Author Topic: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles  (Read 98019 times)

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #150 on: December 18, 2019, 03:21:07 AM »
An Australian version like this might also be an idea...
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Zaskar24

  • Newly Joined - Welcome me!
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #151 on: December 18, 2019, 09:54:01 AM »
How about a Molins gun?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #152 on: December 19, 2019, 02:54:46 AM »
Interesting but wouldn't a standard QF 6-pounder be just as likely?
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #153 on: December 20, 2019, 01:58:00 AM »
Interesting but wouldn't a standard QF 6-pounder be just as likely?
By the time the sponson 75mm was insufficient to manage Axis tanks ass a dedicated tank destroyer, the 6 pdr was also becoming insufficient (notwithstanding that it was still used in infantry units until the end, mind), for the different tactics used by self propelled AT guns you needed something harder hitting like the 17 pdr. The Mollins/6 pdr really wouldn't be useful enough to warrant such a conversion.

Paul

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #154 on: December 20, 2019, 02:32:40 AM »
I would only imagine it as being part of some sort of field mod.
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #155 on: December 20, 2019, 09:09:28 PM »
Post WWII some Australian Citizen Military Force Cavalry regiments used the M-3 Grant into the 50s, while others were assigned to the AT role with towed 17pdrs, see where I'm going with this?

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #156 on: December 29, 2019, 05:20:33 AM »
What if the Australians purchased some RAMs from the Canadians?  I could easily see aRAM II in Australian markings:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #157 on: December 29, 2019, 05:23:08 AM »
BTW, here is a photo of the sole Ram Gun Tractor with QF 3.7-Inch (94mm) Heavy AA Gun:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #158 on: December 30, 2019, 07:25:25 PM »
Australia received 777 Grants and Lees during the war, I wonder how many were still usable post war?

How about Australia decides to mechanise the CMF and introduces a major upgrade programme for the M-3 to equip this force covering tank, tank destroyer, SPG and APC, plus other support variants. The idea is to provide a training capability rather than a deployable one, but have the personnel and units up to speed, lacking only modern equipment.

I write that and then straight away find and read this
http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/m3ph_1.htm
« Last Edit: December 30, 2019, 07:42:02 PM by Volkodav »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #159 on: December 31, 2019, 03:02:02 AM »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #160 on: December 31, 2019, 11:10:02 AM »
Now I'm just waiting for one of our more knowledgeable members to comment on the feasibility of upgrading the RAACs Matilda fleet with the same bits.

The Matilda with its superior protection would have been a no brainer as the main tank while the M-3 with its extra volume would have been ideal for all the required armour support vehicles, even APCs and ACVs, as well as the usual / actual ARV, BARV, AEV, SPG, GMC, SPAAG anyone?

Thinking how cool an ultimate M-3 FOV with HVSS would look (and of course the HVSS Matilda ;))


Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #161 on: December 31, 2019, 12:30:02 PM »
Australia used the Matilda until ~1954 in the CMF.  It was simply too good a vehicle to let go apparently.  The major problem with the Matilda was that it was simply too small to upgrade all that much.  A new engine? Yes.  A new gearbox?  Yes.  A new gun?  No, the turret ring is too small to support a larger turret.   The British tried in 1941-2 to add a larger turret ring with a square boxy turret reminiscent of the later cruiser tanks like the Cromwell with a 6 Pdr but decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I could imagine them putting a casement gun on the hull, perhaps like the Valentine's Archer could work, armed with perhaps a 6 Pdr?  The hull might be a bit small for a 17 Pdr.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #162 on: December 31, 2019, 03:21:44 PM »
Australia used the Matilda until ~1954 in the CMF.  It was simply too good a vehicle to let go apparently.  The major problem with the Matilda was that it was simply too small to upgrade all that much.  A new engine? Yes.  A new gearbox?  Yes.  A new gun?  No, the turret ring is too small to support a larger turret.   The British tried in 1941-2 to add a larger turret ring with a square boxy turret reminiscent of the later cruiser tanks like the Cromwell with a 6 Pdr but decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I could imagine them putting a casement gun on the hull, perhaps like the Valentine's Archer could work, armed with perhaps a 6 Pdr?  The hull might be a bit small for a 17 Pdr.

It actually had the same size turret ring as the Churchill (54"), therefore could take a Churchill turret, i.e. 2pdr, 3", 6pdr, 75mm, 95mm depending on version. The GM 6046 was designed for the Matilda so would fit, the suspension bogies were bolted on the sides of the hull and could be replaced with something else under widened / modified track guards.

17pdr I definitely would used the surplus M-3 hulls for that application.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #163 on: December 31, 2019, 07:01:04 PM »
Australia used the Matilda until ~1954 in the CMF.  It was simply too good a vehicle to let go apparently.  The major problem with the Matilda was that it was simply too small to upgrade all that much.  A new engine? Yes.  A new gearbox?  Yes.  A new gun?  No, the turret ring is too small to support a larger turret.   The British tried in 1941-2 to add a larger turret ring with a square boxy turret reminiscent of the later cruiser tanks like the Cromwell with a 6 Pdr but decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I could imagine them putting a casement gun on the hull, perhaps like the Valentine's Archer could work, armed with perhaps a 6 Pdr?  The hull might be a bit small for a 17 Pdr.

It actually had the same size turret ring as the Churchill (54"), therefore could take a Churchill turret, i.e. 2pdr, 3", 6pdr, 75mm, 95mm depending on version. The GM 6046 was designed for the Matilda so would fit, the suspension bogies were bolted on the sides of the hull and could be replaced with something else under widened / modified track guards.

Turret rings were slightly different between the Matilda and the Churchill.  The Matilda had a turret ring of 54.3inches while the Churchill had one of 54.2 inches.

So, it appears it could take a larger turret but they never fitted one.  Why?  More than likely 'cause they decided it would be cramped and unfightable.  The Matilda was fitted with a larger turret, as I have already related.  It was not considered a successful marriage.   They needed a larger turret to carry a larger gun and it's ammunition and crew.   The Matilda was incapable of supplying that.

Quote
17pdr I definitely would used the surplus M-3 hulls for that application.

So why hang onto the Matilda?

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #164 on: January 01, 2020, 01:03:53 AM »
Australia used the Matilda until ~1954 in the CMF.  It was simply too good a vehicle to let go apparently.  The major problem with the Matilda was that it was simply too small to upgrade all that much.  A new engine? Yes.  A new gearbox?  Yes.  A new gun?  No, the turret ring is too small to support a larger turret.   The British tried in 1941-2 to add a larger turret ring with a square boxy turret reminiscent of the later cruiser tanks like the Cromwell with a 6 Pdr but decided it wasn't worth the effort.

I could imagine them putting a casement gun on the hull, perhaps like the Valentine's Archer could work, armed with perhaps a 6 Pdr?  The hull might be a bit small for a 17 Pdr.

It actually had the same size turret ring as the Churchill (54"), therefore could take a Churchill turret, i.e. 2pdr, 3", 6pdr, 75mm, 95mm depending on version. The GM 6046 was designed for the Matilda so would fit, the suspension bogies were bolted on the sides of the hull and could be replaced with something else under widened / modified track guards.

Turret rings were slightly different between the Matilda and the Churchill.  The Matilda had a turret ring of 54.3inches while the Churchill had one of 54.2 inches.

So, it appears it could take a larger turret but they never fitted one.  Why?  More than likely 'cause they decided it would be cramped and unfightable.  The Matilda was fitted with a larger turret, as I have already related.  It was not considered a successful marriage.   They needed a larger turret to carry a larger gun and it's ammunition and crew.   The Matilda was incapable of supplying that.

Quote
17pdr I definitely would used the surplus M-3 hulls for that application.

So why hang onto the Matilda?

The Churchill was designed to take the Matilda Turret, hence the similar ring size.  I've read a couple of books that ask why the Churchill turret wasn't used on the Matilda, the only thing I can think of is initial Churchill turrets were manufactured in the US while UK production was sorted, suggesting a shortage. Initially the Churchill was seen as a failure and was facing cancellation, then once it was proven the decision had already been made to replace the Matilda with the Valentine and Churchill.  I suppose the other possibility is that the Centaur and Cavalier (more to the point their unreliable Liberty engines) were not seen as suitable for combat, especially in comparison with the M-3 and M-4, meaning there was excess production of usable turrets that may have been worth using to upgrade the well protected Matilda.

The biggest problem the Matilda had was it was difficult and time consuming to manufacture compared to the Valentine and Churchill.  Its suspension and drivetrain could have easily been upgraded, more so than the Churchill, however its cast, ground and bolted hull was painfully time consuming to fabricate compared to the other options from mid war onwards. 

Production of an improved Matilda was not viable in the UK but the US could have done it quite well, they however preferred to concentrate on their own designs, a no brainer really. Production in Australia could have made sense, the cast bolted hull being suitable for local fabrication, using imported US power plant and suspension, perhaps even US fabricated turrets, would have made things even easier.  All irrelevant really as by the time production could have ramped up, other tanks were already being delivered.

What intrigues me is the upgrade options to keep a useful vehicle, the government was not interested in replacing, in service for longer.  A big issue is obsolescence, as discussed on the ANZAC Steel site with the reference to replacing M-3 components with more readily available M-4 items, if these same components could be used on the Matilda, it would not only improve performance and reliability, it would reduce cost of ownership.

The Matilda was judged a more suitable tank for SEA / South Pacific than the M-3, which is why the tank brigades deployed transitioned to the Matilda from the Grant / Lee.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #165 on: January 03, 2020, 12:10:48 AM »
BTW, here is a photo of the sole Ram Gun Tractor with QF 3.7-Inch (94mm) Heavy AA Gun:
Dayum! Have never seen that photo of the Ram GT before. Bloody nice find!

Can get a limited idea of what the rear fighting compartment and engine deck layout was!

Paul

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #166 on: January 03, 2020, 03:39:27 AM »
Some more shots for you:

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline tankmodeler

  • Wisely picking parts of the real universe 2 ignore
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #167 on: January 04, 2020, 12:18:04 AM »
Ta! Had seen most of these before, but two new ones: in the left 2nd row and the bottom right. Also these are obviously at two different stages in the development.

Will have to go through the Ram development book and see if it speaks to these being one hull or two and if these are converted (deconstructed) actual Rams or incomplete Ram lower hulls pulled from production before being assigned serial numbers and bought especially for this program.

Paul

Offline Story

  • Nicht mein Zirkus, nicht meine Affen...
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #168 on: January 15, 2020, 08:16:51 AM »
Communist Chinese M4A2, rearmed with a Chi-Ha’s 37mm gun due to lack of 75mm ammunition


Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #169 on: January 16, 2020, 01:45:40 AM »
That's supposedly the only photo of that conversion too.  Here is a profile to give people a better idea of the appearance:



Source
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #170 on: January 17, 2020, 11:23:01 AM »
Cheers! For some reason, that PLA Sherman had to be combined with the Ram Gun Tractor ...

http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=351.msg164679#msg164679
Froglord: "... amphibious doom descends ... approach the alter and swear your allegiance to the swamp."

Offline Story

  • Nicht mein Zirkus, nicht meine Affen...
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #171 on: January 19, 2020, 11:59:43 PM »
An M51 Super Sherman modified to look like a WW2 Sherman
https://old.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/eqfkbo/an_m51_super_sherman_modified_to_look_like_a_ww2/

Might be more appropriate for a "Korean War / Cold War goes hot (1949-1959)" build up.

Offline Story

  • Nicht mein Zirkus, nicht meine Affen...
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #172 on: January 24, 2020, 11:14:18 AM »
Oops


Offline Story

  • Nicht mein Zirkus, nicht meine Affen...

Offline Story

  • Nicht mein Zirkus, nicht meine Affen...
Re: M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman Family of Vehicles
« Reply #174 on: April 14, 2020, 04:02:56 AM »
Diorama potential, particularly in the smaller scales.