HOME | DD
DarkWizard83 — M3 General Lee Medium Tank
Published: 2006-05-20 04:48:56 +0000 UTC; Views: 12012; Favourites: 136; Downloads: 390
Redirect to original
Description
When World War II broke out, the US Army's leadership quickly realized that its newly christened M2A1 Medium Tank would be no match for the latest German Panzers, being both under-armed and under-armored in comparison. A new tank design armed with 75mm gun - what would eventually become the M4 Sherman - was in the works, but it would not enter production for some time. To counter the Panzer threat, a stop-gap measure had to be created. The result was an M2A1 hull with increased armor and a Panzer-killing 75mm gun installed - the M3 Medium Tank.The M3 had an unusual design for a tank - the primary armament being mounted in the hull rather than the turret - but not uncommon, as this design feature was shared with the French Char B series of tanks. The 75mm gun could be swivled into targeting position by turning the sponson it was built into, though this led to limited traverse of the gun. Despite this shortcoming, the M3 quickly proved to be an effective combatant. First seeing action with British forces in North Africa under the command of Montgomerey (who had his own personal M3), and soon serving on all fronts with the US Army the M3 soldiered on until 1943, when it was replaced with the famous M4 Sherman.
An interesting and curious fact regarding the M3's designation: it was only the British and their commonwealth countries that referred to the early M3 models as "General Lee" or just "Lee," and designated later models with redesigned turrets as "Grant." The US, however, referred to all M3 models as just "M3 Medium Tank."
M3 "General Lee" Medium Tank Vehicle Stats:
Type: Medium tank
Manufacturer: Baldwin, Pullman, Chrysler, Pressed Steel, and American Locomotive
First deployed: 1941
Crew: 7
Length: 6.12 m
Width: 2.72 m
Height: 3.12 m
Weight: 27.9 tons
Armor: 51mm
Armament, primary: 1 x 75mm M3 tank gun (hull mounted)
Armament, secondary: 1 x 37mm M6 tank gun (turret mounted), 4 x 7.62mm Browning M1919 MG
Ammo stowage, primary: 50 rounds
Ammo stowage, secondary: 178 rounds 37mm, 9.200 rounds 7.62mm
Powerplant: Wright-Continental R-975-EC-2 400hp 9-cylinder air-cooled gasoline engine
Max speed: 40 km/h
Max range: 193km
Operators: Australia, Soviet Union, UK, USA
Related content
Comments: 65
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It is a pity that it is not pink. Suitable for '' Girls & Panzer '' X3
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think that is not an m3 Lee but an M3 Grant, the british version of the lee because os the shape of the turret
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
No, this is a British Lee. Their upper turret was lower in silhouette and longer to hold their radio in the back of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You can tell it's a Grant because they let it sit and rot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I used to have a m3 lee in world of tanks but now ia got a m4 sherman
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's the British Grant XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Derp two days ago i learned about the grant and now lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That is the Grant
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
i was about to say that, the Lee had a smaller turret fixture on top of the other 'turret'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yea, that smaller turret housed a 50. cal (M2 Browning)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yep, and the Grants armor was thicker than the Lee's anyway as it was a request from the British that it have the thicker armor. they also requested that the top turret be cast instead of riveted due the major flaw they found in the design with the rivets shooting about the interior after a non-penetrating hit...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh really? I though the only flaw was the weak armor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
for the British they found out the hard way during WWI what rivets can do to crew personnel from a non-penetrating hit to the early tanks they used could actually do...it would be something like small arms fire bouncing around inside fighting compartment, injuring or even killing the crew. but they still did use big rivets for their tanks, take the Cromwell for instance, big as heck rivets on the turret but none on the chassis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see. I forgot the rivets could bounce around.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah the internal part of the rivet on the inside of the tank could shoot off if the outside was hit with enough force.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yeah you wouldn't like that to happen....and its kind of like when a HE shell impacts against a flat surface, very little damage on the outside but the heat and shock that travels through the steel is more than enough to cause small to large pieces from the internal side of the steel to slough off and injure/kill crew, thats why they invented anti-spall liners that were crammed in the interior of the crew compartment of the tank, covering up the internal steel surface to prevent spall from bouncing around the inside. no spall liner would have had the same effect as the rivets bouncing around the interior of the tank.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then you gotta protect those Ammo Racks. But, I heard the M1 Abrams has a compartment for the ammo so If it explodes, it doesn't effect the crew
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes the M1 Abrams does have a special ammo rack compartment that is designed to blow out and send the resulting explosion away from the tank.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
still it would make the tank CI as it would have a very damaged turret/hull afterwards from the resulting explosion.....sure the compartments are designed to channel the explosion away from the tank but even the shock wave from it would cause extra structural damage to the tank itself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The M3 Lee, Grant whatever it can burn for eternity for all I care. Man I hated that thing in W.o.T.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It might stuck in WoT, but it was a pretty capable tank in real life. And apparently it's AWESOME in War Thunder, where both guns and the machine gun all work...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It ain't half bad in the gun department, just avoid getting tracked. Still, many people don't know how to use it properly (including me for most of the time I played it) and even in my AMX 40 I think of a Lee as an easy kill...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You really got to be cautious in it. Gotta watch your back and go where you can do the most good and if things get hairy a tactical retreat is fine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Funny how the British named it after American civil war generals but no the actual US military..
The tank was fine for its time(1942) with its gun(better than all those 2 pounder armed British tanks) but it just got surpassed rather quickly..the 88's made any tank their bitches..I can imagine in the Soviet Union these tanks being meat for the Germans with its high profile and those rivets..
I still always have a soft spot in my heart for this tank after seeing the movie Sahara as a kid..
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
It is on purpose, because the Brits couldn't understand the American designation system for their equipment.
Who can understand "Medium Tank M3" compared to "Covenanter" or "Valentine."
(in seriousness, I kid, The British just wanted to differentiate between Light Tank M3 and Medium Tank M3. Using American generals names just made sense in that regard)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was a funny thing indeed, the british naming them after civil war generals..I thought all the american tankers called them Shermans when they really called them M4's.
I finally saw and heard a working M4 at a museum..I realize now it was just a big and high profile target..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's not actually true.
The Panzer IV was only 2 inches taller than it. All the later Jerry tanks (Panther, Tiger, etc) were significantly taller than the Sherman (1ft+), and larger in all other dimensions.
It also was not near as bad a burner as Wehraboos would have you believe. Especially the late war Shermans with wet ammo storage were extremely unlikely to catch on fire, Unlike the Panther which is historically known for its engines setting themselves on fire because of the excessive fluid leakage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It was high enough , If Im scampering out of that hatch Im going down quite a bit and breaking something in addition to being on fire. The panzer IV has 'natural steps' with its right angle armor plating to scamper down as did the Tiger and even the Panther on the sides..also the tanks you mention had much better protection in armor and firepower. They were taking multiple hits the M4 could not take even once. In the end no one knew the mismatchs because of the Italian campaign not really factoring the kind of open warfare you had in Europe. Also if your attacked form the air your height is pretty useless more or less.
As for their tank destroyers (the Germans), they made them very low in height just for that reason (and easier to build).
Yes the later tanks had the wet storage thank god after all the guys who got burned up. In the end it was more that the Germans had countless weapons that could take out whatever armor the allies and the soviets had. The Soviets actually seemed to like their many Shermans from what I have read.
The M4 was a decent tank as shown in Korea where it held its own against T34/85's..it just needed improvements that were not available in 44..
In the end the Germans had the firepower to wait for their opponents to come to them and take them out from further away (like guys hunting deer). The closer range slugfests were more even like a brawl where the first guy to get in does the damage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Man you have bought into a LOT of false information coming out of WWII.
The average number of crewmen lost per Sherman destroyed in combat is ~1.
Compare that to the T-34, whose average survival rate per tank destroyed is ~1.
The Panther is actually a very *unsucessful* tank design in almost every aspect. Protection? only effective on the front glacis, if the welds didn't shatter from non penetrating hits. Those huge slab sides were paper thin, easily destroyed by light tanks (M5 Stuart, with a 37mm cannons), Heck even Russian 14.5mm *rifles* (the kind fired from the shoulder) could break through Panther's side armour. The Sherman armour wasn't much thicker on the sides, but had the advantage of being (for a 32 ton tank) a much smaller target. The French used Panthers to bulk up their forces after WWII, and ultimately found them terribly unsuited for strategic operations, so when they sent AFV's to Asia to try to reclaim territory lost during WWII, they sent an M4 derivative.
Oh, and those Shermans that served in Korea were identical to their 1944-45 counterparts... Actually, all the Army did was pull them out of storage. No major upgrades or updates required.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, okay. Forgive my ignorance. The M4 was superior to the Panther, your right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not trying to say the M4 Sherman was perfect, just that they really weren't "Deathtraps," (to quote author Bradley Cooper) and that the Panther wasn't some invincible Nazi superweapon, which too many television historians will try to have you believe.
Sometimes I do come across a bit stronger than necessary, sorry about that.
The Panther was a cool machine, though lacking as an actual weapon of war (one dimensional armour and a gun that couldn't lend itself to shooting anything that wasn't another tank).
The Sherman was by comparison basic, but had an all around solid gun and armour layout. (the HE shells had enough explosives in them to be useful against bunkers, and could defeat the armour of almost all enemy tanks it faced, short of King Tigers).
P.s. there are some Shermans though, with better armour than a Tiger I (called "Jumbos").
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
IT IS AMERICAN YOU NEED TOO LEARN YOUR TANKS IDIOT
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
| Next =>