WHY???

>>30775790
Easy to build, good gun and armor for the time, lots of dakka.

That simple really.

You get a better respect for it when you realize that despite being shit it kicked ass in Africa.

Because the US was still new at making tanks, which were still a developing technology as well. Additionally, they needed them in a hurry.

>>30775790

It was a flawed design, but unlike the Sherman it had the benefit of being sent on the right missions for its capabilities; it did great in the Pacific.

File: 1431916569100.png (7KB, 470x454px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 470x454px

>>30775790
What did they mean by this?

>>30775790
Stop gap

>>30775824

It also did great in the wide open desert.

>>30775804
It had moreso to do with that they needed something quickly that they could easily get automotive plants to produce.

The Soviets used them surprisingly well.

File: Sahara6.jpg (23KB, 400x250px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 400x250px

>>30775905

>>30775897
/thread
It was pretty much a way to get a 75mm on tracks, did the job.

>>30775929
One of the few movies to acknowledge this tank existed.

>>30775790
Same reason all early shit is shit.

The M3/A1 is one of my favorite tanks of all time

it just looks so fucking dopey with that sponson-mounted gun

>>30775790
>Self-propelled gun with a light tank turret up top
>Good firepower for it's time
>Decent armor for it's time
>Simplified and shortened production time while tooling for Sherman production got up and running
I see nothing wrong with this.

>>30776092
>for it is time
>for it is time

>>30776112
Yeah, because if you compare WW2 tanks to a M1A1 they will come out short.

>>30776112
Well yeah. There were a shitton of advancements in WW2. Vehicles were invented, introduced, and obsoleted within two years. For when it was introduced, the M3 had a good gun, good armor, and good mobility. It doesn't compare evenly to later vehicles, but why would you think it would?

>>30776118
>>30776159
They're making fun of the fact they said "it's" instead of "its"

>>30776166
Ah, that makes more sense.
My written English has always been pleb level at best.

>>30775790
As we light up the skyyyyyy.

>>30776166
Ah. That's what I get for not sleeping last night.

>>30775790

Only tank packing a 90mm canon at the time and you ask why?

It's ugly, suffered from a lot a flaws, but it also had its benefits, mainly ease and speed of production.

Also please remember that the US army didn't care about the life of its soldiers, at best. At worst it didn't gave a single flying monoarmed robotic pony dancer fuck.

So who cares if some pleb dies in a bow of metal, he shoulda done west point in the first place LMAO GIT GUD WORKING CLASS.

Also Russians were offered a lot. For the same reasons. But this time the Red army was also there to be sure that not even a microscopic bozon of fuck will be given.

It tonked, not bad, not good. It just tonked. Then we found better things to tank with, because sending 5 poor fuckers to a certain death when ordered to go at kraut beasts weighing twice the wieght, and having much more formidable firepower started to appear a little too clearly as certain fiery death.

>>30776471
>90mm

no

>>30776560

My bad. Still kicked ass.

>>30776471
You really have no clue what you're talking about.

>>30776471
>What is T-34
>What is KV-1
>What is Pz F'ing 4
Lot's of tanks had 75/6mm guns and had good No. of production before the M3 had its 1st prototype do to the "cast hull best hull" US.

>>30777026
The Pz IV had a low velocity 75mm gun, it doesn't counts. The Pz IVs with proper 75mm guns showed up after the M3, at least in the Desert.

>>30775790

That tank is to tanks what pre-dreadnought battleships are to battleships.

>>30777041
That 75 can still pin your Lee at 500m

>>30776471
SHAME!

>>30777152
If you could hit with the HEAT rounds, sure. Do note that that is a significant accomplishment. Other than that? Hell no. And HEAT wasn't the most common either.

You gotta realize the Kwk 37 was awful for antitank work.

>>30777299
I'm saying it was but as long as you can hit it will work.

File: ford_3_ton_m1918_by_teslapunk-d37za5e.jpg (78KB, 646x385px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 646x385px

>dopey American tanks

>>30777405
That's pretty damn neat.

>>30776471
>found the memelord

>>30775804
You are incorrect at everything but the last point

>>30777614
>implying the US wasn't new to building tanks
Buddy.

>>30777632
But... no. The US were building tanks just as long as anyone else.

>>30777632
The US was building tanks throughout the 20s and 30s like the other major powers

>>30777703
>>30777715
The US didn't have a factory for producing tanks up until 1940. Anything they did was in limited quantities. They lacked the practical experience, as did the companies making them.

>>30777765
How did anyone else have practical experience either? Because of the one year they made land ships? Germany was about the only country that had been mass producing armor before the war broke out, but I don't see how mass production has anything to do with experience in tank design.

>>30777798
>Germany was about the only country that had been mass producing armor before the war broke out, but I don't see how mass production has anything to do with experience in tank design.
That's utter and complete bullshit. Look at every other power, ESPECIALLY the USSR.

As for how this applies to tank design- the US had very little practical experience in actually making the bloody things. That's why the M3 was created. They hadn't figured out a turret big enough for the 75mm gun yet.

>>30775790

Stop gap, did really well in africa until the sherman came along

>>30777824
>Germany never had any stopgaps

Wehraboo logic at its finest

>>30777798
The Soviet Union and France say "Hi," Mr. Wehraboo

>>30777614
Yeah, sorry, I stand by that. Tank tech and doctrine was still evolving for everyone, and Euros were thinking a lot more about it in the years before ww2 than the US was. As someone else pointed out, the US didn't even have a factory to make them.

>>30777887
I didn't say that. The fuck are you on about?

>>30777983
>provides stopgap tank as example of us being inexperienced with tanks
>while simultaneously raising up Germany as superior

The army wanted a tank with a high performance aircraft engine, a 75mm gun, loads of machine guns, and a turret.

And they wanted it fast.

The M3 lee technically delivered all of those things.

>>30775790
75mm gun needed in the field, RIGHT FUCKING NOW ON THE DOUBLE, MAGGOT!

>>30778137
Germany was also extremely inexperienced with tanks. However, they started their buildup before the US did. I never said they were superior. You're literally making things up.