Chief Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 This may now be a done deal, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents. (And it's effortless, because I'm just lifting the text of an earlier post of mine on a thread stared by Wilhammer): "I can confirm that the M3A1 was apparently viewed as a replacement for the M3 in US TO&Es. I have an official TO&E for a recon troop that noted that the HTs will be M3s until M3A1s become available. I quote from TO&E 2-27 (15 July 1943), commenting on the M3A1s assigned to the troop: 'Modified half-track pers carr with ring mount for cal. .50 MG and panel mounts for cal. .30 MG. Pending availability,, carr pers, half-track, M3 w/o armament will be substituted.'" OK -- not dispositive, but suggestive of the result that the two were the same. Further, all official US TO&Es from this period that I have seen list the halftracks as "w/o armament" and list the MG armament (.30 or .50 cal.) separately. For these TO&Es, at least, the M3 and M3A1 were used interchangeably. Also, see my post on Allied platoon organizations, which quotes more material from US official TO&Es that these documents, at least, treated halftracks with and without .50 cal. armament interchangeably. Now the .50 cal. HTs may have been M3A1s, or they may have been M3s with field kit mods, but the arithmetic of the TO&Es (particularly for the armored infantry company) drives to the conclusion that they had more than 6 man passenger capacities with the the Ma Deuce on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Huang Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 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 ************************************* WOW, is this human armor or what ?? ------------------ Sgt. Huang I LOVE my country, but my government sucks. [This message has been edited by Sergeant Huang (edited 01-03-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 A British Rendition of the "Dog Pile". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Ok...Maybe it's the Canadian rendition of the "Dog Pile". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 How about the Commonwealth rendition of the "Dog Pile"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 My favorite GI "Dog Pile" scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 They squeezed in a M2 and a watercooled M1917A1 to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Duquette Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 and a couple of circus tents on the arse-end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 I'll add this I've found from Armor #34 Squadron/Signal Publications by Jim Mesko. From the schematics, the M3A1 clearly has 3 seats up front widthwise for the driver, commander, and gunner. Behind this to either side are a row of seats, 5 per row. Crew is listed as 13. Of intresting note is the armored pulpit ring, which extends over the first seat behind the gunner. This must have been where the runt of the squad sat. Of the M5, it says that "The major change was the substitution of homogenous armor plating in place of the face hardened steel used in the M2/M3 series. This was 5/16 inch thick compared to the quarter inch thick armor used on the earlier series and had less ballistic protection and weighed more than the face hardened plate." Both the M9/M5 were lend-lease production models. The M9 it refers to as the "M9 Half-Track Car". The M5 it refers to as the "M5 Half-track Personnel Carrier. The M9 and M5 were renamed the M9A1 and M5A1 respectively with the addition of the M49 pulpit type MG mount. Both the M9 and M5 productions were to be consolidated into the M5A2, however this project was cancelled. john [This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-03-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Nice pic, tiger. BTW, that source of yours seems to quote verbatim the 1944 Standard Ordnance Catalog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jd Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 Just my .02 so I can feel grog-like. For what it is worth I was talking with my father who had recently found an old Company AAR he had drafted in in Oct. 1944 (in vicinity of St. Vith) He was with the 38th Calvary Recon, 102nd Cavalry, Troop E (equipped with M8's) He remembers riding in the ring mounted .50 cal Half tracks M3A1 and felt 6 or so was the normal load. Non .50 cal could carry the larger groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted January 3, 2001 Share Posted January 3, 2001 jd, Oh Hell, another anti M3A1 fullsquad argument BTW, your Dad's AAR can be found at the Carlisle MHI site in Adobe Acrobat format. Perhaps his M3A1, being a recon vehicle, was differently equipped than a normal M3A1 for recon purposes. I would think that recon troops rode in their vehicles for long durations, and would thus need a more comfortable ride, and carry more stuff longer, versus an infantry unit moving guys into combat and carrying less logistical needs on board. Again, the problem with this M3X/M5X HT series confusion is that different use does not mean different models, the models were modified per unit needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 4, 2001 Share Posted January 4, 2001 JD, it was your father's type of vehicle that caused me to think the M3A1 was a 6 seater. It would now appear that some M3A1s were field modified to hold radios and extra ammo instead of the 4 forward most seats. This makes sense for a recon vehicle. It is also apparently why the A2 versions were to go into production. It would have meant less modification work in the field to create such vehicles, yet still have normal capacity HTs for general troop use. Jeff... cool pics. It really is amazing how many clowns, er... soldiers, can fit on the top deck of a medium tank That GI one looks like a posed training pic to me though. Note the nice shine to the doughboy's helmets and apparent "walking out look" of their uniforms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 4, 2001 Share Posted January 4, 2001 Yeah, so how many clowns can you pack onto your standard G.I. Issue M4 Sherman?? ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts