Talk:M3 Stuart

Never given an official name?

Wasn't its official name Light Tank M3? Oberiko 14:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Probably, I meant to distinguish that the USA never officially called it StuartGraemeLeggett 15:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given that, why is the page titled "Stuart tank"...? Trekphiler 15:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is wikipedia policy to name the article after the best-known or most popular name, and 'Stuart' is a lot better-known than "M3" or "M5"....plus 'Stuart' covers the whole series nicely. DMorpheus 19:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Stuart was the official name of the M3 and M5 light tanks supplied to Britain and the Commonwealth during the war. 143.167.167.170 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Stuart was the name the British gave M3/M5 light tanks in their service. Since they're U.S. vehicles, this doesn't make it an official name. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, what I meant was that the name Stuart was the official British name of the Light Tank M3 and the M5 supplied under the various Lend-lease acts. Loates Jr (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[]

Fair use rationale for Image:TankGirlsTank.jpg

Image:TankGirlsTank.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsatisfactory Light Tank?

I feel that this entry knocks the Stuart too much and strayed from neutrality. M3/M5 series were LIGHT tanks, and as such will always be inferior when compared to mediums and heavies which quite literally outclassed them (what do you expect?). M3/M5 is a SCOUT tank and it was, IMHO, a superb fighter in the recon battle. -Chin Cheng-chuan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.225.71.187 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Stuarts were not the best but the reality is they WORKED during the war. Crews did everything from hunt enemy tanks and raise a ruckus with enemy infantry and supplies to charge positions other tanks stayed away from because they could not get there fast and safe. A better tank was needed; but the M3 and M5 lights were not USELESS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.175.139 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

What happened to these 25,000 tanks

The article at present concentrates on the military history of the Stuart Tank. What happened to them after WW2? Some obviously were recycled into other armies. Did they all end up as scrap metal? I know at least one that was put to productive use in agriculture. Is there anyone else with examples of post war life of the Stuart? Gamagr (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Stuart Tank at use in Australia hauling two ploughs

There's a guy in Virginia who keeps one parked in his driveway. Surplus WWII hardware was plentiful and cheap when the Army unloaded it, but most of it was bought for scrap. Solicitr (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Remains in use in Brazil

This weak tank remains in use today, by Brazilian Army today, with a new diesel engine.Agre22 (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)agre22

Going under

"underpowered, undercrewed, and possessed "? Undercrewed? First off, I doubt "undercrewed" is even a word, not to mention it's very PC. Second, it implies Soviet tanks didn't have enough manpower, which I seriously doubt. Third, it's unclear, per point 2. I deleted, hoping somebody can clarify what it was meant to say, which I presume has something to do with design & number of crewmen (2-3 man tanks, as opposed to 4-man, & 1-2 man turret, as opposed to 3), which has nothing to do with "undermanning", a quite separate issue (namely, a 4 man tank going out with only 3, for lack of manpower).

In addition, "However, the heavier M4 mediums were eventually brought to overcome heavily entrenched positions, though until the end of the war, supplemented the Stuarts along with" is not a complete thought, & I have no idea what was intended... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 13:42 & 13:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo Improvement

The banner color photograph of this vehicle is a fine study but please crop out the eye catching person wearing red in the lower right of the image !Resolution Man (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, July 17, 2010 and still no edit of the "red" person to the far right ! That person is an "eye catcher" and spoils the image 'cause once you see that red, you will always see the red and thus is very distracting !Resolution Man (talk) 16.50 July 17, 2010

Now we are up to October 17, 2010 and STILL no cropping out of the RED figure to the far right in the header photo ! How can this be done and by whom ???Resolution Man (talk)October 17, 2010

This is wikipedia. You do it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SO much for the crop...this is RESOLUTION MAN...back to you DMorpheus...and if I knew how to crop, I would have done it by now...again : THANX !Resolution Man (talk) 11.46, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Poorly qualified statement

"However, the M3 was superior to early-war Soviet light tanks such as the T-60, which were often underpowered and possessed even lighter armament than the Stuart." In the section on operational history gives the impression that the M3 was the best tank the Soviets had when invaded by Germany despite the fact that their T-34 and KV-1 were the heaviest and most powerful tanks in the world at the time. This statement should be properly qualified and explained.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

America's "Pacific War" & Russia's "Great Patriotic War"

Both of those two above titles are describing the same war; WWII. The former Soviet Union (Russia) might have always called WWII their "Great Patriotic War" (against Germany...they had a non-aggression agreement with Japan); but the US it seems has only recently (in the past few years or 10) began to call the Pacific Theater of Operations the "Pacific War."

This might come back to haunt us in the end, for as the years roll by, people will soon begin to forget the men that died in the China-Burma-India theater of operations (that old "Merrill's Marauders" film starring Jeff Chandler), because you see...the Pacific War was a naval war...and that would leave the men that perished in the CBI theater (which was a land war) out of the history books (and left out of WWII).

Realizing that trends begin with each new generation, e.g. "Pacific War"..."Great Patriotic War"..."Gulf War"...etc. It's IMPORTANT to keep in mind that by changing "something" abit too much, "sometimes" changes "Historical Accuracy" into inaccurate history. In the US Army, GIs used to have an old saying, "If it ain't broke, DON'T FIX IT!" During WWII the US Military War Machine had a system: Pacific Theater of Operations (PTO), European Theater of Operations (ETO), China-Burma-India Theater of Operations (CBI), etc. That system accurately described the battle areas (combat zones). No one was left out, every man was accounted for. Now the new generation wants to change that; that World War II system worked then, it works now, don't try to fix it...it'll just mess things up (it'll begin to confuse the next generation of young people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.32.38 (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually: ETO = European Theatre of Operations; MTO = Mediterranean Theatre of Operations; CBI = China-Burma-India; POA = Pacific Operational Area

Loates Jr (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually POA = Pacific Ocean Areas DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Britain Tops America In Firsts?

Notice that an editor moved the British Army to first again: The British were the first to use the American M4 Sherman tank in combat; the British were the first to use the M3 Stuart light tank in combat. Now, for the third first, an editor has moved the M3 Stuart to "the Stuart was used by the British during Lend-Lease..." in the first portion of the article. The American's first tank vs tank battle of WWII has been relegated to 3rd place.

The M3 Stuart was and American tank. It was designed and built in the US. It was given to the British (under lend lease) to help them out during the war. The British already have their Firsts with the Sherman and Stuart tanks by being the first to use them in WWII (first use in combat). The way the article was first written, the Americans had their first tank engagement in this tank! It's an American Tank, with Americans fighting in it for the first time, the American Stuart light tank at least deserves top billing as the article was first written (instead of 3rd place under the British!).

After all, whats more important; the Stuart was as a lend lease vehicle, or it fought America's First tank battle! America's first tank fight should be written where it was in the beginning...at the start of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.21.110 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an American encyclopedia or a list of "American firsts". The M3 was first used in action by Brits. That makes M3's first combat action a Brit action. First American use, therefore, is much less significant. Get over it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The US Stuart, Grant/Lee, and Sherman tanks were all first used in action by the British Army in North Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

M3 Stuart's combat record or Lend Lease

The article is about the M3 Stuart light tank, and it's history, which includes it's combat record. Neary all US tanks; to include the M2 light tanks, M3 Lee tanks, and the famous M4 Sherman medium tanks were lend-leased to the allies in WWII. Lend Lease is not particular to the M3 Stuart. Lend lease should be mentioned, as it is in the article, but it certainly is not unique to the Stuart. It's first combat action against enemy tanks during WWII is distinctive to the tank. No other US tank can claim that title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.142.245 (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an American encyclopedia or a list of "American firsts". The M3 was first used in action by Brits. That makes M3's first combat action a Brit action. First American use, therefore, is much less significant. Get over it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

M3A1 Stuart at Osereika Beach landing During early February, 1943 http://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/m3a1_osereika.phpMan74 (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies Concerning NPOV & Vandalism

For this Veteran's Day, I decided to again explore the field of military history, and while not particularly interested in the M3 Stuart, nor WWII for that matter, as I'm past that stage, I was drawn to two nearly exact responses from an apparently same Wikipedia editor. Although the editor answered the "discussion topic" both times, they both contradicted the "discussion topic." The editor rightly replied that the Wikipedia Encyclopedia "isn't an American encyclopedia..." then in the same line implies it's a British one! With his reply "...first...by the Brits...", followed by another example, etc.

Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) clearly states that "Representing fairly, proportionately,and as far as possible without bias is the non-negotiable and expected policies from all articles and editors." While the editor in question may have bordered violating that policy, he probably crossed the line when he stated "...First American use...is much less significant." Downgrading Americans during their participation in WWII is cleary a biased statement. Although said editor has a right to his opinions, he should be more objective (neutral/unbiased) to the articles and discussion pages within the scope of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's Vandalism policy is any addition, removal, or change made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Given the precedent of the two aforementioned discussions, I proceeded to the history of the discussion talk page, and read the notes by the same editor; which was removed and stated, "...needless verbiage with no apparent objective..." with an added "Vandalism?"

Reading the topic that the editor removed, entitled "The Article is about the M3/M5 Stuart Tank", appeared to be more professionally written than any previous ones, and to some extent supplied some explanations. There is no need for me to place it back onto this page, readers can see it on the history back-pages; and it is addressing the same argument about the Stuart tank. The issue here was that that particular writing was not vandalism, the editor's NPOV caused him to escalate into committing vandalism when he labelled it vandalism (a defense measure) and then removed it without due cause. A far lessor violation would have been to respond to it (for a third time) with his same old line..."Get over it!"

Have a good & safe Veteran's Day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.160.36 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Since I removed the previous commentary with no suggestion of vandalism, & since this appears to be the same IP trying to make a point as the last 3 times, I reiterate: this is not an all-American project, so mention of "first American combat use" in itself does not merit mention. Moreover, talk pages are for comment on improving the page, not merely rambling (see not a forum), which the removed post seemed only to be. Calling that vandalism is both mistaken & unjustified, plus contrary to assuming good faith. Nor is repeatedly going over the same ground & ignoring the responses you do get, which you've been doing, going to endear you to anyone. Moreover, anyone who genuinely believes the previous removed content is, in fact, worth restoring is perfectly free to do so. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Greetings TREKphiler, The "suggestion of vandalism" was the editor's use of the word "(vandalism?)" in the history revision section for the talk page. Otherwise, you've made a rather sincere response, thank you. Have a safe and enjoyable Veteran's Day Holiday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.160.54 (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you look again. Those are 2 separate instances. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Identification of Photograph

The title above the photograph of a light tank in the introduction is, "Light Tank M3A3 (Stuart V)” while the caption below the photograph identifies it as an M5A1. This really should be resolved one way or the other. ☺ Dick Kimball (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a surprisingly difficult issue. There's not enough differentiation to have a separate M5 Stuart article. There aren't any good, large photographs on Commons of an M3. Renaming the article to M3/M5 Stuart or M-Series Light Tank would be ugly. Rewriting the caption to "An M3-derived M5A1 Stuart" would be confusing. The article can't really be moved to M5 Stuart. What the article needs is a good large photo of an M3. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M3 Stuart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160102202011/http://www.janes.com/article/56911/paraguay-keeping-m3-stuart-m4-sherman-tanks-in-service to http://www.janes.com/article/56911/paraguay-keeping-m3-stuart-m4-sherman-tanks-in-service

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Quote from after action report

I put the quote back into the article but put it as a footnote as a result of it being shortened for the article. I actually spent a bit of time going through .pdf files of ww2 after-action reports and this struck me as a piece of primary evidence at the time that would go well with the article. It took me a while to transcribe the quote into a text form. I think it's important but I'm happy to leave it as a footnote.

--One Salient Oversight (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to the inclusion of quotes, fn or no, unless they say something that cannot be said as well or better in summary, which is why I deleted most of it. I would from the fn, too; it's not uninteresting, but... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the quote is what historians would call a primary source. Thus I would say that it's more valuable than the citations of Zaloga and others who write about the Tank. Moreover, the quote appears not to have been noticed yet by historians. This article and Zaloga have said that the 37mm Gun was bad, but this is an actual quote from an actual commander of a light tank battalion. The link to the primary source is good, but to be honest the copy of the report that was turned into a pdf is problematic to read (there are a lot of deteriorated pages that are difficult to read). In short I would argue that the quote be in the footnotes because a) it is a good primary source, b) because the orginal source, while on the internet, is hard to read, and c) it would be of interest to military historians on the matter. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That it's a primary source falls afoul of WP opposition to citing from them (which troubles me less). That the quote itself adds nothing more material is what troubles me. If this was a document repository or a library, or something, I might agree with you. It's not. I'm not unsympathetic to your view. My own "clipping" of what seems germane, to support Zaloga et al., is what I meant about "material". The rest of the report is material to the unit involved, not to the M3 itself. If you can find (or create!) a page for that unit, I'll be the first to say that report should be quoted, for the reasons you've mentioned. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have been creating pages for various ww2 Tank Battalions so I might end up doing that in the future. I've seen quotes on other ww2 related pages that are similar in nature to the one which I had, but I'm not going to contest it because having the link to the quote is a victory. Having the quote in the article would've been better imo but I'm not going to start an edit war over this. Besides I've checked your profile and you seem pretty knowledgeable about editing ww2 related articles so I'll just have to assume good faith, which is fine. Thanks for the dialogue. --One Salient Oversight (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Choice of lead pic

I think we have enough photos of M3 Stuarts that its time to debate the best one for the lead pic. So I present the best various options I can find.

• 
  current image. Good lighting, hull machine gun present, back of tank cut off, tinwork missing
• 
  shows what the tank can do, decent lighting, hull machine gun present, tank facing out of the article
• 
  good profile but crew blocking parts of the tank
• 
  decent 3/4 view. Machine guns missing
• 
  decent 3/4 view. Machine guns missing
• 
  decent 3/4 view. Machine guns look aftermarket, fence in the way
• 
  decent 3/4 view needs recropping for centering and Machine guns missing
• 
  Meritorious, may have some aftermarket mods. Facing out of the article
• 
  decent 3/4 view rather a tight crop, machine gun missing
• 
  decent 3/4 view machine gun missing
• 
  decent 3/4 view not the cleanest background
• 
  near perfect profile of T37765 if we want profile. aerial present but cut off
• 
  decent 3/4 view of T37765 (best of the static in museum) aerial present but cut off
• 
  decent 3/4 view of T37765 lighting a bit harsh. aerial present but cut off

Any opinions?©Geni (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A contemporaneous one rather than a restored or museum one would be better. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

the only colour pics we have of the tanks in service are File:M3A1 Light Tank.jpg which suffers from size and much of the tank being hidden by mud and File:15mayo2002-M3-Stuart.jpg which is potato quality.©Geni (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)