"coffin for seven brothers" ?

[BDW]

For any of you tank experts out there, I have a question:

which tank exactly was the "coffin for seven brothers"?

I am interested in this tank because of the nickname. I do not know much about tanks, but I'd like to start learning and I thought I'd start with this one. I can't imagine a tank holding 7 guys.

Does anyone know what the story is on this tank? Or where I can find some good information/history about why it got the name "coffin for seven bothers"?

And, of course, will this tank be in CM:BB? or CM2?

thanks in advance!! (I am leaving town but I will check this thread when I get back)

[Commissar]

I believe that is the Russian nickname given to the US Grant tank. The Russians received them as part of Lend Lease. The Russians did not have a good impression of the tank as you can imagine.

[BDW]

thanks for the reply

I did a search on that tank and I found some info. But everything I've found says it only holds 6 guys. Here is the one link I've found on the M3 Grant that lists the number of crew:

The M3

here is another that lists the crew positions and I only count six: The driver, radio operator, 75 mm gunner, 37 mm gunner, gun loader and commander.

grant

So what gives? If anyone can shed some light on this, it would be much appreciated. I can't seem to find any info about the Russian version of this tank - only US and Brits and Aussies. Perhaps the Russians modified it to hold another "brother"? thanks!

-----

The plot thickens: I just found this site:

russian grant

that calls it the "coffin for SIX brothers" -- however, I noticed an extra gun on top of the 37mm turret that is not on the US and Brit photos I have seen -- could this be the seventh brother?? or is it just six?

I know someone on this forum will have the definitive answer...

[ July 28, 2002, 02:27 AM: Message edited by: BDW ]

[Viceroy]

BDW,

Zaloga also says the M3 Lee/Grant was nicknamed the "grave for 7 brothers". I have one source that says it could have 6 or 7 crew members, so maybe that's the explaination.

[Shosties]

As an aside, the Lavochkin LaGG-1 (also the -3?) fighter had a similar nickname, a clever play on the designation.

Lakirovannii Garantirovannii Grob

Varnished Guaranteed Coffin! :eek:

http://www.ophetweb.nl/ww2w/ww2htmls/lagglagg3.html

[John Kettler]

BDW,

This should help answer your questions. The main site is beyond a gold mine.

Regards,

John Kettler

http://www.battlefield.ru/library/lend/grant.html

[Andrew H.]

I'm not sure that "coffin" carries the "deathtrap" connotation that it seems to. In this excellent link from russian battlefield, an artillerist calls german armored cars "coffins," but he doesn't seem to be implying anything bad about the armored cars, since, in context, they were somewhat frightening. So maybe all they mean by coffin is "big box."

[Guest Mike]

I note that the thread about T-34's exploding includes the term coffin for a tank they thought was about to explode - in this case a Sherman, and I think the phrase is somethign like "I wondered if the tank was about to become a coffin for brothers".

I suspect it does refer to exploding tanks!!

The Russians didn't like the Grant because it was too high and difficult to hide - so it made an easy target.

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Originally posted by Mike:

The Russians didn't like the Grant because it was too high and difficult to hide - so it made an easy target.

Well, that, and it could be put out of action by an enemy soilder blowing his bad breath at it from 500 meters.

[Grisha]

The LaGG-3 was actually a pretty good plane, nothing to brag about but not the deathtrap alluded to by that nickname. Most Russians never heard of this nickname. And one book put out in the West called Swastika in the Gunsight has only good things to say about it - certainly better than what it says about Hurricanes. The book is a memoir of a VVS ace, Kaberov, who flew with the 5th Guards Fighter Air Regiment, Baltic Fleet.

[Shosties]

I find it interesting the Soviets had a low opinion of the M3 compared to Commonwealth tankers of the 8th Army in North Africa (or so I've heard... anybody dispute this?). I can think of this being attributable to two main reasons:

1) the M3, stopgap though it was, had much to recommend it over every British tank at the time, while Ivan could not help but find it wanting when compared to the T-34.

2) North Africa was forgiving to the M3's main faults: high ground pressure and tall profile. In North Africa as long as you stayed away from soft sand and marshes you'd probably be all right in the M3, and the open-ness made just about any tank stick out so you were at less of a disadvantage then.

[Guest Mike]

In hte Desert the M3 had the advantage of having a 75mm gun which had plentiful HE ammo and could KO German armour at considerable range.

The standard Brit tank armament ws the 2 pdr - a 40mm cannon of excellent performance for it's size, but which did not have HE ammo supplied and was just a bit too small for AT work at any likely range.

So compared to Crusaders and Matilda's the M3 had considerable advantages. It wasn't quiet so flash compared to T34's and KV-1's!!

The Brits hated the height of the M3 too.

[Nick Schieben]

OK, before this potentially good thread drifts too far off topic; From Stephen Zaloga's "Red Army Handbook":

"One of the less popular lend-lease designs provided to the USSR was the M3 Lee medium tank, the ancestor of the better and more successful M4 Sherman. Its archaic designn and turreted 37mm gun and its thin armour led to its caustic Russian nickname, which translates as "a grave for seven brothers".

[Guest Mike]

Um...I don't think we were drifting off topic at all.......

The Russians were using M3's right up to Kursk, whereas the Allies had pretty much replaced them with Shermans by then (except for use in Asia where they weren't a problem).

from the Russian military zone there is a list of problems: Rubber/metal tracks wore out too quickly, they were too sensitive to oil and petrol specifications, too tall, too lightly armoured, under powered (340 hp vs 450 hp for the T34), and of course the 75mm gun in the sponsoon was a major handicap by everyone.

[WWB]

The real advantage the M3 had in the desert was the 75mm gun. But its strength lay in the fact that it could engage AT guns at range. Unlike the 2pounder armed british creations, which had no HE ammo. Not that 40mm HE is all that effective anyhow.

WWB

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

The real advantage the M3 had in the desert was the 75mm gun. But its strength lay in the fact that it could engage AT guns at range.

Combined with the relatively heavy frontal armour that was impervious to the German tank guns, this meant that it could outrange the German ATGs (the 88mm AAG excluded, of course)(i.e. it could engage ATGs at ranges where the ATGs couldn't penetrate).

The German response was to lure the Grants into PaK fronts and then flank with their tanks.

The Grants had to expose it's vulnerable flank to either threat...

Cheers

Olle

[gatpr]

Weren't M3s used in Burma until at least 1944? Of course that was the end of the longest supply line.

[gatpr]

Double post but one of the drawbacks of the Lee was that the 75 wasn't in a turret. So as far as the 75 was concerned the 75 was a SP. The 37 was ,in a sense, the main gun.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by gatpr:

Weren't M3s used in Burma until at least 1944? Of course that was the end of the longest supply line.

Yes, both M3 Grants and M3 Stuarts. I think some Valentines may have made the scene too.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

I wonder if the Grant is even going to be in CM:BB.

I'm sure BFC will put it in if they can - a considerable number were sent over lend-lease and they certainly saw action.

But BFC has already stated that the current engine has trouble with multi-turret tanks. I think for this reason, they've already said that the T-35A is out.

It would seem to me that modeling the Grants 37mm turret + 75mm sponson would bring up similar problems, although maybe not quite as bad as the T-35A (how many turrets did that thing have - four??).

Hopefully, the issues can be worked out and M3 is in.

Cheers,

YD

[ July 29, 2002, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Bog]

I heard that the only Lend-Lease tank the Russians actually liked was the Valentine.

I wonder why, considering that the Sherman and Stuart were sent over too.

[Grisha]

Bog,

The Soviets liked the Shermans as well. The 76mm versions ended up being comparable to the T-34/85s overall.

[Guest Mike]

They also liked the Matilda.

The Valentine they thought of as a light tank (hey - it only weighed 16 tons!!).

They disliked the Churchill and Grant.

As an aside Valentines were also used in the pacific a bit by Commonwealth forces well after they were considered obsolete elsewhere - and they were given HE rounds for the 2 pdr in NZ service at least!!

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by gatpr:

Weren't M3s used in Burma until at least 1944? Of course that was the end of the longest supply line.

Wasn't only the supply line...The M3 outclassed most opposition in the far east. They pretty much gave up upgrades completely after vanilla M4's - swamped the Japanese tanks, more than adequate!

:cool:

[Breakthrough]

Originally posted by gatpr:

Weren't M3s used in Burma until at least 1944? Of course that was the end of the longest supply line.

Yes. Many went straight from North Africa to Burma after the North

Africa units reequipped with Shermans. The USMC used them on Bouganinville. The M3s were in Indian Army Independent Tank Brigades right up until the end of the war. They were particularly effective against the Japanese in Burma. The Japanese had few AT weapons at all in the Theatre to counter them and all those guns and MGs made it a great close support tank. It height was a plus too as it provided cover for advancing infantry. There is a painting from the Kohima battle of British troops advancing on a Jap position using the side of the Grant for cover. I sure hope Battlefront gets around to a CM game that covers the CBI Theatre.