Bruceov Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 Are these two types of tanks. If so what is the difference between them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 One has a British accent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 12, 2003 Share Posted October 12, 2003 When the British took delivery of the Lee, they created a new cast turret for the 37mm with a bustle for the radio and minus the mini-turret for the commander's MG. Then they renamed it the Grant. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruceov Posted October 13, 2003 Author Share Posted October 13, 2003 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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 box. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auggy Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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 box. IIRC, it was the Britsh who named them after American generals. ie, the M4 "Sherman" and the "Stuart." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 why they do that? british not have any good generals? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Just being civil, I think, letting all concerned know that the tanks were provided by the USA rather than being home grown like the Cromwells, Churchills, et cetera. Originally posted by TANK ACE: why they do that? british not have any good generals? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auggy Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by TANK ACE: why they do that? british not have any good generals? ACE, are you by perchance, an ESL person? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Sir Augustus: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TANK ACE: why they do that? british not have any good generals? ACE, are you by perchance, an ESL person? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Ace Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 illinois? heh not a chance. North carolina here. And that thing about the brits not having good gens was a joke, lighten up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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. [ October 13, 2003, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by TANK ACE: why they do that? british not have any good generals? They reserved those names for beef dishes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallybob Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TANK ACE: why they do that? british not have any good generals? They reserved those names for beef dishes. </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 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 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 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" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atiff Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 I'm still amused that the Germans called the M3 the "Pilot" for a while. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><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 </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Originally posted by Wallybob: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TANK ACE: why they do that? british not have any good generals? They reserved those names for beef dishes. </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 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 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. 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 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siege Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 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 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted October 15, 2003 Share Posted October 15, 2003 Originally posted by Monty: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wallybob: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TANK ACE: why they do that? british not have any good generals? They reserved those names for beef dishes. </font> 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.