grant won cause of bigger forces/logistics. A good analagy is to compare Lee to Rommel and Grant to Patton/Monty.

Huh? Grant and Lee tanks..nebermind...

What kind did Boggy drive in Sahara?

General Bolt

10-23-2003, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by IntelWeenie:
What? No one has said anything about the funniest modern US warplane name!

the B-1 "Lancer" is the official name, but what do crews call it?

The "Bone" (B - one, get it?) The B-52 was called the Buffalo or BUFF for short.
AKA: Big Ugly Fat Friend

Shortround

10-23-2003, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by DingoBreath:
What kind did Boggy drive in Sahara? Bogie: "That's an M3 air cooled job..."

von Lucke

10-23-2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by Shortround:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by von Lucke:
The M3 was designed, developed, and put into production in slightly less than six months --- no doubt something of a record.Don't think so.

First design proposal came 13 June, 1940 (OCM 15889). Pilot turrets (on M2 chassis) were first demonstrated 20 December, 1940. Production drawings were 90% complete at this time (including the Grant - whose characteristics had already been established).

Initial design was completed 1 February, 1941. First pilot moved under its own power, sans turret, 13 March 1941. It arrived at Aberdeen Proving Grounds where the turret was installed on 21 March.

First production pilots did not arrive until 5 May, 1941.
[/QUOTE]Think again.

Actually, the "design proposal" from June 1940 was merely a suggestion by the Chief of Infantry to the Ordnance Department that US tanks would be better off with a 75mm gun. It wasn't until August '40 that Gen. Chaffee and the Ordnance Dept decided to try and shoe-horn a 75mm into a M2A1 --- which turned out to be impractible. However, there was an experimental self-propelled gun carriage (the T5E2; looks kinda like a Priest HMC with an off-set gun), that had been sitting around since May 1939, that would do the job nicely --- once somebody redesigned (on paper) the whole thing to take a 37mm turret.

You can mess around with blue-prints, refining design and tweaking detail, for years --- it's not until a working model rolls out and goes into production that it counts for squat.

From finalized M3 design work (including functional prototype) in March '41, to full-scale production in August '41, is 6 months.

Still a record.

[ October 23, 2003, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

Shortround

10-23-2003, 08:44 AM

Haha! Six months from END of design to production is no record at all, and reflects nothing but tooling time. Design begins with concept not rubber stamp.

Siege

10-23-2003, 08:48 PM

I think the fastest design still goes to the P-51. The British came to North American asking them to build P-40's.... North American said "We can do better than that, let us design our own" and in less than 100 days the P-51 prototype flew.

-Hans

von Lucke

10-24-2003, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Shortround:
Haha! Six months from END of design to production is no record at all, and reflects nothing but tooling time. Design begins with concept not rubber stamp. The dense acumen of yr obviously infallible argument has overwhelmed any attempt I could make to counter. But, in the spirit of the above post, I'll make an attempt:

Nyah-nyah --- does not!

SgtMuhammed

10-24-2003, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by DingoBreath:
The B-52 was called the Buffalo or BUFF for short.
AKA: Big Ugly Fat Friend I like the A-7 SLUF. Short Little Ugly Fellow.

Personal story alert

When my we were living on Guam during Vietnam some of the crews started calling the C-5 the Big Mac (it was big and all cargo aircraft had the Military Airlift Command banner on their tail, MAC). The base commander hated it and ordered it to stop. Well being the slaves to dicipline that they are, soon no one refered to the C-5 as anything but Big Mac.

[ October 24, 2003, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]

BulletRat

10-24-2003, 06:23 AM

Check out the differences:
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/plans/medm3.gif

Amongst other changes, note the long 75mm as opposed to the Grants short '75.

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/uk/plans/grant1.gif

CombinedArms

10-24-2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by DingoBreath:
I've always said Lee was the better general and Grant won cause of bigger forces/logistics. A good analagy is to compare Lee to Rommel and Grant to Patton/Monty.

Huh? Grant and Lee tanks..nebermind...

What kind did Boggy drive in Sahara? Grant's generalship is severely underrated by many, in large part because his campaign against Lee was such a bloodly, costly slog. But he did what he needed to do to win that campaign, which every Union general from McClellan to Pope to Burnside to Hooker to Meade had been unwilling or unable to do--he pushed on toward Richmond, placed it under siege, and ultimately destroyed Lee's army. This is what Lincoln had been asking for from this top general all along. When Lee's subordinants asked why he wasn't pulling off the brilliant manuevers he had used on other Union leaders, he replied, "Because Grant won't let me." Grant kept such relentless pressure on Lee that he was never able to launch one of his dashing counterattacks. And Grant refused to see a rebuff as a defeat.

If you want to study Grant's tactics against the South's generals who were not-quite-so-good-as- Lee, they reflect as well on Grant as Lee's battles against the North's second-rung generals. There is much brilliance to be found in Grant's planning and execution of the campaigns vs. Ft. McHenry and Donelson, showing his tactical and strategic sense, and his famous tenacity. His encirclement of Vicksburg was a flat-out brilliant manuever campaign, ending in a successful siege. And his campaign for the relief of Chattanooga was also brilliant--my favorite Grant battle and one of the most decisive battles of the Civil War. It released the Western armies from a dangerous bottleneck and set Sherman loose on his decisive march to the sea. Even when he was caught flatfooted, as at Shiloh, hung tough and managed a victory of great strategic importance.

Each of Grant's victories had a profound strategic point. He also planned and coordinated the grand strategy by which the South was defeated. In my opinion, Grant was Lee's equal, or nearly his equal, as a tactician, and vastly his superior as a strategist. Lee had trouble seeing beyond Virginia, his native state. Grant thought very effectively on a continental scale, the only Union general able to think in those terms.

Grant was, IMHO, as good a general as Lee-possibly better. He was, also IMHO, a significantly better general than Rommel, Monty or Patton. He had all of their strengths, which he united in one individual, and none of their weaknesses. Think, for example, of Patton's and Monty's immaturity and grandstanding--which made Ike's job such a headache. He had none of that. He never thought only in terms of his own army or his own personal glory. His one drawback, from a publicity standpoint, was a total lack of swagger or dash, which means historians have a hard time making him look exciting or colorful. But, this was a plus, in real miltiary terms. Was Grant a truly great general? In my opinion, yes. Was he one of the half-dozen greatest generals in history?--in my opinion, yes!