Guest Big Time Software Posted January 1, 2001 Share Posted January 1, 2001 Hello! A couple of days ago I received my copy of "British and American Tanks of WW2" by Chamberlain and Ellis. This is the companion to the very well known "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII" book by Chamberlain and Doyle. What I found in the Allied book neatly ties together various bits of apparently conflicting info brought up in a previous discussion (all quotes below are from the previously mentioned book). As some of you will recall, there was considerable debate about the passenter capacity of the "A1" versions of the M2, M3, and M5 Halftracks. There appeared to be TWO different versions of the "A1"s, one with fixed storage and reduced seating, the other with removable storage and potential seating for 10+2. The answer is, as we suspected all along, that there was only ONE version of the "A1". First of all, the US Army designations were religiously changed (i.e. "A1", "A2", "M3 Stuart", "M5 Stuart") every time there is a major design modification. Heck, the M5 and M3 are nearly identical, but they have different designations simply because they were produced by different companies for different "customers". So it seemed rather out of place for the US Army to have two radically different versions of the same vehicle. This single "A1" version, in reality, is as we have modeled in the game right now. A pulpit mounted .50cal with reduced seating in the rear (6 men). They were used as "ambulances, command cars, and general utility and liaison vehicles". So... what about the apparent second version of the "A1"? Simple, it was called the "A2" It was designed to replace the standard M2 and M3 HTs as well as the M2A1 and M3A1 models. Here is the description for the M3A2... "In appearance, this vehicle resembled the M2A1 but had an armored shield on the AA ring mount and movable stowage boxes in the rear hull which could be changed according to the role required for the vehicle. Seats for from 5 to 12 men could be fitted". But before anybody goes away thinking that we missed an important vehicle type, one needs to read this bit.... "Though production plans were made, no production took place due to curtailment of the half-track programme." Similar notes can be found for the M5A2, except "all production vehicles were ear-marked for Lend-Lease allocation. However, following curtailment of half-track requirements, all production was cancelled early in 1944". It would appear that SOME were in fact produced, but not very many (a couple hundred at most IMHO). Looks like it was in production for only a couple of months by International Harvester. Out of the entire 40,000 + US HTs built only "2,862 M3A1 and 1,643 M2A1s had been built when production ceased in March 1944." Cancellation of ALL HT production was completed in MID 1944, although all existing HTs remained in service. Conclusions... there are only TWO basic troop HTs for all nations regardless of designations. They were: Basic Model (M2, M3, M5) - .30 cal, driver, 2 additional seats in front, 10 seats in rear. Designed for moving a squad into combat. A1 Model (M2A1, M3A1, M5A1, M9A1) - .50cal mounted in front on a pulpit type mount. Driver, gunner, 6 passenger seats. The "A2" types never saw service, with the possible exception of some M5A2s. ------ What does this mean for CM? All "A1" HTs will have their passenger capacity reduced so that a Squad can not be carried. Existing scenarios with Squads mounted in "A1" models will continue to carry their passengers, but once dismounted they will not be able to remount. This will be effective as of 1.1 Final. ------ An interesting side note here is about the cancellation of the HT production program. Many gamers have posted here asking/complaining about HT mortality rates. "If they really were so useless, why bother having them at all?" is the most common expression we have seen here. The answer is that the US Army only used HTs in combat for 2 years before they too questioned the value of their use in combat. Their conlcusion was that they were ultimately not a good enough vehicle type to deploy in combat. After mid 1944, US HT production ceased forever. So if you think US HTs are rather limited, you aren't alone Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Woohoo! no more allied squads being ferried about by .50 cal halftracks!! Waitaminute...I like to play Allied too sometimes....damn. john Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Warphead- Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Got Chamberlain and Ellis too. I can only recommend it. Very clear and structured. ------------------ <A HREF="http://www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de [" TARGET=_blank>http://www.nahverteidigungswaffe.de [</A> die Krupp-Werke Betriebsausflug? Da rollt ja halb Deutschland auf mich zu..." (Vincent)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schulz Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 On this subject of tanks I was doing some surfin and came upon a really interesting site about many tanks of WWII's specs. I'm sure this has been seen or discarded by you folks but thought it only right to show you for interest sake. It covered most of the different shermans so I thought you'all might be interested. http://www.onwar.com/tanks/index.htm ------------------ "D-Day was a nightmare. Even now it brings pain to recall what happened there on June 6, 1944. I have returned many times to honor the valiant men who died on that beach. They should never be forgotten. Nor should those who lived to carry the day by the slimmest of margins. Every man who set foot on Omaha Beach that day was a hero." General Omar Bradley- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hello! A couple of days ago I received my copy of "British and American Tanks of WW2" by Chamberlain and Ellis. This is the companion to the very well known "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII" book by Chamberlain and Doyle. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Where'd you get your copy, I tried ordering that from Amazon.com a while back and they didn't have it anymore or it was out-of-print or something??? EDIT: Ahhh, nevermind. They reissued the thing in October, EXCELLENT! I'm on it! Is there a Russian Tank book in the same series? [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 01-01-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Try the military book club. Got mine a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 O.K. I'm not BTS, but I think it's back in print allong with Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII. They're both great books. ------------------ Pair-O-Dice "Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Yeah already placed my order! Should get it by next week. It seems like I checked for it prior to October so that's why it wasn't available. Now all we need is one on Russian Tanks. Great series of books though. I ordered the German one before CM came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead: Try the military book club. Got mine a month ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Got a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Oh... almost forgot... One thing that was brought up in the previous HT discussion was the fact that the Commonwealth forces do not have M5 version HTs available. I just spoke with Charles and he is fairly confident that he can add this into 1.1 Final. Thanks, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schulz Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Maximus- Hey I found a couple sites you might find interesting for WWII books. http://wavyworld.com/~bstone/blitzbooks/books.htm http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=german+tanks&userid=2UY68GMX75&ms book here is in stock.....have it myself along with Artillary of the 20th century and find them both facinating. ------------------ "D-Day was a nightmare. Even now it brings pain to recall what happened there on June 6, 1944. I have returned many times to honor the valiant men who died on that beach. They should never be forgotten. Nor should those who lived to carry the day by the slimmest of margins. Every man who set foot on Omaha Beach that day was a hero." General Omar Bradley- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraGoon Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: This single "A1" version, in reality, is as we have modeled in the game right now. A pulpit mounted .50cal with reduced seating in the rear (6 men). They were used as "ambulances, command cars, and general utility and liaison vehicles". So... what about the apparent second version of the "A1"? Simple, it was called the "A2" It was designed to replace the standard M2 and M3 HTs as well as the M2A1 and M3A1 models. Here is the description for the M3A2... "In appearance, this vehicle resembled the M2A1 but had an armored shield on the AA ring mount and movable stowage boxes in the rear hull which could be changed according to the role required for the vehicle. Seats for from 5 to 12 men could be fitted".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi I didn't chip in to the previous HT debate as I thought you had reached the right conclusion at the time. I too have the Chamberlain/Ellis book and have interpreted the information differently than above. I believe that the vehicle you have modelled is the M3A2 and that the "movable stowage boxes in the rear hull" are the boxes that you have modelled at the front of the crew compartment and "Seats for from 5 to 12 men" are as displayed in the present model. If you are correct in your interpretation it means that many pictures of M3A1s in other publications are misidents, an example of which would be the 4 way plan of an M3A1 in the Illustrated Encyclopedia of the World's Tanks and Fighting Vehicles, P216-217. (I can't post a picture at the moment but will scan one if required on Wednesday) My only real concern as far as the game goes is that the British troops would lose their only squad level armoured carrier. If you were to change the British vehicle to the M5 rather than the M5A1 (as in one of the betas) then that's fine by me, and probably more realistic anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DraGoon Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Oh... almost forgot... One thing that was brought up in the previous HT discussion was the fact that the Commonwealth forces do not have M5 version HTs available. I just spoke with Charles and he is fairly confident that he can add this into 1.1 Final.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks, disregard the last sentence in my previous post, I obviously took too long composing my last message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Hey! Will CM2 let us pile two German infantry Squads onto MKIIIh's? I mean come-on...that would be realistic [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 01-01-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Oh... almost forgot... One thing that was brought up in the previous HT discussion was the fact that the Commonwealth forces do not have M5 version HTs available. I just spoke with Charles and he is fairly confident that he can add this into 1.1 Final. Thanks, Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was about to say something on that matter, Steve. Good follow-up. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Hey! Will CM2 let us pile two German infantry Squads onto MKIIIh's? I mean come-on...that would be realistic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Too bad there wasn't a .30 or .50 calibre MG somewhere around close. Those guys would be easy pickin's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette: Hey! Will CM2 let us pile two German infantry Squads onto MKIIIh's? I mean come-on...that would be realistic [This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 01-01-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I count 20 non-crew members on that! But, that's only on the photographed side. It's possible there are 4-6 more men on the other side! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 This is a little off topic but can someone clear this up for me? Steve said the difference between the M3 and M5 Stuart was where the were made, I thought the had different engines, a V8 I think for the M5? I love that little tank so I always like learning more about it if anyone knows. Thanks Pvt.Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 I think he means the M3 Halftrack (built by White) and the M5 Halftrack (built by International). ------------------ Is "patheti-sad" a word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Basic Model (M2, M3, M5) - .30 cal, driver, 2 additional seats in front, 10 seats in rear. Designed for moving a squad into combat. A1 Model (M2A1, M3A1, M5A1, M9A1) - .50cal mounted in front on a pulpit type mount. Driver, gunner, 6 passenger seats. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow, that is so wrong. I don't know how you can confuse the M2 and M3. I'll post some pics up later. ------------------ Is "patheti-sad" a word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt.Tom Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Sorry my bo bo. Pvt.Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Maximus, The closest equivalent I know of to the two books you cite is John Milsom's RUSSIAN TANKS 1917-1970. It was the standard text in 1970 when released by Galahad Books. The opening of at least part of the Russian military archives has, of course, both revealed deficiencies and greatly expanded our detailed knowledge of Russian armor design, development and field experience. Russian Military Zone (http://history.vif2.ru) and Red Steel (www.algonet.se/~toriert/introduction.htm) are excellent sites for those interested in WW II Russian armor. The renowned Steve Zaloga may have written his own work on the period, but if so, I don't have the book. I do have one he and James Loop wrote on Soviet tanks and combat vehicles 1946 to present (1987). Hope this helps. John Kettler Edited for spelling! [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 01-01-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Napoleon1944 Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 It would be nice to have the passengers man the machine gun mount if the gunner gets killed also. I noticed that this was not the case in previous versions. If gunner=dead and passengers=yes then gun available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 Okay, here goes. First we have an overhead shot of an M2. Note the large stowage bins which separate the crew and passenger compartments. Put an M49 ring mount on the right side and you've got yourself an M2A1. Now the overhead of the M3. Longer vehicle (by a few inches). More seats. Note the lack of those same stowage bins. Again, slap ma deuce on the right side and you've got yourself an M3A1. Now, can the M3A1 hold a twelve man squad? I believe it can, but I'll accept BTS's position (grudgingly) that it can't. But six seats? C'mon... The argument has been made that the MG and ammo would impinge on the passenger room. I've a nice pic of an M2 pre-war with three water cooled Brownings and a full compliment of six men. Also, re the production numbers, that's a bit misleading. I have numerous pics of M3s and M2s retrofitted to A1 standards in the field. It's the same gun mount used on countless trucks, Priests &c., and is a simple field conversion. ------------------ Is "patheti-sad" a word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 2, 2001 Share Posted January 2, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wow, that is so wrong. I don't know how you can confuse the M2 and M3. I'll post some pics up later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What I wrote is absolutely correct. I didn't say the M2 and M3 were exactly identical. They were not. What I said was their intended role and basic design were. The M2 and M3 were, for all intents and purposes, the same vehicle with significant, but not fundamentally, differences. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Okay, here goes. First we have an overhead shot of an M2. Note the large stowage bins which separate the crew and passenger compartments. Put an M49 ring mount on the right side and you've got yourself an M2A1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is just your personal speculation as far as I can tell. The book I cited states something very different. And the M2A1 I saw back in November fits the description in the book exactly. It was purpose built with reduced passenger capacity. If you have some source to dispute this, please cite it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now the overhead of the M3. Longer vehicle (by a few inches). More seats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Chamberlain and Ellis state, "Half-track Car M2... had seats for 10 men (ie, a full gun crew) plus seats in the cab for the driver, assistant driver, and commander." The M3 was only 10 inches longer, which is enough to make a little more elbow or storage room, but not enough for a radical increase in passenger capacity. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Note the lack of those same stowage bins. Again, slap ma deuce on the right side and you've got yourself an M3A1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, the souces I have here say that the M3A1 was purpose built with reduced seating capacity. I also have pictures that show this quite nicely. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, can the M3A1 hold a twelve man squad? I believe it can, but I'll accept BTS's position (grudgingly) that it can't.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't understand why you insist that the documented sources quoted here (and in the previous discussion) are wrong. What sources do you have to support your conviction? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But six seats? C'mon... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's what the documented evidence clearly states. Again... do you have any sources that state differently? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, re the production numbers, that's a bit misleading. I have numerous pics of M3s and M2s retrofitted to A1 standards in the field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is not misleading. It is what it is - production figures. Troops in the field improvised all sorts of things, but it is difficult to know how widespread certain conversions were. I highly doubt that statistically significant numbers of regular HTs were converted to "A1" like vehicles. 400 conversions, which is a rather large number, would only count for 1% of the total production count, or possibly 2% of the standard models produced. Steve PS, I think that M2 pic is corrupted. I couldn't view or download it. [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-01-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts