The British Lee tank (that is not a Grant)
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 02. 2020
- Visit www.audible.com/lindybeige or text 'Lindybeige' to 500 500 to find out more about the free trial offer.
The Lee tank was an American hastily-made tank that saw action in the north African desert, and the Grant was a British version of the same vehicle. But there were also Lee tanks that were more like Grants. I try to explain the confusion.
Support me on Patreon: / lindybeige
Buy the music - the music played at the end of my videos is now available here: lindybeige.bandcamp.com/track...
Buy tat (merch):
outloudmerch.com/collections/...
More videos here:
All Lindybeige: • All Lindybeige
Lindybeige: a channel of archaeology, ancient and medieval warfare, rants, swing dance, travelogues, evolution, and whatever else occurs to me to make.
▼ Follow me...
Twitter: / lindybeige I may have some drivel to contribute to the Twittersphere, plus you get notice of uploads.
Facebook: / lindybeige
My website:
www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
Channel page:
/ user "Lindybeige"
"The Americans had this idea that you can never have too many machine guns."
Had?
Yea fr this is still current 🤣🤣
I can relate to this. I've never once thought, "You know, I really don't need this machine gun," but I have often found myself thinking, "An M61 Vulcan would be really useful right about now."
I feel quite certain that there were Brits in the Grant who at some point thought "we sure could use a machine gun right about now".
Mark my words, the successor to the A-10 will be propelled by the recoil from 20 GAU-8 Avengers.
I swear one day we’re going to mount a GAU avenger onto a Hummer with three extra Browning’s
US Tanks: More machine guns!
British Tanks: I wonder if there's a more convenient way to brew tea during a battle.
As he mentioned the gearbox got pretty hot so you could boil the water on it.
@Shark Tank - with a side of fries.
@@muxite6035
Difficult to balance a kettle on a hot barrel.
You gotta have priorities.
American military: "What? The Brits are adding electric boiling vessels to their Challenger II tanks now? That's a great idea! We'll equip the Abrams with an espresso maker!"
The reason the Lee/Grant had the gun in the hull was because they weren't confident that they could cast a big enough single piece turret to house a 75mm gun. They knew they needed the 75mm, but they were really pushing their casting technology and experience.
So it was the armour that held back the Sherman introduction date and required the interim M3 Grant, not the gun.
Yes, and the gun on this particular Lee is the exact same gun on the Sherman, not a “howitzer” but a purpose designed tank gun.
true
@@nepete7 The British might have had more of a tendency to call it a howitzer because before the M3, they usually had gun tanks (typically armed with 2 or 6 pounders, for attacking enemy armored vehicles) and howitzer tanks (armed with 3 or 3.7 inch howitzers, for providing smoke and HE). The American 75mm was the first tank gun in British service that could adequately fulfill both needs, but the M3's 37+75 combination makes it look a lot like a gun/howitzer combination.
Ok boomer
@@arobotguy9316 ?
I so wanted to see the chieftain pop his head out in the background, mumble something about track tensioning, then dip back down again.
Actually youd only see him popping up if "Heavens, the Lee's on fire! Time to exit the tank!!"
David Tuttle “Blimey, vehicular combustion is occurring!”
Chieftain is cancer and needs to go away. Hes a videogame virgin and nothing more.
CanadianCCP Please tell us there is a security camera pointed at your home to capture the moment it is reduced to rubble by an Abrams
I'd have preferred if the chieftain could have corrected Lindy about the overall disdain of the gyro stabilizers. It's not that they didn't work but they were considered so top secret the army didn't print out alot of manuals to operate the damn things. The gunners that figured out how to get them working loved them but it was such a widespread issue and with lend lease compounding the issue of state secrets they finally just ditched them for most of the war.
I could watch Lindy explain how to make a Turkey sandwich, and I'd still be entertained.
New vid idea...
Absolutely
When people ask you where your British accent came from
He would have to go on a 10 minute talk about Roman sandwiches before eating the sandwich mid preparation
Sounds like an invitation to Clint Basinger of *LGR Foods* (Lazy Game Reviews)
Tanks, gaming, and sandwiches? Sounds like a good time to me.
Whenever an 'e' falls off. Then it becomes "le tank" and belongs to the French
I thought it became a French tank when you added an f.
Granted. (sorry)
Oi!
'Incoming!'
I thought it needed a white bit to be a French tank
I love how Lloyd is somehow always wearing the same colour as the tank he's talking about.
Something tells me he likes beige
Camouflage
@@nonoun9619 And dancing the Lindey.
@meh doggo happ Nikolas Lloyd
Only top Documentary narrator's pull that off. David Attenborough is always wearing same light blue shirt and beige chinos💯🇬🇧
“French houses being blown up by the British, that sounds alright!” Most British words ever.
Wasnt it friendly fire actually though
I laughed, and then looked around because I'm sitting in a public place.
I did have a chuckle!
That’s why we shouldn’t skip Lindy’s sponsors
Not really because since the Crimean war the British and French have been close allies.
The US had not kept up with Tank designs, as a result:
- The M2 light and medium tanks were outdated garbage
- The M4 would need 6 more months to develop and retool factories
- They needed a 75mm gun
- They needed a few thousand tanks basically *yesterday*
And that is how the M3 Lee was developed! It was a actuall, driving stopgap measure.
And then Canada showed up with the stop-gap part 2
Funny how that stopgap tank turned out to be the best tank in North Africa when it was introduced.
@@utGort : Indeed. Because the Grant had two things no other British tank had in mid-1942 - a 75 mm gun, and a good HE shell.
Finally, a British tank could shoot back at Axis anti-tank guns from long range itself, instead of being completely dependent on the artillery to do that job (especially when the artillery got left behind, out of range, during an advance.)
One interesting point about the early Grant (Mk I) - its American-made AP shell was crap - it kept shattering on German face-hardened armour.
So the 8th Army came up with an ingenious solution. They had a large stock of German (Panzer IV) 75 mm ammunition, captured earlier during a British offensive. They took the American AP shell, removed the poor quality US shell from the cartridge, and mated the excellent German Panzergranate 39 AP shell to the US cartridge. And it worked brilliantly! Now the Grant could penetrate the face-hardened armour of German Panzer III's and IV's, and from a decent range.
(The British sent some of these German shells to the Americans, to help them design better AP shells of their own.)
@@timonsolus That can also be said about the afrika korps. Their main tank was still the 5cm armed panzer III which the grants outranged. Even the long 7.5cm panzer IV was still rarer than the grants.
@@utGort Biggest fish in a small pond, maybe?
A environment with long firing ranges would benefit that tank. And if they could outrange the Opposition in practice, that even negates the guns weakness.
And the focus on reliability and repairability helps on strategic levels too.
that litle tank at 8:44 scared the shit out of me XD almost jumpt up XD
same :D
At least I'm not the only one.. Shame on Lloyd for using cheap jump scares!
Lt. Gruber.
had exactly the same issue xD
Dammit! I thought I could keep my shame to myself. But you had to say something so I'll have to admit with everyone else. The tiny tank image and noise scared me!
ah yes there is a homeless Tank crazy person in our garage sir .
No sir he's talking to himself sir
Khoi Minh i know this is a joke but that quite rude :/
Nice pfp
Hes talking to us to teach us something about tanks. Be nice to him
@@henri.stach1208 dude that's a joke dude light up
The Lee was actually quite successful and quite useful in the Pacific theater. Particularly, the multiple cannon and machine guns meant that it could put out a good weight of shell in many directions, simultaneously if necessary. Thank you so much for pointing out the various interior details that are rarely shown or discussed. Cheers from a former cavalry and armour officer in the U.S.
Well he is English, not French
Also you must not have watched the video because he mentioned this at the end!!!
Thanks for coming and making a great video! We are glad you enjoyed the Lee! Its now fully restored we did a four part series on our youtube channel.
The most interesting thing about M3 is that Soviet assessment of the tank found that you can put 11 soldiers inside and tank will still retain its combat capability.
:))
So, it was APC than!
And they nicknamed them ‘Grave for seven brothers’
How many more could fit on it as riders?
As I understand it. 1,386 M3 mediums were shipped, a substantial number were lost in transit. USSR used the M3 medium and M3 light (1,676 shipped) in front line service as late as Kursk.
If they did not like them as tanks, they could have removed the turrets and used them as SP guns which they lacked or removed the turrets and guns and used them as APC's which they also lacked.
USSR converted 300 captured Pz III's and Stug's into the SU 76i (link below) which was basically a Soviet Stug. But no effort was made to use the turrets from knocked out M3 mediums and lights on Soviet light tanks (T60, 20mm gun) which would have required only an adapter ring which would have been easier and faster than building new turrets.
It is always easier to bitch about something than it is to do something about it.
tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet-su-76i.php
The orange paint scheme and “stars & bars” on top is generally a giveaway that you’re looking at a Lee. You can also check the stowage racks. If they’re full of bourbon bottles, it’s a Grant.
No disrespect to US Grant, there. The man was a hard-drinking hero.
@@Dan-wt7jx I think you're thinking of a Sherman, Dan.
Dan It was definitely Sherman who burned his way through Georgia all the way to the sea. He also was a hard drinking gentleman. :-)
If its a Lee it will do really really well in battle until one engagement that becomes massively important and isnt up to the job after losing its right hand tank, and then end up losing. If its a Grant it will have a really rough patch but its number 2 tank, a Sherman will help it out and then it will be able to do well and win, please don’t tear apart my lack of knowledge on the Civil War
@@JacobN-hg8tv it will do well until it doesnt arrive in time
or well but eventually fall under siege due to lack of reinforcements and supplies
Yeah no kidding, he drank 10 gallons of 100 proof whiskey (which uses sour mash) and 10 gallons of 100 proof scotch (uses sweet mash) a day according to the autobiography of Grant's aide de camp during the US Civil War.
"There are tales of guns like this (37mm) knocking out Tigers..."
Tiger crew: Did you hear someone knocking? *opens hatch to see*
AT guns: Cheerio, have you got time to talk about our lord and savior: 37 millimeter?
Lmao!
Yep, and king tigers too, destroyed by a small Greyhound like this 19:13
@@yomauser Mark Felton has a video on this.
A Mark two or mark three in the desert would not like this 37mm baby knocking on the door, no sir.
@@yomauser that's because it shot the rear at close range idiot
Pro-tip for telling apart a Lee and a Grant even without the turret:
The Lee has an antenna mounting on the hull, because that's where its radio is. The mounting is a roughly hemispherical cup on the rear left of the upper hull, it's visible in the video from 19:20 onward, just to the left of Lindy there. A Grant hull won't have this, since it had the radio in the turret and thus the antenna on the turret roof.
"There were a number of problems with this, one being that it really didn't work very well." I fucking died.
"french houses being blown to bits by british Tanks, sounds good!"
as a Frenchman, Sir, I protest!
think of the wine cellar , Sir, have you no pity!?!!
Listen napoleon, theres only 2 things the English hate, one is germans, the other is well, you already know...
@@stickemuppunkitsthefunlovi4733 And people who misspell colour. And missing tea time. And they're also not fond of Argentinians.
Oh calm down, of course they will leave the wine cellar intact, they're only gonna shave off a floor or two.
@Colin Cleveland I have no idea man, I just work here.
Lindeybeige has already said that the best use for a Frenchman is to "hold" British arrows, so... I don't think he has any pity.
1 fewer crew also cuts down on the pileup, when everyone has to deass the tank. Yes, these are profession tankers, and they have deass drills, but you'd be amazed what all you can forget, when the tank is on fire, and starting to fill up with smoke...
'Argh the tank is on fire'
"Oh bugger, the tank's on fire."
At least one crew member's going to have a significant emotional event in the Lee/Grant
@@Lo-tf6qt Somebody's been watching Inside the Chieftan's Hatch! Yeah, the tank filling up with smoke is definitely a SEE. For pretty much everyone involved, but the Driver, and Commander are typically best seated for getting out first. (Why it's called the Cheiftan's Hatch) The gunners, and Loaders generally don't have as good access, because of the breach, and sights in the way, and the floor hatches range from awkward to impossible. (They're honestly used more for discarding empty casings than emergency egress.)
This model was multiple guns, multiple gunners/loaders, even without the forward MG station, so had a problem with too many crew, not enough hatches. Even with normal mount, and dismount, the general rule is: "First one in, last one out." (I wasn't a Tanker, I was a Fluid Systems Specialist, but I worked with SPA, and their crews. So, I heard a lot of war stories, including SNAFUs just in regular deass drills.)
@@Psiberzerker Actually I think the driver and maybe radioman/machine-gunner had it the worst for getting out quick. The driver's vision hatch is too small for any but the smallest and most desperate. The hull gun crew have a hatch right above them, and on early models the M3 had 2 side hatches that were later deemed bad weak-points. The side doors were first welded over, but the later ones were built without them. The model in the video appears to be the latter.
That shadow board in the background at 18min reall bothered me they had spanners hanging on the nails for hammers.
That is some serious OCD 😜
Royal Irish
2 possibilities
1 they knew that area was going to be filmed and wanted to screw with those of us with OCD, the evil bastards.
2 they found out that the answer isn’t always a bigger hammer.
Gaah! I hadn't noticed but I 'went back' to see.....dammit! Now I'm haunted by the specter of missing tools.........
time for the apprentice to get a swarfega shampoo!
I remember the days when every tool had 'a back on it' ie it comes back here..........I'm off now to check my socket sets, just to be sure an imperial didn't get mixed with a metric (shudder).
I had just about recovered from ' the missing 5mm Cobalt drill bit crisis' and now this! It's too much (I have PTSD from the time my favorite electrical side-cutter was borrowed by a numpty who used it to cut stainless steel wire.....the horror, the horror...........) mind you, the sinner wasn't very impressed (or very clever) when he levered the padlock out of his tool-box......the compressed spring launched the top layers all over the workshop......
And jumpers for goal posts, have some friends who were in the royal Irish.
@@conmcgrath7502 And so begins another man's eternal hunt for the elusive 12MM socket.
They put the 75mm gun in the hull in a sponson because they didn't have a turret/turret ring combination that could fit the 75mm.
I seem to remember the problem being that they couldn't cast turrets big enough to hold the 75mm, and the Ordnance Board had already shot down the idea of using a welded turret, so they made the M3 Medium with a sponson gun as a stopgap while they worked frantically to improve their casting technique. And then they didn't have enough of the right 75mm gun they wanted to mount in the sponson, so you got another stopgap with a shorter barrel, to which they bolted a weight at the muzzle so that it would balance (the rest of the mechanism having been balanced for the weight of the longer barrel).
@@seanmalloy7249 Yeah, the Grant was a whole lot of 'but what can we build *now?'*
@@boobah5643 Sometimes "pretty good right now" is better than "really good a year from now."
Every comment in this particular thread is correct.
Perfection is the mortal enemy of good enough for right now.
I love this video because it really gives you a sense of scale as to how big the tanks really were. With all the miniatures and videos I looked at as a kid, I always thought WW2 planes and tanks were about the size of a car. But not really, they’re much bigger
It's a Lee, I Grant you.
Owwwwwww!
4:30 The original "howitzer" or "houfnice" in czech were used for direct fire, so in this sence the gun was used and categorized as intended (for those interested).
Lindybeige: "Putting so many people in one tank is a bad idea."
War Thunder: "Ima stop you right there."
The Sherman, M-4 medium, suspension was derived from the Lee/Grant M-3, Medium, chronologically.
M3A4 to be specific, which had a longer hull with the Chrysler A57 engine and subsequently weighed more than other M3 types.
It got to my attention too. Early Shermans used Lee's suspension not other way round. Someone making that type of video should know that.
@@aleksanderdomanski222 In my defence, I did say this on-screen with a caption.
Lloyd, I love listening to you do ads. Nobody makes them as enjoyable and in-context as you do!
Best ads ever. If he comes to the states he could have a full time job as “ that British ad guy” if he wanted. He’s the modern embodiment of Monty Python.
By the way, I think this is, hands down, Lindy Beige’s best video ever. I have watched it about 6 times already. He proves, by walking through it, that surplus M3s could have been, should have been, the first MICVs (Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicles) if they pulled the turrets and mounted all the extra machine guns around the turret ring. It should have easily fit the standard twelve man US Army infantry squad plus the three man crew. Could you imagine an MICV with a 75mm, one .50 cal and four M1919s coming at you going cyclic? That would keep anybody’s head down.
Don't knock the 2 pounder, it could defeat up to 70mm of armour at 60°.
That's the panzer 3 dead and the panzer 4 except the hull front.
"If you met a panther"
Then your grant reached 88mph and was equipped with a flux capacitor.
Well, it has to get back to the future somehow...
Where did you get the 70mm of armor penetration figure? Am I right to assume that this is at 1000 meters (which is the traditional distance these figures are tied to)?
@@Ocrilat
Just the wiki page.
70 is it's max penetration.
At 900m it's 57mm at 60°
@@Ocrilat
So, at 900m your can kill a panzer 3
But a late panzer 4 you need to be 100m of you're attacking the front, every other side your can kill it at 900m.
So I guess maneuvering is much more important that penetration anyway.
@@MostlyPennyCat Yea that makes more sense...I'm looking at a penetration value of about 42 mm at 1000 meters. Don't get me wrong, the 2-pounder was a fine weapon when it was introduced, but by the time the Grant entered service, it was more or less useless. The Grant and then Shermans were the buffer until the excellent 6-pounder was able to be fitted to British tanks in any real numbers.
I love this guy, with that accent, its as though I'm on a tank safari. All he needs are cargo pants and a pith helmet : )
Just found this channel again after a couple of years and I'm so glad I did, time to binge all the tank videos!
The wiring in that stabilizer is, I believe, a Westinghouse Silverstat automatic voltage regulator, one of the first successful AVRs for generators. It is a shunt type regulator.
Never have I been looking forward to learning about a tank until now
Radial engines required much less time to warm up.
Gen. R. E. Lee was an engineer by training, not cavalry.
They were also intended to be cooled via a several hundred-mile-per-hour airflow over the piston cooling flanges, which was an ongoing problem with the M3 and M4 Medium, where the engine was in a closed box -- hence the great honking fan attached to the engine to pump as much air as possible across the engine for cooling.
The Ace of "Spades" as he was called due to his excellent record of building fortifications
@@jimwestberg4771 You say "excellent" I say unneeded and expensive.
And it was 'King of Spades.'
@@jimwestberg4771
He was also called Granny Lee at one time
@@danielburgess7785 In the context of the futility of the war yes but his fortifications were known to remain even after extensive shelling and difficult for union forces to breach. True on the king of spades, an over sight on my part.
17:23 Haha, I love the fact that the tool board is not only missing many of it's tools but that the few tools that many that are hanging there are the wrong ones.
Lindy talking Tonks.
*Bliss*
See's video length is only 20 minutes
*Just a Quicky today then*
"French houses being knocked about by British artillery.... That sounds alright." Wow!
Yeah, I had to go back on that part.
@@alm5992
They are French. Is that a problem?
@@YorkyOne lol
Yeah, he leans pretty heavily into the common British stereotype of hating the French.
Don't most French people live in caves?
The M3 was always a stopgap solution. The M4 with the 75mm in the turret was what the military really wanted, but they had to wait for the development of a turret large enough to fit it.
"Americans couldn't have enough machine guns."
Yeah, the M2 would have to agree...
Also the B-17.
@@kyle857 yeah but they were USEFUL on the B-17. About half a dozen MGs on the M2 Medium were completely pointless 99% of the time.
@@wildward93 they did have the added effect of making the M2 look like some kind of giant spiny death rodent. Plus?
@@michaeledmunds7266 more like goofy to me. Sure would scare the hell out of infantry to see one barreling towards them though.
Tank Chats #24 Vickers A1E1 Independent | The Tank Museum Five turrets, Five machine guns.
czcams.com/video/wSwd7IcY9KA/video.html
One correction Skipper; the 75 mm gun on the Lee/Grant was basically the same one used on the Sherman (and in the Churchill NA 75 conversions), which we always call a general purpose gun. The gun used on the early Lee had a slightly lower velocity (1929 ft/s vs 2031 ft/s, or 588 m/s vs 619 m/s for our continental compatriots), but later Lees and Grants had the exact same gun as the Sherman. The only reason they put it in the hull on the Lee was because they didn't have the machinery to make a turret ring big enough at that point (they were working on it though), and both us and the Americans knew that they needed tanks *now* rather than in 6-12 months.
Also ammunition was a key change, the early M3s got pretty poor AP and HE rounds shipped with them, which got fixed for later on.
You use two flywheels in gyros as one "damps" the other, which better "averages" out the inputs.
"You hit the wrong car!"
"What?"
"You hit the wrong car! That's someone's actual vehicle!"
RIP BL58ODY, a 2008/2009 Birmingham registered Vauxhall.
"Hull machine guns are useless"
The Elefant/Ferdinand-Tank wants to have a word with you.
Hell, the sheer usefulness of a hull MG is part of the reason why the Ferdinand BECAME the Elefant.
I didn't say that, but twin MGs that cannot be aimed are close to useless.
For the love of pete.....fixed hull mounted mgs were useless (what lindy meant).........and yes the U.S. really did that with a few tanks. Clearly hull mgs that could pivot on the other hand were better though hull mg mounts in general are a bad idea in most cases.
@@lindybeige few days late reply but yeah that's true. But if nothing else they are better than no MGs at all. Especially on a TD like that.
I could hardly imagine how could crewmen survive inside such a moving kiln in a desert. Even with those water tanks.
19:22 "No one had checked"
Reminds me of that Tallboy (or Grand slam) Gate Guardian that turned out to be a live bomb
I believe there was a 16" naval shell that spent years as a drop-test weight before someone discovered it was live!
There was also some German incendiary bombs on display for quite a few years in the Leeds Armoury, that turned out to be fully live
The only reason they hadn't gone off, was the delay fuses were damaged
8:10 ish. You could say that the turret crewman was also performing the duty of predryer and thus keeping the rain out of the engine.
dust filter too
Also - Is there any chance of Lindy teaming up with Ian McCollum (Gun Jesus) from Forgotten Weapons?
Preferably over a Beverage (or several) for at least 2-3 hours.
I'd watch that
I too would watch that video.
How about Lindy and Ian on Hot Ones? Separate episodes of course.
It would be 5 minutes of Lindy bantering against french guns and 2 hours and 55 minutes of Ian absolutely destroying him with his research.
@@sondreus24 I fail to see a problem with that scenario.
You do a great job with your ads (and naturally with material you're actually here for). I don't skip the ads. You're delivery makes it worth listening to.
Thank you Audable for paying him!
Despite violating Tank building rule #1, "One Turret per tank", the Lees and Grants weren't that bad.
Bandblade operator: One turret per tank? Hah heresy!
@@pedrokantor3997 And that's what happens when you make a tank to look cool for a game.
Well, it only HAS one turret, the 75 isn’t in one!
The designers were not planning on a turret at all, Armor Force insisted on one with an anti-tank gun despite the additional height.
@@nepete7 That's interesting to know. So what you're saying is they originally intended to build a tank with no anti-tank gun? Not really much of a tank at that point.
@@rayceeya8659 The main purpose of tanks was to support infantry on the attack. The antitank was a secondary (but still important) role.
4:14 That was a common belief, however when tested it was discovered that relatively soft steel of track links increases shell normalization and actually lowers the relative armor thickness when hit at non-90 deg. angle.
Interesting.......
I'd like to see that empirical evidence for that because it doesn't seem to make theoretical sense. To increase normalization, a larger rotational force has to be applied to the round, which usually decreases penetration by stripping away more of the KE of the shell as well as increasing the cross section of the shell relative to the armor.
There is still one good reason to do it though: moral. If the crew thinks it will help, they might actually fight...
@@alexdunphy3716 'what he said......' (meaning you), hence my 'interesting' comment...I know from experience that if you want to drill steel, to get a proper start point, just marking and laying down some masking tape will help to place the center-punch where you want it and also help center the drill bit, I know kinetic anti-armour rounds will behave differently; 'knee-jerk' logic would suggest that the more materiel between the round and the interior, the better....hence I am intrigued.....isn't the very essence of Chobham Armour based on the principle of various 'stuff' dissipating energy and yielding through different vectors?
A worthy sir, I am agog
@@conmcgrath7502 only way to figure this out is to test it. Just have to find 10 or 20 M3 tanks and shoot them over and over again in both configurations. ---> GO
Great presentation! Not overly detailed, very entertaining and informative! Like going to a museum with your uncle! Glad I found your channel!!
The Lee didn't get its suspension from the Sherman, it came from the T5 medium tank prototype, which also ended up contributing to the design of the M4.
A close story to yours: As a kid, I thought the Lee was the "no side skirts" version of the Grant, thanks to Hasegawa´s 1/72 kits box art... :P
ACTUALLY, god I love that meme, Japanese did develop some fairly good tank designs but never produced them since there was shortage of materiel and navy and aviation had the advantage on those. Furthermore their tiny WWI technology tanks were more then adequate for fighting lightly armed Chinese they mostly fought. Until they didn't and tanks like M3 and M4 used HE shells to literally blow them open....
Looking into Japanese tank designs I got the impression that in the 1930s they had very effective tanks and tactics. But through attrition in China and a greater focus on the Navy as time went on the tank corps atrophied.
My favorite weapon against Japanese armor was the P-40 Kittyhawk...
“Radial engines: they worked!”
particularly well when compared to the disaster that was the early model British Crusader, the tank that gives all British tanks such a bad name. The problems with the Crusader I and Crusader II are legendary. They were sorted out by the time of the Crusader III, but the reputation was permanently tarnished and etched in history!!
Which you'd know if you've ever seen a DC-3/C-47, B-17, B-24 and numerous other radial engine powered aircraft.
Love LB`s videos! No background music, (thank god) and packed with knowledge.
They were incredibly effective in the far east against Japan.
An armored scooter would be useful against infantry.
@@CarrotConsumer The Japanese had tanks, but would have saved some trouble if they had made them with can openers attached.
@@alecblunden8615
You sometimes didn't even need can openers to take out Japanese light tanks
That's because Japanese tanks were made by the same company that made tin wind-up toys in the 1950s.....
Track extenders aren't grousers!
Grousers are to give you extra grip, generally on ice.
Track extenders were, well, extensions to the track to improve flotation.
Duckbill type track extenders are designed improve grip as well as reduce ground pressure so it is absolutely correct to call them grousers.
@@StuSaville No, it isn't correct. Grousers for M3/4 VVSS are absolutely not the same as track extenders, aka duckbills. Two entirely separate items.
Grousers were around from the start, duckbills were invented and hurriedly mass-produced in late 1944 to help with the soft ground in rain-soaked Western Europe. By that time no M3 mediums were left in service in the ETO.
I saw this video's thumbnail a few days ago but only opened it now. I did't realize until now that it was from lindy. It's always nice to hear educated ramblings.
I believe that Lee in the French museum that you refer to as a command tank is in fact an M31 ARV roughly mocked up to look as a M3 gun tank. The door with the fake gun where the 75mm should be and the extra spare road wheel mounts to the front of the tank were all modifications done when they converted M3's to M31 ARVs.
It's really really easy to tell a Lee from a Grant the Lee is spelt Lee and the Grant isn't.
Brilliant :-)
the lee is from the south the grant is from the north
You forgot to mention that the Grant is spelled Pershing. (I think).
awesome content
More video's like this Lindy!!! Adding the Chieftan to the mix would be even better, you two have great on-screen chemistry!
Thank you Lindy for being such a great chap!and thank you for making these videos
Lee, the "lets combine disadvantages of normal tank with disadvantages of tank destroyer"...
Ah, 37mm... A tank cartridge that made more sense in aircraft like Yak-9T or P-63.
I lived down the road from Fort Dix NJ when I was young. One scrap yard had one of these out front on display. The motor and turret were missing. The main gun was plugged up with lead. My friends and I would get in and play tank and had so much fun. One day the yard sold out and the tank was gone.
the stabilization system did indeed work, but it was considered top secret and no one was taught how to use and maintain it. when tank companies took the time to figure them out, they saw better results than even ordinance expected. yes they still had to stop to fire, but they could get on target before stopping to fire, allowing a very rapid first shot compared to not having it.
but again, no one was taught to use them and so they were often disabled or disposed of. thanks, ordinance. You can keep your magnetic torpedo detonators as well.
I do love when Lindy claims that the Lee was based on a Sherman tank. Especially since Sherman tanks did not enter product until two years after the Lee.
I stopped watching when he said that. I went down to the comments to see if anyone else caught that fact. I like this guy but you have to get it right or what is the point?
@@jim7297 Yup. Lindybiege is a historian in the broadest possible sense of the word.
@@jim7297 he just misspoke. What he meant was clear from the rest of what he said
@@perperson199 Okay I will buy that. He seems like a nice enough guy.
5:48 The British then proceeded to develop and manufacture the Churchill Tank lol
I love that your videos aren't stiff. They're funny and informative- I wish school would have been like this😂
I love when he does videos on a specific tank. Especially when it’s one of my favorite tanks
Lee a damn good name - I must watch this one!
See, and I think Keith is a damn good name.
I like the tradition of naming AFV's after Civil war generals. Lee, Grant, Jackson, etc. I especially love generals Wolverine and Hellcat, among the others. :-D
Of course there have been a lot of General Failures among them
Wolverine and Hellcat weren't considered tanks but were tank destroyers I.E. self propelled anti-tank guns. The Jackson was a light tank that replaced the M3/M5 Stuart light tank.
@@johnknapp952 Too bad I specifically said AFV's instead of tanks, Captain Obvious.
Awesome video Mr. Lindybeige. Thank you
What a wonderful and thorough report! Thank you so much. I learned much here.
Alternative title: Lindybeige playing with pieces of a disassembled tank
Lindeybeige is an armoured Peter Pan
12:23 reminds me on the_chieftain's story about how his crew ran around the field with a live round inside the breech
Your channel is bloody perfect mate. Subscribed
Cool video with great historical information and awesome entertainment, as always. 2:45 I think Audie Murphy's story proves just how useful lots of machine guns on tanks are. Patton was one of the greatest tank commanders in history. He said in his memoir "War as I knew it" that he thought tanks should have 3 machine guns, always emphasized this need, and employed it (along with marching fire) to good effect. One MG on the hull (preferably with the little ball turret rotating ability), one that's coaxial with the main cannon, and one on the turret. That's because troops often use tanks like mobile bunkers. Bunkers do better with machine guns. Tanks are very vulnerable to infantry, machine-guns eat up infantry. The MGs help save ammo from the main cannon, and give the tank something it can fight with from multiple directions at once as well as WHILE RELOADING! It can suppress infantry with anti-tank weapons, instead of being so reliant on infantry etc. Having 3 MGs helps with anti-air, even if only the turret gun would be able to shoot at aircraft all the time (tho if they're coming from the right direction and at the right angle, why not use the other 2?). When a bunch of vehicles (which Americans used many of, with all our trucks, while the Germans were to the end so reliant on horses...) are all part of a convoy, things like that add up. Also, we Americans had the best machine guns. John Moses Browning's M2 .50 cal was made during WW1, and it still in use! We LOVE that machine gun, it kicks a lot of ass. And the .30-06 (most powerful standard issue battle rifle boltgun round of WW1 and 2) used by American .30 cal machine guns (also Browning designs, along with our 1911s that are still in service with SF guys...) does good work to. That's why that same round is very common on hunting/sniper rifles. It has better external and terminal ballistics than the other rounds like the 7.62x54r or .303 Enfield etc. Both machine guns were also extremely rugged, reliable, and simple to maintain. All the same cannot be said of the MGs used by the other nations, even their best were only our equals. Incidentally, I'd rather have a BAR (another Browning design, in .30-06) over a BREN in the LMG category to
Also, you talk about how many "eggs are in one basket." Maybe if there are more eggs in each basket, you're less likely to loose each basket. Having someone on a machine-gun can make a big difference that way. Also, US armor doctrine was different from the German one. The Germans used their tanks as the primary and the infantry as support. US tanks were always meant to be support for infantry. Infantry REALLY like having lots of machine-guns doing overwatch. Suppressing fire, fire-superiority, marching fire - all work better with lots of machine-guns. That is what sets the US military apart from everyone else IMO in WW2, we understand that overwhelming firepower crushes everything. The USSR understood this too, and it's illustrated by how much more useful things like Katyusha rocket launching trucks can be than tradition field artillery (even self-propelled)
My point is, machine-guns sound like a better idea when you have the best of them using excellent rounds. Carlos Hathcock (best sniper ever, USMC, Vietnam) killed an entire enemy formation (an NVA platoon, if memory serves) with just his spotter at 2000+ yards using an M2 machine-gun and a cheap Unertl x2 power scope. He sniped an enemy commander off his bike with the same set up at 2,500 yards. Yes, I want 3 of such guns on each and every American tank. Especially when our armor can't go toe to toe with a lot of German armor, but is more based on speed, acceleration, turret rotation, light weight, ease of maintenance, strength in numbers, etc. Maybe not so many MGs on the Fireflies, but I've always thought more firepower is better - and I'd be very hesitant to disagree with the mighty Patton about tanks...
Those same Browning machine-guns did excellently on bombers, fighter planes, etc. Browning also designed the .50 BMG (Browning Machine-Gun) round they used, and that goes in the famous Barrett .50 sniper rifles today. He also designed the .45 ACP round used in the 1911 (which he also designed), the rounds I have 13+1/26 of on me right now - well over 100 years later. Because I read books on terminal ballistics
Also. Machine-guns don't just "go bang." They frackin' kill the living shit out of people like nothing else quite can. Do you need to see the opening of Saving Private Ryan to understand? Or maybe Americans just get this, and that's why we always take the hard beaches and go in the tough spots of the line, and the smaller nations with worse guns get the easier jobs, and we still generally do better than them. Montgomery on Sicily and Market Garden, vs Patton all over the place. Where they put US units vs those of other nations in Korea - my point. Not my main point tho, and I'm not doing any nationalist rah rah, just wondering how ANYONE (who is obviously brighter than most) could ever say such a thing about machine-guns - and commenting that it's usually a non-Americans and or political Leftists who says such things. Not accusing or criticizing or categorizing you etc, I'm just commenting on something I've noticed since elementary school that's been a consistent trend I've seen in my life
My point is that the Germans realized how machine-guns do a lot more than just "go bang" very early on, and so based their infantry tactics on revolving around supporting the machine-gun and maneuvering based off it etc. The British Army paid over and over again with countless lives for not understanding machine-guns in WW1. That's a big reason I don't really care what people say, I think most of the generals and leaders in WW1 (especially of certain nations...) were frackin' stupid, callous, ego-maniacs with pride issues and their heads firmly up their martinet asses. I'm glad and grateful general Pershing kept our doughboys out of their control. And I think this foolish attitude by certain nations is a big part of the reason why Germany alone pretty much goes evenly against the same old cast of characters in both World Wars, even on 2 fronts lol. And I'll also say nobody named the Brits or French "Devil Dogs," the USMC earned that from the Germans at Belleau Wood. Not the first time the Marines have left a lasting impression on foreigners - compared to everyone else. And in WW2, this failure to understand what any Ork can tell you, "Mo dakka mo betta" meant that the British waited until it was too late to develop and issue one, and so had pretty much the worst SMG ever - the STEN. Unless it's Fallout, and you want to make a gun out of scrap lol. High school metal shop will get you there with a STEN (I wish I had such skill, a big FU to gun-control...). At least that makes the STEN better than the equally bad Japanese SMG in WW2, and at least the UK made more than a few thousand of their SMGs (something WW2 FPS games conveniently forget, with Japanese SMG all over the place...). The Soviets made more PPSH type SMGs than many nations made of all their other small arms put together! The Korean War taught certain people who liked to joke and sneer at machine-guns exactly how important automatic and burst fire is. If the Chinese and NK had all AK47s in Korea (a possibility...), South Korea flat out would not exist as a country today. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind about that. My number 1 criticism of most weapons basically boils down to "It doesn't kick enough ass. It doesn't do enough DPS." And I believe my criticism is validated by history, martial arts, self-defense, from macro to micro. We're all very squishy, your primary way of protecting yourself is obliterating as many enemies as possible as quickly as possible as surely as possible with as many different ways to do so as possible. Especially in an age where "armor" almost always means something that needs an engine to move...
The use of many machine-guns on tanks was also very useful in the Pacific theater. I don't think ANY other WW2 nation came up against the kind of resistance the USMC defeated from the Japanese, nor do I think any other nation could have done so without significantly more casualties - or even being defeated. I remember one memoir nothing that a good part of having machine-guns and ammo in a tank, is that you can DRIVE (instead of carry) your firepower and ammo up hills or where you're going, and it's already emplaced and ready to fire instead of having to be set up. It's much easier to drive a machine gun somewhere than for infantry to redeploy it
All that being said, I do understand what you mean about the US military industrial complex and looking good so "buy our tank" lol. I've read the Pentagon Wars and King of the Killing Zone about our botched development over the decades of the Abrams and Bradley (even if they are good, in the end). The USSR had it right. Just take the same design you have now, find a way to fix every flaw and problem, add all the extra upgrades and capabilities you want the new model to have, keep everything else the same - and produce. With a few exceptions, everyone else makes a whole new vehicle from the ground every time. Why? Silly Capitalists lol
How the US often designs war vehicles: czcams.com/video/aXQ2lO3ieBA/video.html czcams.com/video/4f2XbOY9kcg/video.html
Lloyd, what the HELL did you do to my car?? You said you were just using it for a couple of days and I see you rolling over it with a damn tank...??? OMG...! You sir are now off my Christmas list... :)
Ah, delightful car-smashery!
I love your videos, i just subscribed yay.
Seriously tho, about 4 years ago you made a spandau vs bren comparison and a sequel in which you mentioned that bren gun was rated second best of infantry weapons, and that the first rated was a topic of a future video.
So, where is that video, the suspense about which weapon was the no1 is killing me :D
The grousers were long iron bars that attached to the tracks for traction and not duckbills. The Lee/Grants were always a stop gap and were still about the best thing the Brits could get at the time and was also better than most everything the German's had at the time, especially in the desert. The only thin it had to fear was an 88. Very cool video. Love to see a follow up!
The Sherman suspension was based on this. This being the earlier design
The "Sherman suspension" is actually just M3A4 Lee suspension. M3A4 had a longer hull and a heavier engine, requiring a heavier duty suspension, and predates the M4 tank. Both types of suspension were used on M4 tanks anyway; very early production tanks had the 'light duty' M3 bogies. One such M4 can still be seen at Bovington
No, it's not based on a sherman, the sherman was based on it.
Soon after, the Canadian Ram tank design was built on the M3's lower hull and drivetrain.
And SP guns of 105 & 155mm for USA, 25pdr for UK mobile arty units served to wars end.
Priest, Sexton, arty tractors, radio and command variants, etc. Pretty good long life for a stopgap rush job! Gets a bad rap for not being "the supertank uber alles" especially by the Russians but beggars can't be choosy; and anything with a big enough gun to kill panzers at longer ranges and mechanical reliability to get to the battle, fighting thru to win, and pursue or repositioning for advantage without mech failure is a huge plus in 1942.
Yeah, I dunno if you can read but he did put a disclaimer in the video.
8:44, the moving picture and the sound effect scared me XD. Thank you for this interesting video!
Absolutely smashing tour! Many t'anks!
08:00 : how to make battlefield air conditioning sound terrible.
You know, speaking of David Mitchell: It occurs to me that I don't know who is the older out of the two - Lindy or Mitchell?
Such wonderful enthusiasm.
The gun gyrostabilizer was also included on the Sherman and had a similar dubious legacy. The device did actually somewhat work; it's not amazing when firing on the move, but it was at least possible. The advantage mainly came in being able to make an aimed shot when the tank came to a stop faster. Without stabilization the gun and sight would be bouncing around longer and the gunner would have to wait.
Thing was, it was deemed important enough to be considered secret tech. As such the crews weren't really trained on how it worked nor did they have manuals to consult. Some gunners would feel like it was harming rather than helping and thus preferred them to stay off. For crews that did figure it out, they apparently liked it.
"sahara" bogart and his m3 tank take on the africa corp
Great movie...even the remake with Belushi.
LULUBELLE
@Colin Cleveland did not know that, you just made my day!
@Colin Cleveland try and watch with fresh eyes. the belushi version is just passable
They did a remake of that that wasn't tooo bad. But for a movie and a tank I didn't think I would like, I ended up liking both.
"Water containers!" And a Jerry can.
This tank kicked butt for about six months in N. Africa 42-43.
"The little machine gun turret" (at approx. 19:30) - When the Canadians used the hull and other components of the M3 Medium tank to made the Ram tank, they took that cupola turret and used it for the hull-mounted machine gun.
I'll also recommend David Mitchell. That Mitchell and Webb Look is a great series.
That M&W Look is Peak Mitchell, but he's still great.
Or for audio, "That Mitchell and Sound."
You're looking particularly homeless today Lloyd.
That's a compliment in his eyes.
I have questions about your profile lmao
Hutto you love?
Thank you sir for another great video! Keep up the great work!
don't recall if I said this the first time I watched this video but a bit of trivia that I was reminded of when Lindybeige spoke of the rivets being driven into the interior of the tank...
Robert Lee Scott decided the title for his book "God is my Co-Pilot" while laying on his stomach having rivets dug out of his back.
He'd been flying his P-40 Kittyhawk in combat with the Japanese, and one of them got several explosive shells (20mm?) into his plane. They hit the armored back of his seat, and instead of going into his back, they drove the seat's rivets into his back.
(Apparently the doctor working on him had asked if he flew up there all alone... later after Scott explained how he got the rivets, the doctor concluded, "no, you weren't alone up there")