History Podcasts

T65 40mm Gun Motor Carriage

T65 40mm Gun Motor Carriage


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

T65 40mm Gun Motor Carriage

The T65 40mm Gun Motor Carriage was an attempt to mount a 40mm Bofors gun on a modified M5 Light Tank chassis. The design was a success, but the M5 was going out of production and so work moved onto a version based on the M24 Chaffee light tank that entered service as the M19 Gun Motor Carriage.

In May 1941 the US Army began work on the T16 4.5in Gun Motor Carriage. Cadillac did much of the design work and they produced a chassis that was based on their M5 Light Tank, but lengthened and given a third two-wheeled suspension bogie. This increased the amount of space within the vehicle and made it easier to mount big guns (attempts to produce self-propelled guns on the basic M3 or M5 chassis had failed because it was too small).

The modified M5A1 chassis became the basis for a family of self-propelled gun designs, sometimes called the Light Combat Team. The T65 was produced for Anti-Aircraft Command and carried a twin 40mm Bofors gun mount on a circular platform mounted at the back of the tank. The prototype underwent successful trials, and in February 1943 Anti-Aircraft Command asked for 1,000 T65 40mm Gun Motor Carriages. Army Ground Forces objected to this order as the M5 was expected to go out of production soon. At this stage both the T7 Light Tank and T21 Light Tank programmes were in trouble and would soon be cancelled, but in April 1943 work began on the T24 Light Tank. This would later enter service as the M24 Chaffee, and was also designed to be the basis of other armoured vehicles (the Common Chassis Concept).

On 23 May 1943 the army approved the development of a version of the T65 using the new T24 chassis. The pilot was given the designation T65E1 and was completed early in 1944, and the vehicle was ordered into production in August 1944 as the M19 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage.


M19 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage

The M19 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (MGMC) was a World War II United States Army self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon on the M24 light tank chassis. It was equipped with two Bofors 40 mm (1.6 in) mm guns. It was produced by Cadillac near the end of 1944.

The M19 was developed from the T65 which was based on the M5 light tank chassis. The original design was improved upon and designated the T65E1. It was accepted into service in May 1944 as the M19 MGMC, equipping several U.S. Army anti-aircraft units during World War II. The M19A1 was an improved variant with an auxiliary engine and spare barrels for the 40 mm Bofors guns.

During World War II, the M19 and M19A1 saw action in the European Theater of Operations as an assault gun, since the Allies had air supremacy over the skies of Europe. The M19 and M19A1 were also used during the Korean War in the same role.


Contents

Observing events in Europe and Asia during World War II, American tank designers realized that the Light Tank M2 was becoming obsolete and set about improving it. The upgraded design, with thicker armor, modified suspension and new gun recoil system was called "Light Tank M3". Production of the vehicle started in March 1941 and continued until October 1943. Like its direct predecessor, the M2A4, the M3 was initially armed with a 37 mm M5 gun and five .30-06 Browning M1919A4 machine guns: coaxial with the gun, on top of the turret in an M20 anti-aircraft mount, in a ball mount in right bow, and in the right and left hull sponsons. Later, the gun was replaced with the slightly longer M6, and the sponson machine guns were removed. For a light tank, the Stuart was fairly heavily armored. It had 38 mm of armor on the upper front hull, 44 mm on the lower front hull, 51 mm on the gun mantlet, 38 mm on the turret sides, 25 mm on the hull sides, and 25 mm on the hull rear. [5]

The M3 and M3A1 variants were powered by an air-cooled radial engine, either a gasoline-fueled 7-cylinder Continental W-670 (8,936 built) or a 9-cylinder Guiberson T-1020 diesel (1,496 built). [6] Both of these powerplants were originally developed as aircraft engines. Internally, the radial engine was at the rear and the transmission at the front of the tank's hull. The propeller shaft connecting the engine and transmission ran through the middle of the fighting compartment. The radial engine's crankshaft was positioned high off the hull bottom and contributed to the tank's relatively tall profile. [7] When a revolving turret floor was introduced in the M3 hybrid and M3A1, the crew had less room. A further 3,427 M3A3 variants were built with modified hull (similar to the M5), new turret and the Continental W-670 gasoline engine. [8] In contrast to the M2A4, all M3/M5 series tanks had a trailing rear idler wheel for increased ground contact.

M5 Stuart Edit

To relieve wartime demand for the radial aero-engines used in the M3, a new version was developed using twin Cadillac V8 automobile engines and twin Hydra-Matic transmissions operating through a transfer case. This version of the tank was quieter, cooler and roomier the automatic transmission also simplified crew training. The new model (initially called M4 but redesignated M5 to avoid confusion with the M4 Sherman [9] ) featured a redesigned hull with a raised rear deck over the engine compartment, sloped glacis plate and driver's hatches moved to the top. Although the main criticism from units using the Stuarts was that it lacked firepower, the improved M5 series kept the same 37 mm gun. The M5 gradually replaced the M3 in production from 1942 and, after the M7 project proved unsatisfactory, was succeeded by the Light Tank M24 in 1944. Total M5 and M5A1 tank production was 8,885 an additional 1,778 M8 75 mm howitzer motor carriages based on the M5 chassis with an open-top turret were produced.

Major Loyal Fairall in After action report, 759th Light Tank Battalion, July 44 thru March 45 [10]

War in North Africa and Europe Edit

British and other Commonwealth armies were the first to use the Light Tank M3, as the "Stuart", in combat. [11] From mid-November 1941 to the end of the year, about 170 Stuarts (in a total force of over 700 tanks) took part in Operation Crusader during the North Africa Campaign, with poor results. This is despite the fact that the M3 was superior or comparable in most regards [ citation needed ] to most of the tanks used by the Axis forces. The most numerous German tank, the Panzer III Ausf G, had nearly identical armor and speed to the M3, [note 1] and both tanks' guns could penetrate the other tank's front armor from beyond 1,000 m (3,300 ft). [12] The most numerous Italian tank (and second most numerous Axis tank overall), the Fiat M13/40, was much slower than the Stuart, had slightly weaker armor all around, and could not penetrate the Stuart's front hull or turret armor at 1,000 meters, whereas the Stuart's gun could penetrate any spot on the M13/40. Although the high losses suffered by Stuart-equipped units during the operation had more to do with the better tactics and training of the Afrika Korps than the apparent superiority of German armored fighting vehicles used in the North African campaign, [13] the operation revealed that the M3 had several technical faults. Mentioned in the British complaints were the 37 mm M5 gun and poor internal layout. The two-man turret crew was a significant weakness, and some British units tried to fight with three-man turret crews. The Stuart also had a limited range, which was a severe problem in the highly mobile desert warfare as units often outpaced their supplies and were stranded when they ran out of fuel. On the positive side, crews liked its relatively high speed and mechanical reliability, especially compared to the Crusader tank, [14] [15] which comprised a large portion of the British tank force in Africa up until 1942. The Crusader had similar armament and armor to the Stuart while being slower, less reliable, and several tons heavier. The Stuart also had the advantage of a gun that could deliver high-explosive shells HE shells were not available for the 40 mm QF 2-pdr gun mounted by most Crusaders, severely limiting their use against emplaced anti-tank guns or infantry. [16] [note 2] The main drawback of the Stuart was its low fuel capacity and range its operational range was only 75 mi (121 km) cross country, [5] roughly half that of the Crusader.

In the summer of 1942, the British usually kept Stuarts out of tank-to-tank combat, using them primarily for reconnaissance. The turret was removed from some examples to save weight and improve speed and range. These became known as "Stuart Recce". Some others were converted to armored personnel carriers known as the "Stuart Kangaroo", and some were converted into command vehicles and known as "Stuart Command". M3s, M3A3s, and M5s continued in British service until the end of the war, but British units had a smaller proportion of these light tanks than U.S. units. [ citation needed ]

Eastern Front Edit

The other major Lend-Lease recipient of the M3, the Soviet Union, was less happy with the tank, considering it under-gunned, under-armored, likely to catch fire, and too sensitive to fuel quality. The M3's radial aircraft engine required high-octane fuel, which complicated Soviet logistics as most of their tanks used diesel or low-octane fuel. High fuel consumption led to a poor range characteristic, especially sensitive for use as a reconnaissance vehicle. Also, compared to Soviet tanks, the M3's narrower tracks resulted in a higher ground pressure, getting them more easily stuck in the Rasputitsa muddy conditions of spring and autumn and winter snow conditions on the Eastern Front. In 1943, the Red Army tried out the M5 and decided that the upgraded design was not much better than the M3. Being less desperate than in 1941, the Soviets turned down an American offer to supply the M5. M3s continued in Red Army service at least until 1944. [ citation needed ]

Italy Edit

One of the more successful uses of the M5 in combat came during the Battle of Anzio when breaking through German forces surrounding the beachhead. The tactics called for an initial breakthrough by a medium tank company to destroy the heavier defenses, followed by an infantry battalion who would attack the German troops who were being left behind the medium tanks. Since many hidden fortifications and positions would have survived the initial medium tank assault, the infantry would then be confronted by any remaining fortified German troops. Behind the infantry came the M5s of a light tank company, who would attack these positions when directed to by the Infantry, usually by the use of green Smoke grenade. [17]


Contents

British combat experience in the North African campaign identified several shortcomings of the M3 Stuart light tank, especially the performance of its 37 mm cannon. A 75 mm gun was experimentally fitted to a Howitzer Motor Carriage M8 – an M3 tank with a larger turret – and trials indicated that a 75 mm gun on the M5 light tank development of the M3 was possible. The M3/M5 design was dated though, and the 75 mm gun reduced storage space. [1]

The T7 light tank design, which was initially seen as a replacement, grew in weight to more than 25 short tons taking it out of the light tank classification, and so was designated as the Medium Tank M7. The weight increase without increased power gave it unsatisfactory performance the program was stopped in March 1943 to allow standardization on a single medium tank – the M4 medium. [2] [1] This prompted the Ordnance Committee to issue a specification for a new light tank, with the same powertrain as the M5A1 but armed with a 75 mm gun. [3]

In April 1943, the Ordnance Corps, together with Cadillac (who manufactured the M5), started work on the new project, designated Light Tank T24. The powerplant and transmission of the M5 were used together with some aspects of the T7. [1] Efforts were made to keep the weight of the vehicle under 20 tons. The armor was extremely light and was sloped to maximize effectiveness. The turret was 25 mm thick with a 38 mm thick gun mantlet. The glacis plate was 25 mm thick. Side hull armor thickness varied: the frontal section was 25 mm thick but the rear third of the armor (which covered the engine compartment) was only 19 mm. [4]

A new lightweight 75 mm gun was developed, a derivative of the gun used in the B-25H Mitchell bomber. The gun had the same ballistics as the 75 mm M3 in use by American tanks but used a thinly walled barrel and different recoil mechanism. The design featured 16 in (41 cm) tracks and torsion bar suspension, similar to the slightly earlier M18 Hellcat tank destroyer, which itself started in production in July 1943. The torsion bar system was to give a smoother ride than the vertical volute suspension used on most US armored vehicles. At the same time, the chassis was expected to be a standard used for other vehicles, such as self-propelled guns, and specialist vehicles known together as the "Light Combat Team". [1] It had a relatively low silhouette and a three-man turret. [ citation needed ]

On October 15, 1943, the first pilot vehicle was delivered. The design was judged a success and a contract for 1,000 was immediately raised by the Ordnance Department. This was subsequently increased to 5,000. [1] Production began in 1944 under the designation Light Tank M24. It was produced at two sites from April at Cadillac and from July at Massey-Harris. By the time production was stopped in August 1945, 4,731 M24s had been produced. [5]

The M24 Chaffee was intended to replace the ageing and obsolete Light Tank M5 (Stuart), which was used in supplementary roles. The first thirty-four M24s reached Europe in November 1944 and were issued to the U.S. 2nd Cavalry Group (Mechanized) in France. These were then issued to Troop F, 2nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron [6] [7] and Troop F, 42nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron, [8] which each received seventeen M24s. During the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, these units and their new tanks were rushed to the southern sector two of the M24s were detached to serve with the 740th Tank Battalion of the U.S. First Army. [9]

The M24 started to enter widespread use in December 1944, but they were slow in reaching the front-line combat units. By the end of the war, the light tank companies of many armored divisions were still mainly equipped with the M3/M5 Stuart. Some armored divisions did not receive their first M24s until the war was over. [10] Aside from the US Army, the British Army was another main user of the Chaffee during the war, with at least several hundred obtained through the US Lend-Lease program. These saw action mainly in northwestern Europe and the North German Plain where British forces saw action against German troops.

Reports from the armored divisions that received them prior to the end of hostilities were generally positive. Crews liked the improved off-road performance and reliability, but were most appreciative of the 75 mm main gun, which was a vast improvement over the 37 mm. The M24 was inferior to German tanks, but the bigger gun at least gave its crews a much better chance to fight back when it was required, especially in infantry support. The M24's light armor made it vulnerable to virtually all German tanks, anti-tank guns, and hand-held anti-tank weapons. The contribution of the M24 to winning the war in Europe was insignificant, as too few arrived too late to replace the worn-out M5s of the armored divisions. [5] At the end of WWII, the US Army displayed its Chaffees alongside British Comet tanks and then-latest Soviet tanks, the Iosif Stalin 3 (IS-3) heavy tank, in the Berlin Victory Parade in 1945. When the US began its occupation of Japan that same year, it deployed a large number of light Chaffees instead of bigger Shermans and heavier Pershings due to the narrower roads and smaller weightloads of bridges in the country.

During the opening stages of the Korean War, M24s were the initial U.S. tanks directed to combat heavier and larger North Korean T-34-85s supplied by the Soviets. The occupation troops in Japan from which the Chaffee tanks were drawn were inexperienced and under-equipped due to rapid demobilization after World War II. One other reason for sending Chaffees to Korea initially was also partly because US officers did not regard Korea as a country where large-scale tank warfare could occur (much of the Korean peninsula is largely mountainous and hilly) and therefore sent lighter armored vehicles to combat the invading North Korean forces. The M24 fared poorly against the invading army's better-armed, better-armored and better-crewed medium tanks, losing most of their number while inflicting only minor damage on the T-34 tank units. Managing a fighting withdrawal, they ended up as infantry-support artillery in the Pusan Perimeter, and in August reinforcements from the US and the Commonwealth brought heavier tanks that were a match for the T-34s, not to mention superior infantry anti-tank armaments and overwhelming air support against North Korean armor. M24s were more successful later in the war in their reconnaissance role and supported by heavier and more capable tanks such as the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and M46 Patton, along with British Churchill, Comet and Centurion tanks. [11]

Like other successful World War II designs, the M24 was supplied to many armies around the globe and was used in local conflicts long after it had been replaced in the U.S. Army by the M41 Walker Bulldog. France employed its M24s in Indo-China in infantry support missions, with good results. They employed ten M24s in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. In December 1953, ten disassembled Chaffees were transported by air to provide fire support to the garrison. They fired about 15,000 shells in the long siege that followed before the Viet Minh forces finally overcame the camp in May 1954, almost all being entirely worn out and badly damaged by the time the battle was over. [12] France also deployed the M24 in Algeria, with some variants which fought there carrying an AMX-13 turret modified by France. Some former French and US Chaffees are known to have been passed down to the Army of South Vietnam, where they saw service at least until the Battle of Huế, with several serving as fixed gun emplacements outside vital military installations such as airbases. The last time the M24 is known to have been in action was in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, where 66 Pakistani Chaffees stationed in East Pakistan (today's Bangladesh) were lost to Indian Army T-55s, PT-76s, and anti-tank teams, being easy prey for the better-equipped invading Indian forces. Although both Iran and Iraq had M24s prior to the Iran–Iraq War, there is no report of their use in that conflict. South Korean Chaffees saw limited service during the Korean War, often performing hit-and-run raids on communist forces. [13] Cambodia, Laos, Japan and Taiwan were four other Asian nations to have operated Chaffees aside from South Vietnam, South Korea and Pakistan.

The Greek Army received 85 M24s from the U.S. from 1950 until 1970. The M24s initially were organized in two Tank Regiments numbered 392, 393. In later years the Tank Regiments were reorganized in Tank Battalions with the same numbers. From 1962 till the early seventies the M24s in Tank Battalions were replaced with M47s and the M24s were used to equip Independent Reconnaissance Companies with an additional 121 M24s received from Italy in 1975. From 1991 till 1995 61 M24s were scrapped due to CFE Treaty limitations. [14] The rest are abandoned in or outside military camps [15] and one M24 is preserved in the Greek Army Tank Museum. [16]

Chaffees appear in two war movies, The Bridge at Remagen and The Battle of the Bulge. In each case the Chaffees are being used to represent the heavier M4 Sherman. The tanks used in The Battle of the Bulge were borrowed from the Spanish Army. They also appear in the science-fiction movie The Day the Earth Stood Still. One can be seen shortly in Go for Broke! advancing with Japanese American infantrymen.


The T56 was the first design in the line towards the M18. It was based on the M3A3 Stuart tank. A 37mm gun in an open turret was tested, which was considered obsolete. A Royal Ordnance QF 6 Pounder (57mm) was tested as well in 1942.

The T67 was the 2nd design, it was armed with an unknown 75mm gun. The design was based on the T49 Medium tank chassis. One model was tested in November 1942 in Aberdeen.

76.2mm Gun Motor Carriage, T70

The T70 was the latest design. The 75mm was replaced with the 76.2mm M1. The engine was replaced by the Continental R-975-C1. Some problems persisted in the design the front shock absorber was too weak for the weight of the tank, and the tracks had a below-average track life. After some fixes and a few small changes in the armour layout, the M18 was born. 6 T70 GMCs were completed.


Bibliographie

: document utilisé comme source pour la rédaction de cet article.

  • (en) Peter Chamberlain et Chris Ellis , British and American Tanks of World War II , New York, NY, Arco Publishing Inc, 1969 , 222 p. (ISBN 0-668-01867-4) . .
  • (en) Terry Gander , The Bofors Gun , Barnsley, UK, Pen and Sword, 2013 , 256 p. (ISBN 978-1-78346-202-5 et 1-78346-202-7, lire en ligne) . .
  • (en) Mike Green , American Tanks & AFVs of World War II , Oxford, UK, Osprey Publishing, 2014 , 376 p. (ISBN 978-1-78200-931-3 et 1-78200-931-0) . .
  • (en) R. P. Hunnicutt , Stuart : A History of the American Light Tank , vol. 1, Navato, CA, Presidio Press, 1992 , 512 p. (ISBN 0-89141-462-2) . .
  • (en) Jeff Kinard , Artillery : An Illustrated History of Its Impact , Santa Barbara, CA, ABC-CLIO, 2007 , 536 p. (ISBN 978-1-85109-556-8 et 1-85109-556-X, lire en ligne) . .
  • (en) Steven J. Zaloga , M24 Chaffee Light Tank 1943–1985 , Oxford, UK, Osprey Publishing, 2003 , 48 p. (ISBN 1-84176-540-6) . .

M19 розроблялася на замовлення армії США на базі існуючого легкого танка. Військам була потрібна бойова машина на базі легкого танка M5 Stuart з двома 40-мм гарматами Bofors, яка могла б рухатися в колонах або бойових порядках одночасно з існуючою бронетехнікою різних типів, забезпечуючи їм протиповітряну оборону. Попередні дослідження показували, що обрані шасі і гармати здатні вирішувати поставлені завдання. Проєкт нової ЗСУ отримав позначення T65 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage.

Однак незабаром цей проєкт був скасований. У квітні 1943 року командування армії США прийняло рішення розпочати новий проєкт, який отримав умовну назву Light Combat Team. В рамках цієї програми планувалося створити ціле сімейство нової бронетехніки різного призначення на базі новітнього легкого танку M24 Chaffee. У зв'язку зі змінами планів було вирішено переробити кілька існуючих проєктів, у тому числі і T65. Новий варіант цієї ЗСУ отримав позначення T65E1.

Для задоволення вимог щодо розміщення двох 40-мм гармат шведського виробництва було створене змінене шасі танка «Чаффі» з необхідним компонуванням. Воно зберегло деякі загальні риси базової машини, але T65E1 отримало ряд помітних відмінностей.

T65E1 озброїли двома 40-мм автоматичними гарматами M2 фірми Bofors. Гармати оснащувалися гідравлічними і ручними механізмами наведення. Обертання всієї башти забезпечувало кругове наведення по горизонталі. Механізми вертикального наведення дозволяли вести вогонь з кутами піднесення від -3 ° до + 85 °. Максимальна швидкість горизонтального наведення досягала 40 °/секунду, вертикального — 25 °/сек. Для наведення зброї використовувалися приціли типів M13, M23 і M24, розташовані праворуч і ліворуч від блоку гармат.

На початку 1944 року був побудований перший прототип ЗСУ T65E1, який незабаром відправили на Абердинський полігон.

14 червня 1944 року нова бойова машина була прийнята на озброєння під позначенням M19 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage. Незабаром з'явився перший контракт з компанією Cadillac на серійне будівництво нової техніки в кількості 904 одиниць.

Загалом до кінця війни було побудовано тільки 285 самохідних зенітних установок, тобто менше третини від замовлення. Втім, з огляду на припинення боїв і відсутність необхідності в подальшому масового виробництва подібної техніки було вирішено відмовитися від нових поставок.

Проте, M19 все ж брали участь у боях в Європі, хоча і не в запланованій ролі. Вони нерідко використовувалися як додатковий засіб вогневої підтримки сухопутних військ. Характеристики гармат «Бофорс» дозволяли з певною ефективністю обстрілювати споруди, зміцнення, техніку і живу силу противника з великих відстаней і тим самим допомагати наступаючим підрозділам. У підсумку до кінця Другої світової в Європі основним завданням зенітних установок була атака наземних цілей.

Модифікована версія M19A1 MGMC взяла участь у Корейській війні. В цьому конфлікті, як і під час Другої світової, зенітним самохідним установкам часто доводилося грати роль польової артилерії.


Contents

Observing events in Europe, American tank designers realized that the Light Tank M2 was becoming obsolete and set about improving it. The upgraded design, with thicker armor, modified suspension and new gun recoil system was called "Light Tank M3". Production of the vehicle started in March 1941 and continued until October 1943. Like its direct predecessor, the M2A4, the M3 was armed with a 37 mm M5 gun and five .30-06 Browning M1919A4 machine guns: coaxial with the gun, on top of the turret in an M20 AA mount, in a ball mount in right bow, in the right and left hull sponsons.

To relieve the demand for the radial aero-engines used in the M3, a new version was developed using twin Cadillac V-8 automobile engines. The new model (initially called M4 but redesignated M5 to avoid confusion with the M4 Sherman) also featured a redesigned hull with sloped glacis plate and driver's hatches moved to the top. Although the main criticism from the units using it was that the Stuarts lacked firepower, the improved M5 series kept the same 37 mm gun. The M5 gradually replaced the M3 in production from 1942 and was in turn succeeded by the Light Tank M24 in 1944.


British create armoured personnel carriers in 1940s

I was refering to APCs converted from tank hulls, as refered by the OP.

Lord Wyclif

Marathag

I did not know this vehicle, thanks for posting!

I was refering to APCs converted from tank hulls, as refered by the OP.

  • 3" Gun Motor Carriage M18:
  • M39: M18 chassis without a turret used for troop or supply transportation.
  • M44 Armored Personnel Carrier: The top hatches were side hinged.
  • The M44 Armoured Personnel Carrier was a modified version of the M39. The interior layout of the vehicle was altered. It had a crew of three - driver, bow gunner and commander and could carry 24 soldiers in a single large passenger compartment. The passengers sat on four benches that ran lengthways down the vehicle - one on each side facing inwards and two back-to-back in the centre. There were two large doors in the back of the vehicle to allow access to the passenger compartment as well as escape doors on the side. It had a new boxy superstructure which resembled the design of post-war armoured personnel carriers.

On 12 April 1945 the T16 was accepted for limited procurement and placed into production at Cadillac. The first six vehicles were to be delivered in June 1945. They were given the designation M44 Armoured Utility Vehicle and was evaluated for use in the peacetime army. Its large size now counted against it - the army wanted a vehicle that could carry a single squad of 10-12 men and the M44 was thus twice the required size.

On 31 October 1946 the army gave permission for one of the M44s to be modified to take into account the lessons of the earlier trials. This vehicle, the M44E1, was given a more powerful engine, 21in tracks and was 10 inches taller. Some of the roof sections could be opened, so the side escape doors were removed. This version was also not accepted for production.

SCOUT 5249

An M18 is faster than the current Abrams.

Using this for an APC it would be very fast and effective.

Marathag

Cryhavoc101

Peg Leg Pom

PhilKearny

Sam R.

Aren’t the largest cultural problems achieving:

Section/squad
Side cover
Top cover

An off-road truck without splinter protection isn’t going to change much.

Marathag

Yulzari

SCOUT 5249

SCOUT 5249

Okay lets say the British used the A14 because it's cheaper, the first action would be in north Africa this is followed by the mark II using the covenator.

Though one could use the suspension system used in the Russian BT 7 and Light Tank Mk VII (A17) Tetrarch can run without tracks if need be.

Though since it's an enclosed box it would be hard in north Africa.

Triune Kingdom

Okay lets say the British used the A14 because it's cheaper, the first action would be in north Africa this is followed by the mark II using the covenator.

Though one could use the suspension system used in the Russian BT 7 and Light Tank Mk VII (A17) Tetrarch can run without tracks if need be.

Though since it's an enclosed box it would be hard in north Africa.

Well, A14 is supposed to be lenghtened Bren Carrier, with somewhat heavier armament, and that sounds alright, but I do not see a reason why you want them so heavily armed. I mean their main job is to serve as a battle taxi, to deliver the troops as close to the battle as possible, and to allow for moving of heavier weapons and supplies. You do not need Proto-IFV for that role.

However, I really see no point in using Christie suspension with them, since there are much better alternatives out there. The original Horstmann suspension of Bren/Loyd carriers should be sufficient, and is a much better option. Christie suspension may allow for greater speeds, but considering the amount of internal space it takes up, as well as maintenance and replacement problems associated with it, I really do not see a reason why they should go with it.

Also, they really do not need a fully enclosed APC at this point in time. Nobody has airburst weapons this early on, least of all the Germans, and US only started using proximity fused airburst munitions in late 1944 I believe. Also, there is no need for full NBC protection, so that also neatly removes the need for an "armored box" designs of Cold War era. Only thing that putting a roof on the APC would do, is to add to the cramped conditions inside, while adding a lot of weight, thus putting additional strain on the suspension and the engine.

Lastly, change of the weapons would do little good since it does not remove the root problem of British Army, that being the fact that they spent majority of the Interwar period being told by their goverment that they are not going to fight a war against Germany. Change that earlier, loosen the purse strings and then you get to watch butterflies fly.

For one French would not be as defeatist as they were IOTL, since the forces British deploy are going to be much larger then their OTL counterparts.

SCOUT 5249

Well, A14 is supposed to be lenghtened Bren Carrier, with somewhat heavier armament, and that sounds alright, but I do not see a reason why you want them so heavily armed. I mean their main job is to serve as a battle taxi, to deliver the troops as close to the battle as possible, and to allow for moving of heavier weapons and supplies. You do not need Proto-IFV for that role.

However, I really see no point in using Christie suspension with them, since there are much better alternatives out there. The original Horstmann suspension of Bren/Loyd carriers should be sufficient, and is a much better option. Christie suspension may allow for greater speeds, but considering the amount of internal space it takes up, as well as maintenance and replacement problems associated with it, I really do not see a reason why they should go with it.

Also, they really do not need a fully enclosed APC at this point in time. Nobody has airburst weapons this early on, least of all the Germans, and US only started using proximity fused airburst munitions in late 1944 I believe. Also, there is no need for full NBC protection, so that also neatly removes the need for an "armored box" designs of Cold War era. Only thing that putting a roof on the APC would do, is to add to the cramped conditions inside, while adding a lot of weight, thus putting additional strain on the suspension and the engine.

Lastly, change of the weapons would do little good since it does not remove the root problem of British Army, that being the fact that they spent majority of the Interwar period being told by their goverment that they are not going to fight a war against Germany. Change that earlier, loosen the purse strings and then you get to watch butterflies fly.

For one French would not be as defeatist as they were IOTL, since the forces British deploy are going to be much larger then their OTL counterparts.

The most I can see is two Browning or Vickers for self defence.

Though air attack is a threat in north Africa a 109 could wreck a troop carrier messily.


Development

The M19 evolved from the 40 mm Gun Motor Carriage T65 project, which was based on an Armored Force requirement for a light anti-aircraft vehicle based on the M5 light tank chassis. Although trials were successful and a production of 1,000 T65s had been requested, the project was stopped by the Ordnance Department since the M5A1 light tank chassis was being phased out of production. Ώ] ΐ]

Since the T65 project was fading away, the Armored Force still needed a light anti-aircraft vehicle, so they made a new project (called T65E1) based on the new T24 chassis Α] (a prototype of the M24 Chaffee). The T65E1 had the same overall layout as the T65 GMC – gun turret at rear with the engines in the middle of the chassis – with a few minor tweaks (including an angular gun shield instead of a straight one). Ώ] Β]

M19 and M19A1

The T65E1 was accepted into service as the M19 Gun Motor Carriage in May 1944 with an order for 904 production models, Ώ] Γ] which was sent to Cadillac. Δ] Some 300 were built by Massey-Ferguson (then Massey-Harris) in Canada. Production did not start until August of that year, and only 285 were produced by the end of the war. Ε] The M19A1 had an auxiliary engine and generator to operate the 40 mm guns when the main engine was shut down, Ώ] and fixtures for carrying two spare gun barrels. Ώ]


Watch the video: A US gun crew fires a 155mm gun mounted on an M12 Gun Motor Carriage at targets i..HD Stock Footage (June 2022).


Comments:

  1. Shawe

    Bravo, this rather good phrase is necessary just by the way

  2. Jorel

    Excuse me, the message is taken away

  3. Egidio

    What talented message

  4. Ferguson

    The ideal answer

  5. Rider

    This message is incomparable))), I like it :)



Write a message