Lancfan's Soviet M3 Lee Tank.

[lancfan]

With the Churchill almost finished there is time to drop in one simple build, construction will begin following on from the Churchill and this second model should be finished by Monday.
The venerable Airfix Lee/Grant kit finished as a Soviet M3 Lee.


David.

[ntrocket88]

Ah...the 'Grave For Seven Brothers'...! Look forward to seeing this with Soviet markings.

[Chris]

Another nice choice.

[ShaunW]

Another classic from Airfix and I agree, another great choice of subject.

[Clashcityrocker]

Ah...the 'Grave For Seven Brothers'...!

I haven't that term for it before. Did it have a reputation for being a poor vehicle?

Nigel

[lancfan]

Ah...the 'Grave For Seven Brothers'...!

I haven't that term for it before. Did it have a reputation for being a poor vehicle?

Nigel

The M3 Lee tended to catch fire when hit and was apparently disliked by the Soviet crews, however I find this nick name odd as such names in reality would usually be somewhat shorter and to the point when uttered with feeling (EG. "coffin" or "Armoured Hearse") there seems to have been an orchestrated hatred of western equipment at this time and although the title may be the result of a poorly related translation "Grave for Seven Brothers" sounds more like the title of a musical than real service slang.


David.

[Ian]

Wikipedia agrees with the 'grave for seven brothers'.

[ntrocket88]

Ah...the 'Grave For Seven Brothers'...!

I haven't that term for it before. Did it have a reputation for being a poor vehicle?

The term is quoted in a number of references, including, as Ian noted, Wikipedia. It is sometimes translated as 'grave for seven (or all) comrades as well. The M3 was supposed to be very unpopular with Soviet crews due to it's excessive height, thin armor and unprotected ammunition storage (all of which were still problematic for most Sherman produced). Soviet crews also disliked the rubber tracks and general poor mobility of the M3, especially since the whole tank had to be maneuvered to fire the main gun. Although seen by everyone as a stopgap until the Sherman could be produced, I think it was initially popular with the British 8th Army because it was the first tank they got that could fire an effective high explosive shell against the German AT Guns that wreaked most of the havoc with British armor in the Western Desert, while still being able to engage enemy armor as well.

The Soviets initially got mostly sub-standard (compared to the T34) tanks via lend-lease like the Matilda II, Valentine and M3 Lee and were understandably not happy with them. However, the M4 Sherman that they got later were very popular, especially late production ones with 76mm guns. The US trucks supplied to the Soviet Union in large numbers were also very popular I believe.

[BWP]

Just imagine the reverse situation ... the Russians send a few shiploads of T-34s and/or KVs to the British to use in the Western Desert ... Rommel would have been a little distressed, one imagines! Even the early T-34s were a lot of hard work for Panzer IIIs to deal with. Therefore one can only imagine the disappointment that the Russians felt with the rubbish that was being sent to them. They used them, though, because they needed them! An M3 would be perfectly adequate if they were lucky enough to be pitted against some unsupported infantry, which is probably more than you can say for a Matilda or Valentine.

As flawed as American tank design was, they got it at least half-right: all of their tank designs were intended to mess with unsupported infantry, and in that role they were pretty good. German infantry hated the Sherman because of its speed and firepower, which made it very difficult for them to deal with if there were no friendly tanks around to scare them off and if they couldn't get close enough to use their Panzerfaust. I believe it's probably the primary reason why the British loved their lend-lease Shermans: they were effective in all the ways that British designs were not (at least until the Cromwell entered service).

[lancfan]

As you say Bruce, a lot of the problems were due to the different tactics used by the various nations which did not always suit the different tanks used, and I consider the T-34 to be an incredible tank for its day and yes, it would have wreaked havoc in North Africa.

David.

[lancfan]

With the Churchill complete work began on the Lee last night, despite it age (released in 1969) this kit still falls together and is a delight to build. From the pictures I have found the Lees at Kursk appear to be late production long-barrelled tanks and one of the first jobs was to blank off the side doorways with plastic card.


With the hull complete the model begins to look like a M3 Lee.


This is how it appeared late this morning with the turret complete, the new gun in place and the lower hull painted in Olive drab.


More pictures on monday when the tank should be finished.


David.

[bobblelink]

Interestingly enough, the Russians seem to like the Matilda calling it the tank for four heroes and the really liked the Valentine as a recce tank.

In the air they loved the P39 and hated the p47, which seems the wrong way round to me!

[Chris]

Its falling together well.

[ShaunW]

Another good looking build with some great additional detailing.

[BWP]

Interestingly enough, the Russians seem to like the Matilda calling it the tank for four heroes and the really liked the Valentine as a recce tank.

On the face of it that seems improbable. Neither were very fast vehicles, making them especially unsuitable for recce roles, for which the Russians had an abundant number of smaller, very fast vehicles that were mostly better-armed if not as well-armoured; and by the time the Russians were using them the 2-pounder was not particularly effective as an anti-tank weapon (and no use at all versus infantry). The 6-pounder was better, but not by a lot.

Still, it's not an area I've done a great deal of research in so am prepared to be corrected!

Getting back on topic, that Lee is looking scrumptious.