Military Review

The ballad of the tank M3 "Lee / Grant." History of creation (part two)

53
So, the design of the first production American tank in all respects it turned out pretty archaic. After all, a similar tank, in which the gun was placed in the hull, was created in the USSR in 1931. True, it was developed by his invited German designer Grotte, but this does not change the essence of the matter. Other "multi-gun" machines with separate installation of two guns are also known. The English “Churchill” Mk I, for example, also had a 75 mm cannon in the frontal armor plate of the hull and a 40 mm cannon in the upper tower. In the French B-1, a 75-mm short-barreled gun was installed in the case to the right of the driver and a 47-mm cannon also in the upper tower. So the Americans at first were unable to come up with anything particularly original.

The ballad of the tank M3 "Lee / Grant." History of creation (part two)

М3 in the museum in Kubinka.

As for the construction of the new Chrysler tank factory, they were launched on September 9 on the outskirts of Detroit - called Warren Townshire on approximately 1940 thousand acres. By January 77, the preparatory work had been completed, and the Chrysler engineers, together with the specialists of the American Locomotive company and Baldvin enterprises, had completed all the technological processes. Well, the first prototypes have already started testing 1941 April 11. On May 1941, the first M3 tank went to the Aberdeen Proving Ground, and the second was saved to show the selection committee as a standard sample. Serial production of tanks "General Lee" began on July 3 8, that is, at the height of the fighting on the Eastern Front. And since March 1941 of the same year in the United States adopted the law on lend-lease, this removed all restrictions on the supply of these tanks in Great Britain, and then in the USSR, all newly released tanks immediately went overseas. Of course, all the firms involved in the production of armored vehicles immediately began to increase its production. Actively involved in this business of the company "Pullman-Standart Car Company" , "Pressed Stell" and "Lima Lokomotive". Moreover, it should be noted that while the M8 was produced, and it was produced only a little more than a year, and if it is exact, from July 3 8 of the year to August 1941 of 3. Concern "Chrysler" for this period produced 1942 tank М3352 of various modifications, "American Locomotive company" - released 3 units., "Baldvin" more - 685 units., "Pressed Stell" - total 1220 tank., "Pullman - Standart Car Company "- already 501, and all this together resulted in 500 machines of various modifications. Moreover, the Canadians helped: their company" Monreal Lokomotive company "also mastered the production of these machines and manufactured 6258 tanks M1157 already for the Canadian army. However, in August 3 of the year These enterprises quickly switched to the production of the M1942 "Sherman" tank. Although ... there was an exception. Baldvin continued the production of the M4А3 and М3А3 until December of the year 5.


British M3 "General Grant" in the museum in Bovington. Pay attention to his whimsical coloring.

Note that the M3 tanks of absolutely all modifications looked so original that it is almost impossible to confuse them with any other tank in the world.


Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery’s M3 Tank from the Imperial War Museum in London.


"Monty" near his tank. North Africa 1942 year.

As already noted, the location of the gun in the airborne sponsorship brought this tank closer to the machines of the First World War, albeit at a different technical level. The engine was in the back, but the transmission was in front, because of which the engine had to be connected to the transmission with a long drive shaft. Here, where this shaft passed, the engine control rods also passed and it was all covered with a light removable casing. All parts of the transmission were mounted in the cast part of the armored body, which consisted of three parts, interconnected by bolting through flanges. As a result, the tank had a very peculiar nasal tip. All this was also bolted to the tank hull, and this technological solution was applied on all modifications, and then on the earliest M4 "Sherman" tanks. The body was going from flat armor plates. At the same time, their thickness was also unchanged on all modifications and was equal to 51 mm in frontal projections, the thickness of the side and stern sheets was 38 mm, and 12,7 mm it was the thickness of the hull roof armor. At the bottom of the tank, the thickness of the armor was variable: from 12,7 mm around the engine to 25,4 mm under the fighting compartment. The wall thickness is 57 mm and the roof is 22 mm. The angle of the front armor plate was 60 degrees to the horizon, but the side and rear plates were also arranged vertically. Fastening of a plate differed on different modifications. On modifications М3, МЗА4, МЗА5 fastening was carried out on rivets. On modifications MZA2 and MZAZ welding was used. to the inner frame. On the tank MZA1 the upper part of the hull was cast. The hull of this machine had very favorable outlines and literally “flowed around” the crew and mechanisms, but only made three hundred of them due to difficulties with the technology of casting and hardening such large “baths”. "Rivet" body of flat sheets, as well as welding them turned out to be easier and cheaper. However, the technology was tested and in the future very useful.


"The crew of combat vehicles"

On the right side of the hull was installed solid cast sponson with 75-mm gun, installed so that the dimensions of the hull, he did not act. It is the height of the sponson, as well as the dimensions of the engine, together determined the height of the tank hull. The cast turret with the 37-mm gun was shifted to the left, and above it was a small turret, in which there was a machine gun. The result was a kind of pyramid height 3214 mm. The length of the tank was equal to 5639 mm, width - 2718 mm, clearance was 435mm. Obviously, the height of the car came out excessive. But the fighting compartment came out very spacious, and, by the way, is still recognized as one of the most comfortable. Moreover, the tank hull inside was also lined with a layer of spongy rubber, which protected the crew from small fragments that were peeling from the armor. To enter the tank on the sides served two doors, a hatch on the body above and another on the roof of the machine-gun turret. This allowed the crew to quickly get into the tank, and conveniently evacuate the wounded through these side doors, although they reduced the hull strength in some way.


English M3 at El Alamein, Egypt, July 7 1942

Each crew member had inspection slots and another embrasure for firing from a personal weapons (what the US Army paid much attention to!), protected by armor caps. On the rear body plate for access to the engine there was a large double door, and the joint of its wings was closed with a narrow strip fixed on the bolts. On either side of it were two filters - an air cleaner, both round and box-shaped. Air intakes were traditionally located on the upper supermotor armor sheet and covered with nets. And here, again, there was a double-wing large hatch for dismantling the engine (on models МХNUMXА3 and М3А3). The similar arrangement of hatches facilitated engine maintenance. On versions М5, М3А3 and М2А3, instead of the hatch there were removable sheets of armor: two for the first two tanks and as many as five for the last. Here (on the side bevels of the aft part of the hull) both the entrenching tools, and the infantry helmets, and boxes with rations could be mounted. In short, this part of the tank was used as a “cargo compartment”.


Training crews M3 in Fort Knox, Kentucky.


Ibid. Full speed on sandy ground.

It should be noted that the tanks M3, M3А1, М3А2 did not have forced ventilation, for which the crew had to open the upper hatches. Lack quickly taken into account and models M3A3, M3A4, M3A5 was established just three exhaust fans under armored caps, one to the left of the driver, just above the Spark machine-gun, the second for the door body, with the breech 75-mm guns and the last of the breech 37-mm guns on the roof of a small tower. Therefore, the powder gases from the tank quickly sucked and did not disturb the crew.


Infantry 19 of the Indian division in Mandalay Street in Burma, 9-10 in March 1945. Pay attention to the gun with a long barrel. Not all of them managed to cut. Part of it got into the war "uncircumcised" and these weapons proved to be very good!

The M3 tanks, both General Lee and General Grant, were usually star-shaped aviation nine-cylinder carburetor engine "Wright Continental" R 975 EC2 or Cl modification whose power was 340 hp He made it possible for this 27-ton tank to reach speeds of up to 42 km / h, and with a fuel reserve of 796 liters, have a range of 192 km. The traditional drawback of such engines is their fire hazard, since they require high-octane gasoline to operate. In addition, they are difficult to maintain, especially those cylinders that are from the bottom. But in 1941 there was practically nothing to choose from, so I had to come to terms with all these shortcomings. Starting in March 1942, a company such as Baldvin began to mount General Motors 3-2 3 automotive diesel engines with water cooling and a total power of 3 hp on the M6A71 and M6046A375. From this, the weight of the tank increased by 1,3 tons, but on the other hand increased power, efficiency, speed and range. These tanks received the MZAZ and MZA5 indices. Then, in June 1942, Chrysler delivered a new 3-cylinder water-cooled Chrysler A 4 engine to the M30A57 tank. The length of the hull, the length of the tracks, and also the weight of two tons increased. The speed and power reserve have not changed. The British in their cars often replaced American engines with their Guiberson radial diesel engines. But the case was not subjected to alterations.


The gun in the sponson. Pukkapunual Museum in Australia.

Although the tanks were delivered to England, the driver’s position did not change. In front of it were the following instruments: a tachometer, a speedometer, a voltmeter, an ammeter, of course, a fuel gauge, a thermometer, and. of course, the clock. The tank could be controlled with a gear lever, handbrake, brake and accelerator pedals.


М3 disguised as a tracked conveyor.


Used such machines in North Africa.

Tanks of all modifications had rubber-metal tracks, and three wheeled carts on each side. Above, on the frame of the trolley there was a roller supporting the caterpillar. The undercarriage was thus completely taken from the M2 tank and later used on the early M4. The track rollers could have solid discs as well as spoke discs. The suspension was reliable and did not occupy the internal volumes of the tank. Driving wheels were in front, guide rollers - in the back.

The tracks consisted of 158 tracks, 421 mm wide and 152 long mm each. On tanks MZA4 - there were 166 of them, because of the longer hull. The track device was different from the tracks of the same T-34. Each truck was a rubber plate with a metal frame inside, and two metal tubular axles passing through it. They were put on connecting brackets with a profiled canine, connecting the tracks into a caterpillar. On each track there were two canines that skirted the rollers of the support carts. Well, and the leading asterisk with its teeth caught on the connecting brackets of the caterpillar. The very surface of the rubber track plate was smooth. But on the last tanks there were plates with chevron projections, and later they also put the General Sherman МNNXX tanks on their tracks.


"The life of a British tanker is heavy and unsightly." Replacing tracks

The M3 tank for its time was ... the most heavily armed medium tank in the world. Its main firepower was the 75-mm cannon, which designed the Westerfälf arsenal based on the famous 1897 French field gun of the 75-mm caliber, which was also used by the US Army. The tank gun, which received the M2 index, had a barrel in 3 m long, equipped with a aiming stabilizer, a semi-automatic shutter and a barrel purging system, which reduced the gas concentration of the fighting compartment. Moreover, the stabilization system on the M3 tank was used for the first time in the world, and only then it served as a model for all similar systems on tanks in many armies of the world. Vertical guidance angles were of the order of 14 degrees, and along the horizon of the plane, the gun could be aimed at 15 degrees in both directions. For aiming guns vertically used as an electro-hydraulic system, so the manual drive. The ammunition was in the sponsor itself and also on the tank floor.


M3 padded in North Africa. The tank hit three projectiles of different caliber and only after that he lost his combat capability.

However, this gun has problems. It turned out that its barrel goes far beyond the dimensions of the body. It really alarmed the American military, who for some reason was very afraid that a tank with such a long gun would rest on something or catch it when it moved. Therefore, they demanded to shorten the barrel to 2,33 m, which significantly reduced all the combat characteristics of the gun. The “truncated” gun received the M3 index, and this was a heart oil for the military, but it turned out that the stabilization system with a short barrel “failed”, it was not created for it. Then they decided to wear a counterweight on the barrel, which looked like a… muzzle brake. By the way, very similar история came out with our Soviet tank T-34. It was the requirement of the then military, that the designers had to cut off the barrel of the ФХNUMX gun on the 34 mm, which reduced its power by as much as 762%. But now she did not speak for the dimensions of the tank! It is very likely that conservatism is characteristic of the military; neither national affiliation, nor social order influence it.


М3 with a molded case and in the "American coloring".

37-mm cannon was created in the same arsenal in 1938 year. On the tanks M3 put her modification M5 or M6. The corners of its vertical alignment made it possible to shoot, even theoretically, at low-flying aircraft. A machine gun mated with a gun, another was in the upper turret, while the turret had a rotating polik with walls emitting it from the fighting compartment. The ammunition of this gun was located in the tower and at the bottom of the rotating polik.


Fremantle Western Australia. The Museum of War and the entrance is well-preserved and well-kept M3.

At a distance of 500 yards, that is, 457 m, the projectile of this gun could penetrate armor up to 48 mm thick, and 75-mm cannon - 60 mm armor, which has a slope of 30 degrees to the vertical.

Naturally, both guns had periscope optical sights. The 75-mm gun had a sight on the roof of the gun sponson. With it, you could shoot direct fire at 1000 yards (300 m).


I did not have time to get the M3 into service with the army, as he immediately appeared on the cover of the American magazine Fantastic Adventures! (No. 10 for 1942 a year) As you can see, the "leopard girl" burns these tanks with a laser beam!

As for the British, they did not like weapons located in three tiers. Therefore, on the "General Grant" machines, the upper turret was not installed, and on the "General Lee" tanks, which were used by the English army, it was also removed, replacing it with a hatch. Other weapons consisted of 11,43-mm “Tompson" submachine guns, pistols and grenades. Also, 4-inch (102 mm) grenade launchers were mounted on the turret of the British tanks to shoot smoke grenades.

Tanks M3, released in the United States, were usually painted with green paint of different shades - from dark green to khaki. On board where the engine was located on both sides was given a registration number, which was assigned to the tank by the Armaments Department. The name "USA" and the letter "W" were written in blue - indicating that the tank had already been transferred to the army, and the six-digit number was either yellow or white. A white star in a blue circle was applied on the tower and on the frontal armor of the hull as a means of identification, which in addition was superimposed on the white stripe. It was in this coloring that the M3 tanks were supplied by Lend-Lease Americans.


No less fantastic М3 СDL - “Channel defense tank”. Also a kind of "laser weapon".

American tanks had white tactical numbers on both the turret and the hull: the order number of the vehicle in the tank company, then the letter designation of the company itself. For example, 9E or 4B. Next to the door on the sponsorship, geometric figures were drawn, also indicating the numbers of the company, battalion and regiment as part of the division. The identification mark of the division was placed on the middle armor of the transmission. On those tanks that fought in North Africa, on a frontal armor plate instead of a white star, a star-striped flag of the USA was painted.


The movie "Sahara" (1943): "heat"!

Tanks M3, sent to England had a dark olive color, as it was supposed by American standards. But the British themselves repainted them in traditional British camouflage from stripes of yellow, green and brown, with a black border. The first tanks that got into North Africa almost immediately went into battle, so they simply did not have time to repaint them. But if there was time, they were painted in sand color.


Another option camouflage coloring M3.

The registration number was kept, but the letter "W" was replaced with the letter "T". The number was restored with white paint. In specific field conditions it could not be painted over, but simply protected with a stencil, which made it look like an olive-colored frame. Most of the British tanks M3 who fought in Burma had a green color and large white stars on the hull and on the tower. The registration numbers were kept on them, and some also had individual numbers on the frontal armor.
Author:
53 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 07: 05
    +5
    Actually, there is nothing particularly new to say about M3 (and everything was sucked to the holes before), but for the comic-peak of a fantastic magazine with M3 - I praise and plus to the article. A small detail in the history of this ugly "African hope", which at least I did not know before.
    It is a pity that the details of the tests at the range and some of the most interesting cases of combat use were not covered. And also the actions of BM-6 on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War (for somehow I did not notice that it is planned to continue in the form of a third part). About the CDL version, too, except for the caption to the photo, nothing is clearly said. Whoever is not in the subject will not even understand that instead of the main cannon he had a wooden model, and why "laser weapons". And why did the British make such tanks (and not only M3s were "castrated" for CDL).Matilda II CDLMatilda II CDL
    1. kalibr
      8 July 2016 07: 12
      +2
      Everything will be, do not worry. You yourself see that some photos were left virtually without explanation, and that this is not good. The third part will be.
  2. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 07: 35
    +3
    Quote: kalibr
    Everything will be, do not worry. You yourself see that some photos were left virtually without explanation, and that this is not good. The third part will be.

    This is good news, but then add the magic "(To be continued ...)" to your article.
    Also, I also noticed a bit of glitches in the sense of the rules literary "wilikawa and maguchiva". Nothing serious, I dare assure you, but it's just better to follow the rules of good form. We all know that most modern articles on old techniques are compilations. By the way, your compilation is good, with its own additions, and it fits more or less smoothly. But - all the same, a careful look will catch the characteristic signs. For example, I immediately noticed in the article both bourgeois "inches" (""), and purely our "Christmas trees" (""). I understand, overlooked. But according to the norms of the literary Russian, there should be only "Christmas trees".

    Once again, I liked your articles, and my criticism is just advice for the future, and not at all an attempt to prick (I myself once pierced these little things, at one time doing forum journalism).
    1. kalibr
      8 July 2016 07: 44
      +2
      For concrete and fair comments, I always say thank you. As for the quotes, you correctly noticed. We must be careful. Yes, in the original everything was in inches and ... probably just tired of translating.
  3. Spitfire
    Spitfire 8 July 2016 07: 43
    +3
    1995 "Sahara" with James Belushi. There's this tank in the lead role ;-)
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 8 July 2016 17: 27
      0
      Spitfire

      You can get used to the heat easily. Personally, I have passed and am passing tests of heat. You can live.
    2. code54
      code54 1 August 2016 00: 05
      0
      With Belushi's film "Sahara", this is a remake already. Although I even like it more! good
  4. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 07: 56
    +1
    Quote: kalibr
    For concrete and fair comments, I always say thank you. As for the quotes, you correctly noticed. We must be careful. Yes, in the original everything was in inches and ... probably just tired of translating.

    And thank you too for your understanding. It's just that the authorship of articles on such a large and respected resource imposes a considerable responsibility: on it, as a journalist, you have to be ABSOLUTELY literate (otherwise I would not interfere). By the way, if you want to laugh at my glitches in response, welcome to the comments of the first part of your article. On occasion I threw links to some of my "creatures" there (of course, they are written in a much less academic tone - I like to joke). ^ _ ^
    He also cleaned it as he could, but a couple of three byak, too, it seemed, remained. Yes, the larger the volume, the more difficult it is to adhere to uniformity. Especially when deadlines and general body fatness. So I totally sympathize.
  5. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 8 July 2016 08: 14
    +3
    But the Fritz mock at the M3. wassat

    1. kalibr
      8 July 2016 08: 41
      +1
      Well, they cannot be compared.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 8 July 2016 09: 00
        +1
        Quote: kalibr
        Well, they cannot be compared.

        Why not? For example, the chassis can be clearly seen even if the tank is climbing the wall, then Lee rests against the housing of the final drives. Even for example, the low traction properties of the tracks, and most likely the lack of specific power do not allow to confidently overcome the rise.
        1. AK64
          AK64 8 July 2016 10: 15
          +4
          Why not?

          It is impossible because the T-4 should have been compared. Or at least the T-3. Not Panther.
          By the time the Americans stopped issuing Lee / Grants, the Panthers weren’t even in diapers. That would be compared with what it was (T-3 and T-4).
    2. AK64
      AK64 8 July 2016 10: 17
      +1
      But the Fritz mock at the M3. wassat

      Pretty dumb military propaganda.
  6. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 08: 53
    +2
    Quote: kalibr
    Well, they cannot be compared.

    From the point of view of the Germans (during WWII) - it is quite possible.
    Both their Panther and M3 are medium tanks.
    Another thing is that the Germans classified their tanks by gun caliber, and the Americans by weight.
    1. Stas57
      Stas57 8 July 2016 09: 12
      +1
      T3 is the same average, add to the pile)
    2. AK64
      AK64 8 July 2016 10: 13
      0
      From the point of view of the Germans (during WWII) - it is quite possible.
      Both their Panther and M3 are medium tanks. Another thing is that the Germans classified their tanks by gun caliber, and the Americans by weight.

      Neither one nor the other is true: that is, neither the Germans acted so stupidly6 nor the Americans.
  7. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 09: 15
    +2
    Quote: kugelblitz
    Quote: kalibr
    Well, they cannot be compared.

    Why not? For example, the chassis can be clearly seen even if the tank is climbing the wall, then Lee rests against the housing of the final drives.

    When the tank climbs the wall, then the hull length, specific power (hp / t) and track profile play a greater role here. The longer the tank and the stronger its engine per unit weight, the easier it is for him to climb. In both disciplines, the M3 Lee lags significantly behind. The panther is much longer, has 15,6 hp / t, and a tenacious gusli. The goslings of the M3 have almost no fins or hooks at all, and he gave out 11,1 hp / t. And yes, his running gear is mainly represented by small rollers, which have a small range of travel relative to the body (carriage). No wonder all tank building countries abandoned this scheme when switching to MBT, preferring full-size ice rinks and torsion bars (although the Jews initially, of course, had their own dissenting opinion).
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. Kaiten
    Kaiten 8 July 2016 10: 00
    +3
    Judging by the location of the main gun - the M3 is more likely to be classified as an anti-tank self-propelled gun - this is actually a prototype of a tank support combat vehicle. The transfer of the gun from the turret to the hull allowed the use of a larger caliber of the gun. It would be used in the second line of defense behind the line of main tanks - he would not have a price. But since the Americans had tanks that could compete with the Panthers on equal terms only appeared at the end of the war (M-26 pershing), they were forced to use the M-3 in the first line. And of course in this capacity, the M-3 was losing a lot.
    1. mroy
      mroy 8 July 2016 13: 47
      0
      Quote: Kaiten
      But since the Americans had tanks that could compete with the Panthers on an equal footing only appeared at the end of the war (M-26 pershing)

      It appeared only at the end of the war, and was needed by the day "D". But Patton defended the production of the M4.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 8 July 2016 16: 12
      +3
      Quote: Kaiten
      But since the Americans had tanks that could compete with the Panthers on equal footing only at the end of the war (M-26 pershing), they were forced to use the M-3 in the first line.

      Americans in that war did not think that tanks should compete with tanks.
      The tanks should target infantry and field fortifications. In this regard, even a Sherman with a 75 mm cannon is superior to the Panther. Actually, it was the deterioration in the power of the OFS that hacked the American version of the Firefly and for a long time held back the installation of the 76-mm gun on the Sherman.
      And the numerous tank destroyers that were part of the TD had to fight the tanks. Fortunately, they had no problems with this - the 90-mm tank destroyer even hit the Panther.

      The ICH, BTV of the Red Army followed the same tactics reflected in the famous Order No. 325 of 1942. And the composition of the BC of our tanks, as it were, hints at their main goals (2/3 - 3/4 shells - OS or OFS).
      1. AK64
        AK64 8 July 2016 16: 23
        -4
        The aim of the tanks should be infantry and field fortifications.

        If this were true, then they would make exceptionally heavy tanks.

        In this regard, even a Sherman with a 75 mm cannon is superior to the Panther.

        And what?
        Actually, it was the deterioration in the power of the OFS that hacked the American version of the Firefly and for a long time held back the installation of the 76-mm gun on the Sherman.

        And why should amers, who had a very good 75mm gun, have to put 76mm? What would this 1mm give them?

        And they didn't bother with all sorts of "Fireflies" - because the M-26 was on the way

        The ICH, BTV of the Red Army followed the same tactics reflected in the famous Order No. 325 of 1942. And the composition of the BC of our tanks, as it were, hints at their main goals (2/3 - 3/4 shells - OS or OFS).

        And not because the tank battle at that time was an extremely rare phenomenon in itself? Just by probability theory? Was it more difficult for tankers to meet tank than anti-tank vehicles? not?
        1. Bormanxnumx
          Bormanxnumx 8 July 2016 20: 04
          +4
          Quote: AK64
          And why should amers, who had a very good 75mm gun, have to put 76mm? What would this 1mm give them?

          Dear AK64, before "bombing" the defective classification of tanks by amers, you better bother with one eye to see the difference between these two guns.
        2. oking
          oking 8 July 2016 21: 23
          +3
          Quote: AK64
          And what?

          In the power of OFS.
          Quote: AK64
          And why should amers, who had a very good 75mm gun, have to put 76mm? What would this 1mm give them?

          Well, for example, 41% greater armor penetration. In the 76 mm M1 gun, it was approximately at the level of the Soviet 85 mm guns. Analogs for armor penetration of American 75 mm M3 guns are not easy to find. Somehow they are by themselves, armor penetration is 75% higher than that of the American old 2 mm M1942 guns (these were not produced in 14). And the latter she had a little more than the Soviet three-inch, about 4%. Those very three-inch ones that are very legendary and seemingly very good. To whom it turns out.
      2. Orionvit
        Orionvit 9 July 2016 05: 03
        +1
        In this regard, even a Sherman with a 75-mm cannon is superior to the "Panther"
        Not exactly about "Panther", but I watched as it has long been on the Discovery Channel, the memories of American tankers. It was said that to overwhelm one "Tiger", it was surrounded by at least seven "Shermans", and at the end, when the "Tiger" was already being felled, there were only two "Shermans" or at most three. Here is the alignment, they took only the number. And the "Panther" in terms of combat capabilities is not very far from the "Tiger".
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 9 July 2016 05: 31
          +1
          Quote: Orionvit
          to fill up one "Tiger", he was surrounded by at least seven "Shermans"

          - I'm trying to imagine how seven tanks are trying to "surround" one ...
          - in la "stand up, children, stand in a circle"
          - and I just can’t imagine this pornography picture present

          Not to mention the fact that even if they were "surrounded" (well, a lonely Tiger met in an open field of seven Shermans ... surround - I don't want to) - how to shoot? After all, all around you, you can "fill up" your own ... and not the Tiger at all ...

          Some garbage. IMHO, yes.
        2. oking
          oking 9 July 2016 23: 13
          -1
          Quote: Orionvit
          Not really about "Panther"

          You can about Panther. According to statistics from the US Army, the destruction of the 1st Panther was achieved after the destruction of 5 M4 Sherman tanks and 9 T-34 tanks. Models of tanks M4 and T-34 are not specified.
          Quote: Fei_Wong
          Another thing is that the Germans classified their tanks by gun caliber

          Runet nonsense. Do not forget to include Panther, Pz.Kpfw.IV and Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N. in classmates. All guns of the same caliber, 75 mm. And the coveted BT-7A yet. His gun was even cooler, 76 mm.
          Quote: AK64
          Nobody classifies tanks by weight - they are classified according to their purpose. Like any tool. If you have shoes, or tools,

          Almost almost true. But for a maximum of 1941. For 1942 and further this is already a false statement.
          Quote: AK64
          For some reason they called infantry tanks "assault guns" ... But in fact, the early Stugs are infantry tanks

          These are not infantry tanks. And not even their substitutes, ersatz infantry tanks in the form of something like "infantry self-propelled guns" (a typical example of this SU-76). These are more versatile self-propelled guns, a kind of hybrid of "infantry self-propelled guns" and junior "Jagdpanzer". That's why the name is different. By the way, they were good products, for all trades of the master. SU-76s were not even lying around there.
          And the last infantry tank in Germany was called the Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.N. And it was released until August 1943. At one time in parallel with the LIGHT German tank Pz.Kpfw.III Ausf.M. Moreover, the last in February 1943. It was discontinued and replaced in the line with the LIGHT German tank Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H, which went into production from April 1943.
          And to replace the MEDIUM German tank in the Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G line at the beginning of 1943. came the MEDIUM (aka the main) German tank Pz.KpfW.V. Such a castling was conceived in advance, back in 1942, for which the index "V" was reserved for it in advance.
          The first German heavy tank was the Pz.KpfW.VI. The Pz.KpfW.IV tank was not a HEAVY German tank in any modification. At first it was an infantry tank. Then, average. Then light German.
          The Germans also had reconnaissance tanks. In the USSR, before the Second World War, a certain analogue of them was called a "small tank". The Pz.KpfW.II Ausf.L reconnaissance tank was produced until the end of the war.
          Quote: AK64
          It is because of the absence of the concept of MBT, the Germans classified the Panther as "heavy medium". That's right: "heavy medium"

          Wow. Why is it so difficult? And apparently Pz.KpfW.IV will be "light medium" in your opinion?
          No, everything is simpler. Since April 1943 Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.H became an EASY German tank. And to replace the MIDDLE German tank Pz.KpfW.IV Ausf.G in early 1943. came the MIDDLE (aka main) German tank Pz.KpfW.V.
          And the fact that the BTTs of other countries could have other weight categories or gradations, the Germans somehow did not care much. As for a certain "global classification system", then it did not exist.
    3. oking
      oking 8 July 2016 20: 54
      -1
      Quote: Kaiten
      Judging by the location of the main gun - the M3 is more likely to be classified as an anti-tank self-propelled gun

      Normal for her time assault self-propelled guns (aka self-propelled guns support infantry). + top in the form of a bonus PT gun with a loom in the tower. In principle, only an easel machine gun would be more appropriate there. And a smaller tower.
  10. bionik
    bionik 8 July 2016 10: 48
    +1
    The assembly of medium tanks M3 "General Lee" (MZ General Lee) on the assembly line of the plant of the corporation "Chrysler" (Chrysler).
  11. bionik
    bionik 8 July 2016 10: 53
    +1
    The prototype medium tank M3 "Lee" (M3 Lee) overcomes an artificial obstacle during testing at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. In the background, a cameraman is shooting a test process.
  12. bionik
    bionik 8 July 2016 10: 55
    +2
    The prototype medium tank M3 "Lee" (M3 Lee) overcomes an artificial obstacle during testing at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.
  13. bionik
    bionik 8 July 2016 10: 57
    0
    Workers at the Crysler American plant are installing the R-975 engine (Wright Whirlwind) in the M3 Lee tank.
  14. RPG_
    RPG_ 8 July 2016 12: 25
    +1
    He was never called General Grant. The English version was called Grant and in official documents it is clearly stated that it is not in honor of the general. But the people got attached to both our Katyushas. The tank is certainly a freak, but T1 and T2 in Africa could drive, but T3 and T4 were already at a different level.
    1. AK64
      AK64 8 July 2016 12: 36
      -1
      in official documents it is clearly spelled out that it is not in honor of the general.

      Can I look at these "white papers"?


      T1 and T2 in Africa could drive, but T3 and T4 were already at a different level.

      Tell us about the "other level" T3 and T4. Please, please - tell me
      1. kalibr
        8 July 2016 13: 21
        0
        Join us!
        Quote: AK64
        Can I look at these "white papers"?
  15. Pre-cat
    Pre-cat 8 July 2016 12: 45
    +4
    I apologize, but the Grotte tank mentioned at the beginning of the article was supposed to have a tiered arrangement of weapons in rotating towers. Just for a number of reasons, during the test, the tower in which the main caliber gun was located was decided to be fixed tightly. hence the legend of the cannon in the hull went for a walk.
    And M3 — for the British in Africa in early 1942 — was manna from heaven. Especially considering that the 42-mm guns of the English Matilda, Valentines and Krusaydera did not have high-explosive shells. Three hundred delivered Grants even called the last hope of Egypt.
    1. kalibr
      8 July 2016 13: 20
      0
      Should, but really didn't. And the tower naturally turned into a "body". You can't write in a "non-rotating tower". This is nonsense for a tank.
      1. tasha
        tasha 8 July 2016 19: 03
        0
        M. Svirin's book "Armor is Strong. The History of the Soviet Tank 1919-1937" contains an excerpt from the description of the tank "Designer Grotto"
        "The body of the tank is one-turret with 360gr shelling. There is a 37mm cannon in the turret ... At the bottom of the turret there is a place for installing a 76mm cannon."

        We read below - "Disassembly immediately began over the installation of a 76-mm gun in a non-rotating wheelhouse. After all, according to the task, the main weapon should have the ability to rotate in a circular manner similar to the American T.1.E.1 .... it was established that ... due to the lack of the necessary equipment and experience, the tower shoulder strap of the lower tower turned out to be deformed and ... decided to weld the tower tightly. When manufacturing the reference sample .. the defect will be taken into account and the large tower on it will be able to rotate. "
    2. Bormanxnumx
      Bormanxnumx 8 July 2016 19: 57
      0
      Quote: The cat is half-educated
      Just for a number of reasons, during the test, the tower in which the main caliber gun was located was decided to be fixed tightly. hence the legend of the cannon in the hull went for a walk.

      The main turret was not fixed on the Grotte tank, the turret box was deformed during assembly and the turret lost the ability to rotate. This defect should have been eliminated in the installation series of tanks.
      1. kalibr
        8 July 2016 21: 23
        -3
        "Should" and "liquidated" are two different things, right?
        1. Bormanxnumx
          Bormanxnumx 8 July 2016 22: 42
          +2
          The essence of my post is that the main tower was not fixed by the developer, but was jammed during the improper assembly of the turret box. The rest is already lyrics. I understand that the reasons for the installation series could not be eliminated since this series itself was not.
          To be honest, I do not understand the meaning of your post in relation to my statement.
          1. tasha
            tasha 9 July 2016 04: 14
            0
            It's simple. Such is the nature of man. It is very difficult to say even to oneself: "Yes, I was mistaken," all the more to admit one's flaw openly, in front of other people. For example, among journalists, I think this is generally a professional trait, without which you cannot become a journalist.

            And a little joke. Here Vyacheslav Olegovich wrote:
            So, the design of the first production American tank in all respects turned out to be quite archaic. After all, a similar tank, in which the gun was placed in the hull, was created in the USSR in the 1931 year. True, it was developed by his invited German designer Grotte, but this does not change the essence of the matter.
            . And with a different mode, and with a competent approach from these proposals, such conclusions can be drawn ... Here, both about archaic constructions (he blamed our military), and about the German designer (he doesn’t trust ours), and about the year of development and surname (privacy mode violated). And the author would go to mantle places for reforging wink
        2. Alex
          Alex 8 July 2016 22: 52
          +4
          Vyacheslav, thanks for the second part. It seems, and nothing radically new, but read with interest.
          Quote: kalibr
          "Should" and "liquidated" are two different things, right?
          We are absolutely right, but there was nowhere to "liquidate": TG did not go into the series.
        3. tasha
          tasha 9 July 2016 03: 52
          0
          Excuses. You wrote:
          After all, a similar tank, in which the gun was placed in the hull, was created in the USSR in the 1931 year. True, it was developed by his invited German designer Grotte, but this does not change the essence of the matter.
  16. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 16: 06
    0
    Quote: AK64
    From the point of view of the Germans (during WWII) - it is quite possible.
    Both their Panther and M3 are medium tanks. Another thing is that the Germans classified their tanks by gun caliber, and the Americans by weight.

    Neither one nor the other is true: that is, neither the Germans acted so stupidly6 nor the Americans.

    Can you give specific examples that contradict this thesis (excluding "Pershing", while the Americans initially called it a heavy tank solely in order to raise the morale of their own tankers fighting in Europe with the Panthers)?
    Although if you take the pre-war period, then yes, the Americans did not act so stupidly. They acted even more stupidly, in many ways borrowing the British concept, and dividing their pre-war tanks simply into tanks and combat cars.
    1. AK64
      AK64 8 July 2016 16: 12
      -3
      Can you give specific examples that contradict this thesis (excluding "Pershing", while the Americans initially called it a heavy tank solely in order to raise the morale of their own tankers fighting in Europe with the Panthers)?


      I would like to actually first hear at least one confirmation of the ridiculous classification of tanks by Amers and Germans.

      This is a fairy tale invented by Russian-speaking web users.
  17. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 16: 44
    +2
    Quote: AK64
    I would like to actually first hear at least one confirmation of the ridiculous classification of tanks by Amers and Germans.

    This is a fairy tale invented by Russian-speaking web users.

    You are clearly from Odessa. Instead of first substantiating your objection (as all decent people do), immediately go on the attack (which, as you know, is the best defense), declaring a "fairy tale". I can give evidence to the contrary, but it will require too long explanations (thanks to the constantly changing system of classification of the Germans - it has never been as harmonious as that of America or the USSR), and even so, if desired, the opponent can always reverse gear and shout "you lie to FSE! fairy tale, fairy tale!"
    So, if you want me to give myself the trouble to start explaining all the intricacies of the German classification (besides, it has changed many times), please first justify your thesis about "a fairy tale invented by Russian-speaking Internet users". For the overwhelming majority foreign speaking military forums in it for some reason also believe.

    In the meantime, information for thinking about the mysterious German soul: for example, originally Pz. IV was considered (and passed according to the documents) as heavy. Why? And then our dofig "heavyweight" had only 18 tons. Then (and very quickly) he became average.
    1. AK64
      AK64 8 July 2016 16: 58
      -3
      You are clearly from Odessa. Instead of first substantiating your objection (as all decent people do), ....


      No, you are from Odessa. Or even from Haifa. "Instead of" at least something to confirm your absolutely wild assertion that the Germans and Americans were fools (as all decent people do) - you started here smearing snot on the table.

      Do you have shoes? You probably classify it by weight? Or color?
      I think it is - by color or weight.

      Everything else that is written here is a fairy tale.
    2. oking
      oking 8 July 2016 21: 30
      -2
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      for example, originally Pz. IV was considered (and passed through the documents) as heavy. Why?

      Really, why? If in fact he was never heavy. And even according to the documents it was not listed as such.
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      Then (and very quickly) he became average.

      Since the spring of 1942. And since the summer of 1943. became easy.
      The range of German tanks has changed, that's all.
    3. Alex
      Alex 8 July 2016 22: 58
      +2
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      So, if you want me to give myself the trouble to deal with the explanation of all the intricacies of the German classification (besides changing repeatedly)
      But I'm interested to know about the rehearsals of the German classification, at least in general terms. And the current, like in 1941 and 1943, is somehow different. If it’s easy, drop a couple of paragraphs.
      1. AK64
        AK64 8 July 2016 23: 46
        +1
        This is not interweaving, but fairy tales. And storytellers.
        I undermine that the author of the tale was Baryatiansky.

        And here are the facts.
        back in 1937, and in January (!!!) (note the date for yourself) the German military issued TK for ... drums .... "heavy tank". And it was called ... Durchbruchwagen --- which in Russian is" breakthrough machine (tank). "Or DW1 and DW2. That is, the Germans perfectly understood that such a heavy tank and why he is needed (breakthrough).

        The prototype was called VK3001 (this is DW1) VK3601 (DW2). In my opinion, about all these prototypes there are articles directly to the top thief.

        From what has been said, it can be understood that
        (1) the Germans knew very well what a "heavy tank" was and even why it was needed: it is directly written in the name - a breakthrough. And it's not about weight at all! Although the approximate weight was set (30 and 36 tons, respectively - the first figure in the prototype index is just the weight).
        (2) their classification was perfectly normal. Much more normal than idiotic French (full of atavisms) and slightly less idiotic English (also because of atavisms).
        (3) Nobody classifies tanks by weight - they are classified by purpose of. Like any tool. If you have shoes, or tools, then first of all you are probably interested appointment, and only then weight-color.

        The only twist of the German classification - for some reason they called infantry tanks "assault guns". Sturmgeschütz is a banal "assault gun". But in fact, the early Stugi are infantry tanks
        1. Alex
          Alex 9 July 2016 09: 54
          +2
          Andrei, we have already discussed with you in this previous publication. Arguments and references to literature, as now, you have not given, so I’m not going to continue all this.
          1. AK64
            AK64 9 July 2016 11: 13
            -1
            Arguments and references to literature, as now, you did not bring,


            Nothing to myself "did not bring" O_o
            I gave you the indices of models and prototypes, and even the name of the project - what else do you need?

            Copy-paste in Google, and get tons of facts. Specific facts and not speculation.

            And by the way, about these prototypes even on this site there are already a bunch of articles. It is enough to read carefully to understand that the Germans were not fools and with the classifications they were all right.

            Any normal person classifies tools according to their purpose. The Germans did just that.
            1. Alex
              Alex 9 July 2016 13: 36
              +2
              Andrei, the two paragraphs that you are referring to are not just proof for me, not even an argument. I read articles about these prototypes, and not only in VO. In tons of information that I shoveled, there is no mention of your classification among the Germans anywhere. Maybe we should talk about kilo and megatons, but I have no desire to increase tonnage.

              Perhaps for you personally the position
              Quote: AK64
              what else do you need?
              Copy paste to google and get
              and acceptable, but I am a man of science, and in it it is customary to bring counterarguments in person, and not to send the opponent in some kind of search. In the end, you need to convince me, and not me - you. Or no one needs anything at all, but then I see no reason for further discussion.
  18. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 17: 18
    +2
    Quote: AK64
    You are clearly from Odessa. Instead of first substantiating your objection (as all decent people do), ....


    No, you are from Odessa. Or even from Haifa. "Instead of" at least something to confirm your absolutely wild assertion that the Germans and Americans were fools (as all decent people do) - you started here smearing snot on the table.

    Do you have shoes? You probably classify it by weight? Or color?
    I think it is - by color or weight.

    Everything else that is written here is a fairy tale.

    Okay, as I thought, here a constructive dialogue was impossible in principle. I pass the baton.
    Accept. https://books.google.com/books?id=ro9tvjpWWpwC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepag
    e&q=%D0%BF%D0%BE%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%BA%D0%
    BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8&f=false

    From this yellow underline to the rest of the paragraph.
    Don’t be too lazy, expose at least the author of this deceitful, vile, Russian-language little book.

    I note that with this link I gave at least something in defense of my thesis (although I still shouldn’t have it - according to the rules of the discussion). But for you, all the same naked gorlopanism and ZERO counterarguments.
    I am taking my leave for the sim.

    PS And for the Americans everything was just as for the USSR - classification by weight in increments of 20 tons. Very convenient for logistics. It’s immediately clear which bridges which tanks will withstand.
    1. AK64
      AK64 8 July 2016 17: 32
      -4
      Okay, as I thought, here a constructive dialogue was impossible in principle.

      So you still classify shoes by color? And by weight?
      Well, congratulations - it certainly characterizes you as a thoughtful connoisseur.

      I pass the baton.
      Accept. https://books.google.com/books?id=ro9tvjpWWpwC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepag


      e&q=%D0%BF%D0%BE%20%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9%20%D0%BA%D0%


      BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8&f=false

      It is written that "the Germans classified the Panther as a medium tank."
      Naturally - and how they should have classified it, if the concepts of MBT then did not have? After all, both the T-54 and T-55 - also according to the Soviet, much later classification - medium tanks. (But in fact they are MBT.)
      It is because of the absence of the concept of MBT, the Germans classified the Panther "heavy medium". Exactly:" heavy medium "

      In general, it seems to me that the author of this idiotic cartoon was Baryatyansky. (I don’t give a tooth, maybe not him. But it looks like him) This mulka has been walking on the Runet for 20 years, and for 20 years her fans haven’t shown any documentary evidence.

      From this yellow underline to the rest of the paragraph.
      Don’t be too lazy, expose at least the author of this deceitful, vile, Russian-language little book.

      Why expose him? Another compiler murzilok. Glue, scissors; Price - 20 kopecks a bunch. (However, today they save with paste-paste, even without scissors)

      I note that with this link I gave at least something in defense of my thesis (although I still shouldn’t have it - according to the rules of the discussion). But for you, all the same naked gorlopanism and ZERO counterarguments.
      I am taking my leave for the sim.

      No, I didn’t. Moreover, this quote just confirms that the Germans were not fools and the tanks classified CORRECTLY.

      PS And for the Americans everything was just as for the USSR - classification by weight in increments of 20 tons. Very convenient for logistics. It’s immediately clear which bridges which tanks will withstand.

      This is utter nonsense.
  19. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 8 July 2016 18: 07
    +2
    Quote: AK64
    This is utter nonsense.

    You are devilishly convincing. To such an argument, no one simply has any objections. Victory on the Internet is assured (and yes, you certainly won, smashing me to smithereens with a couple of "arguments" like that).

    It’s only a pity that they forgot that I already finished discussing with you. But sitting in the tank you might not have heard it the first time.
    Goodbye.
    1. AK64
      AK64 8 July 2016 18: 32
      -2
      You are devilishly convincing.


      Why should I be "convincing"?
      You deigned to give out an absurd thing. And note, you did not bother to confirm anything with it.
      So why should I be "persuasive"? It's ridiculous to argue with the statement that 2x2 = 5.

      PS: so all the same, how do you classify shoes? By color or by weight?

      Or do you have no shoes?