Help please M3 Lee colours

[billybookcase]

Can anyone tell me any of the the colours of the British M3 in North Africa.

And what markings they may have had.

Thanks in advance.

BB

[AngloSaxon]

Hi BB,

The British version of the M3 was called the 'Grant'. The American version was the 'Lee'

Great info here for all WW2 British clours : http://www.mafva.net...tarmer camo.htm

Mike.

[Andrew Jones]

Hi BB,

The British version of the M3 was called the 'Grant'. The American version was the 'Lee'

Great info here for all WW2 British clours : http://www.mafva.net...tarmer camo.htm

Mike.

8th Army in the desert actually used both versions of the M3, both the Lee and the Grant, [ well there were more than two versions , but this is just a simple answer ]

The MAFVA site is great , however, for camouflage.

Andrew

Edited November 6, 2012 by Andrew Jones

[AngloSaxon]

8th Army in the desert actually used both versions of the M3, both the Lee and the Grant, [ well there were more than two versions , but this is just a simple answer ]

The MAFVA site is great , however, for camouflage.

Andrew

Yeah, my mistake for not giving a full explanation. We did indeed also use the initial versions of the M3 that we received (the Lee).

Mike.

[foxy]

M3s Were also used in abundance in the Pacific theartre.

With Indian and British units, there colours again varied from Olive drab to British bronze green.

Some were camoflaged in Khaki and black.

[Andrew Jones]

Yeah, my mistake for not giving a full explanation. We did indeed also use the initial versions of the M3 that we received (the Lee).

Mike.

I believe the Grants came first as direct purchases from the USA ,while the Lees came later under Lend-Lease.

Andrew

[AngloSaxon]

I believe the Grants came first as direct purchases from the USA ,while the Lees came later under Lend-Lease.

Andrew

Then I stand corrected. I believed we were initially supplied the Lee until the Grant became available, my mistake.

The Grant was the British version and the Lee the American though, regardless of which came first. Of course, this is only relevant in terms of naming which the British did and the Americans didn't. Otherwise it's just an M3.

Mike.

[bigh827]

Like many of our tanks, the M3 got both names from the Brits. We in America took the Lee/Grant names and used them to help tell the two apart.

Then we began to put names to tanks, before that we called them by their make number like the Germans did till the Panther and Tiger came along.

[Andrew Jones]

Otherwise it's just an M3.

Mike.

Hardly just an M3

Grant I - M3 with British turret

Grant II - M3A5 with US type turret

Lee I - M3 with US turret

Lee II - M3A1

Lee III - M3A2, none delivered to Britain

Lee IV - M3A3 with Continental engine

Lee V - M3A3 with Guibertson Diesel engine

Lee VI - M3A4

AS you can see there was much more to it than just an M3

Andrew

[AngloSaxon]

EDIT: Post deleted. This is supposed to be a thread about colours so no point in continuing the discussion.

Mike.

Edited November 7, 2012 by AngloSaxon

[foxy]

Well said Mike.

I know mine was slightly OT on colours for Pacific

Tis colours folks, colours BB asked for.

Edited November 7, 2012 by foxy

[billybookcase]

Thank you for the replies, it looks from the MAFVA site that I can't really go wrong here.

I think I'll be going for a single colour of Portland stone or similar.

I have seen a photograph of a lee and a Grant side by side in North Africa complete with sand shields, in what looks like the scheme I plan.

I only have American decals though and I can't see on any of the photos what the British markings might be.

One last question, would infantry on the attack have been in the vicinity of tanks?

It's for a diorama I'm planning, which is a sort of tribute to my dad.

He was in North Africa in the 8th Army, but he never talked about it and he died before I really became interested in the subject.

It's now one of my great regrets that I never asked him about his exploits.

Thank you again for the replies.

BB

[chaddy]

It's now one of my great regrets that I never asked him about his exploits.

There are many of us inthat position, sadly.

[bigh827]

You can find photos of grunts running along side tanks as they go into combat. The tanks would pass by the troops but not get too far ahead, as infantry from the other side would knock out the tank.

Tanks should never attack without infantry support, but they would most likely be yards/meters behind the fast moving tanks..

[billybookcase]

You can find photos of grunts running along side tanks as they go into combat. The tanks would pass by the troops but not get too far ahead, as infantry from the other side would knock out the tank.

Tanks should never attack without infantry support, but they would most likely be yards/meters behind the fast moving tanks..

Thank you, that's very helpful.

BB

[chaddy]

You can find photos of grunts running along side tanks as they go into combat. The tanks would pass by the troops but not get too far ahead, as infantry from the other side would knock out the tank.

Tanks should never attack without infantry support, but they would most likely be yards/meters behind the fast moving tanks..

You will find photographs of that type certainly. However, be aware that not all are "genuine". Some were staged for propaganda purposes.

Cheers

[Test Graham]

In the desert warfare of the period, the infantry lacked a weapon that could knock out a tank. The main menace would be anti-tank guns. The war has several examples of British tank units "swanning off into the blue" by themselves and falling foul of carefully laid traps. The benefit of the US tanks was that they could fire HE to suppress AT guns as well as using AP against enemy tanks.

[Peter Lloyd]

One last question, would infantry on the attack have been in the vicinity of tanks?

It's for a diorama I'm planning, which is a sort of tribute to my dad.

BB

To infantry, a tank is something that will attract a lot of flying metal, and in the desert the carrying of infantry on tanks even for transport was unusual. Additionally, Lees and Grants were allocated to Armoured Brigades (think capitals are right there...) while 'Tank Brigades' were allocated specifically for infantry support, using (usually) Matildas and Valentines. BUT- A: it's not as though anyone can rightfully recoil in disgust at the 'inaccuracy' of showing infantry with tanks; B: diorama makers are pretty well forced to take liberties with the proximity of tanks and people all the time... even in close co-operation nobody with a healthy sense of self-preservation wants to get too close to a 30 tonne vehicle whose driver can hardly see where he's going, and most importantly C: it's your model and it should make you happy.

[billybookcase]

To infantry, a tank is something that will attract a lot of flying metal, and in the desert the carrying of infantry on tanks even for transport was unusual. Additionally, Lees and Grants were allocated to Armoured Brigades (think capitals are right there...) while 'Tank Brigades' were allocated specifically for infantry support, using (usually) Matildas and Valentines. BUT- A: it's not as though anyone can rightfully recoil in disgust at the 'inaccuracy' of showing infantry with tanks; B: diorama makers are pretty well forced to take liberties with the proximity of tanks and people all the time... even in close co-operation nobody with a healthy sense of self-preservation wants to get too close to a 30 tonne vehicle whose driver can hardly see where he's going, and most importantly C: it's your model and it should make you happy.

Thank you Peter,

I've got 2 lots of Infantry to choose from, so I'm going to be putting them in the wake of the tank, a bit of artistic(but necessary) licence as it were.