Another Lend-Lease. Tank M3 "Lee". Three-story nightmare

172
Those readers who are closely watching our show are accustomed to the fact that the equipment and weapons that we were supplied were quite effective for the period of delivery. These were fairly advanced designs. Yes, with flaws, but advanced and often superior or unparalleled with us.

The hero of our story today is so controversial that it causes loud controversy even today. Almost all experts and lovers of combat vehicles of the past speak of its unsuccessful design initially.





No wonder that this tank was removed from production as quickly as it was accepted. By the way, few people know this, but this particular tank is the record for speed of creation. Not a single combat vehicle in the world has been developed and put into service in such a short time.

So, the hero of our story is the American medium tank М3 Lee, better known here as МХNUMXс "Lee".



Here you just need to make a little historical help regarding the Soviet designation tank. The American M3 and the Soviet Lend-Lease M3s tank are actually the same machine. Just the letter “c” is nothing more than the designation “average”.

There is another aspect that just needs to be covered at the beginning of the material. Among those who study tanks from World War II, there is a perception that another tank, known as the M3 Grant, is American, but ordered by the UK is nothing more than an exact copy of the M3 Lee.

Yes, "Grant" really copied "Lee", but it had a lot of differences to be an independent machine. No wonder he received the name of General Ulysses S. Grant, commander of the troops of the northerners during the civil war.

Recall, General Robert Edward Lee commanded the Southerners at the same time. And the American version of the M3 "Lee" is named after this general. A sort of specific Anglo-American humor, the essence of which is not entirely clear to us.

Especially considering that Grant beat Lee.

By the way, both cars received the name from the British as a gift. In Britain, cars went under other indices.

Similarly, the opinion of some readers about the differences in engines. We often hear about Grant diesel engines and Li gasoline engines. Alas, but "Grants" had both petrol and diesel engines. Why and how this happened is not the topic of today's material.

Let's start the story. February 1942 of the year. City Sloboda Kirov region. Here is the formation of the 114 Tank Brigade. Soldiers and brigade officers are surprised daily. Scouts and signalers get motorcycles "Harley". The drivers are strange cars "Ford-6", "Chevrolet", "Dodge".

But the tankmen are most surprised. In the brigade they come completely "not ours" in appearance tanks МХNUMXс and light МХNUMXл. 3 new, not known in the Red Army medium tanks.

That is how the acquaintance of Soviet soldiers with the new American tank. The deliveries of M3 in the USSR began in February 1942.



The first fight M3 "Lee" took in May 1942 of the year. Our army attempted an offensive on the Barvenkovsky bridgehead during the second battle of Kharkov. Alas, we remember how this attempt ended. Our troops suffered a brutal defeat.

Another Lend-Lease. Tank M3 "Lee". Three-story nightmare


Recall, then we lost a thousand 171 killed, 100 thousand wounded, 240 thousands of prisoners. Lost (destroyed, abandoned, captured) 1 240 tanks. The Germans and Romanians then lost 8 thousands killed, 22 thousands wounded, 3 thousands missing.

What did the soldiers and officers of the 114 tank brigade see? Why did the appearance of the cars have so stunning effect on tankers?

The fact is that the new car was a “three-story”. In the literal sense of the word. On the ground floor, in the sponson, an 75-mm gun was installed with a horizontal pointing angle 32.



The second floor, a tower with a circular rotation, is equipped with a 37-mm cannon with a twin machine gun. The tower was driven by a hydraulic drive, but if necessary, can be rotated and mechanical.



But there was a third floor. True, fortunately, this floor could not boast of a gun. In the commander's turret a machine gun was installed, which could be used both for ground and air targets.

Immediately the question arises about the most powerful gun. Why is it located in the sponsor, and not in the tower?

By the way, we again move away from the narration for a second. The word “sponson” should be clarified to land readers. Word something navy. So, sponson is a ledge above the side (in the navy) or “growth” on board an armored vehicle (for those who are used to leaning on the ground).

So why in sponsorship? The answer is simple. The gun caliber 37-mm has ceased to arrange tankers. Functions anti-she had not performed. And according to the American tradition, the designers did not really think about the problem.

If 37-mm is not enough, then you need to take one to satisfy all. And somewhere to shove. So the 75 mm M2 cannon was selected. And then, according to the logic of things, it is necessary to refine or develop a new car body and a tower. In fact, you need to change the car itself.

But, we recall, there was a war, and the US Army really needed a well-armed medium tank ...

So came the sponson on the right side of the case. The gun lost a huge part of the shelling sector. However, the adoption dates have not changed.

Why did this happen to this machine? Here it is necessary to consider the history of the creation of tank units in the United States. We already wrote that by the beginning of World War II, the Americans did not have tank troops.

The only tank that the Americans had was the extremely unfortunate M2 (1939-41 was produced). The tank was produced in two modifications and the 146 machines (52 М2 and 94 М2А1) were assembled in total.

By copying many of the nodes of this machine, the designers created the M3. Transmission, power plant, chassis. Many are talking about the archaic layout of the tank M3. Indeed, by the 40 years of the 20 century, this arrangement looks ridiculous.

In general, the situation is “I blinded him from what was.” And at the disposal of American designers was very little.

The body of the tank M3 has a prefabricated structure. Armored sheets of rolled armor were fastened to the precast frame with rivets (or bolts). The bottom frontal part consists of three separate cast parts, bolted together. This is seen in the photo.



For access to the tank along the sides of the hull rectangular doors were provided, the driver got into his place through a hatch located in the right side of the upper frontal sheet, his viewing devices were also located there.



To the left of the driver's hatch in the lower front plate there was an embrasure for installing a coaxial machine gun.

The cast sponson for the 75-mm gun was mounted in the right front part of the body and fastened to it with rivets.



For access to the engine compartment in the stern and the bottom there were hatches, and its roof was removable. Air to the engine was supplied through armor boxes mounted above the tracks. They also contained fuel tanks.



The cylindrical cast tower was installed shifted to the left on the ball bearing and equipped with a hydraulic actuator. The gun was mounted in a mask, it also housed a machine gun and a periscope sight.

For observation in the sides of the tower there were viewing slots covered with glass blocks and hinged armored covers.



The commander's turret of a cylindrical shape with a machine gun was located on top of the tower with a shift to the left, the turret was rotated manually. Access to the tower was carried out through a double door in the roof of the commander's turret.



Let's look at the potential opponents of the Americans - the Germans. What German car was opposed to an American? The adversary M3 should have been Pz.IV. The German tank was also armed with a 75-mm cannon.

If we talk about the design as a whole, the car had a number of critical flaws. This is a weak reservation. This is the height. This is a completely ugly placement of weapons, which simply “consumed” the potential that could be obtained from a machine with such weapons.



The Americans quickly realized that the tank was not just crude, but also unpromising. That is why in the American army to meet the M3 was problematic already in 1944-45. And the number of these armored Americans are not the first.

In total, 6258 units of this tank of all modifications were released. Modifications differed mainly engines and manufacturing technology. Of these, 2 / 3 were transferred over Lend-Lease to the British and the USSR. A small part (about a hundred cars) transferred to other countries.

Congratulations, shake off this nightmare to those who needed it more.

The British can rightly call the M3 "Lee" their car. It was in the British army was the largest number of these tanks. More 2 thousand units.


Winston Churchill. Not afraid to lurch on the fronts.

The British received this horror first and applied it in battles for North Africa. Suddenly (for want of something better), “Li” liked. He was fast enough, armor German tanks, he made it without any problems, if properly positioned the car in relation to the enemy.


Another historical character, Montgomery himself, near his personal tank.

True, “Lee” himself could hold enemy shells with difficulty, the armor of an average tank was 37 mm. Despite all the shortcomings, this tank was the only British who could withstand German tanks in Africa, he was even called “the last Egyptian hope” during the fighting for El Alamein (July-August) even in 1942 year (July-August).





In the USSR, 1 386 tanks were shipped. This is according to American data. According to Soviet data, the USSR received all 976 machines. Losses of almost 30% of supplies are still of interest to historians and specialists. Machines either drowned in the northern seas, or lost in the Iranian deserts.



But be that as it may, this imperfect, archaic, absurd machine in the first period of the war still played a role. When the tank wedges of the Germans rushed into the open spaces of Russia, when our industry did not have time to give the front new T-34 and other machines, the M3 went into battle. Often the first and last.



A little known fact. These tanks took part in the great tank battle of the Second World War - the Battle of Kursk. We found a photo of the M3 "Lee", who died just in this battle in July 1943 of the year. Tank "Alexander Nevsky."



Even in the 1944 year, "Lee" still fought in our army. And one, probably the most stubborn, took part even in the defeat of the Japanese in the Far East. Somehow the partisans are remembered with the crosses of St. George for the First World War ...

The tank received the derogatory nicknames of ordinary Soviet tankers, it was called “monopoly”, “kalanch”, used the adjective “two-storey” and “three-storey” for it, assigned ironic indices: SH-7 (“sure death of seven”), BM-7 ( "A mass grave for seven") and stuff like that.



Well, the traditional tactical and technical data of the hero:

Mass, t: 27,9
Length, mm: 5639
Width, mm: 2718
Height, mm: 3124
Ground clearance mm: 432

Armament:
- 75 mm gun M2
- 37 mm gun M5
- 3 (4) 7,62-mm machine gun М1919А4

Booking: steel armor homogeneous
- body: 51 mm
- board: 38 mm
- feed: 38 mm
- bottom: 13 mm
- tower: 51 mm (forehead), mm 38 (board)
- housing roof-mm 13

Engine types: R-975EC2, GM 6046, Guiberson T-1400 Series 3, Chrysler A-57 Multi-Bank

Highway speed, km / h: 39
Power reserve, km: 193

Crew, person: 7
172 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +9
    16 February 2019 05: 47
    So they waited, really the tank is unique.
    "America gave Russia M3S: there is a lot of noise, little sense, he came out to the skies in height!"
    Gyroscopic guidance stabilizers in the vertical plane (!) Were installed on this tank, but after their installation the guns were out of balance. Pay attention to the counterweight mounted on the slice of the 75-mm M2 gun. On M3 guns, this counterweight was no longer needed.
  2. +4
    16 February 2019 06: 15
    Due to the losses and lack of armored vehicles of the Red Army, everything they give, despite the shortcomings, the stage passed in monsters such as multi-turret tanks. You can fight, well, okay, but people will endure, tea is not in the trenches with a rifle.
    Often times, Lend-Lease tech came with "default options like leather jackets, binoculars, Colts ... but they were all taken away."
    1. +3
      16 February 2019 12: 27
      Characteristically, he was "driven" to the Red Army - a mass grave for six! Otherwise, you are absolutely right “without fish cancer - fish”!
      1. +2
        16 February 2019 15: 03
        After the Second World War, with the Cold War, it was customary to condemn everything supplied by the Allies to the RRKA, therefore it is necessary to consider more objectively ... Each weapon should be used for its intended purpose and correctly used. But from history we know how they were used, starting from light tanks and other things, in the Red Army (I will not repeat). Lee even had steeper armor 50 mm versus 45 mm for the T-34. review (which is very important in comparison with the T-34) and weapons are much better. The consonant minus of the gun is not so obvious with the enemy in one sector ... Of course, the tank was not the best, already at that time, but not so bad either. If the T-34s were lost in hundreds, so Lee was lost at least ... The whole problem is in use, the poor master and the best tool are not in favor, excuse me for such a comparison ... Lee was at the level of 1942, as used, completely another question.
        1. +10
          16 February 2019 15: 35
          Quote: Vladimir 5
          Sponson minus guns are not so obvious with the enemy in one sector ...

          Sponson gun is a bright minus, if you have Sherman in your head. If you have in mind the shtug and su-76, then the sponson gun is a great solution.
          1. +3
            16 February 2019 19: 13
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Sponson gun is a bright minus, if you have Sherman in your head.

            Duc was not at that moment Sherman, the USSR took what it is, it is a pity that the Americans did not follow the world tank construction in time, but damn it ...
          2. 0
            17 February 2019 14: 31
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Sponson gun is a bright minus, if you have Sherman in your head.

            Moreover, this is a minus, if you have in your head and T-34. But to compare with self-propelled guns is not entirely correct, because if the self-propelled guns were sometimes used as tanks, then tanks in the role of self-propelled guns didn’t.
            1. +5
              17 February 2019 14: 50
              Quote: pilot8878
              if you have in mind and T-34

              Yes, even the T-28.
              3 "the gun in the turret now seems obvious, but in the 30s it was one of several options. Grant is an infantry tank with a two-pounder in the turret, like Matilda, but which moves quickly, breaks less, and can still shoot a little from a three-inch. Only the side protection is much worse.
              For "breaks less" he was especially liked by the British.
            2. -2
              17 February 2019 15: 00
              Quote: pilot8878
              Moreover, this is a minus, if you have in your head and T-34.

              Why is that?
              As of fall 1941, the M3 is better armed, better protected and much more reliable than the T-34.
              Is it bigger?
              Yes.
              But this is a double-edged sword.
              1. +3
                17 February 2019 15: 38
                Quote: andrr61
                in the fall of 1941, the M3 is better armed, better protected and much more reliable than the T-34.

                If, in fact, there is nothing to object to the latter, then the other two postulates are already controversial. The F-34 is much better, which was confirmed by the Americans themselves according to the results of tests of our machine in Aberdeen. Does the 34 have no small caliber auxiliary gun? So there was no need in connection with the greater power of the Soviet weapon. The armor protection of the Soviet armored hull made of rolled sheets connected by welding will still be better than that of the "American", which had a slightly greater thickness, but at a smaller angle, and even with riveted parts, which, you must agree, is less reliable.
                1. -5
                  17 February 2019 15: 51
                  Quote: pilot8878
                  The F-34 is much better, which the Americans themselves confirmed according to the results of tests of our car in Aberdeen.

                  There (in the report from the Aberdeen Proving Ground) nothing is said about this. It is only said that the cannon is of a "simple design" (ie, primitive in design), and the propellant charges in the shells are generally full of guano.
                  It is also noted that the gun is incorrectly calculated, therefore, it has excessive strength and weight of the structure. This is not news that the Germans made of the Hrabin three-inch (except ZIS-3), probably known to all.
                  Quote: pilot8878
                  34 have no small caliber auxiliary guns? So there was no need in connection with the greater power of the Soviet guns.

                  The power of the Soviet 76 mm wartime OS (O-350A) was noticeably less (about half, slightly more) than the power of the American 75 mm OFS.
                  The armor penetration of the Soviet 76 mm BBS was slightly less than the armor penetration of the American 75 mm BBS. But less.
                  The T-34 had a tower bonus. But this tower had no eyes.
                  But the M3 had a bonus in the form of another gun.
                  Quote: pilot8878
                  connected by welding will still be better than that of the "American", which had a slightly greater thickness, but at a smaller angle, and even with parts connected by rivets, which, you see, is less reliable.

                  The riveting of the sheets of the connected spike into the spike is many times more reliable than welding by welding. Because welds, they already do not hold shells. Weak spots. But for production it is cheaper and faster.
                  1. +3
                    17 February 2019 20: 35
                    The riveting of the sheets of the connected spike into the spike is many times more reliable than welding by welding. Because welds, they already do not hold shells. Weak spots. But for production it is cheaper and faster.

                    Otto Carius would not agree with you ...
                    In this regard, it is interesting to familiarize yourself with a kind of inside look, that is, with a description of the results of a Soviet 45 mm projectile getting into the Pz.38 (t) tank, from the lips of the German tankman Otto Carius, who fought in this combat vehicle in 1941.
                    “July 8th hit us. The first time I had to get out of a wrecked car.
                    This happened near the completely burned village of Ulla. Our engineering units built a pontoon bridge next to the blown up bridge over the Dvina. It was there that we wedged into positions along the Dvina. They disabled our car right at the edge of the forest on the other side of the river. This happened in no time. A blow to our tank, a metal rattle, a shrill scream from a comrade - and that’s it! A large piece of armor wedged near the site of the radio operator. We did not need anyone's order to get out. And only when I jumped out, clutching my face with my hand, in a roadside ditch I discovered that I was also hurt. Our radio operator lost his left hand. We cursed the fragile and inflexible Czech steel, which did not become an obstacle for the Russian anti-tank 45 mm gun. The fragments of our own armor plates and mounting bolts did more damage than the fragments and the shell itself.
                    1. -2
                      17 February 2019 20: 53
                      Quote: hohol95
                      Otto Carius would not agree with you ...

                      Pz. 38 (t) with a flick of the wrist turned into M3.
                      Brilliant.
                      1. 0
                        17 February 2019 20: 55
                        With a "light hand" designers and production workers 38 and M3 had riveted bodies! This means that the crew of an American tank was also exposed to the hull fasteners when the armor was penetrated by an enemy shell!
                      2. -1
                        17 February 2019 21: 07
                        Quote: hohol95
                        With a "light hand" designers and production workers 38 and M3 had riveted bodies!

                        So what? Do you know all the details of the process?
                        why did you decide that everything was the same there?
                        Quote: hohol95
                        So the crew of the American tank was also exposed to the hull fasteners when an armor penetrates the armor!

                        So you need to fantasize less.
                        They only write to write something.
                      3. +3
                        17 February 2019 21: 11
                        So you need to fantasize less.
                        They only write to write something.

                        I’m still far away from you ...
                        I just do not reject such an opportunity! But if you are a veteran who fought on the M3C and did not record such in real battles - I will accept your arguments and knowledge without any objections!
                        And if there is no personal experience, then you cannot reject the opponent’s judgments with 100% certainty!
                        Or prove a war time document!
                      4. -3
                        17 February 2019 21: 13
                        Quote: hohol95
                        Or prove a war time document!

                        Find exposure to your fantasies first.
                        Invented from three boxes, and now asks to refute it conclusively. Humorist.
                      5. +2
                        17 February 2019 21: 18
                        good good good
                        The topic jump is counted -
                        The riveting of the sheets of the connected spike into the spike is many times more reliable than welding by welding. Because welds, they already do not hold shells. Weak spots. But for production it is cheaper and faster.

                        This is not my fantasy ...
                      6. 0
                        17 February 2019 21: 28
                        The minuses of the guns were named: small ammunition (50 rounds) and limited horizontal guidance angles. The tankers did not like the large dimensions of the tank. This created problems with the entrenchment, after which it was impossible to fire at the enemy from a 75 mm gun. Landing on a tank was very difficult. It also turned out that the armor-piercing shell of a 45-mm gun at a distance of up to 1000 meters could penetrate the frontal armor of an American tank. At the same time, the sheets were deformed and rivets burst, which made repair impossible. When the case was deformed, the viewing instruments burst and the side hatches jammed.

                        warspot.ru
                        Layered American
                        Yuri Pasholok November 27, 2017
                      7. -1
                        17 February 2019 21: 31
                        Quote: andrr61
                        Find exposure to your fantasies first.
                        Invented from three boxes, and now asks to refute it conclusively. Humorist.
            3. +1
              17 February 2019 18: 23
              Why? At one time, the "Tiger" was called the best anti-tank self-propelled gun. hi
        2. +12
          16 February 2019 15: 39
          Vladimir, the dream of any tanker to meet the trench in an ambush and put his hotels on board! Alas, I’m realizing others .... the MSS was a bad self-propelled gun - a high, small and uncomfortable sector of fire, was a bad tank - poor patency, a weak gun in the tower! Deteriorated all the inconvenient location of the crew, which was spread throughout the tank. In optics, before the advent of MKIV, the capabilities of US devices, if they exceeded domestic ones, were not much. The British, by the way, changed them! The allies themselves recognized that he could “butt” with the Italian tank industry and the German ones until PzIII inclusive. PzIV was no longer for them!
          In fact, the M3 Grant - born of “trouble” - the war broke out and the Americans applied technological and surface solutions, but alas, not the most rational and correct!
          1. +5
            16 February 2019 17: 11
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            The allies themselves recognized that he could “butt” with the Italian tank industry and the German ones until PzIII inclusive. PzIV was no longer for them!

            The early four in terms of armor and armor-piercing guns are no better than three. Late - yes, but this is no longer for Grant for sure.
            Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
            the war began and the Americans applied technological and surface solutions, but alas, not the most rational and correct!

            The trouble really was, but in another. The Roosevelt administration organized the case in such a way that both the customer and the factory side were responsible for the very good, but production workers. Knudsen from GM from the customer, Keller from Chrysler from the factory. In tanks, both understood as a pig in oranges. But very well understood in mass production.
            Through their efforts, in the peaceful year of 41, America issued as many 30-ton Grants as the USSR 6-ton T-60 for the military 42nd. However, on the other hand, it would never have occurred to them to take, let’s say, a well-thought-out French TTZ onto a medium tank and do something from scratch (and even more so, invent your own TTZ). They asked the military for the latest model of the tank - it was the M2 medium, the American T-28 with a gun from the T-26 - and set about putting it in series.
            Since they were very well versed in the series, this was done honestly. When it turned out that the American T-28 was a mess, it was converted to Sherman with the preservation of huge volumes of output and decent quality. On the other hand, the American T-34 - redesigned and not converted from the T20 tractor - was not needed, which happened to the Americans sideways in the 44th year.
        3. +2
          16 February 2019 18: 56
          Quote: Vladimir 5
          Sponson minus guns are not so obvious with the enemy in one sector ...

          The tank is quite in the style of the late 30s. There were a lot of them then. Everyone, even the KV-1 of the zero series, was a two-gun. But he had both guns in the same tower.
          There was an anti-personnel gun in the sponson. It’s surprising that it’s so long, they usually put "cigarette butts" there. And there were quite enough cigarette butts.
          And the second gun (in the tower) was anti-tank. This is a standard solution for tanks of the late 30s.
          The only thing the Americans are too clever about and what hurts the eye is the machine-gun tower. This is really an unusual element.
        4. 0
          30 March 2019 12: 11
          no need to compare Lee and t-34 = our armor was at an angle. so it made a difference of more than 5 mm !!!
  3. +13
    16 February 2019 06: 45
    Firstly. Exactly in the same 40th year, the British did exactly the same tank according to the weapons scheme. The tower and the big gun, but not in the side, but in the face. Churchill. So this design wasn’t such a bolt. Therefore, it did not cause much criticism among the British - in the towers of British tanks there was mainly a gun identical to the upper American one.
    Secondly. As correctly noted, this car was made in extreme circumstances (in which the Americans drove themselves). American T-60. Feel the difference.
    Thirdly. When the M3 was fired from the tanks, this armored barn became even more interesting. Pulling out the sponsor and the tower - it will turn out to be a very serious armored personnel carrier, not comparable with Universal or half-truck. It’s even strange that only Canadians realized this idea.
    1. +3
      16 February 2019 11: 21
      Quote: Cherry Nine
      in the same 40th year, the British did exactly the same tank according to the armament scheme. The tower and the big gun, but not in the side, but in the face. Churchill. T

      A20 to Churchill Mk.II CS?

      1. not in sponson, but in the frontal armor plate
      2.76,2-mm howitzer
      This (Churchill) rather Char B-1
      1. +3
        16 February 2019 12: 55
        Quote: Aibolit
        This (Churchill) rather Char B-1

        No ... it's still "Churchill" ... "Frontal" gun, most likely a 75-mm howitzer ...
        1. +2
          16 February 2019 13: 02
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          No ... it's still Churchill.

          I meant that "churchill" is the use of developments (and so indeed, there is a lot of him from Char B-1

          and M3Li has nothing from Churchill. at all
          1. +3
            16 February 2019 15: 38
            Quote: Aibolit
            M3 Doesn’t have anything from Churchill. at all

            I did not mean that Grant is an American Churchill. I wrote that the sponson gun in the 40th year was not considered as wild as it seems now.

            However, the gene. Edna Chaffee demanded a tower of circular rotation, which they did on the modernized Grant - Sherman. American T-70.

            I note that the American, who did not understand anything in the tanks, immediately orientated what and how, and resolutely closed the issue with multi-turret, such as QMS.
            1. +1
              16 February 2019 15: 48
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              I wrote that the sponson gun in the 40th year was not considered as wild as it seems now

              Of course not.
              But Churchill is not in sponson.
              Early Tog1 was with sponsors
              1. +1
                16 February 2019 18: 32
                Tog1 - was originally anarchism, but the British consistently tried to realize his ideas in Churchill and even the prince! Nezrya U. Churchill said that the tank of his name has more shortcomings than himself !!!
                On the other hand, the Stuarts, Grants, Churchilli, Shermans, Matilda, Valentines fought in the Red Army and rendered invaluable help in difficult times!
                1. +2
                  16 February 2019 19: 34
                  Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
                  Valentines fought in the Red Army and provided invaluable assistance in difficult times!

                  well, no one argues with that
                  us and 1681 tank m3a1 stuart in the vein was
                  1. +1
                    16 February 2019 21: 48
                    Even the Terahi in Iran and the training units have run in!
          2. +2
            17 February 2019 02: 50
            You're right... hi The B-1 really influenced the English tank!
  4. -8
    16 February 2019 07: 36
    God be upon you, that you yourself are not good!
    1. +4
      16 February 2019 10: 48
      Quote: Theodore
      God be upon you, that you yourself are not good!

      And they had nothing else. In the US Armed Forces in 1940 there were only 400 tanks of various models.
      1. -4
        16 February 2019 12: 14
        the most different models.
        not the most different, but the most crappy ...
  5. -4
    16 February 2019 07: 40
    The Americans quickly realized that the tank was not just raw, but also unpromising.
    Indeed, a self-propelled misunderstanding, not a tank. The photo shows where he sits in the mud. You can immediately see its combat suitability for the conditions of Russia, where the main battles were fought. To the author, my respect and gratitude for another interesting article. hi
    1. +2
      17 February 2019 14: 55

      Quote: novobranets
      The photo shows where he sits in the mud. Immediately visible is its combat suitability for the conditions of Russia,

      Look for photos in the mud of T-34, T-55, T-72, -80 ... any other tank that was operated in the USSR or in Russia. They also do not fit? Or is the matter different?
      1. -1
        17 February 2019 18: 07
        Quote: pilot8878

        Look for photos in the mud of T-34, T-55, T-72, -80 ... any other tank that was operated in the USSR or in Russia. They also do not fit? Or is the matter different?

        Foolishly you can and ... break the tail. You can plant anything in the mud. Just look at the depth of the mud with the "sitting" 34 and compare with the one where the "imported" one sat. There is a difference? All the tanks supplied under Lend-Lease had tracks that were not suitable for Russian mudslides, they had to weld on lugs, and this is not such a simple matter as it seems. At VO this has already been discussed more than once, I don't want to start a dispute about it again, I'm tired.
        1. +1
          17 February 2019 19: 25
          Quote: novobranets
          All tanks supplied by Lend-Lease had tracks that were not suitable for Russian thawing, they had to weld lugs, and this is not such a simple matter as it seems.

          But not so bad either. Welding "spurs" for every fifth truck is not a big task for an ordinary workshop. Difficult only the first time.
          Quote: novobranets
          Just look at the depth of the mud with the "sitting" 34 and compare with the one where the "imported" one sat. There is a difference?

          Ground clearance mm: 432
          Car sitting on the belly. The first series of T-34s on smooth tracks also had problems with cross-country ability, until the "waffle" tracks went into production.
          1. -1
            17 February 2019 19: 40
            Quote: pilot8878
            Welding "spurs" for every fifth truck is not a big task for an ordinary workshop.

            Unfortunately I can’t remember the name of the author of the memoirs, I read for a long time. During the Second World War, he served in a field re-combat, dealt precisely with American tanks. So, according to him, the lugging of the lugs onto the tracks so that they would work efficiently, do not cling to anything and allow the tracks to move as it should, a complicated matter.
      2. +3
        18 February 2019 12: 02
        Quote: pilot8878
        Look for photos in the mud of T-34, T-55, T-72, -80 ... any other tank that was operated in the USSR or in Russia. They also do not fit? Or is the matter different?

        Pffff ... dirt. The same T-60 had a problem even with snow:
        On country roads near the front, T-34 and KV tanks pass without difficulty, T-60 land on the bottom.
        Snow from 25 to 50 cm on the battlefield. Tanks KV and T-34 pass without difficulty, T-60 with a depth of snow more than 25 cm. Burrow and land.

        Light tanks T-60, T-40, T-30 in a snow cover of 30-40 cm. Cannot move in the snow. A narrow caterpillar cuts snow to the ground, sits on the pressed snow at the bottom and skids. Examples: 13.1.42 when attacking the Ilyinsky 145 Tbr, T-60 tanks were used in the amount of 17 pieces. All tanks, as soon as they turned off the road for deployment, were stuck at the edge of the forest.

        © Reports of ABTV front-line commanders and formations about the fighting of tank forces in winter conditions
  6. +1
    16 February 2019 07: 56
    Tell me photos from which museum?
    1. +1
      16 February 2019 15: 05
      Most likely Verkhnyaya Pyshma
    2. 0
      16 February 2019 18: 37
      Quote: mr.ZinGer
      Tell me photos from which museum?


      UMMC Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma
      1. +1
        16 February 2019 19: 47
        Quote: Banshee
        UMMC Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma

        Near Yekaterinburg, and not everyone knows where Verkhnyaya Pyshma is ...
        1. +2
          16 February 2019 21: 49
          Geographically from the north-west of Yekaterinburg!
  7. +11
    16 February 2019 08: 01
    In Africa, this tank was an unpleasant surprise for the Germans with all its really awkward appearance, good armor and a 75 mm gun with very decent ballistics for that period. This tank is shown in great detail in the film * Sahara * with Belushi in the title role, and here we have really-BM-7 ,,, About * Churchill * the prime minister himself said- * A tank with my name has even more shortcomings than myself *, and our tankmen rated * Churchill * adequately or, say, not so critical , here, on the contrary, decently fought in Africa, but with us, not very
    1. +2
      16 February 2019 08: 32
      Quote: serg.shishkov2015
      About * Churchill * the Prime Minister himself said - * The tank with my name has even more shortcomings,

      One of the drawbacks of the Churchill was its very poor maneuverability. It was problematic for this tank to climb even on a small hill. In this case, it simply skidded. Then the mechanics of Yakubovsky's brigade riveted special lugs on his tracks, which, to some extent, solved this problem.General Batov, by the way, is a big joke lover, when he met, he always told Yakubovsky, come on, tell us how you shod our ally Churchill and laughed wherein...
      1. +1
        16 February 2019 08: 43
        another drawback of it was manifested in the winter - due to the fact that the caterpillars covered the hull, the snow was packed under the upper branch and jammed the tower if the tank stood in the cold for a long time and this snow froze
      2. +1
        16 February 2019 15: 32
        In my opinion on this site, I read that such a Churchill scheme was chosen to increase cross-country ability, he will have to fight in the foreground of the Maginot line, which will all be in the craters.
    2. Alf
      +3
      16 February 2019 10: 16
      Quote: serg.shishkov2015
      In Africa, this tank was an unpleasant surprise for the Germans with all its really awkward appearance, good armor and a 75 mm gun with very decent ballistics for that period. This tank is shown in great detail in the film * Sahara * with Belusha in the title role,

      I remind you that Grant’s adversary in this film was the thirsty infantrymen without any anti-tank weapons. But the Americans still defeated them, or rather deceived.
      1. +1
        16 February 2019 12: 31
        In the USSR there was a similar film. Only there was no tank, and Soviet soldiers defended a well in the desert from a gang of basmachi! Alas, I don’t remember the name!
        1. Alf
          +2
          16 February 2019 12: 32
          Quote: hohol95
          Alas, I don’t remember the name!

          Seven brave.
          1. +5
            16 February 2019 12: 36
            Seven bold
            Six researchers arrive in the snowy Arctic for the winter. The steamer has already left, and when unpacking the cargo, the wintering crews discover the Arctic “hare” - Peter Molybogu ​​(Peter Aleinikov). Courageous winterers becomes seven.

            Found - THIRTEEN (1936)
            1. Alf
              +1
              16 February 2019 12: 58
              Yes, I made a mistake.
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. +1
          16 February 2019 13: 47
          I remember watching this movie. There was no water in the well, but border guards played out that there was a lot of water.
        3. +1
          16 February 2019 17: 46
          The film was called "Thirteen", two survived: the messenger and the Tatar!
        4. 0
          16 February 2019 18: 13
          "Thirteen". A very good movie. Filmed before the war. To see the current directors for study. Download from the network while you can.
          Then, not so long ago, the Americans made a remake of this film. 1 in 1.
      2. +1
        16 February 2019 12: 47
        Wikiviki is broadcasting -
        This film is a remake of the film of the same name in 1943, shot by Zoltan Korda in his own script. In turn, Korda was inspired by the Soviet film of 1936, "Thirteen": thirteen people defend a dry well from a Basmachi gang. True, the films have different endings: after the battle, only one Red Army man remains alive. And when the White Guard officer Skuratov (Andrey Fayt) asks for water from him, the Red Army man replies: “Water? That’s what’s not, that’s not. ” In turn, there is evidence that Mikhail Romm shot this tape on the personal instructions of I. Stalin, who really liked John Ford's 1934 Lost Patrol film.
    3. +1
      16 February 2019 10: 59
      I also remembered this movie.
      By the way, I always liked the tank (outwardly), there is something in it ... something brutal :)))
      1. 0
        16 February 2019 16: 03
        In this, General Lee is somewhat similar to our t-28s and t-35s. Yes
        1. +4
          17 February 2019 00: 02
          Quote: albert
          In this, General Lee is somewhat similar to our t-28s and t-35s.

          And also TG (Grotte tank)

          In March 1930, foreign specialists were invited to provide technical assistance to the Soviet Union, including the German engineer Edward Grotte. Under his leadership, by the fall of 1931 at the Bolshevik plant in Leningrad, an experimental medium tank TG was developed and manufactured. But this tank did not go into mass production. Work on the TG was discontinued, and it was decided to refuse further services to E. Grotte.
  8. +6
    16 February 2019 08: 21
    A little known fact.

    The M3 tanks as part of Colonel Gordeyev's group participated in the landing operation in Southern Ozereyka (3 - 4 in February of 1943), promptly submitting to the command of the 47 army.
    The 563 rep with 30 tanks M3 on three barges was delivered to the landing site. Most of the tanks were hit when trying to disembark, only 8 tanks managed to get ashore. For several days they, together with the infantry, fought, then were shot down, and the surviving crews made their way onto the “small land” on foot.
    It should be noted that this was the only case in World War II, when tanks landed in the first echelon of the amphibious assault forces.
    1. +13
      16 February 2019 11: 57
      In the assault, not the medium Lee, but the light M3l Stuart were involved. Medium tanks in the amount of 10 pieces (for each of the barges) can only be pulled by the BDK, even by the KFOR tank capacity of 5 pieces.
    2. +5
      16 February 2019 12: 22
      The harsh truth of life - you confused M3s and M3l.

      Unfortunately, only fragmentary data were found about the 563rd OTB. Apparently, the unit was formed in the early summer of 1942 in the Sumgait tank camp. On August 31, the battalion entered the combat structure of the Transcaucasian Front and took part in the hostilities in the area of ​​Mozdok and Nalchik as part of the 37th Army. There is no exact information about the type of vehicles that were in service at that time, but with a high degree of certainty it can be said that initially they were British “Valentine” tanks and American M3 General Stuart. In early December, the battalion was withdrawn from the front and transferred to the Tuapse area, where it was to manpower and prepare for the operation. There he was completely rearmament on the M3.
      1. +3
        16 February 2019 12: 29
        Potter
        Today, 12: 57
        hohol95
        Today, 13: 22
        ,, hi Thank you.
        There is no shame to admit to a person in his mistake.(C)
        1. +2
          16 February 2019 12: 32
          It happens! hi It is difficult at times to determine the technique for broken buildings!
      2. +1
        16 February 2019 16: 47
        ACTIONS OF THE 563rd SEPARATE TANK BATTALION IN THE DESCENT IN THE SOUTHERN LAKE.

        The 563rd separate tank battalion was formed according to the order of the commander of the Transcaucasian Front on August 24, 1942.
        in the city of Sumgait. The battalion, commanded by Captain Borochuk, was equipped with American M-3 Steward tanks. (16 pcs.) And M-3L (14 pcs.).
        The battalion took its first battle in the area of ​​the Terek railway station in early October 1942, being under operational control of the Northern Group of Forces of the Transcaucasian Front.
        Here, in a tank ambush, the first company consisting of 1 tanks was completely disabled within a few minutes. When the enemy in the Nalchik area went on the offensive,
        battalion tanks in small groups supported the defense. In these battles, the battalion lost all remaining tanks and departed to staff in the city of Sumgait.

        Since January 4, 1943, the 563rd separate tank battalion, commanded by Captain A.P. Illarionov, equipped with 30 M-3L tanks, was part of the Black Sea Group of Forces.
        On January 27.01.1943, 255, the battalion became operational subordinate to the commander of the XNUMXth Red Banner Marine Corps.

        Here is something on the Internet.
  9. +1
    16 February 2019 08: 23
    Quote: Theodore
    God be upon you, that you yourself are not good!

    Here we must reproach our tank specialists for being "tempted". Probably, like the British, they were happy with ANY tank.
    1. Alf
      +6
      16 February 2019 10: 19
      Quote: Astra wild
      Here we must reproach our tank specialists for being "tempted".

      Our tankers in America then had a "huge" choice. Either "it" or nothing.
    2. +1
      16 February 2019 12: 29
      At that time in the USA only M3 "Stewart" (for us EASY) and M3 "Lee" (for us MEDIUM) were mass produced. The British made their comments on the design of the tank and got the M3 "Grant".
      They removed the commander’s turret with a machine gun and changed the turret of the tank!
      In all the photographs in the article with "landscapes of Africa", it is the model of the Grant tank that is presented.
      The British mainly used the model of the Li tank in the East Asian theater of operations.
      1. +1
        16 February 2019 21: 21
        Americans are pleased with the variety of names of their technology. M1, M2 and M3 - you can always guess. :)
        1. +1
          18 February 2019 12: 09
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Americans are pleased with the variety of names of their technology. M1, M2 and M3 - you can always guess. :)

          Yeah ... moreover, in the same class, several types of weapons can be called the same.
          Light tank - M3. Medium tank - M3.
          Self-loading rifle under the cartridge .30-06 - M1. A carbine chambered for .30 Carbine - again M1.
  10. +2
    16 February 2019 09: 02
    Roma, you always had detailed stories and photos. View from above, outside, and inside, but today is not.
    1. Alf
      +6
      16 February 2019 10: 21
      Quote: Astra wild
      Roma, you always had detailed stories and photos. View from above, outside, and inside, but today is not.

    2. 0
      16 February 2019 18: 39
      Quote: Astra wild
      Roma, you always had detailed stories and photos. View from above, outside, and inside, but today is not.


      With photos it turned out not very beautiful, one of the flash drives ordered to live for a long time. Well, I lost about 400 photo, moreover, I found it out on my return. Therefore, somewhere very modestly obtained.
      1. +1
        16 February 2019 20: 55
        It seems that such a phenomenon is inevitable. There are more and more information carriers and they can be easily lost, 2 itself have been lost, and now I try to duplicate
  11. +9
    16 February 2019 09: 04
    On bezrybe and cancer pike, this kanesh is not a masterpiece of technical thought, but it is armored has two guns and can fight, and the rest is from the evil one, it is clearly the best option than the BT, T26 or T40, T60 series ... hi
  12. +3
    16 February 2019 09: 19
    Video about M3 Grant. If interesting.

  13. +2
    16 February 2019 09: 25
    "Suddenly (for lack of a better one)," Lee "liked it", one of the reasons that justified itself in the desert, the view from the tank, "I sit high, I look far away."
    1. Alf
      +3
      16 February 2019 10: 20
      Quote: Strashila
      "I sit high, I look far away."

      From far away I get a shell.
  14. +4
    16 February 2019 10: 31
    By the way, both cars received the name from the British as a gift. In Britain, cars went under other indices.
    Inaccuracy. It was in Britain that the vehicles were used under the names "General Lee" and "General Grant". The British distinguished between the "American" and "English" versions of the tank, which in the USA was called the Medium Tank, M3.
  15. +6
    16 February 2019 11: 15
    In the USSR, 1 386 tanks were shipped. This is according to American data. According to Soviet data, the USSR received all 976 machines. Losses of almost 30% of supplies are still of interest to historians and specialists. Machines either drowned in the northern seas, or lost in the Iranian deserts.

    On July 19, 2018, specialists from the Northern Fleet search and rescue operations department raised the M3 Lee tank, which sank in the Barents Sea.
    In 1943, the Ballot transport ship sank off the island of Kildin in the Barents Sea. Some of the vehicles were unloaded onto land, while the rest, including the M3 Lee tanks, went to the bottom with the ship.
    1. +4
      16 February 2019 12: 57
      In the Red Army there was another unit equipped with MZ Li tanks, which is often forgotten. At the beginning of 1943, with the help of divers of the North Sea Fleet, 12 tanks of the MZ Li were sunk from the bottom of the Arctic Ocean, sunk together with one of the transports. The tanks were in the water for about a year. With the help of specialists from the 297th repair battalion, 11 vehicles were repaired (the twelfth tank was dismantled for spare parts). The tanks were included in the 91st separate tank regiment of the Karelian Front (five BT-5, 14 BT-7, and 11 MZ Li). During the years 1943-1944. the regiment fought positional battles.
    2. +1
      17 February 2019 00: 06
      Only on the sunk 24 vessels of the PQ-17 convoy, 100 military cargo, 000 tanks, 430 aircraft, 210 vehicles were lost. That is, the Allies suffered a major military defeat, equivalent to the loss of 3350 tank corps.
  16. +3
    16 February 2019 11: 47
    This is not only a "nightmare", but also a "horror", dusting off the road on its tracks ..
    1. +1
      16 February 2019 12: 34
      I will add! He showed himself especially sadly in winter conditions. I even had to stud the spikes on the path in order to somehow increase the cross-country ability !!!
      1. +3
        16 February 2019 13: 43
        This is the work of several hours in the workshops.
      2. +3
        16 February 2019 14: 00
        The namesake, for the sake of justice: the Germans also spiked their tanks.
        In the literature, I did not find confirmation, but from the old people I heard that on the Southern Front our T-60s had similar "spurs" and on some other
  17. 0
    16 February 2019 12: 24
    That it was * Li * that was supplied to the USSR, I found only in special literature, In all memoirs and post-war books it goes like * General Grant *, * Grant *, M3s, M3 is average, although there are no fundamental differences between the modifications
    1. 0
      16 February 2019 14: 02
      I confirm: EVERYWHERE they spoke about: "Grant"
      1. +2
        16 February 2019 18: 53
        And in the front-line photos everywhere Lee.
        1. 0
          16 February 2019 21: 27
          You yourself read that Grant and Lee hardly differed from each other. Why did we have Lee "christened" in Grant Maybe a more memorable surname?
          1. +1
            16 February 2019 21: 34
            Both "Lee" and "Grant" were supplied to the USSR under Lend Lease, judging by the documents. But I did not find the front-line photos of the "Grants". Perhaps in the USSR, tanks with a British turret simply did not get into the USSR. And M3A5, which the British called "Grant II" from "Lee" does not differ in appearance.
  18. BAI
    +3
    16 February 2019 12: 55

    Production of M3 General Lee tanks at the Chrysler Corporation plant in Detroit - Military album
    By the way, there are 2 M3 - Lee and Stuart.
    1. 0
      17 February 2019 14: 53
      Production of M3 General Lee tanks at the Chrysler Corporation plant in Detroit - Military album
      By the way, there are 2 M3 - Lee and Stuart.

      Thank you, interesting photo. Reminded of one movie ...
  19. +1
    16 February 2019 13: 42
    In 1942, half of the T-34 was under repair because of the disgusting quality and problems with the tracks, the engine, etc. And this miracle at least drove. And shot. And it was quite reliable. And the armor is no worse than the T-34, thicker and better quality. And the gun is no worse. And the radio station is much better. And habitability is incomparable. A tower .... So the T-34 tower still needs to be rotated. Tankers preferred to stick to the enemy with frontal armor, so this placement of the gun is certainly squalor, but for most military situations it will do.
  20. +1
    16 February 2019 13: 47
    This is the best infantry fighting vehicle, not a tank. Not for that and not so used it !!
  21. +6
    16 February 2019 16: 06
    Before you mock at this tank, you need to remember that America wasn’t going to fight with anyone before WWII, especially on land-based European theaters and tanks, she almost didn’t have tanks.
    But when Pearl Harbor happened and it became clear that war could not be avoided and tanks were needed not only by the States, but also by England and the USSR and other allies, tanks like "LI" were molded from what was and by those specialists who had never built tanks before ...
    The main thing was to do them quickly and in large quantities. When the task of "doing quickly and a lot" was somehow solved, the subsequent models of tanks were created more thoughtfully, although the lack of experience was reflected in them. All the same, the USSR went to its T34, KV and IS for almost twenty years, not disdaining at first to borrow in this area from the same Americans (Christie's tank), although Christie was not a prophet in his homeland
    1. +2
      16 February 2019 17: 24
      Quote: gregor6549
      tanks like "LI" were molded from what was

      The grant was designed and produced prior to PX.
      Quote: gregor6549
      we need to remember that America before WWII was not going to fight with anyone

      One battleship = one tank army. In the 38th year, 9 are under construction or commissioned, in the summer of the 41st, 10 are under construction and 12 are ordered.
      For a country that is not going to fight, 22 tank armies are many.

      We counted it only battleships. Approved, for example, 15 thousand aircraft of naval aviation. Only marine, land separately. Peace 40th year.

      Pacifists.
      Isolationists.
      1. +1
        16 February 2019 20: 44
        If you add to "not going to fight" "not going to fight in Europe", then everything will fall into place. Hordes of tanks are not needed against the Japanese, but the fleet and aircraft are very even.
      2. 0
        18 February 2019 12: 17
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        We counted it only battleships. Approved, for example, 15 thousand aircraft of naval aviation. Only marine, land separately. Peace 40th year.

        He-he-he ... You still remember the pre-war training programs for 100 pilots. And the pre-war program "student-to-plane", when the army, together with civilians, organized a program of primary training in piloting for college students.
        In general, Roosevelt began to restore the army back in 1938 - the "Roosevelt million".
        And in the fleet we can recall another 1936 - the famous Merchant Marine Act, according to which the preparation of yet another fleet reserve, from American civilian sailors, and the preparation of the construction of high-speed transports began.
        1. 0
          18 February 2019 12: 51
          Quote: Alexey RA
          You will also recall the pre-war training programs for 100 pilots.

          ... our main Air Force Directorate of the Navy, led by Rear Admiral Tower, had prudence back in 1940 to start a combat training program that would ensure the release of 30 pilots per year, and half of our ever-increasing production of aircraft at that time accounted for the production of training aircraft. When in 000 our aircraft carriers began to arrive at the theater of war, for each of them we had prepared two fully trained air groups, which alternately operated in the battle zone, to avoid unnecessarily overwork pilots (hello Rudel - V.D.) Very rarely, our pilots went into battle with less than 18 months of combat training or 500 flight hours

          We send planes under our own power to the nearest military airfield. I fly to U-2 to this airdrome, I want to see with my own eyes to whom we are delivering the planes.
          I do not see lieutenants among the pilots, only sergeants. I ask:
          - What raid do you have on combat aircraft? Answer:
          One and a half to two hours, and then most often on old planes, rarely anyone flew on new ones. I ask the commanders:
          - How will the development of a new material part take place?
          - The theory was explained to them during the study, they were introduced to the features of the aircraft, well, here we give one or two flights and then to Stalingrad. Time is running out.
          Young pilots fought selflessly, helping the Stalingraders defend the city, destroying enemy equipment in the air and on the ground.
          (Harmann with 6 years of flying in a civilian did not have time to Stalingrad - V.D)
          1. +1
            18 February 2019 14: 57
            Well, the Yankees already had it in 1943. In 1942, everything was much more interesting. Remember this wonderful description of the pilots of the base aviation of the key point of the main naval battle on TO?
            17 out of 21 pilots have just graduated from flight schools. Some of them after graduation did not have time to fly even four hours. None of them knew why they were sent to *.

            One of the army pilots, Lieutenant Jame Muri, had previously been at Hickem airfield, awaiting orders to fly to Australia, where his entire squadron was already located. Instead, he unexpectedly received orders to fly to Ford Island at Pearl Harbor. The other three B-26 bombers received a similar order, and when the army pilots arrived at Ford Island Air Base, they found a whole crowd of naval officers and several huge torpedoes that Muri had seen for the first time in his life. Four crews in a hurry began to learn take-off and landing with suspended torpedoes. Army pilots never flew in the area * and had no experience flying over the sea. In addition, their compasses were not adjusted. When two days later they flew out of Pearl Harbor, all four bombers went to different courses.

            On June 1, six torpedo bombers under the command of Lieutenant Len-Dock Fiberling flew to their destination. Young pilots of the Avengers had never been in battle, and one of them, junior lieutenant A. Ernest, never took off with a torpedo.
            1. 0
              18 February 2019 15: 22
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Remember this wonderful description.

              Well, Lord - he is, of course. It is incredibly difficult to describe the US victory over Japan as David’s victory over Goliath, but he is trying his best.
    2. +3
      16 February 2019 18: 42
      Quote: gregor6549
      Before you mock this tank


      In no case! Nobody scoffed and was not going to, everything went into business. We have a rather high opinion of many samples of American technology, but we try to be objective.
    3. +3
      16 February 2019 19: 32
      "Before you mock this tank, you need to remember ..." what the Soviet tank crews fought in 1941-1942.
      It is unlikely that the tankers going into battle on the BT-5, BT-7, T-26, T-40, T-60 felt more confident than in the M3.
      1. +2
        17 February 2019 13: 16
        what the Soviet tank crews fought in 1941-1942.
        It is unlikely that the tankers going into battle on the BT-5, BT-7, T-26, T-40, T-60 felt more confident than in the M3.

        For some reason, this photograph is immediately recalled ...

        German tanks Pz.Kpfw. III and Pz.Kpfw. IV pass by the burning Soviet BT-7 tank.
        These are the tanks of the 15th tank regiment of the 11th tank division of the Wehrmacht. The offensive on Kiev, July — August 1941.
        Source: http://waralbum.ru/17871/

        Although, in my opinion, with the advent of Faustpatrone, tankers ceased to feel confident on any tank (with rare exceptions).

        German soldiers armed with Panzerfaust anti-tank grenade launchers in a road ditch next to a destroyed Soviet T-34-85 tank during battles in the Courland Cauldron.

        Sources of photo information:
        1.www.delfi.lt
        2.audiovis.nac.gov.pl
  22. -4
    16 February 2019 18: 04
    And then they say - without our help Hitler you would not have won, although you had won despite this help ...
  23. 0
    16 February 2019 18: 39
    Why is this car called a tank? This is a self-propelled gun and it must be used as a self-propelled gun. As a modernization, wide tracks, screens on the face, and a 100mm short barrel in sponson. The increase in mass is compensated by removing the tower.
    1. -2
      17 February 2019 15: 03
      Quote: garri-lin
      why is this car called a tank? This is a self-propelled gun and it must be used as a self-propelled gun.

      The real tank. Unlike the T-34 wartime, for example.
      1. 0
        17 February 2019 19: 14
        Ha ha ha oooooooooh yes you are an expert multi-stationer. The car is not a bad ersatz milking its time. How could they have come up with an acceptable weapon to surround with armor and make it move. An analogue of KV2 in flight design thoughts. When finalizing with a rasp and a sledgehammer, you can get an assault Sau. If he had appeared 15 years earlier, he would have been a tank. For its time, was an ersatz. Most already understood what a tank is and how it should look.
        1. 0
          17 February 2019 19: 36
          Quote: garri-lin
          Most already understood what a tank is and how it should look.

          And you? Do you know what the tank was supposed to be in those days?
          And what types of pre-war tanks do you know?
          1. 0
            17 February 2019 21: 39
            Well, actually three and four. T 34 t 50. Nl, ideally four but with a diesel engine.
            1. -1
              17 February 2019 22: 09
              Quote: garri-lin
              Well, actually three and four. T 34 T 50.

              Soviet tanks can immediately cross out. Because according to the actual performance characteristics, they had nothing to do with their manuals.
              This applies to everything, and above all, their main weapon, guns.
              The troika was the BTT of the dying out concept of "tank development success". In 1943, the Germans abandoned such a BTT.
              The four roamed in almost all German tactical niches. It began in 1941 as a German breakthrough tank. And she graduated from 1943 with a German light tank.
              At the beginning and middle of the war Pz.IV were completely nothing. But at the end of the war they were already a little outdated and the British Comet paid them.
              At the same time, the T-34/85 and Sherman (76) did not reach the level of the Pz.IV at the end of the war in terms of performance characteristics. Therefore, in its niche, the niche of "German light tanks" (in the world, such tanks were considered average), the Pz.IV were nothing. Honorable second place.
              1. -1
                17 February 2019 23: 52
                And what comet is related to pre-war tanks? For the end of the war I agree a good tank.
                You prophesy him for the first? Does not fit was not him in the beginning. Plus, it is more reminiscent of a tank destroyer with a tower, as well as a t 34 85 like a long-barreled panther.
                T 34 was essentially a concept of a new type of weapon (for the USSR) which, by the will of fate, became serial. Ideally, the t34m was supposed to go to the troops. But did not have time.
                1. -2
                  18 February 2019 00: 45
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  You prophesy him for the first?

                  In the first place among the tanks of mass production, I would put the Panther.
                  And in a less severe category, Comet.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Does not fit was not him in the beginning.

                  Those tanks that were at the beginning of the war, at its end no one else had.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Plus, it is more reminiscent of a tank destroyer with a tower, as well as a t 34 85 like a long-barreled panther.

                  Nevertheless, the fragmentation of its OFS was sufficient for the Comet platform. Based on this fact (among other characteristic features), we can safely say that the Comet is not a tank destroyer, but a tank.
                  But just the T-34/85 and Sherman (76), this is a tank destroyer. The fragmentation of their OS was all the hell. For full tanks, this is unacceptable.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  T 34 was essentially a concept of a new type of weapon (for the USSR) which, by the will of fate, became serial.

                  Nothing new. In general, the T-34 is a product of chance. And products of chance are not successful.
                  A tank of success development A-20 was built. Very sloppy construction, since the niche of such a BTT was of the 10th degree of importance.
                  Then they decided (quite sensibly and fairly) that the infantry escort tank (instead of the T-26) should have a 76 mm gun. It could be placed in a double tower (based on the size of the shoulder strap), both on the T-126SP platform (Leningrad) and on the A-20 platform (Kharkov).
                  The A-20 suspension was redone for a caterpillar move (before that the move was double), and a double turret with a 76 mm gun was placed on the platform. The reservation was brought to, now I do not remember exactly, but in my opinion 37 mm (the T-126SP had the same amount). So got the A-32.
                  All the same could be done with the T-126SP, but the T-126SP platform did not allow increasing the reservation, and the A-32 platform allowed. She (from A-32) was chosen for the infantry escort tank (in fact, motorized infantry, of course).
                  As a result, the A-32 reservation was increased to 45 mm, and the gun was replaced by 76 mm L-11. This model was called the T-34. In the end, it was an infantry escort tank. Those. not a real tank (the Germans generally used assault self-propelled guns for this). The real tank (breakthrough tank) in the USSR before the war was KV-1.
                  And the T-126SP was left with a 45 mm cannon, fumbling into the tower (seen enough on Pz.III) of the third crew member. This is how the T-50 success development tank turned out.
                  Despite the fairly modern design, rubbish was a tank. No guns, no armor. It sucks. Well, that almost did not produce.
                  And the T-34, despite the slop construction, as an infantry escort tank could be very anything (with certain reservations). But it wasn’t used that way for a day. KV-1 screwed up in full (drove poorly) and therefore used the T-34 as real tanks. Which in this role were generally none. From this and additional losses.
                  But there was no T-34 concept. Yes, he went to the series by chance. But he was not a concept and they began to release it quite consciously. Moreover, at two factories at once, KhPZ and STZ. And in large series.
                  I especially want to note that no T-34s were promoted by any Koshkins (and even Dogs). Everything was done on the instructions of the ABTU. And the whole intrigue around the T-34, this is an invention of Sovagitprop.
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Ideally, the t34m was supposed to go to the troops. But did not have time.

                  Talk about the T-34M is not worth a damn. This tank was not even in the form of a wooden model. Only drawings on the paper and the formidable Decree of the Council of People's Commissars. On which everyone basically wanted to sneeze. This is about performing discipline under Dzhugashvili.
                  1. 0
                    18 February 2019 01: 17
                    You pile up tanks of different weight and price categories. This is not good. Panther is good. But overweight. And dear. By the way, I did not want to find the comets, but I could not restrain myself. In 44, his frontal vertical slab looked very eerie anochronism. And due to such stupid decisions, too overwhelmed. Although the engine compensated it with dashing. But the designers have to work on the shape of the hull more, with weight they could increase the armor more. It would be nice and not a tank. But they didn’t. Minus
                    2. You started talking about tanks of the beginning of the war and abruptly jumped to the end of the war. This is strange. You knock yourself down.
                    3. The fragmentation of comet shells as measured? With what and by what catenories were they compared? I honestly say without other information and may be mistaken, but the gun looks like a hole punch.
                    4. Like a pearl about T34 not used milking the infantry. It blocked everything. Well, a comparison of sq, etc. And thanks for the story of creation. Especially t 50.
                    5. T 34 m. The theoretical base for tanks in those days was near-zero. They sculpted a lot of things. The whole world sculpted. When something good came out he was honed to perfection. T 34 was precisely a stuck concept. As you yourself have described everything. It had to be implemented at a new level. Bring to mind the weak points. To lay modernization potential. Think over ergonomics. This can only be done in peacetime. Because t 34 m is only on paper. Time was not right. They understood that the war was coming. History has confirmed the correctness of the decision.
                  2. 0
                    18 February 2019 02: 13
                    I forgot to add on the panther. Also looks more like a tank destroyer. Severe. Although with another cannon and side plates of increased thickness, the result is a good tank.
                    1. 0
                      18 February 2019 11: 16
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Panther is good. But overweight. And dear.

                      Overtight regarding what and roads relative to what?
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      And due to such stupid decisions, too overwhelmed. Although the engine compensated it with dashing.

                      The comet in weight, armor and weapon exactly corresponded to Sherman Firefly, but with a more powerful engine. With what joy does it seem overweight to you if ARVs, pontoons, etc. it is for this weight and designed?
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      But the designers have to work on the shape of the hull more, with weight they could increase the armor more. It would be nice and not a tank. But did not

                      And they worked, and did, and was. Centurion. But it is time. The comet began to arrive in units at the end of the 44th year, and the Cent only at the end of the 45th.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Fragmentation of comet shells as measured? With what and by what catenories were they compared? I honestly say without other information and may be mistaken, but the gun looks like a hole punch.

                      Weight and brand of explosives in the OFS shell. The puncher was 76mm Sherman, 390 grams of explosives versus 680 grams of 75mm guns of the same Sherman. At T-34-76 d.b. OF-350 with 710 g of explosives (but less powerful, amatol instead of TNT), however, in wartime, the cast-iron grenade O-350A, 540 grams of explosives was often used.
                      T-34-85 and Pershing were also to some extent hole punchers - the high velocity of the general physical projectile made it strong, there was no room for explosives, but the increase in caliber mitigated this drawback. The O-365 shell had about the same 660 g of explosives as the T-34-76, and the Americans shoved 90 g of explosives in their 71 mm M974, not Soviet amatole, but a mixture based on RDX (almost 1,5 times more powerful )
                      The British and Germans took a different path. Panther and 17 pound tanks had OFS with a reduced powder charge. They flew slower than the BB, demanded a more complex sight, but allowed to put more explosives. The comet's projectile carried 580 g of explosives, Sprgr. 42 Panthers - 650 g, that is, as much as Sprgr.Patr. 34 of the late four, and 1,5 times more than 7.5 cm Sprgr. 34 of the early four, which was supplied at the time of adoption as a special anti-personnel tank.
                      That is, with its prohibitive armor penetration, Panther retained all anti-personnel capabilities, paying for it with a more complex aiming - when moving from BB to OFS, it was necessary to re-aim.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      This can only be done in peacetime.

                      You're not right. Sherman, Tiger, Panther, Comet - wartime tanks. IS, by the way, too.
                      The early T-34 was simply a defiant hack, unlike the Leningraders.
                      1. 0
                        18 February 2019 17: 44
                        Well on points.
                        1. The Panther was conceived as a medium tank. The analogue is 34. But the actual weight was of a similar is 2. And the price is high. For a mass tank, the term is tight and expensive do not fit. Regarding the same four was expensive.
                        2. The comet. If initially the shape of the case would have been better thought out. Less vertical slabs, rational slope. Tanchik would be a confect. Undoubtedly the best could be. Either less weight with an existing yron, or better armor with weight. We had the opportunity but for some reason did not want to implement it. They did it in two steps, the comet then CENT (, cool reduction). Could initially abandon the vertical plates.
                        3. Thank you for the info on the number of explosives in different shells. Karotko and the case. One note is the amount of explosives and the fragmentation effect are slightly different. Excessive count of explosives can reduce the number of fragments. But when firing at bunkers / bunkers / basements, the hazard is more important.
                        4. I think, now and then, they understood that industry simply could not pull up bringing t 34 to its ideal state and mass production in conditions of war. A year and a half would have been and everything could have been a friend. Imagine what can be done on the basis of pre-war 34 and having a year and a half and a level of motivation of 43 years? Improve ergonomics, eliminate childhood diseases. Take care of this in the year 41 and the USSR could simply remain without tanks.
                      2. 0
                        18 February 2019 18: 47
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        The Panther was conceived as a medium tank. Analogue t 34

                        Why do you think so? The Panther immediately had a tank destroyer (thick forehead and huge gun armor penetration) with tank capabilities (good OFS). He must become the killer of the T-34, and not its counterpart. The four were analogous.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        But the actual weight had a similar is 2

                        Who told you that weight matters? Soviet fans of a tight layout? The Americans answered the three and four of the 40th year, both in the region of 20 tons, by Grant and Sherman, both under 30 tons, who should care?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And the price is high

                        Are you sure the Panther was more expensive than the T-34?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Regarding the same four was expensive.

                        At 20%, EMNIP.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        We had the opportunity but for some reason did not want to implement

                        You see, the British didn't need "the best tank ever." They needed the best tank they could get in a year. They got it - they converted it from Cromwell. If they started the year in 41, the tank would probably be different.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        One note is the amount of explosives and the fragmentation effect are slightly different.

                        The situation with fragments is difficult to quantify. Especially given the unpredictable military quality.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        bringing the t 34 to its ideal state and mass production in war

                        It was just necessary to bring the T-34 to a relatively perfect state along with mass release in evacuation. Just those tanks that have passed 1000 km. according to Manchuria, were the ideal T-34. It cannot be said that the industrial base of the USSR of the 45th year was radically stronger than at the beginning of the 41st.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        A year and a half would have been and everything could have been a friend. Imagine what can be done on the basis of pre-war 34 and having a year and a half and a level of motivation of 43 years? Improve ergonomics, eliminate childhood diseases. Take care of this in the year 41 and the USSR could simply remain without tanks.

                        Lost the thought.
                      3. 0
                        18 February 2019 20: 28
                        The strange thing is that the Germans called the tank destroyer exactly the tank destroyer and the panther was called a tank. Although I (her panther) think it is a tank destroyer. And the phrase that the panther was created to become the killer of t 34 is another pearl. It was absolutely not necessary to create such an armored car for this.
                        About weight. To have in weight and 2 side armor similar to t 34 is a fiasco. Very weird approach.
                        About cromwell. The body was redone. At least the windshield could be completely oblique. Without vertical detail. And on t 34 I will not say anything. It was a good tank. But it could be even better.
                      4. 0
                        18 February 2019 21: 11
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        The strange thing is that the Germans called the tank destroyer exactly the tank destroyer and the panther was called a tank.

                        Yes, there is some confusion.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        the phrase that the panther was created to become the killer of t 34 is another pearl. It was absolutely not necessary to create such an armored car for this

                        Partly you are right, the killer is not the T-34, but anything, including KV.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        To have in weight and 2 side armor similar to t 34 is a fiasco.

                        And who told you that instead of Panther, Vibikke needed to make an assault tank if the Tiger had already been made by Aders with Porsche?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        About cromwell. The body was redone. At least the frontal could completely make inclinations

                        Could not. Rational angles required the alteration of the transmission. At Cent, the issue was resolved by returning to Matilda's layout.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        It was a good tank. But it could be even better.

                        Yeah. There wasn’t enough fellow with a laptop.
                      5. 0
                        18 February 2019 21: 24
                        Mostly HF. Plus, the Germans understood that having such a tank, the tips would not stop and would create better. Therefore, they created it.
                        Panther armor could really be more reliable. Without bringing to a state of self-propelled bunker.
                        To straighten the frontal, there is no need to redo the transmission.
                        Did not have enough time.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. 0
                        24 February 2019 15: 49
                        You made my day! Specify the training manual. The main area of ​​the side was 40 mm. The quality of the armor of Silieu walked from the release date. 40 mm in the second half of the war is nothing. That certainly wasn’t crazy. I’m silent about the rest because I don’t want to react to delirium. Here you can’t do without melikamenty.
    2. 0
      22 February 2019 21: 52
      Why is this car called a tank? This is a self-propelled gun and it must be used as a self-propelled gun.

      M3 - self-propelled guns that were used as a tank, so this is a tank. The self-propelled guns used for their intended purpose were Priest.

      Artillery crew on the American 105-mm self-propelled howitzer M7 Priest during exercises.
      Source: http://waralbum.ru/148626/

      As a modernization, wide tracks, screens on the face, and a 100mm short barrel in sponson. The increase in mass is compensated by removing the tower.

      Isn’t it easier to go the German way? smile
      1. 0
        23 February 2019 00: 30
        The brother in the photo 1 sau, in the photo 2 dzhe not ersatz and bush. But the invention described in the article is sau. And they also used his PDA tank
        1. 0
          23 February 2019 11: 04
          Quote: garri-lin
          in the photo 1 sau, in the photo 2 DJE not an ersatz but a bush

          In the photo 1 is a self-propelled howitzer, a machine designed to provide artillery support to tank divisions.
          In the photo 2 a motor carriage, a machine that allows to increase mobility 15cm regimental infantry guns sIG 33, weighing nearly 2 tons.
          Do not forget that the Wehrmacht of the beginning of the Second World War walks, and the draft is horse-drawn. The carriage could lead a gun (or rather a mortar) both on itself and pull (and something else was riding on top).
          1. 0
            23 February 2019 13: 22
            And in case of damage to the chassis of this carriage, a two-ton crane is needed to repress the gun on another carriage. What for? We decided to spend it so do the tractor. Good, passable tractor. And so with places for calculation covered with bulletproof armor. And with a place for ammunition. And ideally, with a small dozer blade, to dig a gun.
            1. 0
              23 February 2019 13: 33
              Quote: garri-lin
              And in case of damage to the chassis of this carriage, a two-ton crane is needed to repress the gun on another carriage

              I didn’t hear if it was possible to roll the gun on the platform, but it was possible to roll it accurately.
              Quote: garri-lin
              We decided to spend it so do the tractor. Good, passable tractor

              They did not have the opportunity to make a tractor. The industrial capabilities of the Reich are usually exaggerated.
              Motor rafts were, in fact, the disposal of old chassis. Specifically, this is Pz1. Or so, or a secondhand.
              1. 0
                23 February 2019 13: 40
                Two ladders and a hand-driven winch solved the loading problem. Well, let it be 500 kg.
                And about the original recycling method, Germany was strong. For all applications found.
  24. 0
    16 February 2019 20: 56
    other equipment was also made on the basis of the M3 tank, the M31 Armored Repair and Evacuation Vehicle (delivered the same under the Lend-Lease in the USSR), the Primen Primer, the 105-mm self-propelled guns, the M33 Artillery tractor, and floodlights for the British exotic T10 CDL (Canal Defense Light).
    1. 0
      22 February 2019 21: 22
      other equipment was also made on the basis of the M3 tank, the M31 Armored Repair and Evacuation Vehicle (delivered the same under the Lend-Lease in the USSR), the Primen Primer, the 105-mm self-propelled guns, the M33 Artillery tractor, and floodlights for the British exotic T10 CDL (Canal Defense Light).

      And, still on the basis of the M3, the Canadian medium tank Ram was created.
      All the details of interest, about the creation of the Canadian medium tank Ram, can be read by clicking on the link:
      https://warspot.ru/9876-anglo-amerikanskiy-baran
  25. +3
    16 February 2019 21: 37
    This tank is not so bad as it is customary to respond. A little insane in layout but quite decent in terms of performance. Forehead 51 mm, side 38 mm, no worse than T-34. The review is better, reliability is much higher, the commander's cupola is available, even with a machine gun :))))

    Sherman, not only in terms of performance characteristics, but also externally very similar to it, produced in tens of thousands of pieces and was considered a very decent medium tank. All M3 Lee light tanks available at that time in the Red Army were clearly superior, the T-34 was certainly inferior, but not so much.

    Especially touches the huge, square door on board. By the way, tankers usually appreciate the ability to quickly leave their car.
  26. +1
    16 February 2019 21: 43
    Quote: Banshee
    Quote: mr.ZinGer
    Tell me photos from which museum?


    UMMC Museum in Verkhnyaya Pyshma

    You have all the photos from there. Is there probably a smaller collection in Kubinka? Son, said something about Zadorozhniy, but I did not remind. Glad was his arrival
    1. 0
      17 February 2019 10: 33
      Quote: Astra wild
      You have all the photos from there. Probably in Kubinka smaller collection?


      Well, we still have a lot of materials from Padikovo. In general, it is easier to work with private museums than those of the Ministry of Defense.
  27. +2
    16 February 2019 23: 04
    I have a question for the authors of this cycle, as well as for the cycle of tanks in the inside and outside, you reprint these articles from the website Fishki.net? Am these articles appear earlier than on HE
    1. 0
      17 February 2019 05: 37
      laughing To my deep shame, for example, I have not seen such a site. Thanks for the tip. And the articles go in the order in which the author works out his materials after visiting the museum. But thanks for the link. I will come necessarily.
      1. 0
        17 February 2019 10: 24
        Quote: igor67
        I have a question for the authors of this cycle, as well as for the cycle of tanks in the inside and outside, you reprint these articles from the website Fishki.net? Am these articles appear earlier than on HE


        Hardly. We do not reprint anything, photos I do, so strange as it is to read. If it is not difficult, send links or something, let's compare, let's see ...
      2. +1
        17 February 2019 11: 57
        Quote: domokl
        laughing To my deep shame, for example, I have not seen such a site. Thanks for the tip. And the articles go in the order in which the author works out his materials after visiting the museum. But thanks for the link. I will come necessarily.

        https://fishki.net/2880218-rasskazy-ob-oruzhii-su-100-snaruzhi-i-vnutri.html сегодняшняя статьяна ФИШКИ.нет,СУ 100 снаружи и в натри, автор:
        zaCCCPanec


        Source: https://fishki.net/2880218-rasskazy-ob-oruzhii-su-100-snaruzhi-i-vnutri.html © Fishki.net
        1. +1
          17 February 2019 11: 59
          as well as https://fishki.net/2879126-drugoj-lend-liz-prodolzhenie-tank-m3-li-tryohjetazhnyj-koshmar.html Author:
          zaCCCPanec is yesterday


          Source: https://fishki.net/2879126-drugoj-lend-liz-prodolzhenie-tank-m3-li-tryohjetazhnyj-koshmar.html © Fishki.net
    2. +1
      17 February 2019 10: 30
      Quote: igor67
      Are you reprinting these articles from the Fishki.net site? Am these articles appear earlier than IN


      Not yours. Everything comes out before us, it reprints us.
      1. 0
        17 February 2019 11: 47
        Quote: Banshee
        Quote: igor67
        Are you reprinting these articles from the Fishki.net site? Am these articles appear earlier than IN


        Not yours. Everything comes out before us, it reprints us.

        The novel was just a question, then VO is popular in other media
    3. 0
      17 February 2019 15: 22
      Quote: igor67
      I have a question for the authors of this cycle, as well as for the cycle of tanks in the inside and outside, you reprint these articles from the website Fishki.net? Am these articles appear earlier than on HE

      You are not careful: the author is indicated on the chips at the end of the article. Roman Skomorokhov.
  28. +2
    17 February 2019 00: 31
    Similarly, the opinion of some readers about the differences in engines. We often hear about Grant diesel engines and Li gasoline engines. Alas, but "Grants" had both petrol and diesel engines. Why and how this happened is not the topic of today's material.
    You can, shortly. The Ford GAA-8 engine was still being developed as a tank engine. And it’s probably hard to imagine, but during WWII the Americans experienced a shortage of tank engines and therefore went for the production of exotic types of stars, sparks, or multi-banks ..
    1. +1
      17 February 2019 06: 17
      Quote: Amurets
      Americans during WWII experienced a shortage of tank engines and therefore went for the production of exotic tanks such as stars, sparks, or multi-banks ..

      Unfortunately, you are embellishing the situation.
      In the 30s, American tank building was a self-made garage at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, in which a few oddballs in small ranks tried to pile something. They were given money for everything about everything about 80 thousand a year, this is the price of 1-2 serial tanks.
      Naturally, eccentrics used commercial components. If you needed a 300-force engine, in fact, there were no options other than aviation. Since American aircraft engines are more stars, they took the first suitable one - the Wright air vent. Inline American engines for various reasons did not fit. The automobile or aviation Ranger 6 cylinders, for example, were not powerful enough, Alison, on the contrary, was huge, heavy, and required a cooling system, the question of ordering a special tank engine, at least a multibank or Alison’s halves, was not, in principle, a budget - not a snout.
      Suddenly, in the fall of the 39th and especially in the spring of the 40th suddenly the American military, and even personally beloved comrade Roosevelt himself, felt an interest in tanks. Naturally, this instantly and beyond any measure increased the number of chiefs, meetings, commissions and papers, however, for some reason, it did not increase the number of tank designers at all. Thus, urgently needed beloved capitalist homeland mechanized corps armored divisions of 400 tanks received vehicles that retained the basic technical and layout decisions of self-made 30s.
      And if the auto giants connected to the topic solved a clear question with engines in a matter of months, then the transmission problem that was incomprehensible to automotive engineers (it was not difficult for them to do, but they just did not understand that the tank should be deployed on the spot) continued throughout the war and even further.
  29. 0
    17 February 2019 08: 11
    There is a film with James Belushi, I do not remember, unfortunately, the name. About the war in Africa. This tank is there. The film, by the way, is quite good. And the tank itself ... Well, what can you say that they themselves had, then they sent us and the Britons. We learned very quickly from mistakes. And to say that they "fused" to us what we ourselves do not need, we cannot. They gave what they themselves had.
    1. 0
      17 February 2019 15: 22
      Read the comments at the beginning and remember the name of the film!
      1. 0
        17 February 2019 17: 07
        I found the name: "Sahara", looked at the "wiki", I just, purely by accident, "stumbled" on this film when I was switching channels at night sleeplessly. Well, I came across it, and watched it to the end. I liked the movie.
        1. 0
          17 February 2019 20: 20
          I watched this film on VHS with a self-made translation and appropriate quality.
          1. 0
            17 February 2019 20: 38
            I, at least, not a "void", already happy.
            1. 0
              17 February 2019 20: 40
              I, at least, not a "void", already happy.

              What are you talking about or what?
              1. 0
                17 February 2019 20: 44
                He answered for the words.
                1. 0
                  17 February 2019 20: 52
                  Are you talking about the words about the film - good it happens. Do not worry. This is not the case here. Sometimes you think that your information is suitable for a comment, and then they point out a small mistake to you! But this mistake changes everything to the core! That's why there are discussions here! One of the readers thought that the M3S had been dropped on a small Ozereyka, and there were only M3L "Stuart". This was pointed out to him and he admitted that he was mistaken!
                  Who is to blame that the Americans put M2 / M3 bunches on the M3 and M4 tanks? And there were 3 types of M2 tanks - light "Stuart" and medium "Lee / Grant"!
                  Thank you, the British gave names to the tanks! probably not to get confused in the reporting papers! And then all the M3 tanks ... And the spare parts are different ...
                  1. 0
                    17 February 2019 21: 03
                    Thank! I will continue to be more careful, thank you!
  30. +2
    17 February 2019 09: 57
    Perhaps the most correct description of the history of the tank
    the army needed a medium tank with powerful weapons. Some of the designers, whose brother fought in England on the Hurricane, proposed increasing the number of machine guns to twelve, but it was already clear to everyone that the main weapon of the tank should be a cannon. Remained open question - where this gun should be located. Some of the designers, the so-called "towerists", believed that according to the latest trends, the gun should be located in the tower. The rest, "korpusniks", laughed at them, claiming that they would only stick a powerful cannon into a stupid rotating structure. In their opinion, the best place for a three-inch gun would be some small protrusion on the hull. As a result, a compromise decision was made. Two cannons were placed on the tank, the larger one in the hull and the smaller one in the turret. At the same time, the evil "korpusniks", in order to laugh at the "towers" on the night before the tests, attached another turret to the tower, a smaller one with a machine gun. They say they wanted a tower - choke. The tank was named the M3 "General Li", although many objected, believing that this could be seen as a Chinese influence. This time, none of the members of the commission shot himself, and only one fainted, which was considered a good sign. The tanks were sent to Africa, where Rommel was chasing the British at this time, stopping only to smear himself with sun cream and drink some water. Driven to Cairo, the British politely accepted the overseas gift, although no one would know what they had in mind. The effectiveness of the tank exceeded all expectations: in the first combat clash, the crews of the three newest Pz IIIJs died of laughter and the battlefield remained with the British.


    American tankers appeared at the theater of operations. Having fought a little, they demanded that they be given a tank with one gun, but in the tower. Many engineers objected to such a revolutionary alteration of the structure, rightly pointing out that in such a tank it would be no longer possible to play baseball, and projects to equip the shower tank would finally sink into oblivion. But the tankers stood their ground, indicating that they were ashamed to fight in a tank that their English and German colleagues were laughing at. General Patton took the side of the tankers, promising to shoot the Chief Designer from his favorite mother-of-pearl revolver, and the engineers, grunting, finally gave out a tank of normal design.

    bully
  31. +2
    17 February 2019 21: 06
    Special thanks to the authors for the content, and especially for the quality of articles on the "Lend-Lease" topic. This business is also good and necessary because it shows the true history of relations with the allies during the war. In defiance of the jingoistic patriots who clog the fragile brains of young people with screams about the worthlessness and uselessness of these supplies.
    A successful series is a plus from the heart. hi
  32. 0
    17 February 2019 22: 32
    Thank you for the article. The tank is very iconic, one might even say revolutionary. The forerunner of Sherman. smile
    “By itself, the concept of a tank with the main armament in the hull imposed certain adjustments on the vehicle's behavior on the battlefield. If there were no particular problems with the 37-mm gun in the turret, then the 75-mm M2 gun turned out to be difficult. In addition to the fact that its firing sector Unlike the guns of British tanks and the Light Tank M3, the M2 gun used a periscopic sight to aim at the target. The reticle looked very unusual and, worse, it had risks only for an armor-piercing projectile. The lack of a scale for firing high-explosive fragmentation shells turned out to be a traditional drawback of American tank sights.
    A significant advantage of the gun was the presence of high-explosive shells, but there were serious problems with the shells themselves. Some Russian authors like to recall the royal stocks that were used by the Red Army. So, a similar situation was to some extent traced during the Second World War in different armies. The British were no exception. For M2, ammunition from the 75 mm French cannon Canon de campagne de 75 mm modèle 1897 was used. The British had large stockpiles of ammunition since the First World War. The problem is that over the past decades, shells have not become newer. Accidents with these ammunition during combat training classes were not isolated.

    Another problem was armor-piercing shells. Without exception, all Grant Is were equipped with 75 mm M2 guns, similar in ballistics to the Soviet 76 mm L-11 gun. This gun was clearly better than the English 2-pound, although it should not be overestimated. The M72 shell pierced 52 mm thick armor at a distance of a kilometer. Not so bad, but the British would not have refused more impressive indicators of armor penetration. And here, by the way, at the beginning of 1942, 7.5 cm Pz.Gr were found among captured German shells, which were used by guns of German tanks Pz.Kpfw.IV. An armor-piercing ballistic-pointed pointed-headed shell with an interest in the Australian major Norte. He proposed to do such a conversion: remove the German shell from the German shell and insert it into the American one. After consulting with Major Jarrett, an American weapons adviser, a similarly designed shell was tested and it showed brilliant results. An additional plus was that the German shell had an explosive charge, unlike the M72, which was a simple blank.
    The test results were the signal for a massive rework of German ammunition, which was carried out during the spring of 1942. A total of 17 thousand shots were redone. In addition, on the basis of the German armor-piercing projectile, the Americans developed their own analogue, which received the designation M61. Their penetration at a distance of a kilometer increased to 65 mm. Such shells appeared already in the summer of 1942, and before that British tankers used M72 and conversion shells converted from German ones. "

    “The power of the 75 mm gun was considered good, and the 37 mm M6 cannon had higher armor penetration than the 2-pounder gun. The American vehicle, which was considered a temporary measure by British generals at the beginning of 1942, turned out to be the best tank in the British army. By the way, the battle of Ghazal was a combat debut for American tankers in North Africa. Three crews of the 1st Royal Tank Regiment (RTR) took part in the battles, destroying 9 enemy tanks. "
    Source: https://warspot.ru/9973-amerikanskie-polkovodtsy-na-angliyskoy-sluzhbe



    The crew of the M3 "Lee" tank of the 1st American armored division in Tunisia.

    Photo Information Source:
    1.https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:SC167328t.jpg
    The tank received the derogatory nicknames of ordinary Soviet tankers, it was called “monopoly”, “kalanch”, used the adjective “two-storey” and “three-storey” for it, assigned ironic indices: SH-7 (“sure death of seven”), BM-7 ( "A mass grave for seven") and stuff like that.

    Well, I would be very surprised if the matter took a different turn. I immediately remember the story of the LAGG-3 aircraft and those epithets that awarded it.
  33. 0
    17 February 2019 22: 37
    The very first report came at the end of June 1942 from the 114th Tank Brigade. It indicated that the medium American M3 tank is mobile, fast, thanks to the rubber-metal caterpillar it is silent in motion. During marches on dirt roads, it was possible to develop an average speed of up to 30-35 km / h. Armament was recognized as quite sufficient for the fight against tanks. Due to the lack of armor-piercing shells, the tests of firing from a 75 mm M2 gun were carried out only by high-explosive shells. Its penetration roughly corresponded to the Soviet L-11 cannon, which was quite suitable for medium-range combat with tanks that had an armor thickness of 50 mm.
    The minuses of the guns were named: small ammunition (50 rounds) and limited horizontal guidance angles. The tankers did not like the large dimensions of the tank. This created problems with the entrenchment, after which it was impossible to fire at the enemy from a 75 mm gun. Landing on a tank was very difficult. It also turned out that the armor-piercing shell of a 45-mm gun at a distance of up to 1000 meters could penetrate the frontal armor of an American tank. At the same time, the sheets were deformed and rivets burst, which made repair impossible. When the case was deformed, the viewing instruments burst and the side hatches jammed.
    A significant minus was called a large number of spongy rubber, which was attached from the inside and protected from impact. When shells hit it, it often ignites, poisoning the crew; Also, paint from the inside of the tank very often caught fire. Under such conditions, fire and detonation of ammunition proved to be frequent.
    The extremely unkind nickname "mass grave for six" (often there was no radio operator in the crew) did not appear from scratch. After studying the report on June 30, 1942, an order was given to remove, as far as possible, spongy rubber from the fighting compartment.

    warspot.ru
    Layered American
    Yuri Pasholok November 27, 2017
  34. 0
    20 February 2019 08: 27
    Looking at the photo of this tank, I think that you can immediately understand whether the manufacturing country of these uyo..shch is at war or not. Look at our T-34, KV, BT, and at the Fritz panzers T3 and T4. T1 is archaic, T2 is actually also at the beginning of the Second World War. Judging by this American tank, one can judge the country's "advanced" tank building.
    1. 0
      20 February 2019 10: 45
      Quote: Fisherman
      Looking at the photo of this tank, I think that you can immediately understand whether the country is fighting

      Formally fighting, the fighting of the Americans in Africa began in November 42nd, and the tank is released until December 42nd. Another issue is that since February 42nd, the main plants have been driving Sherman.
      Quote: Fisherman
      T2- actually also at the beginning of the Second World War

      At the beginning of the production of Grant (beginning of the 41st) in the Wehrmacht, there were approximately equal to twos, 38t and triples - a thousand. The grant is definitely stronger than all of them.
      Quote: Fisherman
      Judging by this American tank, one can judge the country's "advanced" tank building.

      There was no tank building in the USA at all. But there is a nuance.

      In 1942, the United States produced 26 tanks and self-propelled guns. This is more than the entire number of BTT RKKA on 608. This is more than the production of BTT USSR in the 22.06.41nd year. Moreover, while in the USSR BTT production in the 42rd 43th did not change (44 thousand, 24 thousand), in the USA in the 29rd 43 thousand BTT units were produced (more than the USSR and Germany together ), rolling back to 37 thousand in the 20th year. Because there’s nowhere to go.
      1. 0
        20 February 2019 11: 07
        You can produce a lot, it is important what quality the equipment will be. Our tanks, the German times of WWII - this is one thing, and the tanks of the USA, England - this is completely different. I don’t remember something, that brazenly Saxon tanks and other similar armored vehicles were as strong as the Soviet and German times of the Second World War. Aviation, yes, the brazen Saktsev was strong, but we and the Fritz were also at the level. Especially pilots who are constantly involved in battles. You can also say about tankers.
        And tanks with riveted armor, well, this is the peak of tank construction at that cruel time of the war)))))).
        1. 0
          20 February 2019 11: 58
          Quote: Fisherman
          our ancestors, German times of the Second World War - this is one thing, and the tanks of the USA, England - this is completely different

          Have you fallen from the sky?
          British, American and Soviet tanks fought in the same battle formations. The British - near Moscow in the 41st, the American - in the offensive operations of the 44th-45th. Including guard units.
          The problem with the Americans was not cars, but tactics, primarily at the level of general rules / charters. Unfortunately for the Americans, the most influential tanker - Patton - perceived the tanks as armored cavalry, and the infantrymen (McNair) in principle did not understand the possibility of tanks.
          Quote: Fisherman
          Aviation, yes, the brazen Saktsev was strong, but we and the Fritz were also at the level.

          Army aviation did not climb into any gates. GSH (Marshall) - allowed the Air Force (Arnold) to wage its own separate war, while the ground soldiers (McNair) did not have any understanding of what could be required of aviation. That is, the strategists and the air offensive are separate, the army is fighting separately.
          Quote: Fisherman
          but with us and the Fritz it was also at the level.

          No comparison. In the East, backlash never had a tenth of the equipment that the Allies had overtaken by the 44th year. Even without the English, they made four-engine engines about the same as the USSR - IL-2.
          Quote: Fisherman
          Especially pilots who constantly participate in battles

          About the Soviet pilots, a quote from Shakhurin above can be found (look for the word Stalingrad). According to experts, the probability theory, and not individual skill, decided the number of sorties that the Americans gave.
          Quote: Fisherman
          And tanks with riveted armor, well, this is the pinnacle of tank building

          Valentine also has riveted armor. He fought until the 45th, including in the East.
          1. 0
            20 February 2019 12: 07
            Well, yes, English and American armored vehicles - this is the pinnacle of WWII !!!
            Where are our ISs, T-34, SU-85, ISU-122, 152 and other German Tigers, Panthers, Yagers (Tigers, Panthers) to their Shermans, Li, Pershing and other Churchill and Stuarts there.
            About Fritz, I did not mean the quantity, although the quantity was not small, but the quality of the aircraft.
            At the expense of the guard units. I think that in the 44-45 years our tankers were much more comfortable fighting against the Fritz on the IS-2 than on the British and American tanks.
  35. 0
    20 February 2019 12: 09
    Quote: Cherry Nine
    Valentine also has riveted armor. He fought until the 45th, including in the East.

    And the Japanese tanks were probably also about the same level as the M3? Or like our 85s, or IS-2?
    1. -1
      20 February 2019 13: 00
      Quote: Fisherman
      And the Japanese tanks were probably also about the same level as the M3?

      Your questions make an ever more strange impression. The tanks of Japan are Ha-Go and Chi-Ha, respectively T-60 and T-26 approximately. Stewart is basically enough for them. Although the Americans and Pershing could fit, not greedy.
      Quote: Fisherman
      Well, yes, English and American armored vehicles - this is the pinnacle of WWII !!!

      At the expense of the Second World War I will not say, according to WWII it is quite at the level. In something better, in something worse.
      Quote: Fisherman
      Tigers, Panthers, Yagers (Tigers, Panthers) to their Shermans, Lee, Pershing and others Churchill and Stuarts there.

      Sherman, Stuart and Pershing are quite successful cars. Sherman is even too successful, because of this, rearmament was delayed.
      Quote: Fisherman
      Tigers, Panthers, Yagers (Tigers, Panthers)

      Naturally far. In count.
      Quote: Fisherman
      ISam, T-34, SU-85, ISU-122, 152

      T-34 and Su-85 are really far. Fail guns, the quality of shells and explosives. The USSR had to switch to larger calibers and separate loading, exchanging the rate of fire and ammunition for the power of land mines and a heavy warhead. IS-2, ISU-122, ISU-152. It turned out quite successfully.
      Quote: Fisherman
      About Fritz, I did not mean the quantity, although the quantity was not small, but the quality of the aircraft.

      The number of Germany was ridiculous, in quality to overtake the Anglo-Saxons in 44-45 years, not a single chance. German prodigy Me-262 - such Allied aircraft were not allowed to destroy their own pilots at the front. About the USSR in general about anything.
      If the Americans had learned from the Germans (and even from their own fleet) the use of aviation in ground operations - the Germans would have become even sadder.
      Quote: Fisherman
      At the expense of the guard units. I think that in the 44-45 years our tankers were much more comfortable fighting against the Fritz on the IS-2 than on the British and American tanks.

      It would be better not to think, but to know. IS - a machine of individual TT regiments, Sherman and T-34-85 - a machine of tank divisions. They are neither better nor worse; they have different tasks. The division must break through to the rear and conduct combat operations in isolation from the main forces, the TT regiment must carry out a breakthrough of long-term defense.
      The main problem of the Americans, as I said above, is a misunderstanding of the role of BTT on the battlefield. While they fought in Africa, there was an opportunity to maneuver - Sherman was coping. But in Italy and Western Europe it was often necessary not to get around, but to break through the defense. And then the Americans got up, they did not have their own IS / ISU.
      More precisely - worse.
      There were cars. In the factories. The army refused to order them.
  36. 0
    22 February 2019 09: 43
    "Recall that then we lost 171 thousand killed, 100 thousand wounded, 240 thousand prisoners. Lost (destroyed, abandoned, taken prisoner) 1 240 tanks. The Germans and Romanians then lost 8 thousand killed, 22 thousand wounded, 3 thousand missing ".

    The battle of Kharkov (May 12-29.05.1942, 9) was an independent front-line operation of the South-Western Front and the 57th, 765th armies of the Southern Front, which together had 300 people. Irrevocable losses (killed, prisoners, missing, died from wounds during the stage of sanitary evacuation): 170 958 (22,3%) people, sanitary: 106 232 people. Total: 277 people. The authors: 190 people. What organ was this figure sucked from? Touching is the link to enemy losses.
  37. 0
    24 February 2019 13: 40
    Quote: andrr61
    Quote: pilot8878
    The F-34 is much better, which the Americans themselves confirmed according to the results of tests of our car in Aberdeen.

    There (in the report from the Aberdeen Proving Ground) nothing is said about this. It is only said that the cannon is of a "simple design" (ie, primitive in design), and the propellant charges in the shells are generally full of guano.
    It is also noted that the gun is incorrectly calculated, therefore, it has excessive strength and weight of the structure. This is not news that the Germans made of the Hrabin three-inch (except ZIS-3), probably known to all.
    Quote: pilot8878
    34 have no small caliber auxiliary guns? So there was no need in connection with the greater power of the Soviet guns.

    The power of the Soviet 76 mm wartime OS (O-350A) was noticeably less (about half, slightly more) than the power of the American 75 mm OFS.
    The armor penetration of the Soviet 76 mm BBS was slightly less than the armor penetration of the American 75 mm BBS. But less.
    The T-34 had a tower bonus. But this tower had no eyes.
    But the M3 had a bonus in the form of another gun.
    Quote: pilot8878
    connected by welding will still be better than that of the "American", which had a slightly greater thickness, but at a smaller angle, and even with parts connected by rivets, which, you see, is less reliable.

    The riveting of the sheets of the connected spike into the spike is many times more reliable than welding by welding. Because welds, they already do not hold shells. Weak spots. But for production it is cheaper and faster.

    But the Jews with their hutspa climbed out.
    You to kindergarten with such tales.
  38. The comment was deleted.