Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
stug3
Staff Sergeant
Nice one Glider
stug3
Staff Sergeant
Well, I dont think these Italians have to worry about a bayonet charge or frontal assault in this spot, huh? I bet they learned to watch where they sat pretty quick. Looks like a 20mm. Tunisia 1943
Shortround6
Major General
47mm AT/inf gun.
stug3
Staff Sergeant
That is a short barrel, I guess that thing didnt get much velocity.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
The Bohler 47/32 was an okay AT-gun ... for 1940 
I always liked the Crusader (Mk.III) tank. It just looks like a modern day tank! If it had better armour, I think it would have been perfect for El Alamein and up to Tunisia.
Kris
I always liked the Crusader (Mk.III) tank. It just looks like a modern day tank! If it had better armour, I think it would have been perfect for El Alamein and up to Tunisia.
Kris
stug3
Staff Sergeant
A CMP 3-ton truck carrying infantry passes along a road as bombs from Stuka dive-bombers explode in the distance, 4 June 1942
vinnye
Senior Airman
I always liked the Crusader - a pretty little tank, but the problem with the Mk III was the 3 man crew. The commander had to be loader and radio man!
Last edited:
stug3
Staff Sergeant
Knocked out Valentines, 1942
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Nice picture but I think they are Valentines.
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
Soooo....no further thoughts on the M8A1 or the M8 HMC? I'm not strategy minded, so would they be viable on the front lines for the British prior to more 57mm guns and 75mm guns arriving?
Shortround6
Major General
Lousy set up for front line use. Only machine gun was the .50 cal on top. while there were hatches in front plate they were for vision, drivers actually entered and exited through the turret. Ammo was in rather short supply, in use as SP guns they frequantly towed a limber (trailer) behind the vehicle with more ammo. And that is for the howitzer, not the 75mm tank gun.
And finally the armor is none too thick. Upper hull front and sides have about 28mm of armor and turret front 38mm? You are in trouble against a MK III with a short 50mm gun.
And finally the armor is none too thick. Upper hull front and sides have about 28mm of armor and turret front 38mm? You are in trouble against a MK III with a short 50mm gun.
Glider
Captain
A number of the K tanks did carry a 3in Howitzer instead of the 2 pd so I don't see what the M8 would have added
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
I was always led to believe that the 3in Howitzer was primarily used for smoke shells.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Your possibly thinking of the 3.7 inch breechloading mortar that equipped some pre war tanks, I think this only came with smoke rounds. The 3 inch was designed to fire HE rounds and smoke though it wasnt exactly a stellar performer.
British tank ammo the 3 inch is the 76x134R round.
British tank ammo the 3 inch is the 76x134R round.
Last edited:
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
A NZ Valentine firing its 3 inch
Last edited:
stug3
Staff Sergeant
A Grant tank crew loading up with ammunition from a truck, June 1942
Stuart tanks in the Western Desert, 1942
Stuart tanks in the Western Desert, 1942
Shortround6
Major General
The US 3 in Howitzer did not use the same ammo as the British 3 in tank "howitzer".
The American cartridge case was about twice as long.
The British 3in was a dual purpose (smoke/HE) gun, but it's muzzle velocity was 600-700fps. This was about what what the US howitzer ( a true howitzer, in that it's ammo was separate loading with zone charges) could do with it's lowest charge. Using it's highest charge the US howitzer was close in performance to the short 75mm gun used on early German MK IV tanks which by 1942 standards was out of date.
MacArther
Staff Sergeant
I will still argue that at least getting more 3 inch howitzer tanks or M8 and M8A1's would have been a good interim solution for North Africa. Using them into Tunisia or even Sicily/Italy? Probably not such a sound idea.
As to what the M8A1 might add...well it can theoretically engage tanks and soft targets at much longer ranges than the 40mm guns can, and it definitely has a better HE round (although that isn't saying much). Also, I would think (but not sure) that the M3/M5 Stuart's reliability and ease of maintenance would carry over to the M8 and M8A1. Also, just from what I've seen/remember the two Stuart models are pretty small and nimble, and while the bustle/turret on the HMC looks unwieldy, I do think that it is a much smaller target than a Grant/Lee, definitely smaller than a Sherman, and I'm not sure how it compares to a Valentine or Cruiser tank with a 3 inch howitzer.
Also, thanks for the correction on the rounds used by the 3 inch howitzer VS the 3.7 inch breech mortar.
As to what the M8A1 might add...well it can theoretically engage tanks and soft targets at much longer ranges than the 40mm guns can, and it definitely has a better HE round (although that isn't saying much). Also, I would think (but not sure) that the M3/M5 Stuart's reliability and ease of maintenance would carry over to the M8 and M8A1. Also, just from what I've seen/remember the two Stuart models are pretty small and nimble, and while the bustle/turret on the HMC looks unwieldy, I do think that it is a much smaller target than a Grant/Lee, definitely smaller than a Sherman, and I'm not sure how it compares to a Valentine or Cruiser tank with a 3 inch howitzer.
Also, thanks for the correction on the rounds used by the 3 inch howitzer VS the 3.7 inch breech mortar.
Last edited:
Your possibly thinking of the 3.7 inch breechloading mortar that equipped some pre war tanks, I think this only came with smoke rounds. The 3 inch was designed to fire HE rounds and smoke though it wasnt exactly a stellar performer.
Although a little off subject, looking at the ratio of case volume (powder) to projectile size, it is easy to see why the 57mm round was better than the 75x350R (used by Sherman Tanks) for armor penetration, even when the 57mm used solid shot.
For Americans in particular, another interesting comparison is the standard Sherman's "75" (75x350R) and the 17 pounder (76x583R) that the British used to upgun some of their Shermans into "Sherman Firefly" tanks for the invasion of Normandy. Guess which one did better against Tiger and Panther tanks?
Relatively few Americans know that the Sherman Fireflys even existed, much less that the US had ignored the British insistence that they would be needed.
-To be fair, the 75mm did have more effective HE performance for infantry support.
