Kingfish Posted February 26, 2005 Author Share Posted February 26, 2005 Bump Still looking for confirmation on the SP 17pdrs. Gpig e-mailed me a bunch of info, including reference to 4 M10s from K Troop, 5th AT Regt arriving sometime during the night as reinforcements. Could these be Achilles? Anyone know what vehicle type was issued to this unit in August '44? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 5th A-Tk Regt - presumably RCA, not RA. That would make it the A-Tk Regt of 4th Can Armd Div (i.e., the same parent fmn as the SARs). Being an armd div A-Tk regt, it would be organised with half and half 17-pr towed and M-10C Archilles (17-pr SP). The Regt recieved 24 of the later in June to replace the M-10 3-in they'd been holding till then. See: Report No.141 here. Overall org, from Nigel Evans' site: A-Tk Regt in armd div - 2 btys, each 12 × 17-pdr in 3 tps of 4 guns, and 2 btys each 12 × M10 (17-pr) in 3 tps of 4 vehs. From various sources: Btys in 5th A-Tk Regt: 96 (presumably ABC Tps, 17 pr) 65 (presumably DEF Tps, 17 pr) 3 (presumably HIK Tps, M10C) 14 (presumably LMN Tps, M10C) BTW, according to Graves, K Tp arrived on Hill 117 (1000yds NE of St Lambert s.D.) at 2300 on the 18th Aug. With them were the SAR RHQ, B Sqn, and Recce Tp. (Page 140). On page 143 there is the following "[...] K Troop of 5th Anti-Tank Regiment with its four M-10 self-propelled 17-pdrs. [...]" (Page 144) H-Tp with four more M-10s arrived on the 19th (in the morning?) and deployed with A-Sqn, SAR, ~1000 yds north along the D13. (Page 166) the two troops are listed as being from 103rd bty (?!?), and depart for other tasks at 2000 hrs, 20 Aug. 103rd Bty was part of 6th A-Tk Regt - the II Can Corps A-Tk Regt. Either Graves has made a typo (3rd Bty => 103rd Bty), or there were four M-10 tps in the area. [ February 26, 2005, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 Damn I can see how quickly this get's "sticky." I had assumed the term M-10 meant the American equivalent of the M-10. (Which I assumed was the Wolverine.) The open topped turreted M-10 on the Sherman chassis that travelled with the American Divisions. Oops. What's that old saying about "assuming" . . . . . . makes an ass out of U . . . (I've had too much champagne to make much sense.) Can't wait to play 'em, Kingfish! Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 Originally posted by Gpig: I had assumed the term M-10 meant the American equivalent of the M-10. (Which I assumed was the Wolverine.) The open topped turreted M-10 on the Sherman chassis that travelled with the American Divisions.heh - and by and large you'd be right. But, just like the Sherman, the Brits decidced to drop 17-prs. into some of them. Shiney. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Howdy. I just checked out the SAR history again and it states when referring to the M-10 it is "A self-porpelled gun armed with a 17-pdr, in an open turret based on the Sherman chassis and suspension." Sounds like the wolverine to me, no? Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 No, the Wolverine was the British version of the 76mm equipped M10. The Achilles was the same vehicle but with a much more potent 17 pdr. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 So then the SAR Histroy has it wrong, right? There isn't a "17-pdr in an open turret based on the Sherman chassis and suspension," is there? As the Achilles doesn't have a turret (and is not based on the Sherman chassis). And the M-10 doens't have a 17-pdr. Hrm, interesting. What do you think they were? the Brit M-10's? Or the Achilles? It seems to me that they most likely would be the M-10 (Wolverine) as they are constantly referred to as "M-10's." He just got the gun wrong. (Which is a fairly big mistake to make, though they are close in size - 76.2mm to 76mm - right?) Anyone? Gpig EDIT: Oh, I see above in JonS's post that the Achilles was indeed referred to as "M-10." curious. [ March 01, 2005, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Gpig ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 Look here. Scroll down to midpage and you will see that both the Wolverine and Achilles were basically the same vehicles as the American M10. When the brits armed it with a 17 pdr it was called an Achilles MK IC or IIC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Gpig - you're thinking of the Archer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Ahhh. . . . Thanks! (I often need to be told what I'm thinking.) Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Gpig: Damn I can see how quickly this get's "sticky." I had assumed the term M-10 meant the American equivalent of the M-10. (Which I assumed was the Wolverine.) The open topped turreted M-10 on the Sherman chassis that travelled with the American Divisions. Gpig I thought the American M-10 TD was based with the M3 Grant chassis. :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 1, 2005 Author Share Posted March 1, 2005 From the website I just posted: T24 (M9): Used a M3 chassis but was too tall. T35: Used a M4A1 chassis with an open welded turret.1 In trials it proved to be unsatisfactory. T35E1: Used a M4A2 chassis.1 This prototype became the M10. M10: A M4A2 medium hull had a semi-open turret added. The top of the hull was shortened and the armor was reduced to save weight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Oh, didn't read that far down, my bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Originally posted by Gpig: (I often need to be told what I'm thinking.)That's ok - I draw worse than you think 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 LOL! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Originally posted by JonS (Page 166) the two troops are listed as being from 103rd bty (?!?), and depart for other tasks at 2000 hrs, 20 Aug. 103rd Bty was part of 6th A-Tk Regt - the II Can Corps A-Tk Regt. Either Graves has made a typo (3rd Bty => 103rd Bty), or there were four M-10 tps in the area. * * * UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE * * * (lowers magnifying glass) Hi JonS Just cleared up this little mystery. If you'll check the bottom left hand page on 164 in your SAR History you'll read the following . . . It was at this low moment, between 1400 and 1500 hours, Sunday, 20 August 1944, that help finally arrived. Ironically, it did not come from 9 Brigade, which was at this time sitting a few thousand yards to the north, but from the 103rd Battery, 6th Anti-Tank Regiment. This was a corps unit and the gunners' arrival was purely accidental . . . . . . .The two troops, eight Ram towers and eight 17-pdr. guns, moved down the D 13 and were near the Foulbec stream at 1400 when they came under heavy German machine-gun fire . . . . . . At about 1430 hours, J and L Troops arrived at the northern edge of St. Lambert . . . . . . Flowers decidecd to join the party and his gun detachments "immediately deployed for crash action." He positioned seven of his weapons facing south and the remaining one aiming back up the D 13 toward Trun and began to open fire at all available targets. Then later on, page 166 (as you noted); . . . Harkness began to assemble anti-tank units, and the two troops of 17-pdrs. from 103rd Battery, who had fought so well in St. Lambert that afternoon, except for one damaged gun, were taken out of the village at 2000 hours that evening. mystery solved. (raises magnifying glass) Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 2, 2005 Author Share Posted March 2, 2005 ...goes back into the editor... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Well done that man! Can CMAK Rams tow 17-prs? * dashes off to editor * There aren't any Rams, and Priests can't tow. Neither can Shermans for that matter, which is odd, as they were fitted with towing eyes front and back just so they could move 17-prs. Only choices seem to be M5 halftracks or trucks. [ March 02, 2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 2, 2005 Share Posted March 2, 2005 Doug Harkness was a home town legend here in Calgary; he taught at the same high school I later went to, and was Defence Minister after the war. A local collector here has his old uniforms and papers, and I believe converted his old house into a museum for his sizeable uniform collection. Not sure why I just typed that, but it is interesting to contemplate how each name in those dry regimental histories represents someone whose life had a huge impact on those around him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 3, 2005 Share Posted March 3, 2005 I know what you mean, Mr. Dorosh. There is much to reflect on in these books. The SAR history lists the where and how of each SAR member killed in WWII. Often times the sentence ends rather starkly. Like, ". . . where they buried him in the corner of a farm yard." As far as the Ram, too bad it isn't in there. Also, after reading so much about the battle for St. Lambert, I'd hate to meet up with a Crusader AA tank. Armed with twin 20mm guns. Nasty bit of business for clearing orchards of Germans. Later. Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=47207&messageid=1109808952 http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=47207&messageid=1109811050 http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=47207&messageid=1109824061 3 views of the St Lambert Panther. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted March 4, 2005 Author Share Posted March 4, 2005 Thank you very much for the photos. BTW, can you (or anyone else) tell if that is an 'A' or 'G' model? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 Awesome pics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted March 4, 2005 Share Posted March 4, 2005 It is an 'A'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Heya Mr Kenny. So are you saying that NO TIGERS participated in the breakout at St. Lambert (Trun/Moissy/Chambois)? Was there not even one (confirmed) Tiger in those actions? Thanks, Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.