M3 Stuart skin -1 reply

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#11 15 years ago
NagatoStuart Honey?

Yes, Brit tankers in North Africa called the M3 Stuarts Honeys supposedly because it was a real Honey of a tank.

Its gun was almost as good as a Brit 2lbr, topped out at close to 40mph and had decent armor for the day.




NoCoolOnesLeft

My Blood Is Olive Drab

50 XP

19th November 2003

0 Uploads

4,329 Posts

0 Threads

#12 15 years ago

The British cavalry hated the M3A1 Stuart when it was given to them for the recce role. It was known as the 'atrocity on tracks' because many British troops felt as though it was too poorly armed and underpowered, although it had a decent 37mm main gun it only had armour ranges from 15mm - 43mm. It was reliable, especially in Africa, but it had mixed views.

Personally, I love the tank, but I hate FH's current model and skins. I'd like to see it's quality totalled up to that of the Matilda II's.




BAM

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

3,415 Posts

0 Threads

#13 15 years ago

well the model/skin is Da Crappers who works for BG42 now and his skins/models wasnt that detailed for 1 year ago ... i think i read somewere that RAD was working on one or maybee it was the Crusader or Matilda I im not sure ..




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#14 15 years ago

IIRC it was Robert Crispin who wrote "Blazing Chariots" . Mr. Crispin was a tanker in North Africa who commanded a M3 Stuart. The tank was lightly armored but was very mechanically reliable and very fast, often up to 40mph. A Crusader I with govenors removed could hit 40mph but it already had enough problems with reliability when running at normal speeds.

from WWII vehicles.com...

"The British were reported to like this tank at the time of its introduction. It could go about 10-20 mph faster than their own or enemy tanks, and required less maintenance."

The Stuarts armor was comparable to the Crusader I.

Crusader I's upper front hull: 40mm M3 Stuarts upper front hull: 38mm

Crusader I side armor: 14mm side armor and 14mm side skirts for a total of 28mm M3 Stuart side armor: 25mm.

Crusader I front turret armor:49mm M3 Stuart front turret armor: 38mm

Crusader I turet side armor: 23mm M3 Stuart turret side armor: 25mm

Brit 2lbr penetration at 500m with APCBC: 57mm US 37mm L/56 penetration at 500m with APCBC: 61mm




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#15 15 years ago

I don't like the Stuart, too high a profil. You are better off with a Crusader III ;)




[BT]Brimstone

Livin in the past

50 XP

21st October 2004

0 Uploads

462 Posts

0 Threads

#16 15 years ago

personally i perfer the stuart, id take the stuart over anythin else




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#17 15 years ago

Hehe, waiting for you in my Elefant :D




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#18 15 years ago
Major HartmannI don't like the Stuart, too high a profil. You are better off with a Crusader III ;)

Actually the M3 Stuart and M3A1 Stuart are not that much taller than the Crusader.

I know there are pics of the M3 Stuarts in Brit markings that still have the cupola on top but the Brits very often removed this for the very reason mentioned, to reduce height.

Crusader I was 7'4" tall while M3 Stuart was 8"3" tall. M3A1 was 7'7" tall.

IIRC the 8'3" is with the cupola and the 7'7" height is the height without the cupola.

I agree Crusader III was a much better tank but by the time it was entering service the M3 Stuart light tank was being replaced by the M3 Grant/Lee medium tank.




Ohioan

Not Wise Shitashi - Cheston

50 XP

6th October 2003

0 Uploads

3,604 Posts

0 Threads

#19 15 years ago

Anlushac11Yes, Brit tankers in North Africa called the M3 Stuarts Honeys supposedly because it was a real Honey of a tank.

Its gun was almost as good as a Brit 2lbr, topped out at close to 40mph and had decent armor for the day.

I think the term Honey sprang from its mechanics. It was increidbly reliable and was very easy to work on and if need be, modify. The 37mm gun wasn't really as good on paper as the 2pdr 40mm in any sense... but hell, early axis tanks could be knocked out with 20mm, so the issue didn't show its face much.

I agree it needs a new skin. Isn't really a priority though, there are worse skins.. like the T-34 turret and the Crusader (which was recently fixed).




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#20 15 years ago

I will go so far as to agree the 2lbr was a better gun WHEN firing the HVAP ammo. The Brits liked the 37mm mostly because it could do some things the 2lbr coould not, namely fire HE and anti personnel cannister rounds. HE and cannister rounds were very effective against soft targets and A/T guns.