Remember to share this video or the information in it. By ensuring as many people learn the truth about the Lancer as possible we can prevent the myth from continuing to grow and mislead more people.
A 6 pounder would be far more likely, easier to mount and was capable of handling contemporary German armour. The Lancer also belies one of the major advantages of the Lee/Grant's 75mm - it had a decent HE shell for use against ATGs
The Australian Sentinel got fitted with twin six pounders (because they wanted to replicate the recoil from a 17 pounder in 1942 (and didn’t have one)).
I first encountered the "Lahore Lancer" on the Alt-History forums where there was a merry discussion about what the gun actually was and if it was even a real cannon or just a bit of piping with a muzzle break added to the end of it for looks. If I recall correctly it was agreed to have been a long 76mm from a late-model Sherman. This is the first I've heard of folks actually mistaking it for a real M3 variant.
Yeah, but at this point... bugger the childish "juicy rumor". It's not even imagination and literature anymore. It's just BS-ing and we already get that more than enough in other domains of real life.
I would add also that Lancer could have same crew copartment problems as Hetzer with that placement and 17-punder is not light gun (it could make vehicle really unbalanced weight vise).
If the loader being on the wrong side is a major issue, they’d probably mount it upside down. The Firefly mounted it sideways, so it’s not that far of a stretch. Being able to fit a 17 pounder into an M3 chassis at all would be a nightmare though, you’d probably need to cut out parts of the engine, at which point it might be time to call it quits.
@@subparusername9172 You would have problems with the gun breech, room for the recoil mechanism, left horizontal traverse and elevation mechanism, plus the 17 pdr ammo is horridly big, and there would at best be a 4-man crew. If they even tried the 1st shot would possibly destroy its own gun mount already too. At this point you might as well use the T40/M9 tank destroyer and put the 17-pounder on it, or even better, use an Archer already, and even then not till 1943 at earliest
and the recoil of a 17 pounder being off center would at best wear out the suspension and at worst snap the drive shaft, let alone the room in the hull probably isn't big enough for the recoil and you can't pull the firefly trick of just cut a hole in the back for more room because there's an engine in the way
@@jimbothegymbro7086 yeah, and making the recoil path longer to reduce stress on the mount and vehicle would be very hard if not impossible because of space constraints.
The "Fun Fact!" at 2:06 is very yes! I am very glad you mentioned this. British tank nomenclature dictates their SPG's into having names t hat start for A for Artillery (as in Anti-tank artillery, not indirect fire artillery ) and as such the Lancer does not fit the British nomenclature for SPG's at all. Furthermore other vehicle types also have nomenclatures that won't allow the name lancer to fit. At best I can imagine it being the name of one of those odd post war vehicles that aren't an MBT, AFV, etc. Or a company name/ designation for a vehicle similar to the Excelsior/ Commodore situation.
Question... How would this have theoretically performed if it had been made? I know it is not possible for it to have been made, but lets say it had been made, how would it have performed?
Remember that traverse would be almost nonexistent as the breech block on the 17 is far wider then that of the M3. Not to mention balancing issues on the elevation gear to be dealt with etc.
Almost no traverse in the gun mount as the 17pdr breech is huge, and very awkward ergonomics because of the gunner being sat on the left side of the gun instead of the right meaning he would be in the way of the loader to some degree. All of that bundled up in a tall chassis, with an enclosed roof and poor visibility. I imagine it would have been awful.
Im amazed by the amount of quality of every video of yours, thank you so much for the amount of work and detail you put into every one of your mini documentaries :)
Honestly I disagree with laying blame to the person who made the model and backstory. Model makers make stuff like that all the time. they will kitbash tanks and hoshposh stuff together to make a 'fake tank', then post it on a forum/community they're in and give it a fake backstory. Generally people within that community know its fake. Its the people who play WT and WoTs thats the issue. They will see it, take it at face value and do no fact checking then beg for it in game. Laying blame to the model makers just doesnt feel right as they are just having fun, its the people from Reddit and these games that are the problem.
I very much agree. Honestly a little disappointed in Cone for laying the blame at someone who was having some fun when kitbashing, as opposed to those that saw or heard of it and never did even a basic google search.
Absolutely. Kitbashing can result in amazingly creative designs, and I don't want stories like this to dissuade model makers as they are generally military history fans themselves and likely don't want to accidentally spawn myths like this themselves.
1:38 never expected to see a whole M3 lifted up like that, I thought they were all just sat on top of chassis’s because of how a lot of Sherman’s have similar drivetrains. Wow wow
Yes they can all be lifted like that, the m4 sherman was based on the m3 lee, which was based on the earlier m2 medium. The "chassis" is part of the armour.
The suspension components were interchangeable between the M2, M3 and M4 Medium and M3 Light because they all used the same bolt patterns to attach to the hull tub.
Thing is, if the British were going to do it, they would have done it properly and rebuilt the hull to centre mount the weapon. But they didn't. They converted their M3's into field artillery with the 25pdr mounted, and put the 17pdr on the equally surplus Valentines. Side note: the 2nd New Zealand Division kept their Pheasants and used them all through the Italian campaign because they were easier to move around and use than the proper 17pdr ground mounts.
I always liked the armored vehicle recovery tank based on the M3( I forget the official designation) with the dummy 75 on the sponson and a winch and jig setup on the turret. Mostly a rear echelon Tank (due to the lack of any main gun) used to recover fellow Lee/Grant as well as Shermans that had been disabled/knocked out but not completely destroyed and tow or push them back away from front line combat areas to tank rearm/repair Forward Operating Bases in the rear of the action. Thanks for the great, factual work, as always Cone 👍🏻
Early 17pdr Pheasant models (25pdr mounting modfied for use with 17pdr gun) were in service 1942, but in a incredibly finite amount. the far superior 17pdr mounting and wide spread use was in 1943.
That wouldn't fit in the M3 Lee's sponson though, the 25pdr mounting was too big for tank use in any capacity, the reason they did that was to press the 17pdr gun into service because at the time the carriage meant to house the 17pdr was nowhere near ready and they needed a stopgap solution.
@@MegaRazorback I know it would not fit in the M3 Medium hull (not without some radical redesign), the finite amount of 17pdrs were sent not just to bolster AT capability of the 8th Army, but test the capability of the gun in a true combat environment. As you can guess, it performed wonderfully.
@@Duke_of_Petchington That it did and to be fair, from what i've read the 25pdr carriage unit was a hell of a lot more stable for the 17pdr in terms of recoil, the whole assembly barely moved back due to the weight from the carriage because the 25pdr was quite the big gun when compared to the 17odr.
@@Duke_of_Petchington Yeah that was the main downside to it but that was of secondary concern to the crews that were using it, the firepower more than made up for that shortcoming.
If you scroll down to the fifth comment in that forum thread, the user literally says it's fake. The vehicle sitting in Lahore is a former Grant Canal Defence Light, identifiable by a few of the external fittings.
I actually think that a vehicle like this entirely fits in World of Tanks. If you've seen any of their premiums and Mercenary vehicles you'd know it is entirely in their playbook to add vehicles that either never existed, or could not exist. (I am looking at you Slapjack, you unholy trifecta between a Tiger, IS, and T-29)
I applaud them for that. The game would be boring with just Pz. IVs, Shermans and T-34s. Sometimes they take it a step to far though, as with the Type 59 and the WZ-120.
My assumption is that they had a gun of similar dimensions to the stub barrel of the howitzers, but was longer. They installed this whole to make sure it would fit. Then later lopped off the barrel in another operation. It's still the same gun as before, just cut up.
I think it was created as "what if" model. There is a scale model community here that does create semi fictional vehicles for alternative history scenarios. For example if WW2 started earlier in 1938 with Czechoslovakia prevailing with war taking different turn...
Kitbash is fun. I once had a scrapped Sdkfz 251 I got out of a bargain bin at a tabletop shop in San Antonio. Covered the roof, slapped an m8 Scott turret on top of the back end and fixed "hull machine guns" to the sides with some leftover plastic. Never painted it but it was a fun little desk ornament.
Jirja3 Ah... had Czechoslovakia fought, with the timely and real assistance of both France and the UK, even just the two of them. This would make a most-interesting alternate reality, indeed.
Its kinda easy to realize its fake just from the fact that a 17pdr breech wouldn't fit inside of the M3 Grants casemate, and still be able to be reloaded comfortably
Judging from the muzzle break and the hull markings, the 17 pdr that was installed in the museum tank is an Australian model as seen on the AC IV prototypes, the museum likely had this rare gun and didn't want it to go to waste so just mounted it on an m3 recovery vehicle for whatever reason
2:41 oh dam I went to the museum this year. It called the American Haritage Museum in Massachusetts and has tanks from several major time periods. Most of the tanks are operational as well. They have two other buildings but those where closed when I went.
I actually love the m3 in war thunder. If you can get into a 2.3 game then this tank absolutely slaps but I'd you get uptiered then this tank is an absolute struggle bus.
other thing would be why would you need a tank destroyer when the 75mm gun was more than capable of busting german tanks at that time, that was the whole point of the M3, to get a heavier gun in the field immediately while the kinks in the M4 production were being worked out. the 75mm was only really outmatched by late ww2 tanks, just barely too, and if you somehow found a tiger at this stage in the war you outmanuvered it or called in artillery because its the middle of the desert and you could do that
Funnily enough there actually was a spg that did use the M3’s chassis called the M7 Priest. It used 105 mm howitzer and is pretty interesting. Got to see An M7B1 and an M7B2 (variants of it) at camp Mabry
Thank goodness for blowing this myth wide open. This message goes way beyond the interest in one topic and should be a rule across all social media platforms
some of the tanks cone shows in a museum are in the American Heritage Museum in Hudson, Massachusetts, about 30 minutes from my house. times are 0:00, 2:41, 3:38, and possibly tanks on the driving track, 2:34. the M3 Grant is my favourite tank. even though they weren't the best tanks, they are very cool. I like the multi-turrets and it's an important tank since it was hurriedly pressed into service because they hadn't started development of the M4 Sherman yet.
Hey Cone of Arc, have you ever thought of doing a video of the HMS Furious, large light cruiser/aircraft carrier. It's history is very cursed. Keep up the good work!
Hay I am from Pakistan 🇵🇰 and I live in Lahore. I have gone to the Tank museum but in 2017 there was an M3 lee but with a normal gun like you said. Lol 😆 I think our genius engineers had the idea to put this gun on. I think they just replace the 75mm gun with some random 76mm gun because 75mm gun was broken or something I don't know. If I go to tank museum again I will conform it.
Perhaps they thought the original gun is a bit too stubby and with this little facelift it's gonna look better :D Tell them to also put a spoiler wing on it's back!
Having that big gun on 1 side of the tank feel very...uncomfortable to work with... I bet if there was a plan to up-gun the M3 Lee they would probably move the gun to the center of the hull....
very weird indeed, if it ever was made real i feel bad for the gunner since even with the 75 that position looked cramped. what an interesting thing none the less.
Love these vids, although it's a little sad to see these debunked. The Lancer was just like the Snipe Hunts you'd have your friends do at boyscouts, only even funnier.
I honestly really like the design. It reminds me of the British assault tanks minus the thick armor. I can’t imagine these things with the American long 76mm wouldn’t be *too* ineffective, but it’d be hella awkward. Beyond that, it looks pretty slick so I can understand why it became a popular fake.
@@jimbothegymbro7086 if tank designers and engineers learned on thing during the Second World War, it’s that the suspension doesn’t like a LOT of things, so sometimes you just gotta let it tough things out
Honestly, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to put a high velocity cannon on that tank. It's primary use 1943 onward was in the Pacific campaign. The need was for a compact and effective HE round for island hopping combat. As much as people crap on the ol' 75mm for it's somewhat lackluster (it genuinely isn't that bad) anti-armor performance. Most tank rounds were used against fortified emplacements with infantry. The slower round had a higher explosive load and was far more effective against infantry than the 17 pounder.
@@darkninjacorporation Speaking as a retired Armor officer, you have never pulled maintenance on a tank or other tracked vehicle. Plus, a vehicle deadlined for suspension problems is as much of a loss to its unit's combat power as one killed on the battlefield
you know what, I'd honestly LOVE to see a dream tank like the M3 Lancer in WT or WoT, just cause it would be in interesting playstyle in those Videogames, with a tag of "This is a Plausible but Fake Tank"
It really isn't plausible though. It may seem like it at first but the gun would be impossible to fit in the tank like that without being completely unusable
The valentine at 2:50 is from my local tank museum. It is owned by a doctor that sold all his super cars for tanks. He has 2 tanks from fury, a gepard, leopards, is2, challengers, m3, comets, t34 and a few others
As soon as I saw the gun I knew that it was wrong. I knew the 17 pounder did not come into service until 1943, by which time the Grant was no longer in service anywhere except the Far East. And the 75mm was more that a match for what the Japanese had. The Grant did what it needed to do in North Africa until the Sherman turned up, though I have long thought taking the turret off would have helped when it was in a hull down position. But that is just my opinion.
If the M3 Lancer was real i’d ditch the Grant/Lee because it’s both so god dam tall and armor is so thin being a Medium tank is a over statement in my opinion.
I remember seeing something like this on the history channel when I was a kid. its was a documentary about tanks that didn't survive the drawing board. I don't think it was a 17 punder and its was like a good idea but we are already working on a better one.
Although these turret change or guns being stuffed into another chassis. It would be interesting to see in game as an event or premium. For WT that is since they do exist whenever to saw combat or not wouldn't matter. Excellent video as always O7.
You get an absolute no from me on that. The gun doesnt work in that hull, no turret traverse, it NEVER existed, and there doesnt exist ANY papers on the british or the americans EVER attempting to put a 17 pounder in it. Its more fake than the P1000 Ratte. Actually, adding it into the game would be very negative, to the history community, as it would spawn a bunch of IDIOTS, as Cone said, that'd do everything to prove it existed. I dont want fake tanks in my history books.
Man.. I didn't know about that tank. lol. I wonder if there will be a resurge of the "Lancer" now. lol. I'd like to see the KV 220 .. The large gun (100mm ?) Turret was was used to defend a factory and the oversized hull was mated with a standard KV turret. Both Fought in the defense of Leningrad. ... well from what I can tell. I realize thats not Fake Tank Friday stuff but it fits the "Cursed by Design. " Ironically the M3 was a pretty good tank in the desert war before the M4 turned up and served well in Asia .
A 17lber in a Grant....does that even sound like it could work? It could barely fit in a full size Sherman turret. Dunno why anyone would fall for it being stuffed in a Grant hull...
I actually do surprisingly well in the m3 in war thunder, I don't remember it being great in WOT, but in war thunder I do decent in it when I break it out
Fun fact in the console version of World of tanks you can bump the rate of fire on the 75mm all the way up to 20+ rpm. Giving it DPM equal to most tier 8s and even 9s.
I liked the M3 in WoT, a tier 4 medium with a 75mm gun, when everyone else that tier was rocking 45mm or 50mm guns, plus good armor for that tier... It was just difficult to use correctly, and since tier 4 is noob, few people knew how to use it correctly.
In addition to the fact that the British naming scheme for SPATGs was "A" names, 17-pounder equipped variants usually attracted the "Firefly" nickname - the M10C was often referred to a a Firefly in contemporary sources.
As far as I know "Coffin for 7 brothers" comes from the lend lease arrival of M3 coinciding with some brilliant mind deciding that they should weld the hatches before sending them(and on tanks still used by brits and americans) to "increase side protection against german guns". Problem is that it didn't do anything against german guns(neither those that penetrated anyway, nor those, who didn't stand a chance to penetrate even with hatches intact in the first place), but what it did was critically limit number of escape hatches crew could use. And it's awesome in both WoT and WT. And in most RTS it appears in
One key thing to remember about US tanks naming convention in WW2 The Lee was given its name by the British, who created the common name naming convention the US would start using for all of its tanks, and that being named after US generals. The M3 Lancer is emediatly fake because of this
2:45 Welp, seems you might've forgotton which series you were making an episode for when you recorded that line. The discussion about the Matilda turret swaps was in a Cursed by Design episode, the one about four tanks added to World of Tanks. Might wanna correct that to avoid the very confusion I suffered!
Australian 17 pounder ac4 tank prototype had different muzzle break. Check it out online. Back of M3 hulls gun loaders position's hatch was also used to get the gun in from the rear. Seen it on production line video. Good vid though
I have read some reports of a few different guns that were planned to be used. I have read of the Germans switching out the American 75 for a German 75 of the panzer 4 but was never deployed because well they couldn’t get it to actually fit and be functional
Interestingly, how heavy exactly was the 17 pounder barrel in contrast to its carriage? While fake it might be, self propelling 17 pounders even just packing it on a Lee hull would be lmao and scary all the same
The 17 pounder was a mixed bag. People love to use the post war discarding sabot round penetration numbers, when discussing the cannon. But they weren't really in use during WW2. There was a small amount of that ammo produced and it was horrifically inaccurate. The Canadians developed the first pot type sabot loading that was actually effective, but wasn't released until the end of the war. The other loadings of HE and AP were good, but... the dust and flash kicked up from the rounds was so bad that commanders were encouraged to be outside of the tank and offset to actually see what happened with the rounds downrange. It's powerful, but man did it have a lot of flaws.
@@SlavicCelery man I can imagine how Achilles commanders got it a bit better as making the Firefly commander get out just so he can see where exactly the tank is lobbing rounds at. Wouldn't the infantry simply scream through the tank's external intercom of "there's a tank way over there! plug its ass!" so that the crew won't be kinda incomplete of sorts?
@@gings4ever Most of them didn't have exterior phones mounted at the time. But, yeah some other TDs had a much easier time with a little less flash and gas. People love looking at stats, but the actual experiences are something different.
@@gings4ever If there was a telephone. The M4's didn't have them until the ETO Signal Corps Section developed a kit using a field phone in an ammo can with changes to the vehicle's intercom system to make it work
there is another story about this tank that says that this tank was an experiment to try to put the 17 Pounder on the M3 Lee tank's chassis in which it didn't go very well and it wasn't built anymore.
How good was the 17lbs' HE round? Did it have one? Both the Americans and British went with the 75,even though the 6 lbs was a bit better vs. Armor, because of a good HE round.
Tho it would be a cool alternate history. "In late 1943, wiþ increased abundance of german heavy armor, the allies search for a way to mount the 17 pounder cannon into a motorised vehicle, taking the outdated M3-grant, they modifie the case mate and mount the pounder into its hull gun mount. To cut down on wieght, crew, the guns further obsolescence, and to lower the vehicle's notorious profile the 37mm gun and turret were revoved. Wiþ these modifications, the tank was given the new name 'M3-Lancer' and shipped to the western western front in mid 1944. Though the Lancer fixed some of the grant flaws, it also made more, the 17-pounder was difficult to reload and smacked against the hull when fired, deafening the crew, many Lancer crews would stuff sheets and pillows behind the gun the muffle the sound. the gun had very little elevation and depression, and even worse pivot, making the crew have to point the hull at what it wanted to hit, making aiming difficult. Additionally the long barrel would get caught on trees. After the development of the Sherman Firefly, the Lancer joined it's grant father obsolescence again, tho Lancers remained in service to the end of the war, even landing a kill on one the fear king tigers in an ambush in late 1944. Sadly only one Lancer survived the war, it now resides at (forgot the musian) in (forgot the country) where it was given its old 75mm gun."
Model Makers sometimes enjoy creating some of these things. They will even make complete backstories to sell the model as part of the post/article. I remember in a model magazine the Iraqi Republican Guard IM1 Lion, which was an M1 Abrams with a Soviet 125mm gun, smoke dischargers, and machine guns. Of course it was fake, but it looked cool.
I don't think that the 17 pounder would even fit in the m3 cause the breach would just.... It wouldn't it had problems in a Sherman so an m3 would just not and as I've seen here it would probably get the hetzer treatment so yeah
Ngl, I had never heard of this tank, and the first thing I thought on reading the title was drat, because the idea is cool and it would be right in a br range I play in war thunder.
So, the prewar design was unable to match up to late war designs..? No s!&t. That makes absolute sense. But it WAS still an effective tank. Especially when logistics is involved in to argument. It was simple, reliable, and easy to repair.
The M3 was an excellent tank for its time. By 1944 it was no longer appropriate for the Western theatre, but perfectly suited for the Pacific theatre. If I had been in charge of planning for the invasion of Japan then I would have chosen the M3 as the main battle tank, supported by Shermans equipped with flamethrowers, on a 3/1 basis.
There is a version with very photographic evidence. In the initial scenes of the Humphrey Bogart movie “Sahara” scanning the “destroyed” tanks you will notice one with a cast hull. It’s a very rare variant of the vehicle.
Not tank related, but I have had experiences where stories I wrote as pure fiction went through a community and years later came back to me from people swearing they knew someone who was an eyewitness.
The 17lb in an M3 COULD work it appears to me there’d be almost no room. The gun would probably have less than ten degrees of traverse and I bet it doesn’t have room to actually sit parallel with the tracks.
I'd find a more plausible adaptation to be an M7 Priest with an M5 3" gun mounted. At least the 3" gun used the same (or nearly identical) cradle as the Priest's 105mm howitzer. That might have made a field modification possible. Just for fun, I made up a couple of 1/72 models.
It is funny to me that the hate the real M3 Lee gets in recent years comes from armchair "experts" and because you can only use the 37mm gun in the turret. Yet, as a stop gap machine before the M4 went into service, while the Lee is far from perfect it could get the job done. And, while I know it is still a video game, I have had some pretty great games in the M3 in War Thunder, thanks to being able to use both guns.
The armchair generals seem to forget that for an early war tank it's very well armed, armored, a fast road and decent off-road speed. Compared to its contemporaries, the Lee was powerful for its time.
idk where they thought they can only use the 37mm gun. if these are WoT players they are high off their ass because in WoT you only have the hull mounted 75mm, basically making the lee into a glorified Hetzer of sorts. War Thunder on the other hand, the lee is a low tier medium which while it has its drawbacks its two gun setup can be stupidly effective when used properly. fhe 75mm in war thunder may not have the most penetration but it will fuck shit up
especially as when the M3 was spec'd and designed the 37mm was plenty to deal with contemporary armour of its expected opponents, meaning Pz.1 and Pz.2, maybe early Pz.3 at worst, and the 1930s Japanese tanks. German, British, and Russian tanks of the time also mounted guns in that category, or worse (the Pz.1 and Pz.2 usually only mounted machine guns, being infantry support vehicles more than anything).
I didn't even know that this was a thing. The only way this could work is with a proper time machine, and even then the gun would not fit into a DeLorean for transport.
Remember to share this video or the information in it. By ensuring as many people learn the truth about the Lancer as possible we can prevent the myth from continuing to grow and mislead more people.
I will if John Higgins won’t
I am actively disseminating fake tank disinformation deviously
We need to stop the dissemination of this truth
If we don't wargaming will run out of fictional overpowered premium tanks
Please Cover wargamings italian td line
For another fake tank Friday. Could you look like Foxhole Entrench Tanks on both factions?
Churchill: INSTALL A 17 POUNDER IN IT
Soldier: the gun doesnt exist yet!
Churchill: *BUILD A TIME MACHINE AND BRING A 17 POUNDER FROM THE FUTURE*
That would imply the British already had a functional time machine to avoid another "but it doesn't exist yet!"
If they already had a time machine why not take the 84mm QF 20 Pounder or Ordnance L7 instead.
USE A DRAIN PIPE
"Build a time machine..."
Do you want Red Alert? Because this is how you get Red Alert.
UM they did it was called the black prince
A 6 pounder would be far more likely, easier to mount and was capable of handling contemporary German armour. The Lancer also belies one of the major advantages of the Lee/Grant's 75mm - it had a decent HE shell for use against ATGs
6 pdr HE also was not too good, IIRC.
@@petargolem1104 But the 75 did. Also had comparable range to an 88, much to the dismay of the german at gun crews.
@@luisnunes3863 aa pressed into at
@@justarandomtechpriest1578 "I didn't sign up for this sh-" *gets hit by 75mm high explosive*
The Australian Sentinel got fitted with twin six pounders (because they wanted to replicate the recoil from a 17 pounder in 1942 (and didn’t have one)).
I first encountered the "Lahore Lancer" on the Alt-History forums where there was a merry discussion about what the gun actually was and if it was even a real cannon or just a bit of piping with a muzzle break added to the end of it for looks. If I recall correctly it was agreed to have been a long 76mm from a late-model Sherman.
This is the first I've heard of folks actually mistaking it for a real M3 variant.
It's much easier to get people to believe a good juicy rumor than the boring old truth.
Yeah, but at this point... bugger the childish "juicy rumor". It's not even imagination and literature anymore. It's just BS-ing and we already get that more than enough in other domains of real life.
I would add also that Lancer could have same crew copartment problems as Hetzer with that placement and 17-punder is not light gun (it could make vehicle really unbalanced weight vise).
If the loader being on the wrong side is a major issue, they’d probably mount it upside down. The Firefly mounted it sideways, so it’s not that far of a stretch. Being able to fit a 17 pounder into an M3 chassis at all would be a nightmare though, you’d probably need to cut out parts of the engine, at which point it might be time to call it quits.
@@subparusername9172 You would have problems with the gun breech, room for the recoil mechanism, left horizontal traverse and elevation mechanism, plus the 17 pdr ammo is horridly big, and there would at best be a 4-man crew. If they even tried the 1st shot would possibly destroy its own gun mount already too. At this point you might as well use the T40/M9 tank destroyer and put the 17-pounder on it, or even better, use an Archer already, and even then not till 1943 at earliest
and the recoil of a 17 pounder being off center would at best wear out the suspension and at worst snap the drive shaft, let alone the room in the hull probably isn't big enough for the recoil and you can't pull the firefly trick of just cut a hole in the back for more room because there's an engine in the way
@@jimbothegymbro7086 yeah, even traversing that kinda gun in an M3 lee has to be either a miracle or a massive engineering renovation
@@jimbothegymbro7086 yeah, and making the recoil path longer to reduce stress on the mount and vehicle would be very hard if not impossible because of space constraints.
The "Fun Fact!" at 2:06 is very yes!
I am very glad you mentioned this. British tank nomenclature dictates their SPG's into having names t hat start for A for Artillery (as in Anti-tank artillery, not indirect fire artillery ) and as such the Lancer does not fit the British nomenclature for SPG's at all. Furthermore other vehicle types also have nomenclatures that won't allow the name lancer to fit.
At best I can imagine it being the name of one of those odd post war vehicles that aren't an MBT, AFV, etc. Or a company name/ designation for a vehicle similar to the Excelsior/ Commodore situation.
Question... How would this have theoretically performed if it had been made?
I know it is not possible for it to have been made, but lets say it had been made, how would it have performed?
probably decently well
With a closed top and limited traverse I would imagine quite poorly.
Remember that traverse would be almost nonexistent as the breech block on the 17 is far wider then that of the M3. Not to mention balancing issues on the elevation gear to be dealt with etc.
I think there wouldn't be enough space to operate 17-pounder. If you've seen Sherman Firefly interior, it is very cramped.
Almost no traverse in the gun mount as the 17pdr breech is huge, and very awkward ergonomics because of the gunner being sat on the left side of the gun instead of the right meaning he would be in the way of the loader to some degree.
All of that bundled up in a tall chassis, with an enclosed roof and poor visibility.
I imagine it would have been awful.
Fake tank Friday has to be one of the best video series on YT right now. It is helping disspell misinformation/disinformation on armour. I love it
Guy:
Internet: "That’s a nice story, now let's see a source."
Guy: "My source is, I made it the fuck up!"
Im amazed by the amount of quality of every video of yours, thank you so much for the amount of work and detail you put into every one of your mini documentaries :)
That thing does look awesome though. Very tempted to make my own model of it!
A what if.....
Honestly I disagree with laying blame to the person who made the model and backstory. Model makers make stuff like that all the time. they will kitbash tanks and hoshposh stuff together to make a 'fake tank', then post it on a forum/community they're in and give it a fake backstory. Generally people within that community know its fake. Its the people who play WT and WoTs thats the issue. They will see it, take it at face value and do no fact checking then beg for it in game.
Laying blame to the model makers just doesnt feel right as they are just having fun, its the people from Reddit and these games that are the problem.
I very much agree.
Honestly a little disappointed in Cone for laying the blame at someone who was having some fun when kitbashing, as opposed to those that saw or heard of it and never did even a basic google search.
Absolutely. Kitbashing can result in amazingly creative designs, and I don't want stories like this to dissuade model makers as they are generally military history fans themselves and likely don't want to accidentally spawn myths like this themselves.
Jadgpanzer E100 Krokodil when?
hes just bashing the whole waht if community for shearing and creating its art
1:38 never expected to see a whole M3 lifted up like that, I thought they were all just sat on top of chassis’s because of how a lot of Sherman’s have similar drivetrains. Wow wow
Yes they can all be lifted like that, the m4 sherman was based on the m3 lee, which was based on the earlier m2 medium. The "chassis" is part of the armour.
The suspension components were interchangeable between the M2, M3 and M4 Medium and M3 Light because they all used the same bolt patterns to attach to the hull tub.
Pantera How do you think they got them on and off ships?
Thing is, if the British were going to do it, they would have done it properly and rebuilt the hull to centre mount the weapon. But they didn't. They converted their M3's into field artillery with the 25pdr mounted, and put the 17pdr on the equally surplus Valentines.
Side note: the 2nd New Zealand Division kept their Pheasants and used them all through the Italian campaign because they were easier to move around and use than the proper 17pdr ground mounts.
I always liked the armored vehicle recovery tank based on the M3( I forget the official designation) with the dummy 75 on the sponson and a winch and jig setup on the turret. Mostly a rear echelon Tank (due to the lack of any main gun) used to recover fellow Lee/Grant as well as Shermans that had been disabled/knocked out but not completely destroyed and tow or push them back away from front line combat areas to tank rearm/repair Forward Operating Bases in the rear of the action. Thanks for the great, factual work, as always Cone 👍🏻
I was looking into this just the other day actually and thinking, "huh, this would be a good topic for one on ConeOfArc's fake tank videos."
Early 17pdr Pheasant models (25pdr mounting modfied for use with 17pdr gun) were in service 1942, but in a incredibly finite amount. the far superior 17pdr mounting and wide spread use was in 1943.
That wouldn't fit in the M3 Lee's sponson though, the 25pdr mounting was too big for tank use in any capacity, the reason they did that was to press the 17pdr gun into service because at the time the carriage meant to house the 17pdr was nowhere near ready and they needed a stopgap solution.
@@MegaRazorback I know it would not fit in the M3 Medium hull (not without some radical redesign), the finite amount of 17pdrs were sent not just to bolster AT capability of the 8th Army, but test the capability of the gun in a true combat environment. As you can guess, it performed wonderfully.
@@Duke_of_Petchington That it did and to be fair, from what i've read the 25pdr carriage unit was a hell of a lot more stable for the 17pdr in terms of recoil, the whole assembly barely moved back due to the weight from the carriage because the 25pdr was quite the big gun when compared to the 17odr.
@@MegaRazorback the only issue with modified 25pdr mount was limited cone of fire.
@@Duke_of_Petchington Yeah that was the main downside to it but that was of secondary concern to the crews that were using it, the firepower more than made up for that shortcoming.
If you scroll down to the fifth comment in that forum thread, the user literally says it's fake.
The vehicle sitting in Lahore is a former Grant Canal Defence Light, identifiable by a few of the external fittings.
I actually think that a vehicle like this entirely fits in World of Tanks. If you've seen any of their premiums and Mercenary vehicles you'd know it is entirely in their playbook to add vehicles that either never existed, or could not exist. (I am looking at you Slapjack, you unholy trifecta between a Tiger, IS, and T-29)
And their ridiculous Chinese TD's.
@@davidwoods7408 ridiculous? Erroneous would be a better term
Don't forget the T-25/2, polish heavies, and so many more BS tanks
@@lordtachanka463 I should have been more specific, I know they are completely fake.
I applaud them for that. The game would be boring with just Pz. IVs, Shermans and T-34s.
Sometimes they take it a step to far though, as with the Type 59 and the WZ-120.
Finally cone covered this abomination Im so tired of explaining that this is a fake tank
My assumption is that they had a gun of similar dimensions to the stub barrel of the howitzers, but was longer. They installed this whole to make sure it would fit. Then later lopped off the barrel in another operation. It's still the same gun as before, just cut up.
I think it was created as "what if" model. There is a scale model community here that does create semi fictional vehicles for alternative history scenarios. For example if WW2 started earlier in 1938 with Czechoslovakia prevailing with war taking different turn...
Kitbash is fun.
I once had a scrapped Sdkfz 251 I got out of a bargain bin at a tabletop shop in San Antonio.
Covered the roof, slapped an m8 Scott turret on top of the back end and fixed "hull machine guns" to the sides with some leftover plastic. Never painted it but it was a fun little desk ornament.
Jirja3
Ah... had Czechoslovakia fought, with the timely and real assistance of both France and the UK, even just the two of them.
This would make a most-interesting alternate reality, indeed.
@@Briselance There are several books actually. Most famous is "Žáby v mlíku" by Jan Drdek. Sadly I think it hasn't been translated yet.
Its kinda easy to realize its fake just from the fact that a 17pdr breech wouldn't fit inside of the M3 Grants casemate, and still be able to be reloaded comfortably
Judging from the muzzle break and the hull markings, the 17 pdr that was installed in the museum tank is an Australian model as seen on the AC IV prototypes, the museum likely had this rare gun and didn't want it to go to waste so just mounted it on an m3 recovery vehicle for whatever reason
2:41 oh dam I went to the museum this year. It called the American Haritage Museum in Massachusetts and has tanks from several major time periods. Most of the tanks are operational as well. They have two other buildings but those where closed when I went.
I actually love the m3 in war thunder. If you can get into a 2.3 game then this tank absolutely slaps but I'd you get uptiered then this tank is an absolute struggle bus.
In enlisted it's God tier. With the right positioning, the combined firepower slays entire teams before heading a reload.
other thing would be why would you need a tank destroyer when the 75mm gun was more than capable of busting german tanks at that time, that was the whole point of the M3, to get a heavier gun in the field immediately while the kinks in the M4 production were being worked out. the 75mm was only really outmatched by late ww2 tanks, just barely too, and if you somehow found a tiger at this stage in the war you outmanuvered it or called in artillery because its the middle of the desert and you could do that
Pretty sure they had trouble stuffing the gun they had in that little turret, let alone a 17 lber or 76mm!
Ooh, this gives me an idea - the T40/M9 tank destroyer would probably make a solid Cursed by Design episode.
As soon as I heard about North Africa and 1942 I though wait a second the 17 pounder was only in 1943
Oh No, the guys in khyber pass got there hands on a tank.
Funnily enough there actually was a spg that did use the M3’s chassis called the M7 Priest. It used 105 mm howitzer and is pretty interesting. Got to see An M7B1 and an M7B2 (variants of it) at camp Mabry
And the M9, which was cancelled in favor of the M10 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T40/M9_Tank_Destroyer
Gaijin Employee: “Write that down WRITE THAT DOWN!”
Wargaming: “Finally! A new tier 6 premium”
Thank goodness for blowing this myth wide open. This message goes way beyond the interest in one topic and should be a rule across all social media platforms
"How about we use the 17 pounder for M3 Lee?"
M4 Sherman Firefly designers: Why are we still here.....just to suffer.
some of the tanks cone shows in a museum are in the American Heritage Museum in Hudson, Massachusetts, about 30 minutes from my house. times are 0:00, 2:41, 3:38, and possibly tanks on the driving track, 2:34. the M3 Grant is my favourite tank. even though they weren't the best tanks, they are very cool. I like the multi-turrets and it's an important tank since it was hurriedly pressed into service because they hadn't started development of the M4 Sherman yet.
Hey Cone of Arc, have you ever thought of doing a video of the HMS Furious, large light cruiser/aircraft carrier. It's history is very cursed. Keep up the good work!
Hay I am from Pakistan 🇵🇰 and I live in Lahore. I have gone to the Tank museum but in 2017 there was an M3 lee but with a normal gun like you said. Lol 😆 I think our genius engineers had the idea to put this gun on. I think they just replace the 75mm gun with some random 76mm gun because 75mm gun was broken or something I don't know. If I go to tank museum again I will conform it.
Perhaps they thought the original gun is a bit too stubby and with this little facelift it's gonna look better :D Tell them to also put a spoiler wing on it's back!
@@deffington6627 lol we can do that
Having that big gun on 1 side of the tank feel very...uncomfortable to work with... I bet if there was a plan to up-gun the M3 Lee they would probably move the gun to the center of the hull....
For purpose of games like WT or WoT: LET'S PUT A 17PDR ON EACH SIDE!
well done cone
Incredible Adorable branding and OC Character
She really hold’s the show together
very weird indeed, if it ever was made real i feel bad for the gunner since even with the 75 that position looked cramped. what an interesting thing none the less.
I want this and the American T40 TD that was built and tested with the 3in AT gun in warthunder.
I feel like engineers would mount a larger Cannon like that would be on center line
I am laughing and crying that there are people that seem to think because some paper contraption existed in a game must mean it was something real.
Scary isn't it
Love these vids, although it's a little sad to see these debunked. The Lancer was just like the Snipe Hunts you'd have your friends do at boyscouts, only even funnier.
I honestly really like the design. It reminds me of the British assault tanks minus the thick armor. I can’t imagine these things with the American long 76mm wouldn’t be *too* ineffective, but it’d be hella awkward. Beyond that, it looks pretty slick so I can understand why it became a popular fake.
except those guns kick hard and the guns is off center, the suspension ain't gonna like that
@@jimbothegymbro7086 if tank designers and engineers learned on thing during the Second World War, it’s that the suspension doesn’t like a LOT of things, so sometimes you just gotta let it tough things out
Honestly, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to put a high velocity cannon on that tank. It's primary use 1943 onward was in the Pacific campaign. The need was for a compact and effective HE round for island hopping combat. As much as people crap on the ol' 75mm for it's somewhat lackluster (it genuinely isn't that bad) anti-armor performance. Most tank rounds were used against fortified emplacements with infantry. The slower round had a higher explosive load and was far more effective against infantry than the 17 pounder.
@@darkninjacorporation Speaking as a retired Armor officer, you have never pulled maintenance on a tank or other tracked vehicle. Plus, a vehicle deadlined for suspension problems is as much of a loss to its unit's combat power as one killed on the battlefield
Nice creation for a kit bashing model builder! Looks much better than the stock grant/ lee!
Takom: Why didnt we think of this!!!
Díky!
BTW, in accordance with internet rule 34, you should do some p...of that cute lady with fcm turret on head.
If it looks like another E-79, smells like another E-79, and tastes like another E-79. Hmm... That might be a story like the E-79.
you know what, I'd honestly LOVE to see a dream tank like the M3 Lancer in WT or WoT, just cause it would be in interesting playstyle in those Videogames, with a tag of "This is a Plausible but Fake Tank"
It really isn't plausible though. It may seem like it at first but the gun would be impossible to fit in the tank like that without being completely unusable
@@ConeOfArc True to what you've said, would create So Many physcial complications, but a tank nerd can dream XD
The valentine at 2:50 is from my local tank museum. It is owned by a doctor that sold all his super cars for tanks. He has 2 tanks from fury, a gepard, leopards, is2, challengers, m3, comets, t34 and a few others
As soon as I saw the gun I knew that it was wrong. I knew the 17 pounder did not come into service until 1943, by which time the Grant was no longer in service anywhere except the Far East. And the 75mm was more that a match for what the Japanese had.
The Grant did what it needed to do in North Africa until the Sherman turned up, though I have long thought taking the turret off would have helped when it was in a hull down position. But that is just my opinion.
If the M3 Lancer was real i’d ditch the Grant/Lee because it’s both so god dam tall and armor is so thin being a Medium tank is a over statement in my opinion.
As soon as i saw this i was like how could you fight in this if the Firefly was difficult to change and operate how would this go
This was a solid idea. Can you do a video on more vehicles with the 17 pounder, like the Archer or Achilles.
I remember seeing something like this on the history channel when I was a kid. its was a documentary about tanks that didn't survive the drawing board. I don't think it was a 17 punder and its was like a good idea but we are already working on a better one.
Probably the M9 tank destroyer, which mounted a 3 inch gun (much more powerful than the 75mm)
Although these turret change or guns being stuffed into another chassis. It would be interesting to see in game as an event or premium. For WT that is since they do exist whenever to saw combat or not wouldn't matter. Excellent video as always O7.
No
Ah yes, more premiums that most players wont see. Premiums that might be economically unviable unless they're made overpowered for their brs
lmaooo you got a no from armoured archives, which he's right. it isn't real.
Not premiums I would hope, a gag game.
You get an absolute no from me on that. The gun doesnt work in that hull, no turret traverse, it NEVER existed, and there doesnt exist ANY papers on the british or the americans EVER attempting to put a 17 pounder in it. Its more fake than the P1000 Ratte.
Actually, adding it into the game would be very negative, to the history community, as it would spawn a bunch of IDIOTS, as Cone said, that'd do everything to prove it existed. I dont want fake tanks in my history books.
Man.. I didn't know about that tank. lol. I wonder if there will be a resurge of the "Lancer" now. lol.
I'd like to see the KV 220 .. The large gun (100mm ?) Turret was was used to defend a factory and the oversized hull was mated with a standard KV turret. Both Fought in the defense of Leningrad. ... well from what I can tell. I realize thats not Fake Tank Friday stuff but it fits the "Cursed by Design. " Ironically the M3 was a pretty good tank in the desert war before the M4 turned up and served well in Asia .
Hmmm... Our right track and suspension keeps breaking for some reason.
A 17lber in a Grant....does that even sound like it could work? It could barely fit in a full size Sherman turret. Dunno why anyone would fall for it being stuffed in a Grant hull...
I love the intro to these
I've liked and subscribed just because Erika Itsumi told me so
I actually do surprisingly well in the m3 in war thunder, I don't remember it being great in WOT, but in war thunder I do decent in it when I break it out
Wpt you HAVE to use it as a TD
Fun fact in the console version of World of tanks you can bump the rate of fire on the 75mm all the way up to 20+ rpm. Giving it DPM equal to most tier 8s and even 9s.
I liked the M3 in WoT, a tier 4 medium with a 75mm gun, when everyone else that tier was rocking 45mm or 50mm guns, plus good armor for that tier... It was just difficult to use correctly, and since tier 4 is noob, few people knew how to use it correctly.
The only issue in in wot is not being able to usenthebtirret. As is you have to use it like a td
@@paulrasmussen8953 Yes, like a td.
Not gonna lie, but thanks to ConeOfArc Chan I liked and subscribed, pretty effective
All according to the plan.
In addition to the fact that the British naming scheme for SPATGs was "A" names, 17-pounder equipped variants usually attracted the "Firefly" nickname - the M10C was often referred to a a Firefly in contemporary sources.
Gotta love that on the model shown the gun barrel is noticeably drooping like a wet noodle.... might need a Cialis or two.
Still less cursed than sherman with 122
So that would be the 17pdr fitted with the magic telescoping breech then.
As far as I know "Coffin for 7 brothers" comes from the lend lease arrival of M3 coinciding with some brilliant mind deciding that they should weld the hatches before sending them(and on tanks still used by brits and americans) to "increase side protection against german guns". Problem is that it didn't do anything against german guns(neither those that penetrated anyway, nor those, who didn't stand a chance to penetrate even with hatches intact in the first place), but what it did was critically limit number of escape hatches crew could use.
And it's awesome in both WoT and WT. And in most RTS it appears in
One key thing to remember about US tanks naming convention in WW2
The Lee was given its name by the British, who created the common name naming convention the US would start using for all of its tanks, and that being named after US generals. The M3 Lancer is emediatly fake because of this
So what might they have called it if they had built it? Sheridan, perhaps?
In the same way the Fireflies are fake?
2:45 Welp, seems you might've forgotton which series you were making an episode for when you recorded that line. The discussion about the Matilda turret swaps was in a Cursed by Design episode, the one about four tanks added to World of Tanks. Might wanna correct that to avoid the very confusion I suffered!
Australian 17 pounder ac4 tank prototype had different muzzle break. Check it out online. Back of M3 hulls gun loaders position's hatch was also used to get the gun in from the rear. Seen it on production line video. Good vid though
I have read some reports of a few different guns that were planned to be used. I have read of the Germans switching out the American 75 for a German 75 of the panzer 4 but was never deployed because well they couldn’t get it to actually fit and be functional
Interestingly, how heavy exactly was the 17 pounder barrel in contrast to its carriage? While fake it might be, self propelling 17 pounders even just packing it on a Lee hull would be lmao and scary all the same
apparently the whole 17 pounder weighed 3 long tons, I'm not sure if that's for the field gun version or tank version tho
The 17 pounder was a mixed bag. People love to use the post war discarding sabot round penetration numbers, when discussing the cannon. But they weren't really in use during WW2. There was a small amount of that ammo produced and it was horrifically inaccurate. The Canadians developed the first pot type sabot loading that was actually effective, but wasn't released until the end of the war.
The other loadings of HE and AP were good, but... the dust and flash kicked up from the rounds was so bad that commanders were encouraged to be outside of the tank and offset to actually see what happened with the rounds downrange.
It's powerful, but man did it have a lot of flaws.
@@SlavicCelery man I can imagine how Achilles commanders got it a bit better as making the Firefly commander get out just so he can see where exactly the tank is lobbing rounds at.
Wouldn't the infantry simply scream through the tank's external intercom of "there's a tank way over there! plug its ass!" so that the crew won't be kinda incomplete of sorts?
@@gings4ever Most of them didn't have exterior phones mounted at the time. But, yeah some other TDs had a much easier time with a little less flash and gas.
People love looking at stats, but the actual experiences are something different.
@@gings4ever If there was a telephone. The M4's didn't have them until the ETO Signal Corps Section developed a kit using a field phone in an ammo can with changes to the vehicle's intercom system to make it work
there is another story about this tank that says that this tank was an experiment to try to put the 17 Pounder on the M3 Lee tank's chassis in which it didn't go very well and it wasn't built anymore.
How good was the 17lbs' HE round? Did it have one? Both the Americans and British went with the 75,even though the 6 lbs was a bit better vs. Armor, because of a good HE round.
Tho it would be a cool alternate history.
"In late 1943, wiþ increased abundance of german heavy armor, the allies search for a way to mount the 17 pounder cannon into a motorised vehicle, taking the outdated M3-grant, they modifie the case mate and mount the pounder into its hull gun mount. To cut down on wieght, crew, the guns further obsolescence, and to lower the vehicle's notorious profile the 37mm gun and turret were revoved.
Wiþ these modifications, the tank was given the new name 'M3-Lancer' and shipped to the western western front in mid 1944. Though the Lancer fixed some of the grant flaws, it also made more, the 17-pounder was difficult to reload and smacked against the hull when fired, deafening the crew, many Lancer crews would stuff sheets and pillows behind the gun the muffle the sound. the gun had very little elevation and depression, and even worse pivot, making the crew have to point the hull at what it wanted to hit, making aiming difficult. Additionally the long barrel would get caught on trees.
After the development of the Sherman Firefly, the Lancer joined it's grant father obsolescence again, tho Lancers remained in service to the end of the war, even landing a kill on one the fear king tigers in an ambush in late 1944.
Sadly only one Lancer survived the war, it now resides at (forgot the musian) in (forgot the country) where it was given its old 75mm gun."
Model Makers sometimes enjoy creating some of these things. They will even make complete backstories to sell the model as part of the post/article. I remember in a model magazine the Iraqi Republican Guard IM1 Lion, which was an M1 Abrams with a Soviet 125mm gun, smoke dischargers, and machine guns. Of course it was fake, but it looked cool.
I don't think that the 17 pounder would even fit in the m3 cause the breach would just.... It wouldn't it had problems in a Sherman so an m3 would just not and as I've seen here it would probably get the hetzer treatment so yeah
It wouldnt matter if they said it was fake in the original posting because people dont read. They title and headline skim
Ngl, I had never heard of this tank, and the first thing I thought on reading the title was drat, because the idea is cool and it would be right in a br range I play in war thunder.
Would the gun even fit? In the Sherman, they had to mount it sideways?
So, the prewar design was unable to match up to late war designs..? No s!&t. That makes absolute sense. But it WAS still an effective tank. Especially when logistics is involved in to argument. It was simple, reliable, and easy to repair.
It could also be inspired from some of the artillery pieces with a m3 like superstructure.
The M3 was an excellent tank for its time. By 1944 it was no longer appropriate for the Western theatre, but perfectly suited for the Pacific theatre. If I had been in charge of planning for the invasion of Japan then I would have chosen the M3 as the main battle tank, supported by Shermans equipped with flamethrowers, on a 3/1 basis.
There is a version with very photographic evidence. In the initial scenes of the Humphrey Bogart movie “Sahara” scanning the “destroyed” tanks you will notice one with a cast hull. It’s a very rare variant of the vehicle.
The blow back of the 17 pounder in a Sherman turret was bad enough let alone in an M3....
Not tank related, but I have had experiences where stories I wrote as pure fiction went through a community and years later came back to me from people swearing they knew someone who was an eyewitness.
In WT the Lee is amazing, decent mobility and 2 guns.
The 17lb in an M3 COULD work it appears to me there’d be almost no room. The gun would probably have less than ten degrees of traverse and I bet it doesn’t have room to actually sit parallel with the tracks.
Good job, now wg will make a new tier 5/6 prem med/TD in a months time :)
I'd find a more plausible adaptation to be an M7 Priest with an M5 3" gun mounted. At least the 3" gun used the same (or nearly identical) cradle as the Priest's 105mm howitzer. That might have made a field modification possible. Just for fun, I made up a couple of 1/72 models.
I can see WG add one and put in the description "existed only in blueprints"
It is funny to me that the hate the real M3 Lee gets in recent years comes from armchair "experts" and because you can only use the 37mm gun in the turret. Yet, as a stop gap machine before the M4 went into service, while the Lee is far from perfect it could get the job done. And, while I know it is still a video game, I have had some pretty great games in the M3 in War Thunder, thanks to being able to use both guns.
yeah in war thunder it is fabulous
The armchair generals seem to forget that for an early war tank it's very well armed, armored, a fast road and decent off-road speed.
Compared to its contemporaries, the Lee was powerful for its time.
wdym by "you can only use the 37mm gun"?
idk where they thought they can only use the 37mm gun. if these are WoT players they are high off their ass because in WoT you only have the hull mounted 75mm, basically making the lee into a glorified Hetzer of sorts. War Thunder on the other hand, the lee is a low tier medium which while it has its drawbacks its two gun setup can be stupidly effective when used properly. fhe 75mm in war thunder may not have the most penetration but it will fuck shit up
especially as when the M3 was spec'd and designed the 37mm was plenty to deal with contemporary armour of its expected opponents, meaning Pz.1 and Pz.2, maybe early Pz.3 at worst, and the 1930s Japanese tanks.
German, British, and Russian tanks of the time also mounted guns in that category, or worse (the Pz.1 and Pz.2 usually only mounted machine guns, being infantry support vehicles more than anything).
Lackluster performance there, yes... but a surprisingly fun little number in Warthunder and Battlefield 1942(Road to Rome)
I didn't even know that this was a thing. The only way this could work is with a proper time machine, and even then the gun would not fit into a DeLorean for transport.