Anyone know the history or can ID these tanks?

[texaxile]

Hi,

I'm not sure if this is the right sub forum, but there are clever people here and it is kind of tenuously connected to "boats" in that it is shipping cargo...
A "friend" took these pics back in the early 00's, they were on container flatracks destined for either Export or had just been imported (actually they were in a specific quarantine area for out of guage cargo my "friend" tells me).

Anyway, I'm speculating one is a "Grant" or "Lee" - the other chassis some think is early Cromwell or possibly Cruiser.

Does anyone know what became of them, or any info?.

[Madness60]

Looks like an M3 Lee

The M3 Lee (Grant in British/Commonwealth service) was the first medium tanks largely available to the Allies and USA during the first part of the war, from 1941 to 1943. The British used them extensively against Rommel’s forces in Africa, and they served well in several Asian and Pacific campaigns, until 1945. On the western theater they were replaced by the M4 Sherman by 1943.

Link

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/ww2_US_Ta...

[Smiler.]

Pics #3 & #4 look like a British Infantry Mk II Matilda (or whatever the designation is called this week).

The turret in pic #5 is from the M3 Lee I think, it looks wrong for the Matilda.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Looking at the turret in Photo' 5 I would suggest that the M3 is a Grant and not a Lee (it's the British 37mm turret fitted to the M3), the Lee variant had a marked backwards slope on the front.

I'd agree that Photo's 3 and 4 look like a Matilda II.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Friday 22 December 18:33

[Eric Mc]

4 definitely could be a Matilda.

Here's a little Airfix one a built a few years back -

[texaxile]

Thanks for the replies so far. Anyone know if they went on to be restored, or any other info?. I have no idea.

Here's my last pic, a close up of the turret showing some damage.

[aeropilot]

Smiler. said:

Pics #3 & #4 look like a British Infantry Mk II Matilda (or whatever the designation is called this week).

The turret in pic #5 is from the M3 Lee I think, it looks wrong for the Matilda.

Yep, turret is from the Grant.

I would guess at these being found somewhere in North Africa or an Eastern Med country?

[texaxile]

aeropilot said:

Yep, turret is from the Grant.

I would guess at these being found somewhere in North Africa or an Eastern Med country?

I'm just curious as to what the chassis is, Matilda seems to be the general consensus. From the general lack of mud and other crap, I'd say you're right. It's s shame really because at the time I should have had the foresight to check the manifest which would have given more info regarding destination and what port it was loaded at.

A couple of years later a Sherman came through bound for a UK Tank Museum for restoration, it was in desert camo iirc. I also have some pics somewhere which I'll try to dig out if I can find them.

Does anyone know what the number on the front of the M3 represents? Would it be an original WW2 designation or added post War?.

[ecsrobin]

Yes looks to be a grant and found another image of a grant with a similar T number on the side. (Not sure what this links too)

[Shar2]

Saw that vehicle at Bicester show earlier this year. Spent many years as a target, now being restored. Apparently she is in running order, just a bit too much ventilation.

[ecsrobin]

The Matilda style tank has a lump sticking out on the side armour which doesn’t appear to match any mark of Matilda.

Could it be a dozer?

although possibly the mounts to high but it’s in the right person along the length of the tank.

Edited to add.

Looking at it further could it be a Matilda with AMCR mine rollers:



The mount looks the right position and notice at the original pic from the OP at the front is an upward running piece of metal which normally wouldn’t be on a Matilda.

Edited by ecsrobin on Friday 22 December 21:24

[texaxile]

Another question, what are the "grates" for on the front of the tank in the last pic?. i'm sure they're function over style!.

looking at the other Grant, the one in my pics looks in exceptional condition with just a couple of scars on the turret (in comparison).

[Smiler.]

texaxile said:

Another question, what are the "grates" for on the front of the tank in the last pic?. i'm sure they're function over style!.

looking at the other Grant, the one in my pics looks in exceptional condition with just a couple of scars on the turret (in comparison).

Spare track sections. Can absord some of the energy of an incoming shell I think & possibly stop a breach (or something).

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

Indeed. The spare track links serve to effectively increase the armour thickness on the tank and assist in reducing the penetration of the WWII APC (Armour Piercing Capped), and APCBC (Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped) kinetic energy rounds. It would also go some way in reducing the penetration of HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank ie Shaped Charge) rounds.

[twister]

texaxile said:

Does anyone know what the number on the front of the M3 represents? Would it be an original WW2 designation or added post War?.

It's the War Department census number:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_veh...
http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/m3-lee-grant-...
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/thread/149900...

Information on the last link here suggests this particular tank was built by the Baldwin Locomotive Works and was part of a batch supplied to the Australian Army...

[texaxile]

You've all got me researching now.

I found this on youtube, the guy presenting and giving an opinion is absolutely brilliant IMO, the kind of bloke I expect to spend more time in his shed than in the lounge of his house. Very "british" and I'd love to have a beer with him!.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XbdErI74vQ

9 cylinder Radial engine - in a tank?? Every day is a school day.

GinettaG15 - looking at the effect of those shells on a Tank (and sadly the Crew) - I'd ask who'd want to be a Tankie?. I honestly thought HEAT shells were a relatively new invention.

[Ginetta G15 Girl]

The British Army had HEAT weapons in service by 1940 (specifically the Rifle Grenade No 68 AT).Around the same time (and certainly by 1941) the Germans had 75mm HEAT shells for the guns in the Panzer IV and the Stug III.

The thing about HEAT warheads is that:

a. The penetration is directly proportional to the diameter of the shaped charge.

b. For the penetrative jet to form correctly, then the warhead must detonate between 5 to 7 calibres (warhead diameters) from the target.

Thus using track links as armour effectively increases not only the armour depth but, more importantly, causes a HEAT warhead to detonate too 'early' thereby decreasing the penetrative effect.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Friday 22 December 23:33

[texaxile]

Thanks for the explaination Ginetta - and also for putting it in laymans terms. It strikes me as unusual as to why they would measure distance in calibres but I can see the logic.

I admit I've been watching youtube for the last hour or so, its opened my eyes as to how Tanks developed during WW2 on both sides. There are some weird and wonderful ideas from all.

Twister - what number are you working from ?, Numbers I'm seeing appears to be two different ones, 20846 in pic No's 7 and 8 but in pics Numbers 2 amd 9 the second digit appears to be either a 5 or a 3, making it 23846 or 25846. Odd.

Edited by texaxile on Saturday 23 December 00:19

[twister]

texaxile said:

Twister - what number are you working from ?, Numbers I'm seeing appears to be two different ones, 20846 in pic No's 7 and 8 but in pics Numbers 2 amd 9 the second digit appears to be either a 5 or a 3, making it 23846 or 25846. Odd.

Edited by texaxile on Saturday 23 December 00:19

In the ones where it looks like a 0, there's a dark patch across the middle bar of the 3 (consistent with the dark patches elsewhere - e.g. partially obscuring the upright of the 4) which could cause it to look like a 0 with a gap on the left-hand vertical, except that the gap then has a pair of pretty cleanly defined diagonal ends to it which is then consistent with it being the genuine end of the upper and lower parts of the 3 in that typeface, rather than just being a random gap in what would have been the solid left-hand vertical of a 0.

Admittedly, the first time I looked at pic 2, I also thought the second digit was a 5, but that entire number is stencilled in a different typeface to the one on the side, and it's one of those typefaces where the lower half of a 3 and a 5 could easily be mistaken for one another in the absence of a clearly defined upper half to the digit.

[ecsrobin]

twister said:

It's the War Department census number:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_military_veh...
http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/m3-lee-grant-...
http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/thread/149900...

Information on the last link here suggests this particular tank was built by the Baldwin Locomotive Works and was part of a batch supplied to the Australian Army...

That would make sense as the little research I did seemed to suggest the Australians were one of the main users of both of them tanks.