John Kettler Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Have never seen one before, but it appears to be on a Cromwell chassis. Any idea whether these things were serially produced? http://www.ceris-normandie.com/archivesnormandie/PhotosHD/p010905.jpg And here's one which appears to be based on an M-8/M-20 chassis. Never saw it before, either. One off or serially produced? Edit My mistake! Axle count is off. Want to say it's a captured Panhard AC or somesuch. http://www.ceris-normandie.com/archivesnormandie/PhotosHD/p010991.jpg Regards, John Kettler [ August 01, 2006, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Originally posted by John Kettler: Have never seen one before, but it appears to be on a Cromwell chassis. Any idea whether these things were serially produced?Crusader-based gun-tractor for a 17-pr. Either 196 Bty of 73rd A-Tk Regt (XXX Corps A-Tk Regt) or 246 Bty 62nd A-Tk Regt (I Corps A-Tk Regt) (Based on combination of '2' tac sign surmounted by white bar, darker quadrant of square above tac sign, and LCT thingy on right front guard.) And here's one which appears to be based on an M-8/M-20 chassis. Never saw it before, either. One off or serially produced?Morris Light Reconnaisance Car, in this case part of Divisional Artillery* ('40' tac sign) for one of the Brit/Can divs. * ie, Arty HQ, not one of the gun regts. [ August 02, 2006, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 JonS, Color me impressed! I understand that you can read the tactical signage, but was that combined with detailed knowledge of the British OOB in Normandy to arrive at the very specific unit designations? Since you did so well on those, what do you make of this? Looks like something left over from WW I. http://www.ceris-normandie.com/archivesnormandie/PhotosHD/p011857.jpg Regards, John Kettler [ August 02, 2006, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Two American generals with a (French?) mortar. By-the-by, I understand you are giddy with excitement about these photos, but do you think you might contain your giddyness to a single thread? Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 JonS, If it's a mortar, it must be trigger fired. Can't see how anyone could drop fire it. (steps away from the computer, rummages through bookcase) Eureka! That repository of arcane German weaponry, including most of the captured stuff, Gander & Chamberlain's WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH actually had the thing, and it was French originally, just as you opined. On page 305 we see the 5 cm Granatwerfer 201 (, ex-French Lances grenades de 50 mm DBT, described as being "more of a grenade launcher" and learn it was hardly issued to German troops at all and then only "local occupation forces." A very rare piece of ordnance! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 p011857 Descriptif du document: Deux officiers américains éxaminent un mortier français de 60mm 29 août 1944 p010905 Les Crusaders tractent un canon anti-chars à travers Creully, 9ème bataillon d'infanterie Canadienne, 23ème régiment des ambulances de campagne. 27 ou 28 juin 1944 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Wicky, Where are you reading those titles, please? The dates definitely help. The first one is technically mostly correct "Two American officers examine a French 60mm mortar"), but the bore is wrong. It would be a lot more useful if it IDed the officers. As for the second, I think it says "The Crusaders (referring to Ike's statement about the great crusade?) pull an antitank gun through(?) Creully, the 9th battalion of Canadian infantry, 23rd regiment of battle ambulances." The first part makes a fair degree of sense, but the second part is simply incomprehensible, given what's shown in the photo. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 JonS, I somehow (giddiness/exhaustion?) failed to see your request and have, er, pollinated in several places! Hope it's not too vexing, but this kind of informational bonanza doesn't happen every day. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Originally posted by John Kettler: [snips] The first one is technically mostly correct "Two American officers examine a French 60mm mortar"), but the bore is wrong. ...and the nationality, as the DBT is Belgian (it's what the ( stands for at the end of the Fremdgerät number) Originally posted by John Kettler: As for the second, I think it says "The Crusaders (referring to Ike's statement about the great crusade?) I think more likely to be referring to the fact that it's a Crusader gun tractor, not a Cromwell. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Crusader II, Gun Tractor Mk1. Used to tow 17lb At gun. The upper section looks pretty crudely welded on to me as does the welded shut(?) vision port to the right. "British and American tanks of World War 2" Chamberlain & Ellis. Photo P.39 P.38 "Side extensions could be fitted for deep wading in vehicles used by assault divisions used in Operation Overlord". Is this what we're looking at in the picture? The added superstructure above the original hull top has been quickly fastened into place for this purpose? Could it be the original waterproofing around the vision port yet to be removed rather than welded? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Originally posted by Doodlebug: Used to tow 17lb At gun. Naah, you can lift 17 pounds, don't need a tractor. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doodlebug: Used to tow 17lb At gun. Naah, you can lift 17 pounds, don't need a tractor. All the best, John. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Originally posted by Doodlebug: Is this what we're looking at in the picture? The added superstructure above the original hull top has been quickly fastened into place for this purpose? Could it be the original waterproofing around the vision port yet to be removed rather than welded? That's my take on it. The two regts I listed above were both scheduled to land on D-Day, and would in all likelyhood have had to wade ashore (at least, in the planning they would have had to assume that). The "LCT" annotation on the front right guard bears this out. As it turns out, some of the guns weren't to land till a day or two later, but you know what they say about plans and contact with the enemy. Shame the censors blanked out the Corps insignia and the LCT number. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Originally posted by Doodlebug: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John D Salt: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Doodlebug: Used to tow 17lb At gun. Naah, you can lift 17 pounds, don't need a tractor. All the best, John. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Originally posted by Doodlebug: Crusader II, Gun Tractor Mk1. Used to tow 17lb At gun. The upper section looks pretty crudely welded on to me as does the welded shut(?) vision port to the right. "British and American tanks of World War 2" Chamberlain & Ellis. Photo P.39I'm looking at the same photo, and that does indeed appear to be the critter in question. The one in the book lacks the upward extension of the shield, as you note. It does have a tubular (or rod?) frame going around the top of the crew compartment that the one in our pic here lacks. Would that have been to support a tarp as protection against foul weather? The view port does not look welded shut to me, but the edge is very rough and crudely done. I don't have any explanation for that. P.38 "Side extensions could be fitted for deep wading in vehicles used by assault divisions used in Operation Overlord". Is this what we're looking at in the picture?No side extensions to be seen. The added superstructure above the original hull top has been quickly fastened into place for this purpose?More likely it is intended as a shield against small arms fire. Could it be the original waterproofing around the vision port yet to be removed rather than welded? Possibly, but it doesn't really look like that to me. BTW, has anybody else noticed the raised figure on the upper panel of the front shield? That appears to be some kind of device or insignia that could help in identifying the owning unit. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 BTW #2: Why are the crew wearing paratroop helmets? Were those also standard among some other non-paratroop units? Were those what the entire Canadian army were wearing? no doubt an elementary question for those who know, but it never occurred to me to wonder before. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 This is not a Canadian unit, and the helmets are - I believe - vehicular helmets rather than para helmets (although there may not be much to pick between them). AIUI the rim on the standard Brit helmet was ... troublesome in a vehicle. I had seen the raised/embossed thingy, but not really studied it. It looks a bit like a thistle surrounding a crown -> Scottish? (which would tie in with the vehicle name. By the by, this veh does appear to have a deep wading kit installed (if that is the right word). Note that the veh name - Duntocher - is duplicated mid-glacis above the spare track links, but is partially covered by the weld where the wading kit has been attached. [ August 03, 2006, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 We appear to be converging on a solution. After I got this privately, I realized I'd botched the translation regarding the gun tractor as a result of misIDing the chassis as a Cromwell. Had also concluded that the archival vehicle had superstructure add-ons not found in the OEM version. http://tanxheaven.com/ljs/crusader-overloon/06-'Crusader'APV,Overloon.jpg "It’s a Crusader Mk 2 artillery tractor" How I missed the significance of the ( in the case of the grenade thrower I can only attribute to being dog tired and having earlier seized upon the notion that the ordnance was French, thus seeing what I expected to see. Completely forgot to consider it might be Belgian, a situation made more ironic by an earlier thread someone had on fortification AT cannon. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Originally posted by JonS: ...the helmets are - I believe - vehicluar helmets rather than para helmets (although there may not be much to pick between them). AIUI the rim on the standard Brit helmet was ... troublesome in a vehicle. Ah yes. Now that you've made me stop and think about it, they lack that strap that goes around the back of the head and attaches to the chin strap. In fact, at least two of them appear to lack the chin strap altogether. I've never seen that on a paratrooper. And I can believe what you say about the rim. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Ahhh, Forgive my tardiness, I only just accessed the links. Looking at the second photo - 10991.jpg, that's an early U.S. psyche warfare vehicle, the armored victory statue (Carol) carrier. Known as the "AVS©C". Nicknamed by the troops as "Gimp and Dime" for reasons lost to the mists of history. The statue it transported, clearly visible in the photo, was known as "Conquering Carol". Using a female name for a male victory symbol was thought to be most effective for demoralizing German troops. In use, the psyche warfare troops would wait for a heavy battle to break out. They would then rush into the very forefront of it, displaying, with verve, their victory statues. Due to the cost, borne soley by the nascent U.S. artistic community, only a few prototypes were ever produced. Carry on. Ken 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.