Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks (1 Viewer)

[Civettone]

Cool pic, Tomo !


Kris

 

[stug3]

Major G J "Lemmie" le Mesurier, Officer Commanding No. 1 Squadron SAAF, standing by his Hawker Hurricane Mark IIB, BG971 'AX-V', at LG 92, Egypt. On 3 July 1942 le Mesurier, flying BG971, led eleven Hurricanes to intercept a dive-bombing raid in the El Alamein area. While the aircraft of No. 274 Squadron RAF provided top cover the South African Hurricanes attacked a large formation of Junkers Ju 87Bs and succeeded in shooting down thirteen in what was to become known as the Alamein "Stuka Party". The following day, le Mesurier was himself shot down and wounded. He did not return to the Squadron until the following September.

A Humber Mk II armoured car of the 12th Royal Lancers on patrol south of El Alamein, July 1942.

4.5-inch field gun firing at night against enemy armoured concentrations at El Alamein, July 1942.

Soldiers search the body of an Italian infantryman for identification, 11 July 1942

 

[stug3]

Grant and Lee tanks of 'C' Squadron, 4th (Queen's Own) Hussars, 2nd Armoured Brigade, El Alamein, Egypt, July 1942.

The command post of 83rd and 85th Batteries, 11th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery at El Alamein, July 1942.

A 25-pdr field gun of 11th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, in action during the First Battle of El Alamein

 

[fastmongrel]

Just a thought that occured looking at stug3s photo of a Lee and a Grant, did they ever operate without the turret as a form of self propelled gun.

 

[parsifal]

The M3 chassis was used as the basis for some of the earlier M7 Priest SPGs. Most m7s hoiwever used the m4 sherman chassis

 

[stug3]

Rommel with Italian troops in the desert. The Semovente 75/18 SPG was probably the best AFV fielded by the Italians during the war.

The port facilities Tobruk had been bombed relentlessly, alternately by the British and the Germans.

 

[Shortround6]

Are you talking about just pulling the turret from an M3 and trying to use what was left as either a tank destroyer or SP artillery piece?

Pulling the turret lowers the silhouette but also lowers the height of commander for observation purposes.

The sponson mounted gun is not a very good set up for an artillery piece.

Basically the same gun ( same ammo anyway) when mounted on a half track had 40 degrees of traverse instead of 30 degrees and 29 degrees elevation instead of 20 degrees for more range. Even if pulling the turret allows for more ammo storage and working space for an extra crewman ( fuse setter/fitter/ loader) the M3 tank chassis is an expensive and limited chassis for a 75mm artillery piece.

 

[parsifal]

Rommel with Italian troops in the desert. The Semovente 75/18 SPG was probably the best AFV fielded by the Italians during the war

There were probably better tanks designed and built (albeit in miniscule numbers), but the Semovente armed with the 75/18 gun was probably the best combination suited to Italian limited Industrial capacity at the time. Its a prime example of getting the most out of "off the shelf" technologies, by marrying existing technologies (the M13 chassis to the 75/18 gun) to achieve a really effective synergy of the two pieces of hardware.

The Germans would have done well to look more closely at the 75/18 concept in their own AFV development, rather than design grandiose behemoths like the Tiger. A totally effective design, but almost totally completely imparactical due to its crushing development and unit costs.

 

[stug3]

The Germans would have done well to look more closely at the 75/18 concept in their own AFV development

I think they nailed it pretty well with the Stug III IV. If you mean they would have been better off using the resources that went into producing Tigers, Elefants and other similar monstrosities on cranking out more Stugs, I would agree with you.

 

[parsifal]

yes, that is what mean....the panther was also a good design for the germans, if a little over complex and some would argue 9me included) still a little expensive, though not as flamboyant as the tiger.

Its ironic that the Stug remainined under the control of the artillery branch of the heer (rather then the Panzer Truppen) for most of the war. im not sure how much that retarded the usage of the type as an AT platform, but it cant have helped.

 

[fastmongrel]

Are you talking about just pulling the turret from an M3 and trying to use what was left as either a tank destroyer or SP artillery piece?

Yes as an SP Artillery piece. I know there were considerably better vehicles but I was just wondering if in a pinch someone removed the turret to make an SP gun when nothing else was available. I have had a look inside a Grant at a museum and there isnt a lot of room for the crew of the 75mm because of the turret and its associated equipment. The Royal Artillery used the Bishop and that was a lash up that probably wasnt much better.

 

[Shortround6]

Well, for the US they already had the Half-track mounted version. Wider covered arc without moving the vehicle, greater elevation for greater range, more working space. Granted most of these weapons were planned for the tank destroyer command but The US had ordered 500 T30s ( half tracks with 75mm howitzers) and 324 T19s ( half tracks with 105mm howitzers) which filled the gap until the M7s showed up.

The lash up Bishop shows some of the penalties with "quicky" conversions. Limited rate of fire, limited ammo capacity limited traverse ( and no "platform" to allow an easy swing.) and limited elevation that cut max range by around 1/3.

 

[stug3]

Quad artillery tractor and 25-pdr field gun of 9th Australian Division, July 1942.

German 621st Radio Intercept Company unit

 

[stug3]

Italian M13/40 knocked out by anti-tank guns near El Alamein, July 1942

Crusader Mk II

Humber Mk II armoured car in the Western Desert, 1942

 

[redcoat]

Yes as an SP Artillery piece. I know there were considerably better vehicles but I was just wondering if in a pinch someone removed the turret to make an SP gun when nothing else was available. I have had a look inside a Grant at a museum and there isnt a lot of room for the crew of the 75mm because of the turret and its associated equipment. The Royal Artillery used the Bishop and that was a lash up that probably wasnt much better.

The M7 Priest, which was basically what you are suggesting, fought at the Second Battle of El Alamein.
The field conversion of any Grant tanks earlier than this would have been counter productive as until the Sherman arrived (also at the Second Battle Of El Alamein) the Grant was the best tank the British had, and they had nowhere near enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M7_Priest

 

[stug3]

A soldier inspects a dug-in German 88mm anti-tank gun abandoned during the enemy retreat in the Western Desert, July 1942.

An Australian soldier with a captured German MG 34 machine gun, July 1942.

Infantry manning a sandbagged defensive position near El Alamein, July 1942.

A 4.5-inch field gun of 64th Medium Regiment, Royal Artillery, in action in the Western Desert, 28 July 1942

4.5-inch field gun in action south of El Alamein, July 1942

 

[stug3]

Tank transporters carrying re-conditioned Crusader tanks back to the front line, 23 July 1942

A German 88mm anti-tank gun captured and destroyed by New Zealand troops near El Alamein, 17 July 1942.

Vickers machine gun team near El Alamein, July 1942.

A 25-pdr field gun of 11th Field Regiment, Royal Artillery, in action during the First Battle of El Alamein, July 1942.

 

[stug3]

Famous picture of Special Air Service commander Colonel David Stirling and an SAS jeep patrol, 18 January 1943

 

[Civettone]

Famous picture of Special Air Service commander Colonel David Stirling and an SAS jeep patrol, 18 January 1943

One of the most iconic pictures of WW2. Absolutely lovely !!


Kris

 

[stug3]

A Grant tank loaded onto a Diamond T transporter, August 1942.

A Jeep being tested on sharp gradients in the Western Desert, 1942.