M3 Lee. was it good? is it fundamentally a good idea? theoretically.

Terrible. It was designed as a stop gap because American industry needed to retool its factories to be able to fit the 75mm gun on a rotating turret, which wouldn't finish until another year. The Americans decided they needed tanks right now, and thus the Lee was born.

It was lucky enough to be frequently engaged against obsolete Italian and German tanks designed half a decade prior, but against anything actually contemporary it was outmatched.

>>32658509
but is a multi-turretet hull design fundamentally a bad idea?

File: ICM35043.jpg (85KB, 640x444px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 640x444px

>>32658536
Yes.

Multi turreted designs were experimented with in the inter-war period, universally abandoned during World War 2, and then never tried again.

Having multiple turrets intended to shoot aat different types of targets such as enemy tanks or infantry is much more complicated and less efficient than simply having one single gun capable of destroying whatever it shoots at and multiple types of ammunition. Multiple turrets also make a tank much harder to armor and easier to destroy

>>32658536
If you mean fundamentally a bad idea as in it will kill the crew because it contains hidden whirring sawblades then no.

If you mean fundamentally a bad idea as in there's no reason to choose it over a single turreted tank apart being a stop-gap then yes.

>>32658724

Would it still be a bad idea if you could computrize the turrets and seperate them from the main hull into self-contianed pods that didn't lead into the vehicle's interior? One of the biggest potential advantages of an automated turret or cupola would be as an active defense capable of shooting down ATGMs for less weight than up-armoring the vehicle to achive the same effect.

It was an adequate stopgap until such time as the M4 could show up and save the world.

File: 1345585676928.jpg (29KB, 500x375px)

29KB, 500x375px

>>32658817
Yeah sure why not

File: t-35.jpg (78KB, 800x404px)

78KB, 800x404px

>>32658724
T-35 is so ridiculous it is cool.

>>32658817
I'll let you design me a multi-turret design where all weapons have a 360° FoV and optics aren't obscured.

>>32658724
>one single gun capable of destroying whatever it shoots
or coaxial weaponry

>>32658872
>or coaxial weaponry
Not in the context of an AP weapon and a high caliber HE weapon.

File: 611f67a645204936a7533b705ddd785a.jpg (54KB, 500x395px)

54KB, 500x395px

>>32658428
is it the worst tank given the best name?
yes/no?
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0m0hTrtlWM

File: 1280px-T-55AD_with_Drozd_active_protection_system.jpg (116KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1280x853px

>>32658817
I mean, sort of. APS is fitted onto 'self contained pods that don't lead to a vehicles interior'

But certainly no one would consider this a turret. Just addons to the vehicles main turret.

File: Kongsberg_Protector_RWS_on_M1126.jpg (176KB, 1024x972px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1024x972px

>>32658817
>>32658958
Likewise, coaxial guns that are remote controlled exist, and not limited to machine guns. This setup shown in the picture can also mount a javelin missile for example. But again this is not considered an additional turret, even though it can independently rotate. It is affixed to the structure of the main turret.

File: v0_bov_high.jpg (71KB, 734x460px)

71KB, 734x460px

>>32658854
Fukkan ripoff m8

File: uae_bmp3_2[1].jpg (30KB, 520x344px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 520x344px

>>32658917

File: Hetzer.jpg (23KB, 300x225px)

23KB, 300x225px

Here is a related question, are casemate tanks worth it in an age of sloped armor and SABOT rounds?

are there even any modern casemate tanks?

>>32659365
The reasons to have no turrets are
A bigger gun
Reduced cost
Reduce height

None of these are particularly relevant in today's political climate, at least not enough to justify missing a turret. Who knows, maybe one day the Swedes will decide to be different once again, but I doubt it.

>>32658428
It was a stop gap so it can't be judged too harshly. It was the only tank that could reliably take out PIII, PIV in North Africa for a time.

>>32659365
Aside from STV 103, not really
After WWII, only the germans continued the concept with the kannonejagdpanzer and later with something called VT tank prototype ( mbt-70 with 2 guns on sides)

>>32658796
This.

Lee was a STOPGAP measure because, at a time when most US tanks had just 37mm AT guns and most British tanks couldn't fire HE, a tank with a 75mm gun firing both AP and HE rouns was needed STAT. The US had a viable (yet untested) chassis, a viable 75mm gun and a good 37mm turret, but no 75mm turret; so, FORCED to do something, it was decided to put the 75mm gun in the chassis while a 75mm turret was done (which would also work for testing the chassis for when the larger turret was ready). The 37mm turret was LITERALLY added "just because"; among other factors like all-round defence, it was meant to be an interin design until a large turret was available and the chassis to be a testbed for the later, large-turreted design; they wanted it to have turrets so things were easier later on.

Notice that it was not "a turret gun for AT and a hull gun for HE" - that's a pre-war concept used in, for example, the French Char B1 Bis (which had a rather good 47mm AT gun in an abismal 1-man turret and a low-velocity, HE-only 75mm hull howitzer). The 75mm gun of the Lee was meant to be its all-purpose main weapon, with the 37mm as a backup. Much different concept, even if it does look similar.

Surprisingly, it worked. Its armor, weapon and range made it a surprisingly close match for the Panzer III which was stil the main punch of the Panzer units, and as we all know, having the chassis tested with the Lee meant the later Sherman got a huge head start in reliability (every single tank's early versions had some chassis trouble or the other, the Sherman's chassis was already past that stage). The Lee remained in use for the entire war against Japanese tanks for which even its backup 37mm gun was a threat. (Note that since its 37mm could fire canister, BOTH guns could be used vs soft and hard targets)

But the Sherman (single 75mm gun in a turret) was MUCH better than the Lee. There's literally NO reason to DELIBERATELY make a Lee without being FORCED to do so.

File: ontos Ontos ONTOS.jpg (102KB, 800x550px)

102KB, 800x550px

>>32658509
The Brits wanted them bad enough to push through the stop gap production.

>>32660086
pic related

>>32660157
I guess the biggest fallback of the lee isnt the stop gap, but i like to think that it is the fact that the commander and 75mm gunner are seperate, making it harder to communicate where to shoot

>>32658428
> hands you cheese sandwich

File: M3lee.jpg (481KB, 750x1125px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 750x1125px

>>32660331
Nope, that was what the communicators were for. Actually worked. The biggest problem of the Lee was the cheese sandwiches.

>>32660232
ONTOS was different from VT tank. VT's idea was (I shit you not) "faster firing rate" because a gun could fire while another was reloading. Experience proved it was an horrible idea because two loaders working at the same time in a cramped tank actually made fire rate WORSE than a single undistracted loader in a comparatively roomy turret.
ONTOS had multiple single-shot recoiless rifles to HAVE a ROF at all.

Isn't the Paraguayan military reactivating M3 Lees for service? Thought I saw a thread or forum post somewhere that they were.

>>32660506
m3 stuarts, I thought.

>>32660523
This. Different M3.
Paraguayan Army has some WW2 vintage stuff that has been relegated for two roles: honor presidential guard (a couple Shermans) and training (a couple Stuarts - a time ago deactivated, recently returned to training). ACtually good usages for both of them. For their few modern AFV needs, they use modern-ish gun-armed armored cars - modernized Cascavels IIRC. Not top notch, but decent enough to get the job one.

>>32660506

>M3 Lee retroactively manages to outlive most most MBTs and possibly the M4 itself in service by being reactivated

What irony that would be.

>>32660610
see
>>32660523
>>32660573
a) not Lee
b) Sherman and Stuart are STILL in service

>>32660232
this looks like it was designed by a ten year old to fight Godzilla.

M3 Lee is literally the best tank.

>>32658536

Yeah, because instead of putting the biggest gun you can on your hull size, you're slicing it up into several shittier guns.

Imagine if, for your carry piece, you opted to carry 3 BB guns instead of one 9mm handgun.

That's basically what a multi-turret tank is.

>>32658428
> theoretically. at least for the time period?
Being the only 75mm in North Africa and the only reliable tank in North Africa, yes the M3 Medium Lee and Grant did the Allies proud. Even its armor was decent.

The inability to in defilade and small main gun traverse are the major drawbacks. Crew casualty rates were good with the exception that British tankers didn't wear helmets.

Needed 75mm on a tank now, M4 Medium wasn't ready yet, M3 Medium did the job.

>>32658536
On a modern tank you have the main gun with coaxial, commander's machine gun and often a loader's machine gun.

The multi-turret designs were mostly machinegun turrets with the idea that the radio operators or other crew members could fire the machineguns in relative safety rather than poking their head out a hatch.

The issues are compromises of hull armor, taller silhouette, loss of gun traverse or depression and general increases in weight and complexity for very little gain.

Deathballing an armored car with machineguns pointing every which way turns out to not be a very effective tactic.

>>32658428

>that feel when you're just trying to have fun and you get shotgunned by the rivets from your own armor

>>32658428
>get hired by GD
>internship
>design/doodle stuff on scrap papers
>accidently leave one on my desk while away
>gone when I get back
>next day it's back on the desk
>supervisor photocopied, blown up to legal paper size, and stuck it on the tack board

My Mega-Lee, laid bare for all to see.

Think up sized M3 / M1A2 / M109 mutant.

155mm in the side, 35mm autocannon in the turret, as armored and as mobile as a M1A2 chassis/turret.

People chuckled.

>>32658509
Its contemporaries in the North African theatre were obsolete German and Italian tanks. A 75mm is a 75mm...

>>32664799
I wanna see it

>>32658428
It was perfect for what it was: a cheap design to help the USA gain experience/build infrastructure for future tank designs AND give the UK (and to a lesser extent the USSR) tanks immediately. For a tank designed and in the field in ~6 months in a country that hadn't bothered keeping up technologically it's fucking brilliant.

>>32658536
Yes but a multi-turreted tank is better than no tank at all. A tank with a sponson 75mm is better than a tank without anti-tank capability at all also. The essence of (industrial) warfare is logistics, the best tank in the world means nothing if it shows up late and/or in limited numbers (looking at you Germany).

File: 34534664.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>32658428
>MFW I watch documentaries and they won't call it "M3 Lee", just "M3", but call every other tank by its name especially the "Sherman" who burned the south to the ground

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1N0efg9A088

at 11:00

>>32664799
>not posting it
You fucking monster

>>32658536
Yes, mostly because it costs most of an extra tank. This is particularly true in the WW2 era when the turret was a major part of the cost , both in man hours and money, of a tank (in fact the reason turretless vehicles like the Hetzer were so popular with Germany). Also you've putting more crew in one tank and trained/experienced crew are at a premium anyway.

But again a sub-par tank now is better than no tank at all. Experience from making the M3 also helped a lot with the M4 arguably the best medium tank of the war, at least in a strategic sense.

File: Sahara.jpg (477KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1024x768px

>>32658428

Every time I see one I think of Sahara, great movie if you haven't seen it.

>>32664965
Well it's worth noting it wasn't always the Lee as the British version was the Grant. To the best of my knowledge both fought in the same areas.

File: 75995795.jpg (77KB, 435x580px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 435x580px

>>32664996
thank you for correcting the record

>>32665005
I was not aware historical pedantry is equivalent to cuckoldry. Frankly it's more likely a form of autism.

>>32665024
Depends on the context.

>>32665038
Fair enough, it's still possible that was their motive for calling it the M3. The Sherman is also widely known as the Sherman even to those with only incidental knowledge of WW2, the same is not true of the Lee/Grant.

>>32665005
Given that the M3 Lee was most important in the hands of the British I dont see the problem with this. In the hands of the Americans the M3 Lee did not have a particularly noble history.

>>32664996
The grant and lee were both British names, the difference was the radio iirc.

File: 986590.jpg (61KB, 754x675px)

61KB, 754x675px

>>32665047
>>32665127
The Sherman also had multiple names including Firefly, but the record stands corrected.

File: correct.gif (4MB, 422x418px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 422x418px

>>32665149

File: Sherman_firefly_bovington_2014.jpg (69KB, 746x599px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 746x599px

>>32665171
Firefly was a specific variant though? And it was still called a sherman firefly.

>>32665149
>The grant and lee were both British names, the difference was the radio iirc.
Technically the turret was changed as a whole but the motive for that change was indeed to move the radio. I think there were also changes to the tracks but I could be wrong.
>>32665127
True, I should have said the British modified variant, perhaps. Originally the UK did not intend to use the American variant but this changed and they ended up using both. American troops did use the Lee in North Africa also.
>>32665171
The Firefly was used in a different manner to the standard Sherman was was not particularly common compared to the 10s of thousands of standard tanks. Generally documentaries will call it the Firefly and treat it as a different vehicle entirely. And once again the Sherman is an iconic tank, every fucked knows it by the name Sherman. I doubt many know the Lee and fewer still the Grant.
>>32665207
Also this.

Wasn't the M3 used for infantry support though? The big reason they wanted the 75mm was for HE rounds with more oomph, it didn't matter that it couldn't engage other tanks. That's what the Matilda was for.

>>32664892
I never saved it in an electronic format. It was a pen doodle that I would do when I hit a roadblock in my actual work.

>>32664986
Just use your imagination, then turn the hype meter down a couple notches back into the realism area.

My favorite actual design though, that never became a reality, is the anti-air Abrams.
Who knows, maybe they'll finally get around to making it for the anti-drone SPAAG.

>>32658872
>I'll let you design me a multi-turret design where all weapons have a 360° FoV and optics aren't obscured.
It's absolutely retarded, and would be abhorrent aesthetically, but if you stack progressively smaller turrets on top of each other, it's doable.

>>32665393
They did it with warships, we can do it with tanks!

(pretty sure a couple tanks did this actually, having a 20mm autocannon turret on top of the commander position of the main turret.

>>32665424
Fund it.

>>32665424
>20mm autocannon turret on top of the commander position of the main turret
That I don't know about, but the M60 has a machine gun attached to the cupola, which I think can rotate independent of the main turret.

File: 1463177942464.png (2MB, 918x813px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 918x813px

give me one (1) good reason the baneblade and all of its versions is not a good idea

>>32665283
Think you could recreate it in paint? Even if abhorrently done?
Also
>Anti air abrams
I need more info because you just made me erect

>>32665499
the use of driver's/radio operator's machineguns in the hull is a massive weakspot
side turret guns are a massive weakspot
2 different gun types in one turret is worse than one big gun type in one turret
I like the big fuckoff howitzer, like the churchill.
But move it to the back so it's less of a weakspot

>>32665521
you might want to be quiet with that heresy, anon, the commissar might hear

>>32665499
Aircraft

>>32659365
You ram then under enemy tanks to distract them of course.

>>32660376
That would be a grant though.

Brits called em grants.

File: bovington-car-de-bataille-b1-bis-tank-france-renault-ww2.jpg (73KB, 650x481px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 650x481px

>>32658428
French did it better 4 years earlier.

The US were not experienced at tank design at the outbreak of WW2. Designing good things takes experience. They started getting there towards the end of the war - the Chaffee was a great light tank for example, but their most of their designs were pretty sub-par when they were first released, especially in the early years.

US were better at mass production than high tier design.

File: M3 Grant-M3 Lee.jpg (102KB, 798x603px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 798x603px

>>32665605
Uh, nope. Brits called them Lees (in their original turret configuration) and Grants (with a new turret). Pic related. Dem Yanks called them all M3, which led to confusions with that other M3 (as seen upthread, >>32660506 >>32660523). Sherman, Lee, Grant, Stuart, they all are British nicknames for the American tanks and their confusing M* names.

File: M2 Medium.jpg (44KB, 500x272px)

44KB, 500x272px

>>32665623
>how you want dem machine guns fäm?
>just stick them all over

>>32665623
>believes the B1 had two gund for the same reason as the Lee
>AFTER it has been explained in teh thread that nope it wasn't
see
>>32660157
>Notice that it was not "a turret gun for AT and a hull gun for HE" - that's a pre-war concept used in, for example, the French Char B1 Bis (which had a rather good 47mm AT gun in an abismal 1-man turret and a low-velocity, HE-only 75mm hull howitzer). The 75mm gun of the Lee was meant to be its all-purpose main weapon, with the 37mm as a backup. Much different concept, even if it does look similar.

>>32659029
Love how most pictures of the British Independant are taken by the photographer kneeling on the floor to make it look bigger. The thing is fucking tiny, only 2.7 metres high.

>>32665623
Anon, the decision of making teh Lee was certainly NOT one of "let's deliberately make a two-gunned tank because we think is a good idea", as the French did before it was amply proved it was actually a terrible idea. It was a "let's build a motor chassis for this gun able to defeat both tanks and emplaced guns, ASAP. Oh, and just because we can, give it a backup gun coaxial with its main anti-infantry MG in the turret". "Hey, Boss, wasn't the MG the one suppposed to be coaxial with the turret gun?" "Nope, NOT THIS ONE".

File: Animated_gun_turret.gif (116KB, 700x600px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 700x600px

>>32658817

you fitting a mechanism like this inside a tank?

yeah ok.

>>32660491
No, it's because salvos have a higher hit chance over single shots and rapid fire

Hence the AN94 rifles, HK caseless, American duplex and triplex etc

But with tanks the trade off is too much

File: b47f89c73116b2bda6778fcfdf6672e7.jpg (42KB, 736x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 736x400px

>>32665499
Will give you four - Big ass target which is impossible to camoflage so will be easily taken out by aircraft/artillery. To big/heavy to make use of any bridges. So heavy with tiny tracks, the high ground pressure will ensure it will sink up to its hull cannon in any ground softer than concrete - see pick related of a 150 ton Maus (with wider tracks and a better ground pressure) trying to go cross country. Hull points arn't real - with the amount of ammo and fuel it carries a single penetrating hit would blow that fat fucker up.

>>32659365
>are there even any modern casemate tanks?

Maybe for an airborne tank trying to save some weight.

>>32665788
That was not the intended battle usage. That was the ACTUAL battle usage.

>>32665716
>2 driver controlled sticking forward
>2 facing forward in main body
>2 facing backward in main body
>1 in turret
>can mount 2 on top of turret for infantry
Seven to nine .30cal machineguns
Better than the Stuart's 5

>>32665873
I'd love to see a mini STV 103 in action, that's for sure.

File: M1 SPAAG SHORAD.jpg (18KB, 606x408px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 606x408px

>>32665511
General Dynamics M1 SPAAG / SHORAD platform variations designated "Liberty" & "Liberty II"

M1-L1 didn't have the the big fuck you center radar, had the twin 30mm in the center where the 120 used to be, and used ADATS missiles.

M1-L2 is the one in the image, and reached mockup stage before being shelved by the combination of "USAF will protect us" mentality and reduced budgets.

>>32665511
>>32666488
Current design idea however, if the Army requests an anti-drone SHORAD, is to go back to L1 style but stick a single 35mm AHEAD autocannon in the center.

The fire control radar will be provided by a pair of AESA arrays on the M1 turret cheeks.

All office banter until it's actually requested though.

File: M1L1 turret.jpg (74KB, 600x396px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x396px

>>32666600
And I forgot the image..

File: 220px-NathanBedfordForrest.jpg (16KB, 220x356px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 220x356px

>>32664965
>tfw we'll never get a tank named after Nathan Bedford Forrest

>>32666666
WOOOAH THERE

File: 22.jpg (89KB, 644x781px)

89KB, 644x781px

>>32666666

>>32666666
waste of a get tbqhf

File: 1484546456795.png (788KB, 1544x968px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1544x968px

>>32666666
czech'd

>>32664989
The best.

File: 0ed.jpg (41KB, 480x494px)

41KB, 480x494px

>>32665521

>>32665499
Crew compartment is too cramped, reducing crew efficiency. You got too much shit going on and not enough space for the crew to do their job.

>>32665252
That is incorrect. The entire point of the M3 Medium was to have a 75mm that could kill tanks.

37mm worked just fine against infantry and light armored vehicles.

>>32665756
It's also fucking awkward to get a decent shot, unless they've moved it since I was last at Bovington.

>>32665252
Matilda was an infantry tank.

>>32665499
The ghost inside the tank can throw a tantrum and kill everyone

>>32666613
>>32666600
>>32666488
That's beautiful
Wishing I worked for GD now goddamn

Also nice dubs

>>32660438
>Limeys want cheddar
>but the left sponson cooler is only stocked with american, and maybe a slice of colby.

>>32665252
Anon, it has been mentioned several times ITT that it was not the case. The 75mm was a multirole gun - it was its very point. The extra armor in the Pz III was starting to make it impervious to the 37 and 40mm guns.

>>32665623
>hull gun has minimal horizontal traverse and practically no AT capability
>did it better
[laughing yanks]
[wrecked Pz. IIIs]

File: 1481830158463.jpg (349KB, 923x881px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 923x881px

>be volkssturm
>see this

wat do

>>32669011
>minimal
what about "no" instead? the gun was FIXED and the DRIVER aimed it through a HUGELY complex drive that actually allowed highly precise whole hull traverse.
Meanwhile, German, Italian and American hull-mounted designs had a cheaper, simpler, gun traverse instead.
inb4 "space pen vs pencil."

To be fair, the B1 was an absolute monster against panzers I, II, III and IV. Like, soloing entire companies and returning home scott-free after being hit 140 times. But the concept was highly flawed. It worked DESPITE its design, not thanks to it.