What was the difference between the M3 Lee and the M3 Grant?

What changes were made to the Lee to make it a Grant and why did the British make them? What were the strengths and weaknesses between the two varients? In other words what advantages did the British version have over the American and vice-versa?
 

Grant left; Lee right

Mainly different turret - lower profile, heavier armour, no cupola, radio set in turret.

Canadian variant on same running gear - 18 inches lower.

 
Last edited:

Grant left; Lee right

Mainly different turret - lower profile, heavier armour, no cupola, radio set in turret.

Canadian variant on same running gear - 18 inches lower.


So I assume the Grant is slightly slower. There has to be some reason for them not to be all converted to Grants.
 
So I assume the Grant is slightly slower. There has to be some reason for them not to be all converted to Grants.

The Lee was designed for the US Army and they were happy with it. The Grant was paid for with hard cash and when the Lend Lease Act came in only US spec equipment could be supplied so no more Grants unless the British paid cash for them. Why would they when they got Lees and Shermans for free.

The rivetted construction Grant and Lee were about the same weight, Grant had 1 less crewman and a smaller load of 37mm and machine gun ammo.
 
The Lee was designed for the US Army and they were happy with it. The Grant was paid for with hard cash and when the Lend Lease Act came in only US spec equipment could be supplied so no more Grants unless the British paid cash for them. Why would they when they got Lees and Shermans for free.

The rivetted construction Grant and Lee were about the same weight, Grant had 1 less crewman and a smaller load of 37mm and machine gun ammo.

In that case why didn't the US Army switch to Grant construction?
 
In that case why didn't the US Army switch to Grant construction?

Not Invented Here perhaps?;)

Changes to the Grant were to accommodate British radios and policy (no separate radio operator). Apart from that the differences were minor - Grant was 6 inches lower.
 
In that case why didn't the US Army switch to Grant construction?

The Lee was the US army's own design that followed US design practice of having the radio in the hull with a dedicated radio operator. Why would they change to British practice of a turret mounted radio with the loader having a dual job of loader operator.
 
The Lee was the US army's own design that followed US design practice of having the radio in the hull with a dedicated radio operator. Why would they change to British practice of a turret mounted radio with the loader having a dual job of loader operator.

OK, that makes sense. There had to be a reason though. The reason I asked is that on the whole, the Grant sounds better so there had to be a reason not to switch. Having a dedicated radio man makes both theoretically loading and radio operation more efficient which gives it an advantage somewhere else to make up somewhat for more armor and lower profile. It had more ammo space which I imagine could be helpful.
 
Last edited:
OK, that makes sense. There had to be a reason though. The reason I asked is that on the whole, the Grant sounds better so there had to be a reason not to switch. Having a dedicated radio man makes both theoretically loading and radio operation more efficient which gives it an advantage somewhere else to make up somewhat for more armor and lower profile. It had more ammo space which I imagine could be helpful.

It also makes all the time you're NOT in combat easier. There's an extra crew member to stand watch, help with maintenance, help with cooking and cleaning and scrounging and all the other thousand and one tasks the crew of an AFV must perform every day.
 
It also makes all the time you're NOT in combat easier. There's an extra crew member to stand watch, help with maintenance, help with cooking and cleaning and scrounging and all the other thousand and one tasks the crew of an AFV must perform every day.

I didn't think of that but that makes sense.
 
Top