Stuart

Are there any significant differences between the M3 and M5 Stuart? The turrent, hull/chassis, and gun seem to be the same, so why was a change in model name and does anyone know why? I always thought the tank would have been better if the chassis was longer, sleeker, and gun was at least 50mm. It looks short, stubby, and not very intimidating.

 

M5 was a much-needed standardisation.
c. a dozen significant variants of the M3, and yet more subsets of those.
Radial Engines fine for Early M3 planning, demand for them elsewhere another pressure on the M3 design.
Essentially, M3 had become so diverse that it became increasingly unlikely growing production demand for light tanks could be met.
So the M5 represents a re-design that could be built using less specialised manufacturing capability with 'normal' engine (engines... with that improved hydramatic transmission making that all more feasible.) Those chromed 'Cadillac' badges you sometimes see on preserved M5s at shows are a joke, but one with significant truth behind it. The M5 could be made by truck and car companies with relatively modest conversion, The M3... less so.

T7 might interest you if looking at M3 to M5 progress. That concept was what was to have superseded M3, before reality bit.

A bigger HV gun in the M5 would have been 'tricky', while maintaining it's advantages of all-round-protected speed & mobility. Seem to recall there was some mucking about with standard M3 75mm gun on M5 chassis while contemplating a light Tank Destroyer which never got any further. Even if successful, putting a bigger gun onto a well-balanced & useful light/reconnaissance vehicle isn't necessarily a good thing.

As for 'not very intimidating'... I dunno.
Is that an important criteria? And while maybe not particularly intimidating to a Medium or heavy tank, I dare say if you were in a balanced infantry encounter, or part of an army's light forward elements, and the other side sent in an M5 or two, you might feel intimidated enough...

 

Nice explanation, VP

Here are two shots of the twin flat head Caddies for a Stuart taken at Fort Benning in Sept 2013

 

Something I've always really liked about the pragmatic approach to 'multibanking' (for want of a better word in this context) engines.
Real-world, war on, let's not throw ourselves completely at perfectly engineered blocks pushing contemporary technology, let's see just what we can achieve with what we have...

Stuart-ish projects:
Cast T7e1, the intended next gen of light tank which got a bit bloated and fizzled out :
View attachment 25243

That M8a1 with 75mm M3 gun:
View attachment 25244

 

"A bit bloated"...The master of understatement speaks!

The T7 went from 14 tons to 27 tons, and the main gun went from the 37mm(T7E1), to the 6-pounder(T7E2), to the 75mm(T7E5).

 

It's rude to talk about a lady's weight, especially when she's a Honey...


Back to the matter in original post.
I think M5 & M3 are quite distinctive anyway. Certainly the M5 'feels' beefier when you stand next to one.
The more significant distinctions may be hidden away in that drivetrain, but the chassis is pretty different, and later turrets changed quite a bit.



Roomier turret. (with space for radios. Not to be sniffed at in a light vehicle.)
Roomier fighting compartment with that dropped driveshaft and sloping glacis.
Thickest armour up from c.50 to almost 70mm (?).
Range improved by c.30 miles.
(All with the caveat that there are a few more variants of 'M3 light'.)

M3/a1 was essentially a pre-war vehicle. A jazzed-up M2.
M5/a1 was maybe more of a 'WW2' light vehicle.

 

"World of Tanks" just released the Stuart range to fight with...Seems like a "shoot and scoot" kinda tank...at least against other tanks.

 

Then it is no longer a light tank.
The crews liked the M3 an called it "Honey". It is very easy to drive, easy to maintain, very reliable and a 37mm gun is adequate for a small tank early in the war. I mean, just look at the german Pz Mk II or the french light tanks. The czech Pz 38(t) seems to be comparable and it was the workhorse of the early and very successful german campaigns.

The "fear factor" might have been low, but that's not important. It wasn't designed to knock out medium or heavy enemy tanks.

 

For the purpose of the M5, 37mm or 50mm wouldn't have made much of a difference, as I understand it wasn't designed to go after other tanks. As long the the 37mm HV was designed to the best of its ability as a quality smaller canon that was reliable and had a punch. The chassis looks almost too stubby and cramped. If it was a little lower, sleeker, and longer-bodied with wider tracks, it could have been more efficient in terms of maneuverability. It does remind me of the 38(t), but the 38(t) has the sleeker, longer, lower design and look.

Wasn't it uncommon for two vehicles to have the same designation, as in the M3 Stuart and the M3 Lee/ Grant medium tank?

I think intimidation is a good psychological too and can be just as important.

 

Yes it is, at least in the US Army of WW II, so long as it remained within the accepted weight limits. "Light", "medium", and "heavy" tanks in the US Army were only weight classes and had nothing to do with armament, armor, or speed.

 

The curse of American nomenclature.
'An experimental M3 light armed with an M3 from an M3 Medium'... Etc.
I think it's intriguing how after a while it stops being confusing. Mostly.

 

I'm not talking about increasing weight. You can change the dimensions of it without increasing weight, and forget about the 50mm canon. As long as the 37mm was top of the line and as HV as possible for a 37mm design in those days then there's no need to change.

 

Yes, correct. But when you increase the size of any vehicle the weight will go up, so to do as you say you'd need to find a way to counter this added weight. This means removing weight from the vehicle. What could be removed to bring the weight back down? Armor is the only realistic parameter -- so you'd end up with a poorly armored, larger vehicle (i.e. a bigger and less protected target).

My disclaimer for Von Poop, RichTO90 and the others who actually know what they're talking about: Just my 2 cents. I'm not claiming to be an expert on this.

 

American nomenclature for that is "Winnebago."

 

You mean the EM-50 Urban Assault Vehicle?

 

Eggzackly! Early testing shows the prototype 100% effective in keeping rain out, but extremely problematic with shrapnel and bullets.

 

Best evidence is they picked the term up from a Texan.