"Lee, Grant and Sherman" Topic

Would anyone know why the U.S. named the M3 the Lee, while the British named their version of the M3 the Grant, in direct opposition to the Lee's name and then named the M4 the Sherman?

Like Monty and Rommel, Lee and Grant have historically been linked together, so Lee and Grant seems reasonable.

Then Sherman, and Stuart, Jackson, are other American Civil War generals that would be well known outside the USA.

Just my speculation.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I was told that early M3 were bolt used and later models had welded hulls. M3 chassis used for priests and other tracks had welded hulls?

Lenny is mostly correct. The British M3 (Grant) did not have a copula but DID have a 37mm gun in it's turret along with the sponson mounted 75. Rudy: Rivets. It was the M-4A1 that had the cast hull- all others were welded. Welded because the Locomotive works were the only firms that had the technology and machinery to do cast hulls and demands for the Shermans far outstripped the two firms ability to supply. The savings in final weight was substantial. (Ref: Armored Fighting Vehicles in Profile Vol. 4- American AFV.)

Been reading up on M-3 series Medium Tanks (Lee and Grant). After the M-4 came about in numbers, a lot of M-3s (both types) were sent to Australia and India where they successfully forced the Japanese out of Burma and New Zealand.

New Zealand? That might be news to our Kiwi cousins.

I thought both the Lee and Grant had different turrets, though as Dye4minis said, they both had a 37mm gun. As I recall from my long-distant Airfix days.

Different turrets indeed. Some M3s did have cast hulls too.

As for US generals, before the war was out, there was the Grant, Lee, Sherman, Stuart, Jackson, Pershing, Chaffee.

Later came the Patton, Walker Bulldog, Abrams, Sheridan etc. Funny enough, no Custer!

The story I remember is the the Lee and Stuart were named so because there were a lot of officers from Virginia in the U. S. Armored Branch. The British named the Grant and Sherman because they wanted their tanks named for winning Generals.

I know the differences between the Lee and Grant, including the different turret so the British could have a radio for the tank commander and cut the crew to six, get rid of the cupola and have the split hatch for the commander. [All of which the U.S. gave the Sherman including a hatch for the loader.] The British wanted that hatch on the Grant, but the U.S. couldn't swing it and maintain production output.

I was just fascinated that the British choose Union generals. They could have just as easily called them the Wellingtons or Kitcheners [Churchill was taken] Or why not continue the line of Southern Generals, instead that is what the U.S. did with the Jackson etc. I find that rather bizarre on the face of it.

I may have been in error above saying that the British gave the M4 the name Sherman.

Not an error at all. It was in fact the Brits who named the US tanks after US generals. Helped keep things clear (which tank was a US Lend Lease tank vs. a Brit design) and I suppose was also a courtesy/tip-of-the-hat to the US Army.

Very late in the war the US Army started to get into naming things beyond just an M-designation. In this they copied the pattern set by the Brits, so the Pershing and Patton tanks were in fact named by US Army Ordnance. But the earlier ones were British names, some of which became popular with GIs and some of which did not. GIs often called M4 medium tanks "Shermans". But I have never seen a reference to a US soldier in WW2 calling an M36 TD a "Jackson", even though this name was officially adopted by US Army Ordnance very late in the war. The only nickname I've seen used for the M36 by GIs or US press in period writings is "Slugger", and even that was rare.

Would anyone know why the U.S. named the M3 the Lee, while the British named their version of the M3 the Grant, in direct opposition to the Lee's name…

So back to the OP question … as many others have already indicated, Lee and Grant were names given by the British, not the US.

Lee was the name given to the standard production M3 Medium Tank.

Grant was the name given to the version of the M3 Medium Tank that was modified at the request of the Brits.

Both version served in the British forces, so different names were appropriate. The "Grant" was the more common name, though, and often British-oriented sources call all M3 Medium tanks "Grants".

The Grant never served in the US Army. And the name Lee never appeared in US Army records (OK Mr. Mark, you should know better than to ever say never. Let's just say it does not appear in official or even common usage.). The US Army never called the M3 Medium anything but the M3 Medium.

Since we Americans have everything an "M" designation, sometimes confusingly, that might be the root.
We had M3 light tank, M3 medium tank.

In fact it was far worse than just those two. The issue was that the M-number designation was only within a class of weapon. As the US Army got a WHOLE bunch of new weapons in the late 1930s, there were lots of classes that were at the M3 level by the time of the Torch landings and the Tunisian campaign.

M3 Light Tank (Stuart)
M3 Halftrack
M3 Medium Tank (Lee)
M3 75mm gun (the gun in the late model M3 Medium tanks and the M4 Medium tank)
M3 Gun, Motor Carriage (ie: tank destroyer*), which oddly enough did not use the M3 75mm gun until the very last few production lots)
M3 .45cal Submachine gun (Grease Gun) which was becoming standard issue to the crews of the M3 Light Tank and M3 Medium Tank, but not the M3 TDs (who got M1 Carbines) and was not mounted on the M3 Halftracks (which usually had M2 .50cal HMGs).

Just imagine the commander in the field, who's RTO passes along the message that HQ is sending some M3s to support him. Like, WTH does that even mean?

It was because of the growing awareness of the confusion caused by same-M-series designations that the follow-up to the M3 Light Tank, which started production at about the same time as the M4 Medium Tank, was designated the M5 Light Tank (rather than M4 Light Tank). In the field most folks just called them both Stuarts.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

*Oh, and BTW, calling a major class of combat vehicles Gun, Motor Carriage was also not terribly bright. GMC (General Motors Corp) was a major supplier of vehicles to the US Army, and a bulldozer or 2.5t truck getting the same abbreviation as a tank destroyer was also not a good way to keep communications clear and concise.

Lenny:

Below is a link to a very informative article on the M3 Lee/Grant from a Sherman tank site. Including the predecessor M2 medium.

<url> link </url>

I am not so sure the British naming conventions had much to do with US numeric designations. They do seem to have been more into names for many of their own vehicles, Churchill, Cromwell, Crusader for example, followed by the model designation.

Initially US tanks had a 'T' designation for testing and the Model numbers are categorized to some extent, so you have M3 light tank and M3 medium tank. The upgraded Stuart was the M5 light tank and there was an M6 heavy tank. Then there was the M3 series of half-tracks. The TDs had a separate list – M3 GMC was the 1/2 track TD.

Edit – Just saw Mark's post way better than I did lol. But also noted Lenny L's posts have been deleted….

In honor of our Tank Destroyer brothers, let's not forget about the Wolverine and Jackson.

Wot? No General Arthur Hellcat then? Not sure which war he served the US Army within, but if we are to mention eponymous TDs…..

It goes on. Bradleys for example. No one mentioned the WWII Scott (the M8 HMC)

re: Custer. It seems to have been the intention to name the M27 Medium Tank, which was standardized but never went into production, after Custer.

I've always assumed the "M" stood for "Model." As in tank Model 4.

Wot? No General Arthur Hellcat then? Not sure which war he served the US Army within, but if we are to mention eponymous TDs…..

The M18 was named Hellcat by the manufacturer (Buick Motors). They used it in am image ad campaign:

Many US automakers ran extensive image ad campaigns during WW2. They were prohibited from building new cars to sell to the public, and they very much wanted to ensure that, when the war was over and they were ready to build and sell new cars again, that the public would remember their names and think good things about them.

As far as I have read, the US Army had less than ZERO interest in calling the M18 the "Hellcat". Hellcat was the name of a Navy fighter, and the Army wanted nothing to do with that.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Aussie Andy. My bad. My source said they were sent to Australia for their use in the SW Pacific.

Aussie Andy. My bad. My source said they were sent to Australia for their use in the SW Pacific. Last time I checked, New Zealand was in the SW Pacific so it's possible some served there?

The Lee/Grant, and a couple of Shermans (a request for Shermans was denied by Mac) which were loaned for testing at the Tropical Trials Centre in Tully, were never deployed, Tom. They were judged to be unfit for use in the jungle and terrain of PNG and the islands. So the Lee/Grants were used to train the personnel for the armoured divisions Australia raised and the one or two Shermans were mothballed. When Australian armoured regiments were deployed in the SWPA they had Stuarts and Matilda II variants.

As far as I know the Kiwis never got any Lee/Grants. They used British tanks, Stuarts and Shermans in Europe, while in NZ itself they had Valentines and Stuarts.

The Lee/Grants were still being used for training RAEME vehicle recovery crews in the late '80's, though all that was left of the hulks was the superstructure and running gear by then. So they served, one way or another, for a long time.

Some M3s did have cast hulls too.

The M3A1 was the only version of the M3 medium tank to have a cast hull. Only American Locomotive in New York had the facilities to produce it and just 300 M3A1s were built out of a total of 6258 M3s.

Fer shuwer. And an M3 with a cast hull was called an M3A1.

Like an M4 with a cast hull was called an M4A1.

US tank terminology can be frustrating. I was taken to task, recently here, for pointing out that an "M4" being towed out of trouble was actually an M4A3. Not unreasonably, as the original commentator suggested the M4 designation was just a generic term to apply to anything from an M4 to an M4A3E8, an Easy Eight.

Not unreasonably, as the original commentator suggested the M4 designation was just a generic term to apply to anything from an M4 to an M4A3E8

It may have been, to US Army troops in WW2.

But you're dealing with dyed-the-wool rivet-counting nerds on these boards, so know your sub-variants or hold your peace!

The M-4 was a real model! It was the original design but the 3rd type to go into production. Originally with the Continental engine but with the simplified all welded hull instead of a cast hull (witch was the M4A1- First into production). Per Profile publications (Chambelain and Ellis) Total production of the M4 model (NOT all versions of the M-4; JUST the M-4 one) was 8,389of which 6,748 with the 75mm gun and 1,641 with the 105 howitzer. The British called this version "Sherman I". (OMG…..I've turned into a rivet counter!!!!)

The British called this version "Sherman I".

The British naming practices may have their peculiarities, but when it comes to naming Sherman versions they may be a bit clearer than the original US nominations, though you need to take a bit of care when translating between the two since the numbers do not match.

Also, the habit of appending the model name with letter (a, b, c) to denominate the upgunned variants is a relatively handy practice.

Not sure there were too many rivets on any mark of Sherman for us to count. Shame really, it passes the time

"Funny enough, no Custer!"

Technically, Custer was a Colonel. During the ACW he was a Brevet Major General. After the war, he went back to Colonel.

These vids might be of interest for some .

Sherman School: Identifying Variants of the Iconic M4 Medium Tank .

YouTube link

Definitely of interest thanks. The speaker has a talent for simplifying the complexity of M4 sub variants and their recognition. I always wondered why the reduced the angle of the glacis plate on the M4A3, when ballistics suggested the opposite

Not sure if it was covered above, but the US did not name tanks during the war. The British did. The US adopted those names after the war.

Not technically true. Some disagreement on who originated the name but the M-24 was officially called the Chaffee by the US. Also, just under the wire, the M-26 was definitely named the Pershing by the US prior to the end of WW2.

No, Custer died a lieutenant colonel in the regular army. During the ACW he started as a brand-new 2nd Lt, made it to captain of volunteers, then was jumped to brigadier general of volunteers and brevet major general. After the war, he (like everyone) lost his volunteer rank, but was made the lt. col. of the new 7th Cavalry (A. J. Smith was the colonel, but like most colonels in the regular army was detached for other duties).

"No, Custer died a lieutenant colonel in the regular army"

But could be addressed informally by his brevet rank as a courtesy.

I always wondered why the reduced the angle of the glacis plate on the M4A3, when ballistics suggested the opposite

The re-designed bow was not specifically linked to the M4A3.

There were some (not many) M4A3s built with the older front, and there were M4s and M4A2s built with the newer front.

They are sometimes referred to as the "47degree" Shermans. They are also sometimes called "large hatch" Shermans, as one by-product of reducing the slope of the front plate was a longer top deck in front of the turret, which provided enough space for re-shaped and larger hatches for the driver and co-driver.

The primary reason for the re-design was to save on manufacturing costs. In the older version there were bulges for the driver and co-driver hatches. These were cast pieces that were welded into place on the otherwise flat rolled front plate. This took time and cost money.

As a secondary but deliberately sought benefit, the redesign improved protection. The cast bulges were a notable weak point in the front of the tank, as the bulges themselves were much closer to vertical (very little slope) and the weld seam, or any weld seam for that matter, is notably weaker than the rolled plate or even cast armor that it joins. The clear understanding of this weakspot can be observed in the up-armoring applique armor kits provided mid-war for Sherman tanks of all sub-models, which included plates to be welded in-place in front of the driver and co-driver hatch bulges. In addition to reducing the likelyhood of hull crewmen getting their heads removed by penetrating shots, the re-design made it easier for hull crewmen to bail out fast in the event of an emergency.

It is true that the major portion of the new front plate was at a lesser slope than the old plate. But it provided no less protection than the older, more sloped plate. The protection provided against kinetic energy shot by the "slope effect" was well understood, and the plate for the 47 degree glacis was thickened compared to the earlier plate: the original glacis was 2in thick at 56 degrees, while the later glacis was 2.5in thick at 47 degrees. This was done in order to offer the same armored basis against horizontal strikes.

So overall the redesign removed notable weak spots in the front armor, provided greater safety and convenience for the crew, and cost less time and money to produce.

Or so I've read.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Now that makes perfect sense. Really interesting is the info about the weakness of the small hatch bulges, and the needed welds as a result. I think the applique patches were only for direct vision "bulges", but am very likely to have that wrong.

I did know that I will occasionally see a new model of an M4A2 in 1/72 (eg Zvezda) and get really excited at the prospect of summat to rival the Heller model (not easy that!). Then I see the large hatch 47 degree on an M4A2 in USSR use! No use to me modelling 2eme DB tanks.

Many thanks for that info. I am still learning about Shermans.

Let me add the Sheridan to the list of US AFVs named after generals, even if just a little bit later.

Australia received more than 750, about 1/3 Lee and the remainder Grants. They never left Australia as the 1st Armoured Division was retained in Australia for defence against a possible Japanese invasion. Australian armoured units did fight in the SW Pacific theatre but they did so using Stuarts and Matildas.

The British used them in North Africa and when they were replaced shipped around 800 to India where they were used by British armoured units in Burma where they proved popular and effective, particularly as bunker busters. They had good climbing ability and were used to good effect in the mountainous terrain around Kohima and Imphal. They then played a more traditional armoured role in the great sweeping manoeuvres around Mandalay and Meiktila that went a long way to destroying the Japanese Burma area army before sweeping down to Rangoon to seal victory.

Post war many of the Grants in Australia were sold as surplus and converted for farm and earth moving use. The excellent collection at the Australian Armour and Artillery Museum has several restored ones.

Really interesting is the info about the weakness of the small hatch bulges, and the needed welds as a result.

The welds were not needed as a result of the weakness:

1) They were needed as a result of the process of manufacturing the front of a "welded hull" Sherman.

The M4, M4A2, M4A3 and M4A4 models were all "welded" hulls, made from welding together a set of flat rolled steel plates. Except for the hull hatch bulges, that is. The bulges were rounded, a shape that was only achievable by casting. So these bulges were casted, then welded into place on the otherwise rolled flat plate hulls.

2) The welds were an added source of weakness.

The bulges themselves were a source of weakness. Their fronts were nearly vertical, and they were cast armor (vs. 56 degree sloped rolled homogeneous armor plates), so they were bound to be weaker than the rest of the front slope. Added to that there was the weld seam, which is always a weakspot in any armor.

I think the applique patches were only for direct vision "bulges" …

This is not correct. The mid-war upgrade applique armor kits included plates to be added to the hull sides over the sponson ammo racks, and plates to go in front of the hull hatch bulges.

See this picture of a mid-war upgraded M4 welded hull Sherman on display at Wiltz Castle in Luxembourg.

This is a good example of the hull upgrade set for a mid-war production 75mm Sherman. It has the sponson plates as well as the front hull hatch bulge plates.

My best guess is that this is a mid-war production hull -- ie: the applique armor was added at the factory during production. I say this because the transmission cover is a single-piece cast cover, rather than the three piece bolted cover that would indicate an early war production hull that would probably have been upgraded in the field.

Clearly the plates welded over the bulges are not covering direct vision slits, as those slits had been removed from the front hull design long before the majority of mid-war production vehicles were produced.

(Note: the observation of the transmission cover is not a 100% reliable predictor of the production series of the hull. Older hulls did get newer transmission covers from time-to-time.)

These plates were included not only in the mid-production factory program but also in the kits shipped to ETO for field upgrades. But they were not installed as often in the field as the sponson plates. This may be a case of field maintenance depots not bothering with work which was viewed as addressing a less significant vulnerability.

Interestingly the particular tank in the picture does not have the armor applique for the right side turret chin, which was also a part of the applique kit. This may be evidence again of the lower priority given to this part of the applique package by the field depots. Or there could be some other explanation -- the hulls and turrets of restored tanks often come from different sources and have different life stories.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

It may be that it has the thickened right cheek, introduced to compensate for the grinding away of the inner surface. If so, I will bet there is no pistol port. Many a Free French tank exhibited in France today does in fact have the applique plates applied over the thickened cheek. Not strictly needed and a very poor fit.

Very interesting about the plates over the small hatch bulges, even when no direct vision slits.

The last courtesy of the Shaddock, on that marvellous site

DH:

Good info and illustrations. They are a valuable addition to the thread. Thanks.

I was aware of the later turret castings with thickened "chin" armor. On the Shermans I have seen first hand, I have on some occasions been able to spot those that were built with the extra "chin" armor. In this particular Sherman (the pic I posted) it did not / does not appear to me to be a turret with the chin armor casting.

The angle does obscure the lower part of the turret side, so it may be that the sort of overhang which characterized a turret with added chin armor would not be visible. But there is typically also some visible indication on the front of the turret, which I think is visible enough in the pic.

So my call would be that this was a turret produced before the chin armor castings (ie: based on the April 1942 to Spring 1943 version in the diagram you posted). This would have made the turret a candidate for applique armor, yet there is none present.

Which is fine. Common enough. Not very surprising. Just an observation.

The later D82081 turret used in the US M4 76mm Shermans (often called a T23 turret, as it was developed for the T23 medium tank project and then brought over the the M4 upgrade programs) did not have the hallowed out space on the inside for the traverse mechanism, and so did not require a visible bulge on the outside to address a weakspot. So this chin turret bulge came and went as the Sherman progressed through its production life.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

You got it right, of course. See the other side and, sure enough, there is the pistol port;