"Lee" vs "Grant"

[SgtMuhammed]

At the beginning of the war the U.S. was quite utilitarian about naming tanks. We had such inspiring names like "Medium Tank M3," or "Light Tank M3." Which were sure to stir the passions of their crews. The Brits, being a little more personally involved with their weapons, started naming them. So history remembers the Grant/Lee, the Stuart (or Honey, as in that is a honey of a tank), and the Sherman (originally the rousing Medium Tank M4, brings a tear to your eye doesn't it).

With aircraft we had little better tradition in that we actually did give them names. The Brits were better at it though. The change from the Apache to the Mustang is understandable as the P-51 and the A-36 were radically different aircraft even though they shared the same airframe. The original name for the Lightning was the "Electra," which brings to mind such stiring images as blenders and vacuum cleaners. Truely an image to take to war. I think the Brits figured that even though the early models sucked like a vacuum if they gave it a better name maybe pilots wouldn't mind dying in it, so was born the Lightning.

The U.S. lack of naming skill continues to this day. The official name of the F-16 is the "Fighting Falcon," which the crews hate. Thus it is shortened to the more acceptable "Falcon."

[Ant]

The U.S. lack of naming skill continues to this day. The official name of the F-16 is the "Fighting Falcon," which the crews hate. Thus it is shortened to the more acceptable "Falcon."

The more common unofficial name for the F-16 in the USAF is the 'viper'

[SgtMuhammed]

Or the "Electric Jet." Don't know if that one is still in wide use. Haven't talked to any 16 drivers in a while.

[flamingknives]

F-15 "Eagle"

F-4 "Phantom"

F-22 "Raptor"

F/A-18 "Hornet"

V-22 "Osprey"

Yada yada...

[Determinant]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

V-22 "Osprey"

Named in honour of the 'Men at Arms' series one presumes?

[Michael Dorosh]

The CF-18 is unofficially known as "Hornet" also, but cannot be officially called same, since in French (Canada's second official language), the literal translation of "Hornet" is "useless drone"...

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

The U.S. lack of naming skill continues to this day. The official name of the F-16 is the "Fighting Falcon," which the crews hate. Thus it is shortened to the more acceptable "Falcon."

Its called the "Fighting Falcon" because Dassault, very cleverly 10 years before the F-16 started production built an aircraft called, yes, you're right, the "Falcon" and copyrighted the name.

Something else Americans can blame the French for...

[Siege]

Don't forget that Curtis was the first with a "Falcon", they had a series of mail planes and civilian biplanes in the late 20's early 30's. Either way, "Fighting Falcon" is a lame name.

One of these days I really want to look up one French airplane with a name we have all come to love. They actually had a prototype fighter called "Grognard"!!!!

-Hans

[lcm1947]

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.

--------------------------------------------------

While the above is true it must also be pointed out that this tank was very tall and therefore over exposed to enemy guns/tanks. Also, and I believe this the main problem of the tank was that it didn't have a turret thereby the cannon couldn't move except for a very limited range really hurting it's abilities in tank against tank battles. Anyway, that's what I just picked up in reading "An Army At Dawn".

[JLF]

Check out the diff. between Lee and Grant at these links >>

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm3med.htm (Lee)

http://www.onwar.com/tanks/uk/fgrant1.htm (Grant)

Cheers

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

The 2pdr had only AP shells which were useless against anti-tank guns.

Actually the 2 Pdr did have a HE round. Problem was, it wasn't very good and it wasn't issued.

While the above is true it must also be pointed out that this tank was very tall and therefore over exposed to enemy guns/tanks. Also, and I believe this the main problem of the tank was that it didn't have a turret thereby the cannon couldn't move except for a very limited range really hurting it's abilities in tank against tank battles. Anyway, that's what I just picked up in reading "An Army At Dawn".

The main problem the British Army found with them in the Desert was that they couldn't adopt a hull-down position. The best you could achieve was tracks being covered by terrain. The position of the main gun precluded the vehicle hiding behind terrain and still firing.

And before you suggest that wasn't a problem as the desert was flat, then you need a crash course in physical geography.

[Siege]

Oh, the Grant/Lee series did have major shortcomings without a doubt. They were overly tall, had very limited fields of fire and were maintenance intensive. Even before they were in production it was considered a temporary design until the facilites were ready to produce Shermans. My point wasn't that the M3 was a great design, more that it wasn't as bad as commonly believed and in fact did a respectable job until more capable designs were fielded. It is an excellent case of "whats coming is much better, but we need something NOW".

-Hans

[IntelWeenie]

What? No one has said anything about the funniest modern US warplane name!

the B-1 "Lancer" is the official name, but what do crews call it?

The "Bone" (B - one, get it?)

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

The U.S. lack of naming skill continues to this day. The official name of the F-16 is the "Fighting Falcon," which the crews hate. Thus it is shortened to the more acceptable "Falcon."

Its called the "Fighting Falcon" because Dassault, very cleverly 10 years before the F-16 started production built an aircraft called, yes, you're right, the "Falcon" and copyrighted the name.

Something else Americans can blame the French for... </font>

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Siege:

Oh, the Grant/Lee series did have major shortcomings without a doubt. They were overly tall, had very limited fields of fire and were maintenance intensive. Even before they were in production it was considered a temporary design until the facilites were ready to produce Shermans. My point wasn't that the M3 was a great design, more that it wasn't as bad as commonly believed and in fact did a respectable job until more capable designs were fielded. It is an excellent case of "whats coming is much better, but we need something NOW".

-Hans

The M3 was designed, developed, and put into production in slightly less than six months --- no doubt something of a record.

Check out the M2 Medium tank that the M3 was based on. Looks like a Stuart on steroids (it has four MG sponsons --- one on each corner of the hull):

[ October 18, 2003, 07:08 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[Pilsudski's Revenge]

In one of the first times Rommel's forces met the Grants - they paid a price for it...

In late May of 1942, Rommel went on the offensive.

Initially, the 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars regiment got badly mauled by Rommel but they took 30 German tanks out and did a fair amount of damage to Rommel's anti tank guns. The 8th did as best it could considering they were just waking up and having breakfast when the Germans were spotted a mere 4000 yards away.

The British 3rd Royal Tank Regiment also ran into the 15th Panzer Division. The "A" squadron of "Honey's" cover the right flank while the Grants of "B" and "C" squadron took advantage of a small ridge, as best they could and waited for the Germans come closer. At 1300 yards - the Germans stopped and the Grants let fly with everything they had...they did a very good job considering they were going up against the entire 15th Division.

In his journal Rommel wrote:

"... the advent of the new American tank had torn great holes in our ranks. Our entire force now stood in heavy and destructive combat with a superior enemy."

General von Mellenthin [who served on Rommel's staff], talked of the Grant "as being a far more formidable fighting machine than any of the Afika Korps had so far encountered; of German tanks taking a severe hammering, of rifle battalions being obliterated, of supply columns being cut off from their Panzer division, and of Grants and Matildas pressing attacks to the muzzeles of the anti-tank gusn to wipe out the crews." {from the book "The LEE/Grant Tanks in the British Service" by Bryan Perrett}.

These tanks did have their negatives as mentioned earlier. They did "brew up" quite a bit due to the fuel and thin armor. There were mechanically pretty reliable but they were fuel guzzlers.

One of the Grants that took part in the morning fracus of the 3rd Royal Regiment, came limping back to the recovery area. It was hit no less than 25 hits "recorded" in it's armor.

It's a funky looking tank that could have done better in North Africa, if the British had used them more effectively but the Grant certainly took Rommel by surprise...

[ October 19, 2003, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Pilsudski's Revenge ]

[Shortround]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

The M3 was designed, developed, and put into production in slightly less than six months --- no doubt something of a record.

Don't think so.

First design proposal came 13 June, 1940 (OCM 15889). Pilot turrets (on M2 chassis) were first demonstrated 20 December, 1940. Production drawings were 90% complete at this time (including the Grant - whose characteristics had already been established).

Initial design was completed 1 February, 1941. First pilot moved under its own power, sans turret, 13 March 1941. It arrived at Aberdeen Proving Grounds where the turret was installed on 21 March.

First production pilots did not arrive until 5 May, 1941.

The Grant configuration was established by L.E. Carr during the summer of 1940, to include the British standard 54.5 inch turret ring. Crew space was expanded, with more headroom, plus the shifting of the radios to the bustle.

On that last note, I hope the improved "efficiency" of the British version is modelled somehow.

[ October 22, 2003, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Shortround ]

[General Bolt]

I've always said Lee was the better general and Grant won cause of bigger forces/logistics. A good analagy is to compare Lee to Rommel and Grant to Patton/Monty.

Huh? Grant and Lee tanks..nebermind...

What kind did Boggy drive in Sahara?

[General Bolt]

Originally posted by IntelWeenie:

What? No one has said anything about the funniest modern US warplane name!

the B-1 "Lancer" is the official name, but what do crews call it?

The "Bone" (B - one, get it?)

The B-52 was called the Buffalo or BUFF for short.

AKA: Big Ugly Fat Friend

[Shortround]

Originally posted by DingoBreath:

What kind did Boggy drive in Sahara?

Bogie: "That's an M3 air cooled job..."

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Shortround:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by von Lucke:

The M3 was designed, developed, and put into production in slightly less than six months --- no doubt something of a record.

Don't think so.

First design proposal came 13 June, 1940 (OCM 15889). Pilot turrets (on M2 chassis) were first demonstrated 20 December, 1940. Production drawings were 90% complete at this time (including the Grant - whose characteristics had already been established).

Initial design was completed 1 February, 1941. First pilot moved under its own power, sans turret, 13 March 1941. It arrived at Aberdeen Proving Grounds where the turret was installed on 21 March.

First production pilots did not arrive until 5 May, 1941.

</font>

[Shortround]

Haha! Six months from END of design to production is no record at all, and reflects nothing but tooling time. Design begins with concept not rubber stamp.

[Siege]

I think the fastest design still goes to the P-51. The British came to North American asking them to build P-40's.... North American said "We can do better than that, let us design our own" and in less than 100 days the P-51 prototype flew.

-Hans

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by Shortround:

Haha! Six months from END of design to production is no record at all, and reflects nothing but tooling time. Design begins with concept not rubber stamp.

The dense acumen of yr obviously infallible argument has overwhelmed any attempt I could make to counter. But, in the spirit of the above post, I'll make an attempt:

Nyah-nyah --- does not!

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by DingoBreath:

The B-52 was called the Buffalo or BUFF for short.

AKA: Big Ugly Fat Friend

I like the A-7 SLUF. Short Little Ugly Fellow.

Personal story alert

When my we were living on Guam during Vietnam some of the crews started calling the C-5 the Big Mac (it was big and all cargo aircraft had the Military Airlift Command banner on their tail, MAC). The base commander hated it and ordered it to stop. Well being the slaves to dicipline that they are, soon no one refered to the C-5 as anything but Big Mac.

[ October 24, 2003, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: sgtgoody (esq) ]