Interior photos of the M3A5 Grant II - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

Achtung Baby · #1 31 Aug 08, 02:28

Photos from SVSM Gallery

johnbryan · #2 31 Aug 08, 22:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achtung baby

Photos from SVSM Gallery

You can say what you want about the Grant tanks, but you could stow plenty of supplies to take care of the seven men aboard her and given that number of crewmen, everybody got a good night's sleep every time they pulled into a lager and did their bit of night watch.

***The Purist*** · #3 02 Sep 08, 14:34

Not to be 'picking nits' but this is actually a "Lee",...not a Grant. The Grant had a larger turret (British designed) to accomodate the radio and no cupola. The M3 Lee was provided a bit later to the British than the Grant and was used in much the same way.

DogDodger · #4 02 Sep 08, 17:46

CHamberlain and Ellis assert that Grant II was the British designation for the M3A5, including the machine gun cupola turret.

***The Purist*** · #5 03 Sep 08, 14:53

Yes, I understand that. Still,...it was manufactured as a 'Lee',...the British called all their late arrival Lee tanks as Grant II (iirc). Done to avoid having two designations (Lee and Grant) for basically identical vehicles, where only the shape of the turret was different but all other details remained the same (mechanically, logistically, etc.).

Like I said,...I didn't want to 'pick nits'.

johnbryan · #6 03 Sep 08, 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Purist

Yes, I understand that. Still,...it was manufactured as a 'Lee',...the British called all their late arrival Lee tanks as Grant II (iirc). Done to avoid having two designations (Lee and Grant) for basically identical vehicles, where only the shape of the turret was different but all other details remained the same (mechanically, logistically, etc.).

Like I said,...I didn't want to 'pick nits'.

IIRC, the only difference between the Grant and Lee tanks, was that the British versions were without the machine gun cupola atop the 37mm gun turret.

DogDodger · #7 03 Sep 08, 23:40

The British did remove the MG cupola from some standard M3 turrets, but as the Purist said, the British turret was different and included a rear radio bustle.

***The Purist*** · #8 04 Sep 08, 23:03

Ah, yesss,...the Grant. Probably the sexiest tank of WWII on the allied side.

johnbryan · #9 05 Sep 08, 01:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Purist

Ah, yesss,...the Grant. Probably the sexiest tank of WWII on the allied side.

I can't think of a better one to go on campaign with in Burma.

MonsterZero · #10 10 Sep 08, 23:45

In the Char B-1 tank, which is identical layout to the Grant, the driver was the operator of the sponson-mounted main howitzer. He had an elevation wheel next to his seat and traverse was achieved by turning the whole tank on the spot. In order to do this, you need a state of the art hydromatic transmission-the Char B-1 had it and it cost a fortune. The driver could nudge it around one degree at a time. He also had a gun sight in his station to lay it and a trigger to fire it. Another guy standing next to him acted as a loader. This was too much to ask of the driver!! The whole idea of the driver firing the main gun is silly...

DogDodger · #11 10 Sep 08, 23:55

Not to mention having the TC also act as loader and gunner...

***The Purist*** · #12 11 Sep 08, 10:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterZero

In the Char B-1 tank, which is identical layout to the Grant, the driver was the operator of the sponson-mounted main howitzer. He had an elevation wheel next to his seat and traverse was achieved by turning the whole tank on the spot. In order to do this, you need a state of the art hydromatic transmission-the Char B-1 had it and it cost a fortune. The driver could nudge it around one degree at a time. He also had a gun sight in his station to lay it and a trigger to fire it. Another guy standing next to him acted as a loader. This was too much to ask of the driver!! The whole idea of the driver firing the main gun is silly...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DogDodger

Not to mention having the TC also act as loader and gunner...

This is incorrect.

The 75mm in the Lee/Grant had a limited traverse which is something the Char B1 did not have and this was the reason for the fancy transmission in the French tank. The 75mm gun in the US medium had its own gunner and loader, the driver was not thus overburdened. This is the reason for the six man crew. The crew commader in the US model was not the gunner for 37mm either as the turret held the cc, gunner and loader/operator. The driver did have two fixed .30 cal MG at his disposal and could put out a nasty bit of firepower on his own. The lack of traverse was problem but the 'beaten zone' of the two MG was still quite vicious.

One of the reasons for the small crews in French tanks was the manpower deficit faced by France vis-a-vis Germany (there are others of course, vehicle size being another). They simply could not afford large tank crews, it would have pulled too macuh manpower away from the infantry and artillery.