superdreadnought2001 Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 After the Shermans started to show up in larage numbers what became of all the M3s? You never see then on the main European war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by superdreadnought2001: After the Shermans started to show up in larage numbers what became of all the M3s? You never see then on the main European war. I think some were converted into engineering vehicles; others were used as crew trainers in England (some Canadian armoured regiments trained on Lees and Grants before they reequipped with Shermans in preparation for actual combat employment). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 And I understand they remained in service in Asia for the duration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJK Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Was there a shortage of parts for the Grant, was it unrealiable in any way, was there other inherit problems with it? I haven't researched the Grant at all before, but what I'm finding in the scenarios that I've played with them they are heads above the Sherman. In fact, I did a recreation of A/H's Tobruk scenario 1, with 9 Grants vs 17 Pz-IIIj's, 2 Pz-IIIh's and 2 PzIV-e's and the Grants just tore through all of those. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 IIRC, One was used to guard a seaside amusment park near Hollywood, CA. It actually got into a long range gun duel with a Japanese sub. Unfortunately, the wooden pier it was defending from took a hit, and the tank dropped into the sea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by Kingfish: IIRC, One was used to guard a seaside amusment park near Hollywood, CA. It actually got into a long range gun duel with a Japanese sub. Unfortunately, the wooden pier it was defending from took a hit, and the tank dropped into the sea. Mmm...that being in 1941 I think it was a bit ahead of the actual combat employment of that weapons system, not after....smarty pants... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiggDogg Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Guys, 1941 - a really funny movie. I loved it. Cheers, Richard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by GJK: ...I did a recreation of A/H's Tobruk scenario 1, with 9 Grants vs 17 Pz-IIIj's, 2 Pz-IIIh's and 2 PzIV-e's...Then you did it wrong. Should have been 17 Pz IIIh, 2 Pz IIIj and 2 Pz IV (d or e, I can't remember). Your Pz IVs sould have been firing smoke like mad to mask off all but a couple of the Grants at a time and everybody else should be concentrating their fire on those two. Rinse, wash, and repeat. PS. Maneuver for flank shots as much as possible. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GJK: ...I did a recreation of A/H's Tobruk scenario 1, with 9 Grants vs 17 Pz-IIIj's, 2 Pz-IIIh's and 2 PzIV-e's...Then you did it wrong. Should have been 17 Pz IIIh, 2 Pz IIIj and 2 Pz IV (d or e, I can't remember). Your Pz IVs sould have been firing smoke like mad to mask off all but a couple of the Grants at a time and everybody else should be concentrating their fire on those two. Rinse, wash, and repeat. PS. Maneuver for flank shots as much as possible. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 M3 chassis were used to make Priests, and tank recovery vehicles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Why the hell would you rinse before you wash, Mr. Picky?Aw, you Canucks don't understand anything. Haven't you ever looked on the control dial of a washing machine where it says "Pre-wash Rinse"? Of course, now that I think about it, you probably never wash. Anything. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by JasonC: M3 chassis were used to make Priests, and tank recovery vehicles. And Canal Lights. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Why the hell would you rinse before you wash, Mr. Picky?Aw, you Canucks don't understand anything. Haven't you ever looked on the control dial of a washing machine where it says "Pre-wash Rinse"? Of course, now that I think about it, you probably never wash. Anything. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Did you know Gaylord is back. Perhaps you ought to take out some of your frustrations on him...he's in the GF posing under the name Hank Hiccum or somefink.... Hinkty Hacksnapper? Yeah, I noticed. What put people on to him being GF though? I mean other than the weird handle. I did notice in some of his later posts, after he'd already been fingered, a certain similarity in style emerging. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Did you know Gaylord is back. Perhaps you ought to take out some of your frustrations on him...he's in the GF posing under the name Hank Hiccum or somefink.... Hinkty Hacksnapper? Yeah, I noticed. What put people on to him being GF though? I mean other than the weird handle. I did notice in some of his later posts, after he'd already been fingered, a certain similarity in style emerging. Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 While the M3 chassis was indeed used for the early Priests, it's not like the old M3 tanks were stripped of their superstructure or anything like that...the plants making the M3 chassis simply made some on the production line into Priests. Many M3's wound up as prime movers for heavy artillery, as OP vehicles, Canal lights, and indeed most were used as tank retrievers. It was not until very late in the war that a pure M4 based tank retriever was produced...most of the US tank battalions in Europe had the old M3 versions throughout the war. They were also found in heavy equipment repair companies run by the Ordnance Corps, and some also were used by engineer outfits as prime movers and utility vehicles. This also happened to war-weary M10 TD's a lot. Oddly enough, you hardly ever see Shermans used that way...the M4A3 was too valuable to the Army in Europe and it and the other M4 versions were recycled until they were destroyed or wore out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by gunnergoz: While the M3 chassis was indeed used for the early Priests, it's not like the old M3 tanks were stripped of their superstructure or anything like that...the plants making the M3 chassis simply made some on the production line into Priests. Exactly. The M3 chassis was also used for the Canadian Ram, which became the Ram OP and Ram Kangaroo - but they were not old M3's that were stripped, they were purpose built as Rams. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Originally posted by gunnergoz: Oddly enough, you hardly ever see Shermans used that way...the M4A3 was too valuable to the Army in Europe and it and the other M4 versions were recycled until they were destroyed or wore out. One night about 20 years ago I was walking home and passed a filling station that had closed permanently and was about to be demolished for some new establishment. There was a mobile crane parked on the pavement beside the pumps, and as I glanced at it I thought it looked kind of funny. So I stopped and walked over for a closer look. As I gazed at it I realized why it looked both strange and strangely familiar. Somebody had taken an M4 chassis and cut it down to just above the treads and welded a modern crane on top. How and why they came to do that I never found out. A definite oddity. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Gallear Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Some of the British Grants together with the Lees supplied to Britain, which are in the game but shouldn't were shipped off to the Far East. They saw action in Burma in 1944. Its large crew and high profile was not seen as a big problem as theyt were almost totally immune to anything the Japanese could do to them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco QNS Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 They were also sent as lend lease to the Soviet Union (tough not to CMBB). IIRC, some of them were sent via Persia. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Grants sent to Russia were mainly the diesel version IIRC, M3A4's. Their preference was and remains, diesel. The UK received a lot of the multibank engine M4's (M4A2? IIRC). They found it horribly complex an engine but very reliable in operation. Imagine 5(?) Chrysler in-line 6 cylinder engines all circularly arranged around a common crankshaft. A marvel of engineering adaptability that arose out of the restricted availability of the radial and Ford V8 engines used on most US tanks. Most of this is off the top of my head, BTW, I may be a bit off on details (like I'm pretty sure they were Chrysler 6's and not 4's). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.