YankeeDog Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonwagon Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 12, 2003 Author Share Posted October 12, 2003 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 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 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 Hope not - that'd be daft. I'd expect Front upper hull hit - Gun damaged and Front turret hit - Gun damaged 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kestrl Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 The M3, M3A1, M3A2, M3A3, M3A4, M3A5, Grant I, Lee I, ect all have 6 crew members ( commander, driver, Loaders (2), gunners (2) ) Had to add a nice picture of a M3 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 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 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 12, 2003 Author Share Posted October 12, 2003 Thanks for the response, Madmatt! I look forward to playing with them once the game is released! Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 I take great pride in having the best reading skills of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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. -dale 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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. -dale </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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. [Edit] 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.[/Edit] [ October 13, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ] 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.