CHS and Grants

[bradfordkay]

Do the Grant tanks show up later in CHS (scen 159, v 2.08)? I've an Indian armoured unit (late Feb, '42) that is filling up with everything in its TOE but the Grant tanks, and they do not show up in the troop availability list. Do they come at a later date, or were they overlooked in the scenario?

[Sardaukar]

IIRC, they fill up with Grants, but slowly. 

[Andrew Brown]

They should start arriving from march 1942.

[Ian R]

Andrew, (not that I am suggesting this is your fault particularly or that it was your doing at all) but the Grant arrival rate for CW units is if anything too quick.
 
Production of M3s started in  August 1941 and ended in December 1942, in which time 6,258 were built, or 368 per month. Some were completed as Grants rather than Lees, but 600 total of both types were sent to North Africa up to the time of the battles of El Alamein, in October - November 1942. It was not until the M4 arrived to replace the M3s in UK service that they were on shipped to India/Burma, and Australia/Canada (and Australia also received some coming the other direction to about 750 total) where they were used for training.
 
The Indian 31st armoured Division in Iraq received Stuarts and Grants in Iraq in November 1942, and in November 1943 the armoured brigade from that division received Shermans and the older tanks were shipped to India to equip the 251st armoured brigade (which up to then was tankless). Even though there were enough Stuarts and Grants/Lees in depots in Egypt by June 1942 to equip the 31st Armoured division in time for the Gazala battles, this did not happen. British 7th Armoured brigade in Burma had two regiments of Stuarts -  which were more than adequate to deal with IJA type 94 tankettes and type 95 lights.
 
50th, 254th and 255th armoured brigades were formed in 1941/2 but did not go into combat in Burma (with M3 tanks) until late 1943/44 -when the M3s, by then declared "Limited Standard" in April 1943 by the US Army and replaced by M4s were available in numbers. 251st was broken up to reinforce the chindits, and a 267th armoured brigade never left India.
 
Ian

[bradfordkay]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I knew that I should probably wait a little longer before worrying, but as Chez' steamroller continues to smash my defensive lines I'm starting to grasp at straws...[;)]

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Andrew, (not that I am suggesting this is your fault particularly or that it was your doing at all) but the Grant arrival rate for CW units is if anything too quick.

Ian that is very interesting information you posted. Thanks. But I have to ask - any chance of distilling it into a suggested start date and replacement rate for the Grant?

Thanks,
Andrew

[Ian R]

Andrew,
 
There is a problem I suspect in that because the CW got both Lees (the US version turret) and Grants (British version flatter turret with the radio in the bustle and one less crewman) (the Grants being built to specific contracts in specific places such as Pullman) just seperating Grants and Lees  will not resolve the issue of US/CW reinforcement differentiation.
 
Unless you assume all CW M3s to be Grants and make them a different device to Lees for all purposes.  This would annoy the purists I suppose. is there room enough for a CW Lee device and a US Lee device, as well as a CW Grant device?
 
Then as all we need to do is to work out the total sent to India/Burma starting from November 43, including the arrival with full complement of the 251st armoured brigade as a reinforcement at that time (despite its earlier formation as a notional brigade).
 
We also need to work out what to do with the 6 US provisional tank battalions full of lees that turn up in India in the stock game (are they still there in CHS?).
 
Ian
 
 

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Ian R
Unless you assume all CW M3s to be Grants and make them a different device to Lees for all purposes. This would annoy the purists I suppose. is there room enough for a CW Lee device and a US Lee device, as well as a CW Grant device?

There is very little room for adding new devices, so this is not really an option, unfortunately.

[Ian R]

So it could be done as if all CW M3s were depicted as Grants (which is not exactly true, although even the UK called some of the Lees it got Grants anyway), and all US ones were Lees (which they were).
 
Maybe Australian ones will need to come out of the American supply, that will have to be looked at.
 
I may get to this sometime over the next month...
 
 
 
 
 
 

[Reg]

Data from some research I did for Steel Panthers. The table is from Dust, Sand and Jungle, A History of Australian Armour 1927-1948 by Paul Handel, RAAC Memorial and Army Tank Museum, 2003.

Note the Lee/Grants were were all delivered in 1942.
Deliveries direct from USA from British lend lease stocks started Apr'42 (54 that month) and by Dec'42, a total of 757 had been delivered. A Jun'44 breakdown consisted of M3 Grant (Petrol) 266, M3 Grant (Diesel) 232 and M3 Lee (Petrol) 239.

By the way, they weren't just training tanks, but equipped three divisions intended for overseas service (North Africa??). Unfortunately these units ended up assigned to home defence duties which meant they were only ever used in training before being eventually disbanded when the threat of invasion passed.

[Ian R]

Thanks Reg.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: Reg

By the way, they weren't just training tanks, but equipped three divisions intended for overseas service (North Africa??). Unfortunately these units ended up assigned to home defence duties which meant they were only ever used in training before being eventually disbanded when the threat of invasion passed.

Despite being the most numerous tank in Australia at the time, the Lee/Grant was considered unsuitable for jungle warefare and the only instance of them being used in combat was a solitary Grant from the Headquarters protection troop of the 2/1st Armoured Reconnaissance Squadron which was called upon assist the advance along the Milford Highway on Balikpapan on day F plus 11. Unfortunately by the time it had arrived, the oposition had been overcome and that was it for the battlefield career of the Australian Lee/Grant.

Despite it's 2lb/40mm gun (Australia had HE ammunition), the Matilda was the preferred AFV as it's slower speed was better suited to the support of dismounted infantry and its thicker armour made it practically impervious to Japanese defensive fire even at the point blank ranges of jungle warfare.