Grog Question - anybody know the max, towing speed of AT guns?

[Michael Emrys]

As I mentioned earlier, on good roads in decent weather, 25mph was common. But any number of delays could change the overall rate of advance. They could be held up at intersections while higher priority convoys went through. If they were attacked from the air they pulled up while everyone debussed and dived into a ditch or whatever cover was available. If the road was being shelled, they would be held up until that stopped. In any case where they took casuallties of men or equipment there would be delays while things got reorganized. The planned stops could be for refueling, changing drivers, routine maintenence or sleep (yes, some times it's unavoidable).

That 25mph can turn into 5mph really fast if you have enough of those. And of course, if they were driving across open desert, they would seldom get up to 25mph anyway.

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Talk about planned and unplanned stops, i read in a government report somewhere that the U.S. Army's famous 'Rush to Baghdad' in April 2003 only averaged-out to something like 4 mph if you count from first crossing the Kuwait/Iraq border til setting foot on the city line. And that pace was hailed as a lighning advance! I suspect WWII convoys would almost appear to be travelling at a glacial pace compared to modern highway speeds.

Yeah, it's worth stepping back every now and then and contemplating just how slow warfare is. I've repeatedly been surprised to come across instances of units that sat around doing not much during large scale battles. It is easy to find examples of units and individuals in Normandy who came across the beaches then sat around waiting for something to do for 7-14 days - Blackburn, Jary, Fendick, Cooper, and the SARs come readily to mind.

Another example: in late-July/early-August 3rd British Div moved from the extreme left flank of the beachhead near Troan to the inter Allied boundary just north of Vire - a distance of about 80 kms. It took them a week. To be fair, that did include a few days rest near the Orne, but also included a night, a day, then another night of travelling to cover about 60kms as the crow flies to the final destination. Slow slow slow. And nothing in particular went 'wrong' with the movement either. It just took that long to go that far in a crowded beachhead.

Regards

JonS

P.S. Emrys - I suspect we are talking about travelling in slightly different contexts, and are therefore both right and wrong.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

Another example: in late-July/early-August 3rd British Div moved from the extreme left flank of the beachhead near Troan to the inter Allied boundary just north of Vire - a distance of about 80 kms. It took them a week. To be fair, that did include a few days rest near the Orne, but also included a night, a day, then another night of travelling to cover about 60kms as the crow flies to the final destination. Slow slow slow. And nothing in particular went 'wrong' with the movement either. It just took that long to go that far in a crowded beachhead.

And also their route of march would inevitably be crossing the logistic tails of formations in the line and involved in combat. This is the kind of thing I was alluding to above when I mentioned waiting at intersections.

If I may use this soapbox for a minute, I would like to rant about one of my pet peeves with operational and strategic level board games over the years. Beginning at least as far back as Stalingrad 40 years ago, I noticed how unrealistically easy it was in the game to move units from one part of the line to another, because there were no penalties at all for crossing other units' tails. There were also no movement penalties per se for leaving and entering enemy zones of control, but later games corrected that. But so far as I am aware, no game has adequately modeled the problems of moving parallel to the front behind your own lines. There's usually no friction at all.

Michael

[Private Bluebottle]

Right, thanks for the information.

JonS, you mention that the 2 Pdr's bearings would seize from overheating on long marchs. Thats the first I've heard of that. Any references?

If the 37mm M3 was prone to "bounce" due to stiff/non-existent suspension, that would have limited towing speed, even on smooth roads. Having driven Plant which had no suspension as such (relying on tyres alone to provide "bounce"), I know that once you hit about 25 km/h, you're lucky to hang on, as even the mildest bump sets you bouncing.

I also wonder about the "handiness" of the 2 Pdr, versus the 37mm. According to one reference I've found, one of the main criticisms of the 37mm in the 1941 Louisana Maneaouvres was that it was found difficult to engage "fleeting targets" because it had to be pulled around to face them, whereas the 2 Pdr's turntable mount was always able to traverse quickly to engage new threats easily.

Does anybody know therefore the into and out of battery times for each type of weapon?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

Does anybody know therefore the into and out of battery times for each type of weapon?

No numbers, but the 37mm would have been faster if the 2pdr goes the full route of pulling the wheels and setting the platform. But since the 2pdr could also be fired on its wheels, that's not necessarily significant. Doing a hasty bugout from a full emplacement would not have been something I would want to contemplate however. On the third hand, firing it from portee would have made it faster in all circumstances. So take your pick.

Michael

[sand digger]

Whats with the slow convoy speeds? On exercises my lot used to simulate an emergency and crack an average 50mph easily on sealed roads before having to stop to refuel.

[JonS]

References to it in chapters 1 & 2 here. Also in Pemberton. However, on review, it doesn't seem as clear as I'd recalled it. Nevertheless, the porteee was originally developed as a transport enhancement, not a fighting enhancement. That came later.

Two minutes was the rated time for bringing the 2-pr into action on it's own wheels from en-portee (Pemberton again). Bringing it into action en-portee was about as quick as bringing the main armament of a tank into action I expect - perhaps a bit faster. However - at this point it's probably worth noting that there were at least two designs for the portee mount, only one of which allowed to gun to be fired whilst mounted. The other was purely for transport (see first para above).

Jon

[JonS]

Originally posted by sand digger:

Whats with the slow convoy speeds? On exercises my lot used to simulate an emergency and crack an average 50mph easily on sealed roads before having to stop to refuel.

A small unit moving a short distance in an empty exercise area with no real threats can travel fast. You figure out the rest

[sand digger]

Jon, with threats we could have travelled even faster

[Michael Emrys]

Convoy movement is assumed to be beyond the range of active hostiles with the possible exception of long range artillery or air interdiction. Otherwise it's not called convoy but tactical movement and yes that is usually very slow.

Michael

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by sand digger:

Whats with the slow convoy speeds? On exercises my lot used to simulate an emergency and crack an average 50mph easily on sealed roads before having to stop to refuel.

I wonder what Movement Control thought of that?

Convoy speed is more about controlling movement of units, in an orderly and disciplined fashion, rather than necessarily getting from point A to point B in the fastest time. Its usually governed by not only the conditions that the unit is moving through but also when the unit commander and his superiors want his unit to arrive or depart a given location. Its about avoiding congestion as well.

I've seen incredibly detailed convoy movements ordered to move brigades and I've heard extremely brief convoy orders issued to move platoons and companies (ie "You know the drill, you know the route, you've done it often enough, lets get there toute sweete, I'll be bringing up the rear. I intend to be doing 80 mph!" - and they did, with fully loaded trucks which were supposedly speed limited to 45 mph. )

[Walker]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dandelion:

You mean the two thingies?

You could probably make a full night out of reading my improvised English on CMAKdb It is sectionally embarrassing.

Why is there no dictionary for WWII military terms? It's not like you find Rohrholmen or Spreizlafette in the Oxford's. It's silly.

Grumble.

Dandelion

The US military did produce one during WW II, I own a reprinted copy. It is designed for English speakers looking up German, I can't recall if it also has English-German or is just German-English.

What, the Wehrmacht never did such a thing? For shame. Then again, with 75% of your Army fighting the Russians, I can see why it might take a backburner... </font>