Viceroy Posted June 20, 2001 Share Posted June 20, 2001 Anyone know how rare the Wolverine was in UK units? I know the M10 was quite common with US units, but how about in Commonwealth units? Dorosh, where are you when I need you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted June 20, 2001 Share Posted June 20, 2001 Hunnicutt says the US Army accepted about 6700 M-10's and M-10A1's during the war. He also gives the total of 1648 that went to Great Britain under Lend-Lease, although it is not clear if that number came out of the US Army acceptances cited...I personally think not. The British in particular wanted certain internal modifications (especially for radio fit) that were made at the factory in some cases, thus making it less likely that the US Army would be involved in "accepting" such modified vehicles. It was rare for "accepted" vehicles to go to foreign clients, but exceptions occurred, such as the time that the US armored divisions were stripped of M-4 Shermans for British use in the desert in '42. Hunnicutt offers no numbers as to Achilles conversions, except to say something like "many were converted" or somesuch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viceroy Posted June 20, 2001 Author Share Posted June 20, 2001 gunnergoz, thanks for the reply. I read the same figure of 1648 Wolverines from Ian Hogg's "Allied Armour of WWII". I think the Brits got the non-gasoline engines.Most of these were converted to Achilles in late 44/early 45. What I'd like to know is how the UK forces used them. Did they accompany infantry like the US used the M10's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted June 20, 2001 Share Posted June 20, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viceroy: gunnergoz, thanks for the reply. I read the same figure of 1648 Wolverines from Ian Hogg's "Allied Armour of WWII". I think the Brits got the non-gasoline engines.Most of these were converted to Achilles in late 44/early 45. What I'd like to know is how the UK forces used them. Did they accompany infantry like the US used the M10's?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They formed the Tank Destroyer Regiment (SP) in the UK Armoured Divisions, and I am sure that some of them also served in the TD Regiments of the infantry divisions. I have seen a number of pictures of them accompanying infantry, but they also seem to have been used to back up Churchill tanks (e.g. attack of A Sqdr 9th RTR & 7th Hampshires on Maltot, 9th July 44). AFAIK there were no independent TD Battalions, they were all organic division level assets, at least in North-West Europe. Hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 Yup, they were common enough to not be embarrased using them. The Achilles is just 'sexier' and gets more press. As an asside, the name 'Wolverine' like 'Achilles' is an imediate post-war title. The troops never knew them by that name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viceroy Posted June 21, 2001 Author Share Posted June 21, 2001 MickeryD, you say Wolverine was a post WW2 nickname. That's interesting as the Brits coined the names of many vehicles like the Sherman and Priest. Strange why they were slow of the mark with the M10. Thanks to all of you for your replies, I think I've got some idea of their usage now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Viceroy: Anyone know how rare the Wolverine was in UK units? I know the M10 was quite common with US units, but how about in Commonwealth units? Dorosh, where are you when I need you <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> M10s were issued to the Third Canadian Division in preparation for the D-Day assault. I don't know how long they were retained, but I think most anti-tank units in Canadian service were towed up to the end of the war. To answer your other question - I was in another thread calling you stupid! (doh!) Well, you're not even remotely stupid, but I do object to your characterization of all German soldiers as "Nazis"; in some circles it is fashionable but hardly fair. I will agree that your average German probably didn't think twice about using words like "Jew", just as many from Alabama wouldn't think twice about calling a Tuskegee pilot officer a "nigger." I'm not sure that should really be used to prove or disprove Sajer's book. The only reason I used the example of Spaeter was that everyone keeps saying that "many German vets" say this or that about Sajer, but no one provides any quotes, or even names. [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 Canadian Military Headquarters Historical Section Report No. 141 - 18 Jul 45 Canadian Army equipment state - November 1944 - no establishment existed for M10 self propelled guns, 18 were held as surplus. This was for 17-pounder armed M10s. 16 of the 3-in (76mm) M10s were on establishment, with 19 actually held. Figures in June 1944 were significantly higher - 60 17-pr M10s called for, 33 actually held, with no 3-inch M10s on the establishment, and 23 actually held. [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viceroy Posted June 21, 2001 Author Share Posted June 21, 2001 Dorosh, thanks for the info. When I used the term Nazi, I meant it in broad terms rather than "Nazi war criminal". I'm sorry I used the word rather carelessly. I should have made myself clearer. I just suggested it as a possible reason for the rejection of Sajer by some of the GD. As you've read Spaeter then maybe you know if that argument holds water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 Don't worry about it Viceroy, Dorosh is a pathological sermoniser and a horrible little uniform grog to boot. There is no such thing as a UK tank destroyer regiment/battalion. There is an organic anti-tank regiment in the UK divisional structure (armoured and infantry) which is manned by members of the royal artillery. Around June 1944 these would have 1/2 towed and 1/2 sp guns (the UK term for tank destroyer). They were organised as troops/batteries of 4 guns (all sp or all towed). The sp guns would be achilles, M10 or archer. CM has the dates of introduction for the achilles wrong, they were phased in earlier from June 44 onwards in an accelerated conversion program from the M10 because the conversion was found to be a huge success. Even so in June 44 most of the UK M10s still had the 3in gun. By all accounts the achilles was a much better gun vehicle combination to fight in than the M10. Therefore a UK sp gun should be equally as common as the towed 17pdr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 21, 2001 Share Posted June 21, 2001 Talk about rarity, am I correct in recalling that Monty kept the 76mm gun Sherman out of Brit hands in N.Europe, electing to concentrate on a 75mm/17 pounder Sherman mix? I do know 76mm guns Shermans did serve with the Brits in Italy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeyD: Talk about rarity, am I correct in recalling that Monty kept the 76mm gun Sherman out of Brit hands in N.Europe, electing to concentrate on a 75mm/17 pounder Sherman mix? I do know 76mm guns Shermans did serve with the Brits in Italy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is correct - 76 mm tanks went to Italy. Think about the Red Ball Express and the supply problems they had until Antwerp was up and running. I think perhaps that was one of the reasons, or at least a consideration. One tank regiment used 17 pounder and 75 mm ammo (APDS, HE, AP, smoke, etc.), plus .30 calibre MG ammo, .50 calibre MG ammo (ball and tracer), plus 9mm ammo for pistols and Stens, 20 mm ammo for the AA troop, 37 mm ammo (AP, HE, etc.) for the recce troop....lots of different ammo to sort and move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 Actually Dorosh you are incorrect, partially anyway The British were reluctant to take the 76mm sherman for the supply related reasons you cite but also because they preferred the 75mm vs infantry and they had the firefly for the other stuff. But they had to take some because that is what the yanks were supplying so they put them all in the Polish armoured division to simplify the supply problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted June 22, 2001 Share Posted June 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox: Actually Dorosh you are incorrect, partially anyway The British were reluctant to take the 76mm sherman for the supply related reasons you cite but also because they preferred the 75mm vs infantry and they had the firefly for the other stuff. But they had to take some because that is what the yanks were supplying so they put them all in the Polish armoured division to simplify the supply problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The cup is always half empty for you hair trigger sermonizers! Thanks for the clarification and amplification. I should not have made it sound like my reason was the only one; I am mostly unaware of British doctrine and do appreciate you furthering that aspect of the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts