Such a wonderful name,'Black Prince'.

Bovington must hold the world's finest collection of military vehicles,does it not?

The Medium Tank M3 was an American tank used during World War II. In Britain the tank was called by two names based on the turret configuration. Tanks employing US pattern turrets were called the "General Lee", whilst variants using British pattern turrets were known as "General Grant".

With much of their equipment left on the beaches near Dunkirk, the equipment needs of the British were acute. Though not entirely satisfied with the design, they ordered the M3 in large numbers. British experts had viewed the mock-up in 1940 and identified features which they considered flaws — the high profile, the hull mounted main gun, the lack of a radio in the turret (though the tank did have a radio down in the hull), the riveted armour plating (whose rivets tended to pop off inside the interior in a deadly ricochet when the tank was hit by a non-penetrating round), the smooth track design, insufficient armour plating and lack of splash-proofing of the joints. The British desired a number of modifications be made for the tank they were purchasing, including the turret being cast rather than riveted. A bustle was to be made at the back of the turret to house the Wireless Set No. 19 radio; this modification required one fewer crew member than the US version. The tank was to be given thicker armour plate than the original U.S. design, and the machine gun cupola was to be replaced with a simple hatch. With these modifications accepted the British ordered 1,250 M3s.

The main asset of the tank, from the British point of view, was the 75mm gun which could fire high explosive and armour piercing ammunition. The former was the perfect answer to Rommel's imaginative use of anti-tank guns and there is no doubt that Grant tanks were largely responsible for halting Rommel's attack during the key battle of Alam Halfa.

For all that the Grant was a difficult tank to fight in. The low position of the main gun meant that it was impossible to conceal and the tank often had to swing round in order to bring this gun to bear. Riveted construction was also a serious liability by 1942 while the 37mm gun, in the turret, was all but useless.



The chassis and running gear of the M3 design was adapted by the Canadians for their ‘Ram’ tank. Rams were used by Canadian forces in Britain for training but were never used in action - their regiments all fought in M4 Shermans. Some Rams went to Europe as Observation Post tanks for the Royal Artillery but they are best remembered as turretless ‘Kangaroo’ armoured personnel carriers.

Workshops in Britain embarked upon a major programme converting the tanks which, in the main, involved removing the turret and finding a new location for the radio.

As a personnel carrier the Ram was not ideal. It was difficult to get in and out of, there was nowhere to sit and little protection from the weather. However it was capable of keeping up with the tanks in an advance, so the infantry did not have to march, and it provided adequate protection, at least from horizontal fire.
Kangaroos were also used in Italy with considerable success and the British Army operated a Churchill version after the war. Since then most countries have designed more practical personnel carriers and now only the Israeli Army converts old tanks to this role.

Thanks FlatEric,I was unaware of the different naming convention for the M3.

Good job you never chose that last pic for the I.D parade,I think I would have struggled.

But it seems to be lacking a crucial change to the mantlet- the Panther G had a 'chin' mantlet, since on earlier models the rounded type mantlet could cause shot deflections into the hull in the area around the driver's and machine gunner's compartments. This looks like the rounded type to me.

http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/german/images/panthergcw_2.jpg

Hi Mechanus, good spot – but it is a Panther G …

The major external differences between the Panther G and the earlier A and D variants were the redesigned hull. Side armour was increased on the upper hull side, and the side plate was now a single piece. The driver’s vision port was removed from the front glacis plate to increase strength. Vision was provided through a rotating periscope on the hull roof.

At the back of the hull effective flame trap exhaust mufflers were introduced. In September 1944, a proportion of turrets delivered were fitted with a new gun mantlet on which the under curve was eliminated (by a forward angled projection) to prevent downward deflection of hits through the thin hull roof armour.

So, all Panthers with the redesigned turret mantlets that you mention were G variants, but not all Panther G’s had this feature – it was only applied to a proportion of them. A more reliable way to distinguish a Panther G, at least from the front, is the absence of the driver’s vision port on the glacis plate (which is clearly missing from the Museum’s exhibit).

Hope this helps

PS/. Cool model - is it yours?

Hi Chucky, yes, that lost shot of the Ram Kangaroo would have been a bit tricky to ID on its own

Here’s some more ‘better known’ stuff from the North African campaign, including your favourite …

The Crusader was developed by Lord Nuffield's company as a rival to the Covenanter, which it closely resembles. Its sleek lines gave it a modern appearance, which made it a popular subject for war photographers, and it had a remarkable top speed for a tank of that period (26 mph, 42 kph). This was due to a combination of the excellent Christie suspension system and a powerful V12 engine, both of American origin.

The Crusader made its name in the desert campaign. The Germans certainly admired it for its speed but British crews began to complain of unreliability and in the end staff from Morris Motors had to visit North Africa to sort things out. Serious faults were discovered in various components, from air cleaners and fan drives to the water pump and engine lubrication system; all matters to do with cooling, which was so vital in the desert.

In its original form the Crusader was armed with a 40mm 2 pounder gun and carried a crew of five. By 1942 this gun was obsolete and Nuffield engineers redesigned the turret to take a 57mm 6 pounder gun but had to reduce the crew to three. This made the tank difficult to fight (the tank commander was also the loader!) and in any case many British troops had lost faith in it. It was last used, as a gun tank, with 6th Armoured Division in Tunisia in 1943.

The Museum’s exhibit is a Crusader III armed with a 6 pounder.




Another important British tank of that era was the Valentine. At Tankfest 2013 a Valentine IX armed with a 57mm 6 pounder gun was displayed. This exhibit in the Museum is a Valentine II armed with a 40mm 2 pounder gun.

Although classed as an Infantry Tank the Valentine was not as heavily armoured as the Matilda, but what it lacked in protection it made up for in terms of reliability. It made quite a name for itself in the North African campaign and also served with New Zealand forces in the Pacific and with Soviet troops on the Russian front.

Although the Valentine had a number of defects these were counter balanced by its high reliability, at a time when other British tanks like the Crusader were noted for their unreliability.



The Valentine was obsolete as a gun tank by 1944. The ready availability of surplus hulls meant that they were widely used in other roles and for training. The Valentine chassis was used for two self-propelled guns.

The first of these was the Bishop. It mounted the 25pdr field gun in a high box shaped hull. They weren’t very successful as the mounting limited the gun’s elevation and hence its range. They were rapidly superseded by the American 105mm M7 Priest and then by the 25 pounder Canadian Sexton.

The second gun based on the Valentine was the self-propelled anti-tank, the Archer. By 1942 Britain had the excellent 17 pounder anti-tank gun. Unfortunately no tank was available to carry it. As a first step Vickers-Armstrongs decided to adapt their Valentine tank although it was much too small to take the gun in its turret. Indeed the gun was so long that it proved impossible to fit it facing forward which accounts for the unusual design. The driver sits at the front, with his back to the gun and the gun points backwards, across the engine deck.

With this kind of layout it was impossible to fire on the move although the driver had to remain in place since it might prove necessary to swing the vehicle to engage a target. However the Archer had a low profile and there was the additional advantage that it could get out of action quickly in an emergency!

Archers were supplied to the Egyptian Army after WW2 and used in action against Israeli armour in the various Middle East conflicts.

The Museum’s example is painted in the markings of a self-propelled anti-tank regiment of the Canadian Army in Italy in 1944.

I have a keen interest in WW2 armoured vehicles but I think the Archer is a new one to me. That 17 pounder is a great weapon. I also didn't know that the Sexton was a Canadian design.I recently saw a running Sexton at an artillery show,pretty awesome.

Yes, you don't hear or see much about the Archer, probably because only 665 were produced and they didn't enter service until fairly late in the war (October 1944). It's also hard to find much operational history written about them - most of the references you come across are solely of the 'technical' nature (e.g. weight, speed, ammo stowage etc..).

What little I have found suggests that it proved to be a very useful weapon with a low silhouette. The rearward-facing gun, rather than being a problem, was soon seen to be a virtue. The Archer was especially useful as an ambush weapon where its low silhouette made it easy to conceal in a hide. As enemy tanks approached a few shots could be quickly fired to kill a few targets and then the Archer was facing the right way to make a quick getaway, perhaps to alternative hide, before enemy retaliation arrived.

Back to the North African campaign - Axis forces this time ...

Italy was relatively slow off the mark when it came to tank development and, when WW2 began the best they could put into the field was the Medium Tank M11/39 which was underpowered, poorly armoured and mounted its 37mm gun in the hull. It was gradually superseded by the M13/40 from 1940, which featured a 47mm gun in a proper turret yet was not, surprisingly, adequately prepared for desert operations. A year later an improved, but virtually identical model was introduced, the Carro Armato M14/41, which had a more powerful engine and proper air filters.

The tank was first employed in the North African Campaign where its shortcomings quickly became apparent. The suspension, was somewhat complex and the vehicle was unreliable and cramped. But the real problem was the armour - at 30mm it was not thick enough to resist any existing anti-tank guns and, being bolted on, could easily be damaged by high explosive rounds.

Following the withdrawal of Italian forces from North Africa the M14/41 was rarely encountered, though many captured vehicles were pressed into service by British and Australian forces to fill the serious shortage of allied tanks in 1941. These vehicles did not remain in Allied service for long.




Here is the Museum’s Sd Kfz 141/1 Panzerkampfwagen III Ausf L that took part in Tankfest 2013:



And the ‘owner’ of the gun the Panzer III was nestling under … no introductions needed here!

Italian tanks I know very little about other than they were relatively ineffective against Allied tanks,would that be correct?

I wondered what that was in the background in the first pic,the sign says Carro Veloce I think. Googling that introduced me to the term 'tankette'.Not sure I've heard that term before. At just over 3 tons I would have called it a 'baby tank'

Tankette.... think fully armored bren carrier. An idea that did not work remotely well. In theory a decent support weapon, in practice not so much. Just another concept of the lean years of the 30's that well, sucked. At least a Bren could also carry infantry and no one would ever try and use it to actually fight tanks. Well after the Boys rifle became next to worthless. But the Italians did try and press this thing to fight armor. And it is hopelessly out classed.

Hi Chucky,
yes, it's a Carro-Veloce 3-33 plus trailer (you can't really see the trailer as it's hidden behind the M14/41).

As FlashBurn says, it's a pre-war design which is actually based upon the British Carden-Loyd Carrier. These tiny vehicles were built and used in vast numbers by the Italian Army in WW2. They were employed by the Italians in Ethiopia and Spain and sold to other nations including Hungary, China and Brasil. Against unarmoured troops they had some potential ... but when confronted by tanks, or even armoured cars, they were death traps!

The Museum's example was captured in North Africa, and is a flamethrower version which carried 500 litres of flame fuel in a special two-wheel trailer. Fuel was delivered by a pump, driven off the gearbox, which gave it a flaming range of about 40 yards. In fact the pump was so weak that crews were instructed not to use flame, when driving at full speed, for fear of setting themselves alight.

Although a number of these flamethrower carriers were captured in the Tobruk area there is no evidence from British sources of them ever being used. The tiny vehicles were very cramped inside and must have been horrendous when closed down in desert conditions. Add to that the risk of having fuel pumped through the centre of the vehicle and any reluctance to use them is understandable.

So, 'Tankette', 'Baby Tank' or whatever ... these lethal 'Biscuit Tins' were more risk to those inside than to the enemy ..

Italian Tanks; current joke at the time amongst Brit troops 'up the blue' was that they had one forward gear and eight reverse.

BD-123, the old ones are the best ones ..

Design of the French Char B dates back to 1926 when three prototypes were built. Subsequent developments saw the appearance of the Char B1 in 1935 and the Char B1 bis, an up-armoured version, about a year later. Although classed as a medium tank the Char B was clearly designed for infantry support. Its main armament, a 75mm howitzer, is located in the hull, alongside the driver who aims and fires it. The tank commander, in the turret, has to load and fire the 47mm gun and the 7.5mm machine-gun (talk about overloading the crew!).

In its day the Char B was regarded as one of the most powerful tanks in the world, yet still had many features which harked back to the First World War; the tall hull, all-round tracks and side entry doors, for example. On the mechanical side, however, it was quite sophisticated. The Char B saw extensive combat in the summer of 1940. There is evidence to suggest that visibility from the tank was poor and, undoubtedly, the crew of four was over stretched.

Of the 365 Char B-1 bis built, large numbers were captured intact by the Germans in France in 1940. Those tanks that survived were later incorporated into the German Army and modified in various ways. They were used to equip German armoured units, serving as the PzKpfw Renault B-1 bis 740(f) and fighting in 1941 in Russia and the Balkans.

The Museum’s exhibit was issued to 1st Platoon, 1st Company, Panzer Abteilung 213, Panzer Division Schweizingen for service in the Channel Islands, where it was captured on Jersey at the end of the war.

That tank has a Steampunk style look to it.

Never thought about it that way before - but you're absolutely right! Could imagine it on the front cover of a late Victorian 'sci-fi' penny dreadful ...

I was thinking it looks a bit like the sort of machine my son built when he played 'Warhammer' at the Games Workshop.

I just got home from seeing "Fury". They did an awesome job with getting the equipment to look right, and there was an unrelenting intensity throughout the whole movie that was quite fitting for the subject. The engagements were generally not so "Holywood" that it ever got in the way of conveying what combat feels like. I feel drained. Well done...

Sorry for the slight delay in posting – I’ve spent the last 6 days in Venice (Italy, not Florida .. ;)) for a pre- Christmas ‘chill out’.

Hi Major, I’ve yet to see "Fury" – definitely on my Blu-Ray list when it comes out! As well as Tiger 131, the Museum also provided the Sherman M4 tank used in the lead role as ‘Fury’. It provides great marketing for the Museum and they have a special ‘Fury’ exhibition on at the moment:

http://www.tankmuseum.org/year-news/bovnews52758

On with my penultimate post from Bovington …

The Russians have always been enthusiastic about artillery and the Red Army was in the forefront when it came to developing mechanised guns. This normally involved placing field guns on self-propelled tracked chassis. The SU-76, which was first built in 1942, used the chassis of the light tank T-70 to mount the superb 76.2mm gun.
An unusual feature of the T-70, which was repeated on the SU-76 was the use of a pair of GAZ six-cylinder petrol engines arranged in line on the right hand side of the tank.

The Museum’s exhibit is a later model SU-76M which had a slight redesign of the rear end (side armour extended to the rear of the hull while the rear hull armour was extended upwards). It was used by Communist forces during the Korean War where it was captured by the Allies. Museum’s exhibit was captured from the North Korean Army in 1950. Note the KV-1 heavy tank in the background.



Although classed as a light tank by American standards the armament and protection of the M3 Stuart equated to British specifications for a cruiser tank in 1940 and they were used in this way for much of the desert war. Mass production techniques involving the use of machine tools resulted in high standards of reliability which, according to legend, caused a young British tank man in the desert to refer to his first Stuart as a ‘Honey’, and the nickname stuck.

For all that the Stuart was a difficult tank to fight from. The drive shaft cover effectively bisects the fighting compartment; this made it awkward to traverse the turret and British experience required that the tank should have an internal turret basket so that the crew could go around with the gun. The Museum’s exhibit is in fact a hybrid, with an M3A1 turret (without basket) on an M3 hull. It is also unusual in being one of only 211 built with a seven cylinder air cooled Guiberson radial diesel engine.

Stuart tanks were the first to be supplied to Britain under the Lend-Lease scheme and they were very popular. However, none survived to join the original Tank Museum collection. This example was supplied by the Brazilian Government and is displayed here in recognition of the fact that Brazilian troops served with the Allies in Italy.



Late in 1941 the Americans began work on an improved version of their M3 light tank. It would have a larger hull, improved engine and transmission but the same firepower. Production began in 1942 and some 10,000 were built by 1944. The new model had twin Cadillac engines and a Hydramatic, automatic transmission.

They were used by the Reconnaissance Troops of British armoured regiments and by most other Allied armies. They were fast, reliable and popular with their crews but were outclassed, in terms of firepower and protection, by the German tanks of 1944.

In the Pacific, on the other hand, they continued to be satisfactory. Japanese tanks were generally of such poor quality that light tanks such as the M5A1 were more than adequate to deal with them right up to the end of the war. The United States Army and the Marine Corps used them extensively and the Museum’s exhibit is painted to represent a US Marine Corps tank.



The Comet was probably the best British tank developed during WW2 and was roughly comparable to the German Panther, although the German tank entered service 18 months earlier than the British one.

Leyland Motors designed the A34 Comet in 1943 in response to a War Office requirement for a Cruiser tank armed with the 17 pounder (76.2mm) high velocity anti-tank gun. As an interim measure the Royal Armoured Corps found that the 17 pounder could be ‘shoe-horned’ into the turret of the M4 Sherman tank and a large number of conversions, known as the ‘Firefly’, were made in 1944/45.

Leyland’s new tank was based on the A27M Cromwell, although it was heavier because the armour was increased in thickness. The increased weight made it necessary to strengthen the Christie suspension and return rollers were added to carry the top run of the track. In the end the modifications to the A27M were so extensive that only about 40% of the parts were unchanged.

To avoid having to widen the Comet’s hull to accommodate a turret ring big enough to accommodate the 17 pounder, Vickers developed a modified version of the gun that was slightly shorter, known as the 77mm. This had a similar performance to the 17 pounder but used a shorter cartridge case and could be fitted into a turret ring on an unmodified hull.

The Comet prototype was running by February 1944, deliveries began in September 1944 and the Comet finally entered service with the 11th Armoured Division in the spring of 1945. Although these tanks participated in the final actions of WW2 they were too late to play a prominent part in the war.

The Comet was finally withdrawn from British service, in Hong Kong, in 1960. Small numbers were exported and overseas users included the armies of Burma, Finland, Eire, and South Africa.



In the early 1950s, in an attempt to give extra firepower to the units of the Royal Armoured Corps serving in West Germany, some Cromwell tanks received a 20 pounder gun 84mm gun (the same as used by the Centurion) in a new but lightly armoured two-man turret. The resulting vehicle was designated as the FV 4101 Charioteer tank destroyer.

In practice the Charioteer was only used by British Territorial Army units and by the late 1950s most of the vehicles were sold to Austria, Finland, Jordan and Lebanon. I believe the Museum’s exhibit is shown in Jordanian Army markings.



Continuing the theme of tank destroyers, this M10 tank destroyer is the British version, Achilles, mounting a 17 pounder in place of the American 3 inch gun. The Achilles could most easily be distinguished from the American version as the 17 pounder had a counter-weight mounted towards the end of the gun barrel (although it’s missing from the Museum’s exhibit).



The M8 was unusual in being built primarily for service with the United States Army. Most armoured cars developed in America in the early years of WW2 were designed to meet British requirements whereas the M8 was selected for American service.

Powered by the Hercules 6 cylinder engine the M8 had an excellent performance but was very lightly armoured and somewhat vulnerable with its open topped turret. On the other hand it had a remarkably low silhouette, particularly for a vehicle with six-wheel drive, which was an asset in the reconnaissance role. It served with United States forces in all theatres and with many Allied armies, notably France.

The M8 was christened ‘Greyhound’ by British forces but it was not popular, due to a supposed vulnerability to mines. Some did enter service with 6th Armoured Division in Italy and Austria towards the end of the war but too late to have any effect. Yet, like most American vehicles of this period, the M8 was useful, reliable and available in large numbers so it remained in service with many armies well into the post-war era.

One notable story concerns an M8 of Troop B, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron - during the Battle of St. Vith in the Battle of the Bulge, it was able to destroy a German Tiger tank. The M8 fired three 37 mm rounds through the relatively thin rear armour of the Tiger from only 25 meters setting it on fire. Not sure who was most surprised by this – the Americans or the Germans!

Thanks FlatEric,I really am enjoying this thread

I look forward to the final instalment.

Hi Chucky, you're welcome - glad you and others are enjoying it

Would be cool to get 10k views ...