You are on page 1of 8

US/British M3 Medium Tank, "Grant",

Part 1

Picture 1:
The American M3 Medium Tank was a direct descendent
of their M2 design, and the speed at which the vehicle
was designed, developed, and produced was probably one
of the fastest in the history of AFV design. That is
partially because the US had been caught, once again,
unready for war as hostilities broke out in Europe, and
the Americans suddenly discovered that they had few
tanks of any quality in their Army. They needed war
making machines and they needed them fast.
The US Army then made an important decision to build a
"tank only" production plant in Detroit, Michigan (a
decision made with encouragement from automotive
manufacturers like General Motors), and Chrysler was put
in charge of running the facility for the United States
Government. The initial plan was to build the newly designed M2A1 Medium Tank at the new factory. But by the
time the Detroit Tank Arsenal was nearing completion in March of 1941, Rock Island Arsenal had completed the
first plans for the new M3 Medium Tank, both the construction of the plant and design planning for the new tank
managed in less than six months. But even the huge new Detroit Tank Arsenal couldn't supply the number of M3
medium tanks requested by the Army, so other contracts were offered and signed by the traditional tank building
heavy manufacturing firms of American Locomotive and Baldwin Locomotive.
Meanwhile, talks continued with the British Tank Commission, which had arrived in June of 1940 to ask/convince
the Americans to build tanks for them. The British evacuation from Dunkirk in May of 1940 had left them with as
few as 150 tanks for defense against a German invasion expected at any time. By April of 1941, all three
construction firms had completed their prototypes of the new M3 Medium Tank and within four months full scale
production had commenced. At about this same time, the British Commission offered special contracts to both
Pressed Steel and Pullman for 500 M3s (in a slightly modified form) for the British Army, and it is these initial
M3s, known by the British as General Grant I, that we will be examining here. These first Grant tanks were bought
on a cash and carry basis before the days of Lend-Lease. However, when Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act in
March of 1941 it allowing further vehicle transfers between the two countries. Interestingly, these British M3s
Medium Tanks were the first of the new M3 tank series to see combat service (in North Africa). This Imperial War
Museum (IWM) photo shows illustrates one of these early Grants. By the way, the Canadians also built M3
Medium Tanks at their Montreal Locomotive Works and as many as 1157 vehicles were constructed there. These
M3s included a few minor design changes such as the addition of mud chutes between the bogies and the provision
of jettisonable external fuel tanks on the back engine deck.
This is Part 1 of a three part series exploring the interior of the M3 Grant tank. In this part we will take a close look
at the 75mm gun and its mount at the right front of the hull. In Part 2 we will examine the driver's area and the
engine/transmission, and in Part 3 we will climb into the turret to take a detailed look inside.

Picture 2:
The M3s Grants produced for the British in 1941/42 had a
completely different cast turret configuration than the same

file:///F|/DESCARGAS%20NUEVAS/grant1.html[08/10/2016 22:25:41]

vehicles built for the Americans. This different turret design


eliminated the original tall commander's machine gun cupola
while enlarging the overall diameter of the turret to include a rear
overhanging bustle for radio equipment. Except for internal and
external stowage, the remainder of the vehicle was just about
identical with the first American mediums, named M3 "General
Lee" by the British, while their own version was named M3
"General Grant". One of the curious attributes of the M3 design
was the placement of its M2/M3 75mm gun in a sponson on the
right front of the hull. The decision to include this gun at all is
said to have been a reaction to Germany's use of a similar
weapon in their Panzer IV medium tank, but the placement of the
gun in the M3 turned out to be one of the stranger attributes in an
odd design. Because the gun was originally included to provide
indirect fire support, its location in the sponson was seen as adequate. But when the British attempted to use their
new powerful 75mm gun in direct fire against hard targets like German panzers, they found it was impossible to get
a hull down position to hide the majority of the tank's bulk. That meant that the M3's 75mm weapon could not be
used to its full potential, the crew instead was required to fully expose the vehicle in order to bring the big gun to
bear on any direct targets. Otherwise, the crew had to rely on the small 37mm gun up in the turret for any practical
hull down shooting. On the other hand, it was comforting to know you could fire in two directions at once, and in
the confused fighting that Grant crews often found themselves in before Alamein this trait was often appreciated.

Picture 3:
Although as an anti-tank gun the 75mm M2 low
velocity weapon did not have the armour penetration
ability Grant crews desired, the gun built at the
Watervliet Arsenal was still a powerful weapon and
could fire both armour piercing (AP) and high
explosive (HE) ammunition. This in itself was
somewhat of a "wish come true" for British tankers
who were dead tired of their own 2/6pdr weapons'
lack of HE ammo. All the early M3s were produced
with the M2 model 75mm gun, the barrel being
shorter (84in) than the later improved M3 guns. The
M2 75mm gun was based on the earlier French 75
design (in US service called the M1897), adapted as
the standard field gun by the US Army in 1918.
Although the M2 gun was built new from the ground
up, the major modifications to the French design
included a new breech arrangement and recoil cylinders. The gun was attached to a M1 Mount in the barbette of
the M3 medium tank and the semi-automatic breech block was oriented to the vertical falling position. The
sponson mount allowed a traverse of only 15 degrees to either side of center and an elevation of +20 to -9 degrees.
The shorter M2 gun had a muzzle velocity of 1860fps, which was less than the M1897 gun's due to its shorter
barrel length. But muzzle velocity was increased to 2300fps with the longer M3 version of the gun when direct fire
tank killing was discovered to be just as important to the Grant's fighting mission as indirect fire.
This is the view of the breech and laying equipment of the 75mm gun inside the Grant 1. The gunner was one of
six crew members and he sat on a tractor type seat immediately to the left of the gun, behind the primary laying
controls and near the over-head periscopic gun sight. The other crew members included a driver to his left, a loader
with a seat behind the driver but generally free to work anywhere around the gun, and three turret crew consisting
of the 37mm gunner to the left, the commander behind him, and the loader on the right. The Americans were
among the first to experiment with gyro stabilizers for their tank guns and in the M3 medium tanks the stabilizers

file:///F|/DESCARGAS%20NUEVAS/grant1.html[08/10/2016 22:25:41]

was first included with tanks rolling off the assembly lines at Detroit Tank Arsenal around November of 1941.
Reports indicate that stabilizers were added to all production M3 tanks beginning after January of 1942. However,
photographs of most British Grant tanks seeing service in North Africa had no gun stabilizers installed on either of
the two main weapons. This may have been because these vehicles were built before the stabilizer was officially
ready for installation, or the British requested they not be included in their tanks, or the stabilizers were just not
offered to the British by the Americans. You can identify those Grants that do have stabilizers by the balancing
weights fitted outside the vehicle to offset the weight of the stabilizer equipment attached inside. A set of weights
were clamped on the barrel near the muzzle on the short M2 75mm gun, and a tubular weight was mounted directly
below the barrel of the 37mm gun, appearing a bit like a coaxial MG. When the short M2 model of the 75 was
replaced on the construction lines by the longer barreled M3 gun the additional weight at the end of the muzzle was
no longer necessary. But, the balance weight under the 37mm gun was retained throughout the service life of the
tank.
This particular M3 does have the vertical stabilizer attached to the right side of the 75mm gun mount (this is a late
Grant with the M3 gun); the electric motor and pump used to pressurize the hydraulics can be seen to the upper
right. The 75mm gun could only be elevated and traversed manually and both the hand wheels are visible here, the
lower one is the traverse. Notice the driver's area to the left with his steering levers and long instrument panel. This
photo is currently in the collection of the Patton Museum at Ft. Knox, Kentucky.

Picture 4:
This is the image from the gun manual TM 9-307 for the 75mm M2 gun, shown here in its M1 mount with details
of both sides of the gun. A recoil shield surrounds the breech; the solid guard you see on the left protects the
gunner's shoulder as he sits very near the gun and traverses with it from side to side. Both elevation and traverse
hand wheels are visible on the left of the mount, and the two hydro spring recoil cylinders are also visible above
and below the gun tube. Notice both the upper and lower mounting pivots for the gun mount/shield, and the
extension rod from the traverse hand wheel that crosses under the gun to the rotating gear on the right side. The
British first received the General Grant in 1942 while they were fortifying their defensive line in North Africa from
Gazala South to Bir Hacheim. By the end of March 1942, a total of 666 Grants had been completed under British
contract in the US and as many as 167 had been received on the Gazala line. But the 75mm weapon required a
different type of gunnery from the British tankers than they were accustomed, as the new gun could provide
indirect fire with an HE round in traditional artillery fashion. There were also initial problems with the American
ammo.

Picture 5:
Unfortunately, the early Grants at Gazala were not
completely fitted out when they arrived. They lacked,
among other things, a range scale or clinometer so notches
were filed on the elevation hand wheel on the 75mm gun to
indicate approximate range settings. This is a close up
photo taken by Jim Hensley of a beautiful Grant owned by
Alan Cors of the Virginia Military Vehicle Museum. It
shows the left side of the laying equipment and mount for
the 75mm gun but apparently this elevation wheel does not
file:///F|/DESCARGAS%20NUEVAS/grant1.html[08/10/2016 22:25:41]

have the elevation notches added and therefore the vehicle


was probably delivered to the troops later when the proper
range scales were available. Just to the right of the
elevation hand wheel is an electrical firing solenoid
activated by a large button on the traverse hand wheel. Just
below the elevation wheel is the lower attachment for the alignment rod that connects the gun mount with the
periscope mount up above. This rod elevated and depressed the periscope sight in perfect synchronization with
changes in the gun elevation. Although the sight is not installed in this photo, the holder is visible at the top right
of the picture, as is also the large black face pad that surrounded the viewing glass. Both recoil cylinders are visible
above and below the barrel and the small elevation pinion and rack gear can also be seen.

Picture 6:
There were initial problems with the first American high explosive
ammo provided with the Grants. Because the new M2 gun was
chambered to use the M1897 gun's 75mm ammunition, the rounds
provided to the British were from old stock piles, much of it dating
back to the 1920's. Many of the rounds were unstable and a couple
of fatalities resulted during training with this ammunition around
Cairo, Egypt. During the lull in fighting before the Gazala battles,
the HE fusses were also changed from indirect fuse types normally
installed in the 75mm projectiles to direct fire fuses for use against
hard targets. But once again there was a problem, again due to the
Americans lack of fighting experience. The available American
M72 AP monobloc shot that was provided to the British tended to
break up when used against the German face-hardened armour. In
the end, large numbers of captured German APCBC projectiles for
the Panzer IV tank's 7.5cm gun were used, the excellent exploding
armor piercing projectiles mated to the original US shell casings
and powder. Many of these modified rounds reached British Grant
crews by the start of the Gazala battles, but results gained by using
the superior German AP rounds compared to the American rounds has not surfaced. References on the Grant M3
tank indicate that there was stowage for 65 rounds of 75mm ammo inside the vehicle, most placed in bins but some
probably also carried in loose containers in the hull.

Picture 7:
This view of the 75mm gun
again shows the mounting of
the gyro stabilizer on the
right side. The black electric
motor/pump you see at the
upper right pressurized the
hydraulic system, while the
small spinning gyro, which

file:///F|/DESCARGAS%20NUEVAS/grant1.html[08/10/2016 22:25:41]

was located in the smaller


black box down on the gun
mount, would indicate any
change of vehicle pitch in the
vertical axis. The amount of
change in the pitch angle
then dictated the amount of
hydraulic fluid pumped by
the electric pump into the
adjusting piston mounted to both the gun mount and the top of the rotor assembly. Since there was a hydraulic hose
attached to both ends of the piston cylinder, the piston inside the cylinder could be forced up or down, thus
elevating or depressing the gun as required to keep it on target. Adjusting the stabilizer system so that it elevated
and depressed the gun correctly for the amount of forward or rear pitching of the tank was time consuming and
frustrating for crews. So the system was reported to have been usually turned off during action as the whole thing
was just more trouble than it was worth. It certainly didn't make things any easier for the poor loader who had to
follow the gun's up and down dance as he attempted to push home each round. When the gyro was mounted on the
75mm gun, it was also added to the 37mm up in the turret. The electric hydraulic pump motor up there was
mounted on the turret basket floor and was also used to rotate the turret. A quick look inside a Grant to the right of
the 75mm gun will indicate if it was stabilized, but seeing the pump up on the turret floor does not indicate the
37mm gun was stabilized. As I mentioned before, photos of British Grants with stabilizers are not common until
around the time of the Alamein battles, but even then non-stabilized Grants are still abundant.
As I also mentioned above, the big 75mm gun was electrically fired using a solenoid activated by a button on the
traversing handwheel, now easily seen at the lower left. A back-up red mechanical plunger button was also
available and is visible up above the handwheel. The gunner's periscope is the typical M1 with an internal M45
direct fire telescope, the combination allowing both a wide angle view of the battle field using just the periscope as
well as a telescopic sight for longer range direct fire shooting.

Picture 8:
The gunner's periscope protruded through the upper portion of
the rotor assembly and was protected on both sides by short
armor plates, the actual design of which changed as time went
on. As the sight was traversed equally with the limited traverse of
the gun, it was mounted on an armour plate that slid back and
forth on top of the elongated sight opening. It was hard to water
proff this mounting and the gunner sitting below would get wet
from dripping water whenever it rained. Also visible in this photo
is the round access plate for the top traverse pivot bearing. This is
another IWM photo, one of a series of photographs taken of this
particular M3 Grant in the desert by the War Office. Notice the
end of the smoke bomb projector at the top of the turret.
The Grant was constructed from both homogenous rolled and cast
armour. Maximum thickness was around 2.0 inches on the riveted
plates of the hull front, and 3.0 inches on the cast turret front, the
other surfaces using less armour. The armour was of riveted construction, at least on the Grants, and enemy

file:///F|/DESCARGAS%20NUEVAS/grant1.html[08/10/2016 22:25:41]

projectile hits caused the ends of the rivets to break off and shower everything inside of the vehicle, causing
serious damage to equipment and crew. The sound of the rivets flying around inside after impact has been
described by those crews that survived the experience as similar to the buzzing of bees.

Picture 9:
This is a partial view of the short 75mm main gun M2,
through the open right hatch of a British Grant I. This
well preserved vehicle is in the collection of the Tank
Museum at Bovington, England. Most Grants in British
service maintained the interior gloss white interior paint
from the US factories but some may have been repainted
after British servicing for damage or repairs with the dull
silver colored aluminum paint typical of British tanks at
the beginning of WWII. Here you can just make out the
empty fire extinguisher bracket to the right of the door
opening (I believe the extinguisher was a small red 4lb
CO2 type, but Pyrene was also used). Beneath the door
opening is the track sponson and normally the gun
cleaning rods and spare antenna were stored here under
the door. The upper recoil cylinder on the 75mm gun is
plainly visible and below to the right of the gun is the
traversing gear housing we saw in an earlier picture. The shoulder recoil guard plate to the left protects the gunner
from the recoil runout during firing and here the gunner's tractor style seat bottom is barely visible below and
beyond the gun recoil shield. Also visible in this photo, on the far wall behind the recoil shield, is the left side
protectoscope port for the driver. Typically, the gun breech, the gun and its mounting supports, and the recoil
cylinders were all painted white, while the recoil shield was painted gloss black. But a number of published images
show the breech ring and block painted black with everything else white, particularly in preserved museum
vehicles. The turret basket wall is visible to the left.

Picture 10:
The driver sat to the left of the 75mm gun and gunner, and he was
provided with a vision flap with protectoscope directly in front of his
position. This is another of Jim Hensley's photos of Alan Cors' Grant
with the breech and recoil guards removed from the 75mm gun. The
driver's equipment that surrounds his seat is visible here and is essentially
the same in all the M3 variants used by the British and Americans with a
few minor variations due to the different engines used. The main
difference between the British Grant 1 and the other M3 vehicles that you
could see down here is the location of the vehicle radio set. In the Grant,
it was up in the new turret while in the other M3 types it was down on
the left sponson. Notice the riveted hull plates and the steel framework
supporting the armour. Some of the equipment visible here includes the
driver's seat at the lower right and the gunner's seat nearer to us, both
missing their seat backs. Behind the gunner is the curved wall for the
turret basket and the large tank with peeling paint up on the track
sponson next to the gunner's seat is for drinking water. Above the tank is
the left hull wall protectoscope opening, this one allowing some view out
the left side of the tank. In some Grants you will find this opening fitted
with a small electric ventilation fan, as the early M3s were woefully
inadequate in ventilation for the crew and were only later improved with
a couple of additional electric roof blowers. The museum has mounted a
radio connection box up on the ceiling that has at least two leads hanging
for connecting to crew headsets and microphones. Notice the twin .30cal machine guns have been removed from

file:///F|/DESCARGAS%20NUEVAS/grant1.html[08/10/2016 22:25:41]

the left of the driver but the rotating overhead periscope mount for the driver is visible. It has been rotated so we
see only the side of the casing, which has no glass block inserted.

Picture 11:
The driver's vision flap contained a protectoscope, which
protected the driver from small caliber rounds and splash but
allowed only a limited view when the flap was closed. The
armoured flap could be opened with a lever tool that was held in
a bracket to the right of the window and the flap was held open
by a brace that extended from the flap to the armour just under
the window. With the flap held open, the window opening could
be covered with a framed glass windshield that included a wiper
and electric motor mounted directly on the bottom of the frame.
The electrical cord for the motor ran down to the instrument
panel and plugged into a power outlet. Most photos of British
M3's in the desert show the window opening without the glass in
place, probably to add some badly needed air circulation to the
interior. This is a US Army image of an American Lee tanker,
but the vision flap is the same in all vehicles and you can see the
mechanism clearly in this shot. Although the US style tanker's
helmet was provided to British crews, you rarely see it worn in
period photos. Instead, they wore their traditional berets adorned with badges of their unit.

Picture 12:
The protectoscope was an American invention that allowed AFV crews
limited view outside their vehicles while protecting them from small arms
fire. The actual slot in the armour is located up behind the forehead pad
you can see in this TM image. The slanted glass protectoscope reflects the
light rays down to the viewer you see below, very similar to a short
periscope. The idea is that any projectiles that might penetrate the
laminated glass above are blocked by the armor behind and won't penetrate
down and around to the crewman peering out. To remove damaged glass
blocks, the hinged retainer plate below is opened using the spring and
latch, and the block then would drop into your hand. A replacement was
then slid up into place, and the hinged retainer latched back in position.
The long lever at the far left was used to open the entire viewing flap that
contained the protectoscope in order to get a wider view when the tank
was not under fire. The same type of protectoscope design was used in a
number of US tanks at this time, including the Light Tanks of the M3/M5
Stuart design.

Picture 13:
All the early M3 Medium Tanks were provided with hinged doors
on both sides of the hull. This allowed quick evacuation of the
vehicle for the three hull crew members in an emergency (there
was also an over-head hatch at the loader's position, behind the
75mm gun sponson) while the turret crew bailed out their split
roof hatch or the hull hatches. The opened doors also provided
some increased ventilation into the stifling interior when the tank
was stopped and both doors could be left opened. This is a view
of the open door in one of the Tank Museum's vehicles showing

file:///F|/DESCARGAS%20NUEVAS/grant1.html[08/10/2016 22:25:41]

the protectoscope/pistol port mounted in the center as well as the


simple door latch to the right. Although there was an additional
armour plate bolted onto the inside of the door (as you can see),
the side hull doors were still one of the weak spots of the hull side
plates. Later versions of the M3 were modified by welding these
doors closed or eliminating them completely (with the subsequent
addition of a belly escape hatch behind the gunner's position). Notice that the protectoscope glass block is missing
in its holder. Later versions of the M3 are seen with the side hull doors welded, or even deleted completely, but the
Grant Is in service in North Africa all seem to have the original two hull door configuration.
This is the last image in Part 1 of our exploration of the interior of the M3 Grant 1.

TO M3 MEDIUM TANK GRANT PART 2


TO M3 MEDIUM TANK GRANT PART 3
BACK TO AFV INTERIORS HOME PAGE
(c) 2001, 2003 AFV INTERIORS Web Magazine

file:///F|/DESCARGAS%20NUEVAS/grant1.html[08/10/2016 22:25:41]

You might also like