Hans Posted August 14, 2002 Share Posted August 14, 2002 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 14, 2002 Share Posted August 14, 2002 Hey that looks like a M3 Grant, but something's missing. Hmmm. . . . Seriously, I wonder if BFC figured out how to model the dual gun nature of the Grant. I know they said they were having trouble getting the engine to handle multi-turret tanks. Too bad if they don't make it into the game because of this problem. They were one of the more common lend-lease types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted August 14, 2002 Share Posted August 14, 2002 Hey! It's only got one main gun now!!! They can model that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted August 14, 2002 Share Posted August 14, 2002 Originally posted by YankeeDog: Hey that looks like a M3 Grant, but something's missing. Hmmm. . . .I got it! It's a Kangaroo with a gun! Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by YankeeDog: Hey that looks like a M3 Grant...No, actually those are Lees. Notice the one on the far side has the American made turret with the MG cupola on top. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog: Hey that looks like a M3 Grant...No, actually those are Lees. Notice the one on the far side has the American made turret with the MG cupola on top. Michael</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by YankeeDog: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog: Hey that looks like a M3 Grant...No, actually those are Lees. Notice the one on the far side has the American made turret with the MG cupola on top. Michael</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 The location of the wireless set was also different, no? Hence the larger Grant turret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by gibsonm: (and a 0.50" MG)Whoa! A fifty-inch machine gun?! Could it take out a platoon of M1 Abrams?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Vader's Jester: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm: (and a 0.50" MG)Whoa! A fifty-inch machine gun?! Could it take out a platoon of M1 Abrams?!! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patgod Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vader's Jester: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm: (and a 0.50" MG)Whoa! A fifty-inch machine gun?! Could it take out a platoon of M1 Abrams?!! </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: The location of the wireless set was also different, no? Hence the larger Grant turret.Yes "larger" in terms of area but not taller. The Grant had an overhang at the rear of the turret (if I recall correctly) whereas the Lee had a straight back (at least on the vehicle in the picture that still has a turret). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Notice that one of them has a counter-balance on the 75mm, the other doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by JonS: Notice that one of them has a counter-balance on the 75mm, the other doesn't.Well if the turret's missing I suspect they aren't worried about minor issues such as accounting for counter-weights The fact that the vehicles are facing opposite directions also suggests the ferocity and fluid nature of the fight (esp with vehicles that had to turn to bring their main armament to bear) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prinz Eugen Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 KOed lend-lease tanks. Very thoughtful indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patgod Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 heh, i'm going to use this pic as a reason never to lend my car to a friend. i mean we let the russians borrow that tank and look what happened to it. [ August 15, 2002, 06:17 AM: Message edited by: Patgod ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Patgod: heh, i'm going to use this pic as a reason never to lend my car to a friend. i mean we let the russians borrow that tank and look what happened to it.The Soviets also never returned the other stuff we "loaned" them - or paid a penny back to the United States, who gave them very generous deals on their war debt to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by gibsonm: The M3 Lee and Grant shared almost everything except the commander's cupola.No, actually the Brits decided to mount an entirely new turret of their own manufacture (very resourceful of them). Also I think they decided that your average Corporal would have enough to do directing the fire of the 75mm and the 37mm as well as the driver without worrying about another MG!The "corporal" didn't have anything to do with the 37mm. That was supposed to be loaded and fired by the TC in his one man turret. Not a great idea admittedly. I don't know how much the 37mm was actually used in action, but it must have made the TC a very busy fellow. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by gibsonm: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog: [snip] Eh, what's the difference? They were both Civil War Generals, weren't they?? Well apart from the colour of their uniforms and the fact that they were almost on the same side .... But I'll leave that to a citizen of the US of A to elaborate on. [snip]</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 The prototype was completed on Feb 14, 1940. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Determinant Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by YankeeDog: [snip] Kind of ironic that they had different iterations of the same Tank named after them.[snip][/QB]Well you have to be careful if you get tied into exclusively naming series of things after other series of things. We Brits get around this by not having a system and then failing to apply it consistently. But I suspect that the US Army is riding for a fall in this regard. For instance helicopters as indian tribes. Yes: Apache; Commanche; Chinook. Cool names - but what happens when only the really long unpronounceable and unspellable ones are left? Or consider - tanks as generals. Grant; Lee; Sherman; Abrams etc. All good stuff. But what happens when you're left with the M1A1 Arnold? We Brits would of course be pleased but there might be some internal dissent from those who failed to appreciate Gen Benedict Arnold for his bravery in making a difficult choice in a tough situation. I do sincerely hope though that the Lee/Grant makes it in. We demand freak tanks! Toodle pip! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 15, 2002 Share Posted August 15, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: The "corporal" didn't have anything to do with the 37mm. That was supposed to be loaded and fired by the TC in his one man turret. Not a great idea admittedly. I don't know how much the 37mm was actually used in action, but it must have made the TC a very busy fellow. MichaelMichael sorry perhaps I should have used the term commander rather than a specific rank. I just wanted to convey the idea that another weapon would just be overload for this person. I think most posters don't realise that the majority of commanders were (and still are) JNCO's (or during operations even senior soldiers) rather than SGTs or higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by YankeeDog: Kind of ironic that they had different iterations of the same Tank named after them.Very much so. I always thought it was especially ironic that the American produced version should have been named after the Rebel leader. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by gibsonm: I think most posters don't realise that the majority of commanders were (and still are) JNCO's (or during operations even senior soldiers) rather than SGTs or higher.I think this was standard practice in the British and Commonwealth armies but not in the US army. It is my understanding (although I am open to correction if mistaken) that in the US army the TC was usually a sergeant, the gunner a corporal, and the rest of the crew privates or Pfcs. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 16, 2002 Share Posted August 16, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: I think this was standard practice in the British and Commonwealth armies but not in the US army. It is my understanding (although I am open to correction if mistaken) that in the US army the TC was usually a sergeant, the gunner a corporal, and the rest of the crew privates or Pfcs. MichaelAh but US ranks always seem one lower than for others (PFC = trained soldier, US CPL = LCPL and US Buck Sergeant = CPL). I have a Warrant Officer Class Two being posted to the US and he is spitting chips because he will be in the Offrs' Mess instead of the Sgts' [ August 15, 2002, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts