Da Paul Challenge

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,264
Reaction score
3,203
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
It's the modification that is interesting:

View attachment 9995

JR
Somua S-35 captured by Germans, used by them in Yugoslavia and captured by Yugoslav Partisans. Like many French tanks captured by the Germans, it has the non-opening hemispherical cupola replaced by a simple 2 piece hatch and most likely a German radio fitted. Fitted with British 6 lbr (57L) in a new turret extension. The interesting thing is that the 6 lbr has a counterweight fitted rather than a muzzle brake. That suggests the gun did not come from a (towed) field carriage but from an AFV, possibly a wrecked AEC II armoured car.
 

footsteps

Just visiting
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
6,268
Reaction score
1,480
Location
Ontario
Country
llCanada
Somua S-35 captured by Germans, used by them in Yugoslavia and captured by Yugoslav Partisans. Like many French tanks captured by the Germans, it has the non-opening hemispherical cupola replaced by a simple 2 piece hatch and most likely a German radio fitted. Fitted with British 6 lbr (57L) in a new turret extension. The interesting thing is that the 6 lbr has a counterweight fitted rather than a muzzle brake. That suggests the gun did not come from a (towed) field carriage but from an AFV, possibly a wrecked AEC II armoured car.
A 6-pdr in a one-man turret. What could possibly go wrong?

Did it ever get used?
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,264
Reaction score
3,203
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
A 6-pdr in a one-man turret. What could possibly go wrong?

Did it ever get used?
Turret balance for a start. They added a big ignorant "box thing" at the front to accommodate the cradle/trunnions/elevation gear. That might even have been the front half of an AEC Mk II turret, I don't really know. The gun itself would be balanced on it's trunnions, but that whole concoction would severely unbalance the turret on its turret ring, likely making traverse a real grinding drag.

That S-35 came up early on in this thread and I missed that it had a counter weight rather than the muzzle brake typical of late 6 lbr towed guns. It is just possible that two were converted but most likely only one was converted. No records survive as to its use.

If you think that's weird, there was a Italian M 15/42 fitted with a Pz 38(t) turret and used by Croatia.
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,264
Reaction score
3,203
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
But it was the A that was fitted with the 20mm, also never used they were removed . G never had that Bracket
Maybe that's a restoration artifact. The hull is definitely an Ausf. G. No driver's opening viewport and the upper hull side armour is a straight line at the bottom rather than with the sloped 'step' at the rearmost quarter as seen on the Ausf D and A.
 

footsteps

Just visiting
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
6,268
Reaction score
1,480
Location
Ontario
Country
llCanada
Turret balance for a start. They added a big ignorant "box thing" at the front to accommodate the cradle/trunnions/elevation gear. That might even have been the front half of an AEC Mk II turret, I don't really know. The gun itself would be balanced on it's trunnions, but that whole concoction would severely unbalance the turret on its turret ring, likely making traverse a real grinding drag.

That S-35 came up early on in this thread and I missed that it had a counter weight rather than the muzzle brake typical of late 6 lbr towed guns. It is just possible that two were converted but most likely only one was converted. No records survive as to its use.

If you think that's weird, there was a Italian M 15/42 fitted with a Pz 38(t) turret and used by Croatia.
Maybe treat the Somua like the KV-2, change TCA pays non-turret penalties. ROF 0, No IF, No B(F)F, BU firer, B10.
 

Gordon

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
519
Reaction score
430
Country
llUnited States
Maybe treat the Somua like the KV-2, change TCA pays non-turret penalties. ROF 0, No IF, No B(F)F, BU firer, B10.
Seems reasonable. Also, if it was, as Paul suggested, "the front half of an AEC Mk II turret", give it inferior turret front armor?
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,264
Reaction score
3,203
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Seems reasonable. Also, if it was, as Paul suggested, "the front half of an AEC Mk II turret", give it inferior turret front armor?
I honestly don't know that it was. I don't remember a photo with a frontal aspect. From that rear angle the turret front looks vaguely like the AEC Mk II turret front and about the same size. Given the few conversions done by the Partisans, it could be anything, You would think that with the gun coming from an AEC Mk II then the internal trunnions, elevating gear and mounting frame would come from the AEC. Why not cut down the S-35 turret to its turret ring and mount the AEC turret on that stub, unless the rear half of the turret was damaged?

While it could be the front half of the AEC turret, it is more likely an extension made from scrap armour from the likes of SdKfz 222 or 251 or even unarmoured but high tensile steel. I was never a welder but I gather that the difficulty of welding plate goes up quite dramatically with the thickness of the plate. So my gut feeling would be an armour of about 20-40mm (2-4 AF), but I'm whistling completely in the dark here.
Maybe treat the Somua like the KV-2, change TCA pays non-turret penalties. ROF 0, No IF, No B(F)F, BU firer, B10.
While that turret suggests some of the problems in common with a KV-2, we're talking a much, much smaller turret and gun, almost a magnitude less metal
NT TCA penalty: Seems reasonable, but otherwise a 1MT.
ROF 0: Agreed.
No IF: Possibly, but I'd be inclined to allow IF due to the much, much smaller 1 piece 57mm shell as opposed to the enormous 2 piece 152mm.
No B(F)F: I'd be inclined to No BFF but allow BF. Aiming could be slower so moving fire would be impractical, but short halt should be doable.
BU firer: It's a 1MT, so BU fire.
B10: That's more than a bit overboard. If the dreadful Italian and Japanese MG only get hit with a B11, then this should get B11. I just can't see something getting out of a workshop and test process so bad it would earn a B10. The only ordnance I can remember with B10 are the Finnish ex-Russian field pieces from the 1880s that had no recoil mechanisms. ASL's B# are simply overly crude steps.

All the above are purest speculation. It could be that the turret was imbalanced but not enough to seriously impair traverse, even fine traverse. The source of the extension is unknown, so could be plate from an AEC, a Stuart, a German AC (~20mm), Pz III/IV, StuG III (30mm) or Panther side armour (40mm). So anything from an AF of 2-4.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
20,842
Reaction score
5,046
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Unless someone comes up with an answer soon, I am going to claim another vic. Here it is again, one last chance:



JR
 

Paul M. Weir

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,264
Reaction score
3,203
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
Country
llIreland
Why did the Brits keep on mounting Anti tank guns facing the rear?
I supposed the design process went something like this:

Have an existing heavy truck chassis capable of bearing the weight
Keep the overall height as low as possible given the above basic vehicle
Rear mounting allows lower barrel height and in addition allows more gun depression
Rear firing mount also means the driver can stay in place while firing, otherwise the driver risks getting his face flayed from muzzle blast
The above vehicle is meant to be a SP AT gun, not a StuG. Getting out of a defensive position fast is far more likely to be required than advancing on the enemy

That's just my reading of what went into the decisions, similar to what I would expect with regards to the Archer. As it is, it's a hulking great big target, partly because the 17 Lbr was a great big hunk of metal. The odd "Thing" between the rear two wheels are the legs of a British infantryman whose torso has been photo-shopped out.
 
Top