Ask Paul

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Lees and Grants well past the "use by" date

I recently saw film footage of a Lee, with Free French insignia, driving up to a damaged Sherman. This was in a Simthsonian documentary about Normandy. (Not that the footage has anything to do with the topic- like most documentaries.) But the terrain was clearly not North Africa- tall lush grass with a large well leafed out tree in the background. I also have the Squadron/ Signal book on the M4 Sherman. The picture inside the front cover of the book shows a Lee, and a very old Sherman to boot, in a plaza in Northern Italy, April or May of '45. The rest of the unit was equipped with 76mm Shermans....

So, my question is, How often were these Lee's and or Grants still in use? Obviously not as a gun tank still, but what were they being used for? Command tank? Artillery spotter? Hack vehicle while yours was getting fixed at battalion?

I have not seen any scenarios depicting their use. But that could be interestering....
Canal Defence Lights, and recovery vehicles come most immediately to mind.

13692
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
There was a command version with a dummy 75 acting as a door handle to its "mantle" which was actually a door! Externally it looked like a gun tank. The British converted those and liked them because of the greater internal space compared to a Sherman conversion.
 

T34

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
204
Location
Nans Sous Sainte Anne, Doubs
First name
Tim
Country
llFrance
The Red Army actually used Grants as APC's because of their prodigious interior space.

Also, Tunisia isn't all desert.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The version with the door instead of the 75 was done on late production Lees which did not have the hull side doors. Like late production Canadian Rams, the doors on late M3s were initially welded up then omitted at factory level because of the perceived weakening of the hull side armour. As far as I know that did not apply to Grants as they were produced only on early to mid production M3 hulls. I have yet to see a Grant with the later and longer M3 L/40 gun, only the earlier M2 L/31 gun.

If you look carefully at the ARV in post #41, there doesn't appear to be hinges on the visible side door. So that one looks like a Lee with welded shut side door. Notice a small handle on outer edge of the dummy 75 mantle. The "mantle" would open hinged on the inner side. While I really don't know, I suspect that mantle door would have not been necessary if the side doors were present and openable.

I don't think the Soviets got Grants, only Lees. A Grant would have been a "grave for 6 brothers" rather than the Lee's "grave for 7 brothers", 7 brothers having some significance in ancient Indo-European mythology, specifically the number 7. Terms like "7th son of a 7th son" come to mind. So 6 brothers would not have had the same psychological impact. Other common Indo-European tropes include 3 faced gods and triple goddess (maiden, mother, crone), long before christianity adopted the trinity.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,998
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Paul just some questions about the DD Shermans:

Were these deconverted after Normandy or kept in use as DD capable?

Did the deconversion consist of simply removing the flotation assembly or was the drive system also removed?

Were any USMC Shermans converted to DD? Dont recall ever seeing any footage of them in the PTO.

What was the latest they were used with their DD capabilities ?

Thanks!
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Warning: What is in this post is lots of speculation.

They were definitely used as gun tanks for quite some time after Normandy. I have seen a fair few photos where the fabric "boat" and its struts were simply cut away, leaving the protruding base still attached. I've also seen a few photos of the whole rig properly collapsed and stowed. Either collapsing or cutting away would have occurred as soon as they left water.

My impression is that regular tank regiments were converted rather using than specialist units like REME. So once ashore and they had time they junked whatever they regarded as extraneous baggage. Some might have taken off the propellers so as not to catch on stuff but I would imagine that removing the rest of the DD drive would have been just too much trouble, especially given the limited life span of Shermans (and other tanks).

The British used Sherman III (M4A2) and V (M4A4) for their DDs, the US used M4A1.

I have no solid idea about USMC Shermans in the PTO, but I don't think so. The PTO saw much use of armed LVTs with 37mm guns and later 75mm howitzers, reducing the need.

DDs were used in Normandy, South France (Operation Dragoon) and Rhine crossing (Operation Plunder). I'm not sure but some may have been used along with LVTs in the battle around the Argenta Gap (Italy) in April '45.

Sorry that I can't give more definite answers, but the above are my best guesses.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,998
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Warning: What is in this post is lots of speculation.

They were definitely used as gun tanks for quite some time after Normandy. I have seen a fair few photos where the fabric "boat" and its struts were simply cut away, leaving the protruding base still attached. I've also seen a few photos of the whole rig properly collapsed and stowed. Either collapsing or cutting away would have occurred as soon as they left water.

My impression is that regular tank regiments were converted rather using than specialist units like REME. So once ashore and they had time they junked whatever they regarded as extraneous baggage. Some might have taken off the propellers so as not to catch on stuff but I would imagine that removing the rest of the DD drive would have been just too much trouble, especially given the limited life span of Shermans (and other tanks).

The British used Sherman III (M4A2) and V (M4A4) for their DDs, the US used M4A1.

I have no solid idea about USMC Shermans in the PTO, but I don't think so. The PTO saw much use of armed LVTs with 37mm guns and later 75mm howitzers, reducing the need.

DDs were used in Normandy, South France (Operation Dragoon) and Rhine crossing (Operation Plunder). I'm not sure but some may have been used along with LVTs in the battle around the Argenta Gap (Italy) in April '45.

Sorry that I can't give more definite answers, but the above are my best guesses.
Thanks Paul. Have to believe that you are correct about removing the drive system being too much trouble. I hadn't considered the limited life span as being a factor but makes a lot of sense.

Your speculation is fine with me. Backed by your encyclopedic knowledge even if it's not 100% accurate it's always informative and entertaining.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
The DD drive I believe was not a permanent connection. It had a clutch system to engage it only when needed, no point in having another thing to wear out needlessly. So once de-clutched it would have been just a lump of metal harming nobody with no extra engine drag. Maybe after battle or severe mechanical damage and sent to a fully equipped repair depot it might have been removed, fully or partly, as part of engine/transmission replacement.

While I have above average AFV knowledge here, my knowledge is limited and when imparting information I believe it is just as important to outline the limits of same. I don't want to lead others astray or at least too far astray.

My hope is that whatever seeds that I plant here will be nurtured by others and inspire members to do their own more detailed research based upon what I provide. Nothing sticks in a person's mind better than what they find out themselves. I hope others will extend, modify or flat out contradict what I say based upon their own enquiries. That way I too can learn.

A lot of what I posted in this thread started out in my mind as "it 'tastes' Soviet, late '30s" type of thing, followed by much googling. IE I get educated by trying to answer the challenges here and elsewhere.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,998
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
The DD drive I believe was not a permanent connection. It had a clutch system to engage it only when needed, no point in having another thing to wear out needlessly. So once de-clutched it would have been just a lump of metal harming nobody with no extra engine drag. Maybe after battle or severe mechanical damage and sent to a fully equipped repair depot it might have been removed, fully or partly, as part of engine/transmission replacement.

While I have above average AFV knowledge here, my knowledge is limited and when imparting information I believe it is just as important to outline the limits of same. I don't want to lead others astray or at least too far astray.

My hope is that whatever seeds that I plant here will be nurtured by others and inspire members to do their own more detailed research based upon what I provide. Nothing sticks in a person's mind better than what they find out themselves. I hope others will extend, modify or flat out contradict what I say based upon their own enquiries. That way I too can learn.

A lot of what I posted in this thread started out in my mind as "it 'tastes' Soviet, late '30s" type of thing, followed by much googling. IE I get educated by trying to answer the challenges here and elsewhere.
Totally agree with your statement about what sticks in a person's mind is what they find out themselves. Whilst searching the Google about the Argenta Gap ended up checking out the Bob Semple tank, a vehicle I won't soon forget! Thanks!
 

AdrianE

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
913
Reaction score
268
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Country
llCanada
Paul

When did the DD equipped regiments get fireflys in Normandy?
In Normandy the average troop in a commonweath tank regiment was 3 regular shermans and 1 firefly but the DD regiments only had regular shermans to start with on June 6.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I've no idea.

A Sherman company/squadron should have 4 75s in HQ and 4 troops of 3 75s, 1 17lbr for a total of 20. I think 4 75s in Regt HQ, total 64.
A Churchill com/sqd would have 2 75, 2 95 in HQ and 5 troops of 3 75 for a total of 19. Regt HQ 2 75, 2 95 for a total of 61.

If you have a solid number for a Regt on D-Day:
61 implies the 5 troop of 3 organisation, IE no 17lbr.
64 officially includes 17lbr but those to be landed later.
52 is the same but the count doesn't include the 17lbr as they were to be landed later.

That's about the only hint that you might be able to follow.
 
Last edited:

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
Paul

When did the DD equipped regiments get fireflys in Normandy?
In Normandy the average troop in a commonweath tank regiment was 3 regular shermans and 1 firefly but the DD regiments only had regular shermans to start with on June 6.
From my website:

In Northwest Europe, the Firefly was a standard issue in armoured regiments, 1 per troop, though the 29th Canadian Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment (South Alberta Regiment) did not receive Sherman Fireflies until September 1944, about a month after landing in Normandy with the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division. "By the spring of 1945 there were enough of these AFVs to provide each troop with two 17-pounder gun tanks."

The Firefly began arriving in Italy in November 1944, and some saw action with Canadian units of the 5th Canadian Armoured Brigade before Operation GOLDFLAKE repatriated Canadian units to the First Canadian Army in Northwest Europe in early 1945. The scale of issue was 1 or 2 per squadron rather than troop. It is not known if any were issued to the 1st Canadian Armoured Brigade.


On D-Day the reserve squadrons "held" all the Fireflies, and they came in after the assault landing. So the assault regiments had their DD tanks on D-Day. Again from my website (https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/history/battlehonours/northwesteurope/normandylandings.htm):

The remainder of the (armoured) regiment, organized as follows, was to land via landing craft once the beaches were secure:
  • Regimental Headquarters (4 Sherman III)
  • "C" Squadron
    • 1st Troop (1 Firefly Vc, 2 Sherman III)
    • 2nd Troop (1 Firefly Vc, 2 Sherman III)
    • 3rd Troop (1 Firefly Vc, 2 Sherman III)
    • 4th Troop (1 Firefly Vc, 2 Sherman III)
    • 5th Troop (1 Firefly Vc, 2 Sherman III)
  • Intercommunication Troop (9 Scout Cars (Humber or Lynx)
  • Anti-aircraft Troop (6 Crusader AA tanks)
  • Reconnaissance Troop (11 Stuart V)
The book "The Sherman in Canadian Service" also talks specifically about the DD regiments. 1st Hussars used Fireflies in action for the first time on 9 June 1944, defending 7th Brigade against a German counter-attack by six Panthers of 12th SS Panzer Division. Apparently a single 17-pdr Sherman knocked out five Panthers with five shots, and the sixth tank was also knocked out by a 17-pdr Sherman. The 1st Hussars received a second 17-pdr Sherman per troop in September 1944.
 
Last edited:

Barking Monkey

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
246
Reaction score
329
Location
Virginia
First name
John
Country
llUnited States
I was looking through a CIA assessment of a T-34-85 they had in Aberdeen done in the early 50's and one of the things they mentioned was the lack of an auxiliary generator. Does this mean the tank's engine would have had to be on to operate systems like the powered turret traverse or radio, or could these systems have been run from battery power (or am I way off base on what the function of an auxiliary generator is - which is extremely possible.)
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,706
Reaction score
3,732
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
I'll have to check through my massive T-34 book (finding it hard to lift it with my arthritic hands ?) about auxiliary generator. It's not something that stuck in my mind, but I will check.

The radio could be operated for some time on battery, but I would not run almost anything else due to limited battery charge and even then only for a limited time. The same would apply to any AFV. The turret could be hand cranked - slowly, if needed. The T-34 had a high pressure air tank system that was used to start the engine in cold weather and was recharged by a running engine. Auxiliary generators were added to many tanks to avoid the need to run thirsty engines (especially petrol) when stopped for some time. The main purpose was to keep the batteries charged. Being able to allow radios, internal lights and other power drains to operate while stopped is a bonus, an important one to be sure, but being able to start reliably is paramount.

It's not like you can call up the AA to recharge your battery at the edge of a battlefield and battery technology was OK but not great until the '70s or later. Heat and vibration are hard on lead acid batteries. In addition such batteries' lives are greatly shortened if not kept fully charged. Modern nickel metal hydride and lithium ion survive far more complete charging-discharging cycles that would wreck lead acid batteries. In addition they have greater energy density when fully charged.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I was looking through a CIA assessment of a T-34-85 they had in Aberdeen done in the early 50's and one of the things they mentioned was the lack of an auxiliary generator. Does this mean the tank's engine would have had to be on to operate systems like the powered turret traverse or radio, or could these systems have been run from battery power (or am I way off base on what the function of an auxiliary generator is - which is extremely possible.)
By way of explanation, the Sherman did have an auxiliary generator. The Sherman ran on a 24-volt DC electrical system, with a power take-off from the main engine driving a 24 V, 50 amp main generator. The auxiliary generator (known as Little Joe to the Americans, and in Canadian service as a Homelite) was a 30V, 1,500 Watt generator driven by a one-cylinder, two-stroke, air-cooled fuel fired engine. It was located inside the tank and charged the Sherman's pair of 12 volt batteries when the main engine wasn't running or when the main generator's output required supplementation. For example the radio and power turret traverse apparently placed a heavy load on the batteries.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,998
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Paul the question was raised in another thread about BTs removing their tracks and if it would increase their movement on roads in ASL. The answer seems to be that it remains unchanged. Any idea if in the real world it increased road speed and if so what do you think that increase would be in ASL? Or were the tracks just removed to extend track life?

The other thread was How to get better at using AFVs in ASL
 
Last edited:

T34

Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2020
Messages
144
Reaction score
204
Location
Nans Sous Sainte Anne, Doubs
First name
Tim
Country
llFrance
According to the Zaloga book on the BT, the trackless mode was primarily to save fuel and reduce track wear, not to increase speed. Obviously, however, road movement was faster. To be honest, the Soviet Union had plenty of steel and fuel, and a paucity of rubber, so track wear as opposed to road wheel wear probably didn't really make any difference to the tankers. Switching between the drive system was extremely difficult and required training as the steering was different. Christie loved the idea, but I don't think it ever really worked in an operational sense, as did not the "flying" air drop version of the BT. However, through all the upgrades (BT-2, BT-5 and BT-7) they did keep the dual drive, so at some point they must have used it or they would have done away with it as it added a lot to the complexity and cost of the BT (and reduced its reliability.) But my guess is that in 1039 to 1941, when these were used up, they never had the tracks taken off.
 
Last edited:

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,468
Reaction score
4,998
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
According to the Zaloga book on the BT, the trackless mode was primarily to save fuel and reduce track wear, not to increase speed. To be honest, the Soviet Union had plenty of steel, and a paucity of rubber, so track wear as opposed to road wheel wear probably didn't really make any difference to the tankers. Switching between the drive system was extremely difficult and required training as the steering was different. Christie loved the idea, but I don't think it ever really worked in an operational sense, as did the "flying" air drop version of the BT.
Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top