A Reading from the Book of Armaments, North African Equipment Reports, 1943.

good insult okay so i am going low-key for this one didn't have time to do any script writing and research so not even bothering laying out my set so what i'm going to do is i'm going to go over a series of reports from north africa which officially at the time was called the eto and later nato north africa theater of operations and as you can imagine especially the lads in the u.s would send observers out or fact finders basically to make sure that the reports that they were getting back from the field about their equipment that they were sending over were accurate so yes there were always surveys and so on that were that were sent out and the units would fill out the surveys and they'll be send up the chain and depending on what nature of the survey was usually they're like 40 or 50 questions uh there will be collated at a higher level maybe even its highest core level and then as sent back actually i think there might be a few army level and send back to the u.s for the lies and ordinance and lands and army ground forces and armored force and tank destroyer boards so on to have a look at and make sure that the troops are satisfied the equipment that they are getting but there's also no substitute to actually sending a man over doing face-to-face interviews because you'll always pick up those nuances or there'll be a thread on a topic or conversation that perhaps you didn't realize so there were several such missions sent to north africa and of course they weren't purely to the u.s side so if you're going all the way across the water to get to north africa and the way that the route that it was taken you'd go all the way down to south america hop over then all the way up africa and then that'll get you to uh to the west coast of north africa and then once you were there what the lads often did was they kind of looped down went over and back up again to egypt and they were talking to the british so you get both sides and what seems to have almost invariably happened is that then they will go back to the western side of north africa you know casablanca wherever and then hop up to london have a chat with the lads in the uk and then they will fly home probably via the iceland canada route but that's actually not specified in the report but if you're curious so uh the first trip out i'm going to talk about was december 1942 they went to brazil ascension the gold coast well from your perspective brazil down to brazil ascension gold coast nigeria sudan and up to cairo first then they hopped over to presumably down and around now from your perspective down and around uh algeria tunisia morocco and then they went to gibraltar for a week to consolidate the findings now aladzin went on this trip uh jacob devers head of the armored force with him he also took a couple of brigadier generals one was by the name of gladian barnes i believe the name will sound familiar to you he the guy who's actually in charge of r d tactical r d for ordinance william palmer another general you may know him from the palmer board so that was an organization that was set up about 1942 as i recall to rationalize what the army was producing so to stop working on five different projects for a light tank and just that's the one that is going to be here seven different projects for armored cars and they're focused that's the one we're going to build that was the palmer board a couple of other guys major general brooke william thaddeus sexton and major earl hormel off the go december 14th and they find the way overseas so the the bottom line of their report the summary version is more or less as follows and the other thing i'm going to note before i get into what the report stated is that i'm going to be covering reports from december 42 to about june of 43 and it'll be interesting how opinions will vary on various pieces of equipment depending on what time period we're talking about whether it's brand new equipment whether they've been able to use it long enough to work out some quirks or figure out how to use it better and also even within the same report you will see contradicting opinions from different end users just the way it worked out so the conclusions of the endeavors trip the medium tank m4 general sherman and it does actually state general sherman in the report probably because they've been bouncing around in uk and at this point the the uk is the primary user of the thing medium tank m4 general sherman is the best tank on the battlefield um the self-propelled 105 millimeter howitzer is the best supporting light artillery weapon on the battlefield the same tactical principles and doctrines taught by the armored force are today being successfully employed by the british eighth army the british have evolved independently in battle methods of tank gunnery similar to latest armored force teachings the present war is definitely one of guns the attack is built around air tanks and artillery defenses built around air concealed anti-tank guns and artillery the present war is one of guns i wonder what else always going to be in order for ground forces to advance hostile aircraft must be rendered ineffective that one yes we know to achieve success all combat units must be able to repel tanks and low-flying aircraft with their own weapons they must have 75 millimeter anti-tank guns and 0.50 caliber anti-aircraft weapons organically assigned and this you're going to see come off from time to time also 37-millimeter anti-tank guns should be provided liberally to artillery trains and similar units and we're going to come back to that one as well the separate tank destroyer arm is not a practical concept on the battlefield defensive anti-tank weapons are essentially artillery offensively the weapon to be the tank is a better tank now there is a i don't know if it's going to be in this series of reports i'm mentioning but there was even a comment by patton that states that tank versus tank is a waste of a tank uh sooner or later the issue between grand forces and settled uh is settled in an armored battle tank versus tank the concept of tank destroyer groups and brigades attempting to overcome equal numbers of hostile tanks is faulty unless the tank destroyers are actually better tanks than those of the enemy a higher standard of discipline of american troops must be maintained and again i'm not going to go into this one but there is an article in technical and tactical trends i think was a of 1943 where patton does five pages or six pages of notes on combat i was actually debating doing this instead of the uh doing that instead of this series of reports but it's like the entire first page is to do a discipline close order drill that sort of thing so recommended uh each infantry battalion include eight self-propelled 75 millimeter energy tank guns ied m3 gun motor carriage all battalions include four anti-aircraft vehicles each mounting four 0.50 caliber machine guns so basically we're talking m16s 37-millimeter anti-tank guns be provided to artillery trains and similar troops the training facilities of camp hood texas be used to produce and train anti-tank artillery personnel for all troops equipped with anti-tank guns of 75 millimeter and larger surplus production if any to be sent to tank units and you will actually see a couple of references to placing towed anti-tank guns in tank units i have it doesn't state what they were thinking or why just that they thought it would be a good idea that tank destroyer battalions be redesignated as anti-tank artillery battalions and their number be limited to those sufficient for divisions and larger units that of course never happened but don't forget that there is tank destroyers and there's anti-tank companies they are not the same thing in the us army in world war ii better battle uniform including waterproof shoes be provided so that was you know the summary of that report in 1940 uh basically late 1942 last month at 42 then early january and so january 15th off they go in an attempt to reach england there they get lost they're playing crashes and everybody on board gets captured another example how casual this is i am drinking and this is of course available for sale below the video together with some other merch uh so that was the dares mission so i'm going to move on a little bit to about a month give or take it was technically an annex to um to this report um i can't remember who wrote this it's probably at the end here let me see i come back with this evidence uh doesn't say report to general j l devers ordnance annex on report abroad uh it may have been by barnes himself actually okay so let's see what it says at the conference held with lieutenant general r.l mccreary british army cairo he gave his opinion that the m4 tank is the best tank in this war he also held the opinion that the american m3 light tank which the british called the honey has been out of outstanding value and has remarkable speed and reliability the british want all both all of both of these tanks they can obtain and yes he does say honey and it's one of those things that i'm forever going to it's going to bite me in the arse as it were so my miss of american armor said the british didn't come up with the name honey unfortunately when you're speaking off the cuff like that not off a script sometimes what comes out of your mouth isn't exactly what you meant and what i had intended to mean was it was an american term that had been adopted by the british but didn't come out like that and of course youtube the the pop-up subtitles didn't show up uh unless you're on the desktop and i don't know if it's possible to edit the video and put up subtitles after it's been uploaded frankly i don't have the time to do that sort of research when questioned he stated he would be in favor of the new 76 millimeter tank gun in a proportion of the medium tank m4 uh 176 to 375 now remember at this point the 76 was being rejected by armored force now this may not have it wasn't officially rejected the actual paperwork had not yet been submitted upwards but in practice the 76 sherman had been rejected for use in north africa because this was supposed to happen august 42 armored force didn't like it was said was too cramped didn't make the best use of the sites and so on says go back try again so at this point they know that they are working on a 76 they just don't have one yet and of course it will not be until the summer of 43 that they would develop and design a really good 76 tank major general c.w norman cairo similarly stated the british had been trying for three years to build a satisfactory tank he marveled at the m3 and m4 tanks which had been produced so quickly both general mccreary and general norman stated that the american m3 tanks have no idea who they are by the way the american m3 tanks had stopped the germans at the el alamein line and that the m4 tanks defeated the germans in the breakthrough he spoke of the lack of capped ammunition for the british six pounder and said that this deficiency detracted from the value of the six pounder gun one modification the british have made to the m4 tank has been to weld a light steel rail along the sides of the tank about one inch clearance this permits the use of steel bows which can be covered by canvas to make the tank look at a distance like a truck so i'm i'm going to skip over this paragraph if you don't know what it i'm sure you've seen the meme that's kind day 43 the trucks still don't realize i'm a tank uh several officers of general b l montgomery's headquarters commander british 8th army spoke of the gun stabilizer which they had used successfully the british eighth army as a whole is not very much interested at the present time of the stabilizer as in all the recent battles they have fought with the tanks with the hull down i they're not moving that is in there some of the younger officers and sergeants are very much interested in this device the difficulty of keeping the stabilizer working has been the principal difficulty up to date as the device is not sturdy enough for field service conditions and i have a written article up uh i guess i'll put it down somewhere in the text comments below about that what the us army felt about this whole stabilizer issue and they did eventually end up fixing the stabilizers by the time they were fixed the troops a lot of the troops that lost confidence weren't using it anymore general r briggs commander british first armored division is of the opinion that the concealed anti-tank gun is the greatest enemy of the tank and you'll be seeing this a fair bit uh and of course we know eventually what happens is that the the lads in the u.s take the lessons from north africa they realize that they should not have made entirely separable tank destroyer units and make toad and convert half of them to toad we know now that this was a mistake but of course they did not know that at the time oops too much okay uh then for some reason i'm missing a page uh the british officer stated that the attacks of the german stuka dive bombers were not effective against our medium tanks the british tank crews stated that they never closed the turret tops during battle and would be perfectly willing to have these armored tops replaced by light metal covers to keep out the rain when questioned as to this point the american officers on the tunisian front stated that they used the covers which they closed in battle and found the periscope in the cover of great use and again this is the the tc's covers the doors officially in the manual so we call that a hatch the manual calls it a door and i guess they're using the term cover the british were limited in their pursuit of the germans by the amount of gas which could be carried in each tank at one time in the llmn section they could have completely cut off the german retreat if they could have traveled 50 miles they ran out of gas and were immobilized and the opportunity never again presented itself as the fighting continued at llm for 12 days without ceasing the tank engines required more and more gas and oil per mile the need for a tank engine with greater life was thus illustrated and a serious need for a tank engine which will give 400 hours of operation is apparent now generally speaking the american engines at the time were rated for about 250 hours which is about right for a a good engine at the time the germans were more or less the same you had to overhaul it 100 hours supposedly but it was supposed to be about 250 hours in the engine before you had to pull it out and send it to the rear and get it replaced in breaking through the llm inline general montgomery used 400 guns and approximately 500 rounds of ammunition per gun the 75-mm gun in the m4 tank was used to destroy anti-tank guns at up to 3 500 yards using hg's shell general arkwright stated that the m3 tanks ran 240 hours during the l-alam in action and when called upon in an emergency were able to run 40 hours more without difficulty this was under battle conditions where practically no maintenance of any kind was possible so again i mean they used more and more oil but they still ran colonel waters usa first armor division who fought with the light tanks m3 on the tunisian front praised the 37-millimeter gun and stated quote that it gave good results in battle destroying the german mark iii and mark iv tanks at about 300 yards okay it's one of those things if you don't know that something better exists and you make the most of what you got general patton and his officers are very enthusiastic over the performance of the new m5 light tanks in action against the french at casablanca they had encountered no difficulties with them up to the present time in conferences with general norman colonel w h blagdon deputy director afv british eighth army it was stated that they preferred the diesel type of engine on account of the longer mileage on one filling of fuel and a decreased fire hazard they consider it desirable that a tank have a fuel capacity to take care of 12 hours of operation approximately 240 miles which of course is further than the petrol engine will go now the story of dieselization versus petrol is complicated for a while armored force wanted to go completely diesel when eventually they started making the diesel shermans the uh the mechanics weren't too pleased with it mainly because of the air filters apparently according to the the reports a diesel engine sucks up as much air almost idling as it does in you know in heavy use and the amount of the size of the air filters that you can install into an m4a2 was limited by the amount of space available and they were too small so that gave you some reliability problems our rubber tracks and all american tanks have given splendid results and are very well liked on the count of their long life some m4 tanks have already been driven more than 1 500 miles without changing tracks which i think is better than i got out of my m1 the question as to whether trailers should be attached to the back of a tank to carry ammunition and additional fuel was discussed several british officers were not in favor of the use of the trailer due to the decreased performance of the tank others felt that this was a good idea in that additional fuel and ammunition could be carried forward and if necessary could be detached and dropped should the trailer interfere with the operation of the tank of course the one that was actually put into service was the rotor trailer i have the uh on my crusader video i've got the quote uh or the this video segment of david fletcher talking about the thing uh par i wouldn't say very complimentary and i also have i guess i'll put the articles below as well uh a couple of reviews of trailers by us army ordnance apparently some canadian manufacturer wrote a trailer apparently was made in canada and shipped to the uk so aberdeen got a hold of rota trailer and gave it a go they didn't find it was any better than than the british found it oops okay that's actually a repeat of the earlier page you must have miscanned that why is this going in circles stop it okay so then they go to england uh several conferences were held and much of this isn't so much relevant to be talked out uh the british have very recently decided to adopt the 75 millimeter caliber gun for their tanks such a gun having the interior and exterior ballistics of our 75 millimeter tank gun has been built and is under test the british have at last come to the realization that their six-pounder gun is not a suitable tank weapon an armored force dallied with the six pounder for a little while very briefly uh for example was mounted in the m7 tank uh no if you can fit a 75 but a 75 and of course so did uh take destroyer commander they tried they tried a six pounder they didn't like it the only reason the 57 really entered service with the us army at all is because it was a good compromise between capability i.e it wasn't just utterly useless like the 37 and wait i it wasn't impossible to lug around by manpower like the three incher i witnessed firings with the new british three-inch 17-pounder gun british have the gun under production and sent it to the middle east it has not yet seen action uh they have mounted the three-inch 17-pounder described above in the modified cromwell tank a30 and then it talks about the uh the cromwell a30 which is also of course known as challenger shooting was extremely accurate this development closely parallels that in the united states with our new 90 millimeter gun to be mounted in the new t20 medium tank which also mounts interchangeably the 75 and 76 millimeter guns and the 105 millimeter howitzer of course we all know now the t20 never made it but the series t25 t26 did in london i saw a new experimental mount consisting of 220 millimeter worlicons uh this unit did not appear to compare favorably with our four gun caliber 50 maxim mount on the half track vehicle ied m60 16 sorry uh considerable discussion so there was talk here this is a bit weird so there was a little there was some concern of whether or not there would be sufficient amounts of ford engines and uh there was talk about can we use the rolls-royce meteor and the british were kind of in favor of this because hey look you got 600 horse versus it says here 525 and there are also some political considerations um me go to the next page whoops they are opposing the manufacturer of the ford engine in england it is probable that the question of the manufacturer the ford engine is in england will not be settled until after the completion of our test in the united states and our final adoption of the engine so there you go apparently the ford v8 we're talking about building it in the uk i don't know why i have no idea why i would have thought the british would make as many of the meteors as they could armored cars general richardson director armored fighting vehicles correction army fighting vehicles states that the british would like to have some of the t-19 armored cars manufactured i told them that the vehicle would only be completed as a pilot and would take some time before production could be started but on the other hand the t-17e1 could be produced very much quicker they will be satisfied with the t-17 units and they were generally satisfied with the t-17 it was a staggering uh possibly a little bit out of place in western europe but for they generally look into elected the british are anxious to have some of the t-18 heavy armored cars completed if it is possible to do so units designed by the british will not be pressed if it does not meet with american production plans which probably explains why only the the one or two warhounds were made and of course the survivor is actually in the uk right now that was a huge eight-wheel armored car with a six pounder up top uh british would like to obtain the maxin fork gum caliber 50 mount uh and also test the twin 20 millimeter mount m4a4 tanks the british have tried the chrysner multiple engine and they found that they function exceedingly well they like the additional power which the engine develops they are therefore anxious to obtain the agreed quota of m4a4 tanks as soon as possible they would like to obtain the engines with a single water pump if at all possible and there is in gene mcleod ross's book the business of tanks he talks about the uh the effort that they went to to make the m4a4 reliable and suitable for british service it didn't come that way there's a reason that the british didn't like it this is a good one the british are anxious to obtain 252 grand tanks plus spares for use with a special tank project which is also under consideration in the united states it doesn't say what that project is but i i have a 20 bill saying it's the canal defense light uh see that one i have seen well actually a little bit so this is a sort of a supporting documentation some of this it says already like uh uh considering the m4 is the best tank in the battlefield uh 75 millimeter gun has destroyed the best german tanks at ranges as great as 2500 yards this is the conclusion of the british eighth army and our own forces on the tunisian frontier people's people slander the 75 it's a perfectly good gum in north africa the m3 tanks in the hands of american troops have been driven approximately 800 miles before leaving england and have given good additional service in north africa average engine hours in most of these tanks is about 250 so i guess they're all due for a replacement soon future operation tanks with new engines and tracks should be issued to troops before entering a new theater i.e train on one and take brand new ones to war there is actually an argument against that because you got to make sure you have enough time to make sure that your new issued tank actually works manufacture the four tank engines should be expedited as soon as found satisfactory as a 400 hour engine more spare tank engines are required in egypt and north africa rubber track blocks are highly satisfactory it is most important that the manufacturer of rubber block tracks be continued this type of track gives the tank mechanism longer life i actually haven't seen very much in favor of the canadian dry paint often you know the fact it doesn't use much rubber experimental wide steel tracks should be pushed to completion light tanks m5 will give an excellent service to date uh m3 light tank m3 british 8th army praises highly and want more of them they've been outstanding its reliability the british g so this is date this is actually dated january january 18th i think it is yes the british g2 i.e the intel officer at algiers have definite information that the germans have a new mark vi tank on the tunisian front which mounts an 88 millimeter gun sounds impressive our new medium tank t20 under development which we'll use interchangeably the 75 76 and 90 millimeter guns will thus overmatch the gun of this new german tank and should be pushed as future development at the optimism the tank gun stabilizer is now manufactured will not stand field service and must be made more rugged the stabilizer is desired by american troops if it can be made reliable which of course they eventually did tank recovery vehicles vital equipment in countries where there is a lack of rail transportation approximately 200 transporters are needed immediately by american forces tank recovery vehicles have played a vital part in the recent eighth army operations where it has been necessary to move tanks over great distance um the tank transport vehicle which will operate normally on hard surface roads is not necessarily the same type of vehicle as a so-called tank recovery vehicle and of course that turned out not to be the case you know so it turned out to be the case so you have the the transport vehicle like the m2526 versus the recovery vehicle the m32 self-propelled howitzers uh i think walnut tanks players aren't going to like this one the 105 millimeter howitzer in the medium tank chassis m7 in the hands of the british 8th army destroyed many german tanks and the british officers and men are very enthusiastic about it the 105 self-propelled mount m7 was used successfully in german tanks at ranges as great as 10 000 yards corresponding results were obtained by the american first armor division in action against the germans and if you have a look i'm i'm sure at one point i i've said i'm not going to do battle videos i probably will do one of katharine pass uh and it was really the artillery that held the line not more than them don't get me wrong when when finally i think with cca with their shermans got into position and they they stopped this whole that's attack though and they just look let's hold the line the sherman said very well as well uh but it was artillery that really saved the day officers and men of the british 8th army state that they prefer the american 105 howitzer to the british 25 pounder due to the heavier shell and larger bursting charge now that said the 25 pounder did provide sterling service in the siege to book especially also as an anti-tank gun in view of the success achieved by the 105 millimeter self-propelled m7 demands for the 4.5 inch gun that's about 114 millimeter and the 155 millimeter howitzer on the modified light tank chassis m5 should be expedited a 155 on an m5 i'm gonna if i find out what that is i'll probably put it down so i'm going to go after so that was my honeycomb because i can't think what the heck you would put a 155 on an m5 light i suspect it didn't enter service no i may be about to be completely embarrassed let's find out thirteen tds the one problem with honeycut is that it tends to be it it goes by platform not by roll so you're doing a lot of digging okay 75 on an m3 1075 on the m5 105 on this honeycutt doesn't mention i have no idea what this guy's talking about the 155 millimeter gun on medium tank chassis m12 is now under construction 200 units uh it should be made available to troops as soon as possible we're gonna we're gonna meet that one again now in a future report the 75 millimeter gun on half track is a valuable anti-tank weapon it has already proved of great value to american forces on the tunisian front again we're talking about the m3 god motor carriage the tank destroyer um that's the last page possibly 443. i was wrong yes that was the last page so that was that report so i'm now going to move forward a couple of months to i believe it was may let me bring this up so colonel william a borden of ordnance branches i recall he went same general trip north africa and uk in april so it's april 15th to may of 20 may 22nd of 1943. so assume that this is may 1943 is actually typing this uh the observations cover a period of about three weeks in north africa during which three days and nights were spent in ordinance constellations yeah okay i'll go i'll keep going down now what's interesting about this is that the report is accompanied by um this army ground forces yes he sent this report to army ground forces army ground forces then wrote a cover letter with his with their own commentary on his report which he then sent up to the agf so this was um he sent it to requirements section of army grand forces so as we go through the list i'll also say what requirements section says whether or not they agreed in general the performance of all ordinance and the service rendered by ordinance troops in installation has been superior this is even appraised by such statements as the following which appeared in the british press u.s arms are vindicated uh what comes most clearly out of the dispatchers is the sterling worth of american ordnance so you you could say that compared to what the british were making anything was good but i don't choose to believe that the british the americans actually knew what they were doing for the front lines to the base sections and theater headquarters to entire ordinance organization was found on its toes with the organization interested energetic and efficient i was indeed proud of all i saw ordnance department is doing an outstanding job the tremendous value of firepower has impressed uh all with whom i talked it even elicited the following editorial and stars and stripes artillery today is never before troops advancing the battle march to the sound of the guns firepower wins and the gun of today thunders the challenge the finest most powerful machine that man can create on the ground in the air or on the sea you wonder about an official report to cover that quote stars and stripes anyway its first section is tanks a no basic faults only refinements are required of all which are being correction only refinement only refinements are required all of which are being given attention important that improvements in stowage of ammunition be completed and introduced in all tanks low horizontal stowage on floor of tank with water sand or armor protection is imperative and the underlying's imperative ammunition is obviously the principal source of fires which of course was confirmed in testing in the u.s firepower of our medium tank must be improved to keep up with the germans 76 millimeters should be installed in at least a portion of our present medium tanks 90 millimeters should be imported installed in a portion of our new medium tanks so 76 for the sherman's 90 for the next ones this confirms what is already underway now requirements section sends up this headquarters believes that the 90 millimeter in a tank will prove entirely too heavy for effective operations now there were other concerns with the move to 90 but i'm not convinced that weight was actually one of them mainly to do with rate of fire and ammunition capacity smoke pots on forward edge of turret should be provided on all our tanks and combat vehicles for screening movement or escape they should be in banks of three fired electrically from inside the turret similar to the german type and requirements states that it is believed the better results could be obtained by use of smoke mortars or projectors inside the tank than by placing smoke pots on the forward edge of the turret now again this is a british development if you look at the matildas they had external external smoke launchers and if i recall it was like a ridiculously simple cable with a like a lee infield trigger or something like that it was a very simple mechanism the british came up with the idea of putting the two-inch mortar uh or smoke bomb thrower whatever you want to call it into the m4 that fires at the roof the cast turret of our medium m4 tanks should be thickened at the points on the right side with depressions have been bored out for hand wheel clearance these have been thinned out in places to one and a half inches and are a point of weakness a formed patch should be provided for existing turrets for attachment in the field by welding or bolting on and that is exactly what happened if you look at a lot of m4s you are going to see that triangular patch on the turret if it is a if it was one of the traverse mechanisms that required shaving out the inside of the turret to make it fit the steel tracks are used with the m4 tanks strict speed control and road operations is essential to prevent overheating and destruction of the bogie tires and support rollers positive instruction to this effect must be given not only to our troops but also the british and french to whom these are issued sites continue to be a subject of considerable discussion generally better sites are wanted new brackets are holding so there was a fix sent out the very initial linkages between the gun and the site the periscopic site because at the time the initial tanks the shermans had no direct vision site that wasn't very good so they had to issue a fix for that so that's probably the one that they're talking about um british claim gunners are handicapped by limited scope of telescopic sites that said there were also some reports there was there was one i put up on the facebook page a while ago this guy killed like six tanks all at over a kilometer and i said yeah there's nothing wrong with these sites site which will see through smoke is required good luck now in fairness if you don't ask you don't know whether or not it exists i had this problem in afghanistan actually apparently i needed certain pieces of equipment which i wasn't permitted to know existed when i addressed the point to the intel guys well actually what happened was he came around to me afterwards you know quiet hallway says you need to ask for this capability you can do that yeah i'll be right back so off it goes coming and in world war ii a lot of these requests went up that they they didn't know if it was possible to do but i figured i may as well ask and see if the engineers could come up with something that would meet their requirements and in this case they needed a site that would three to see through smoke it may have taken 30 something years for the engineers to do it but yeah whatever indirect fire is demanded so basically they make sure that the tanks are fire indirect illuminated reticle is desired for tank site i believe they fix that eventually investigate elbow telescope for tank site based on the german site drawing sent to general christmas by colonel crawford so again on an elbow sight the way that kind of works is that the sight is always the same angle to your eye and it articulates as the gun elevates and depresses uh the m5 light tank with hydromatic transmission is working well in units which are trained in its use adjustment and maintenance in units which are not trained it does not perform as well tools and instruction manuals have been very short this is a question of training and providing the tools and instruction when these are given appropriate attention performance is better than the m3 light tank uh let's see oh no north africa is taking appropriate steps to change the overall high compression r 975 radials those are the ones in the m4 to free use of a lower octane gas so there was actually uh several octanes ratings of gas used by the using world war ii tank engines both light medium tanks are given about 120 250 hours of operation before overhaul is required not new uh reduction in unit ground pressure with wider tracks now being developed is desirable to negotiate type of mud present in north africa this mud is far more cohesive and slippery than any i have seen in the united states so we discussed gumbo mud in a previous uh video so we'll see how that you know i have no idea how much worse that was the requirements section said it is desirable provided it does not necessitate tanks which are wider reduction in unit ground pressure with wider tracks is desirable again the u.s army shipping everything thousands of miles has got to fit on everything tank destroyers experience with the 3-inch gun motor carriage m10 has clouded thought on this weapon it has been used as a tank with unsatisfactory results best advice obtained is that when used properly it is effective a tank destroyer must use this mobility and firepower if it attempts to stand and slug it out it will be destroyed the 76 millimeter gun motor carriage t70 should be more nearly uh should more nearly meet express requirements although high speed must usually be held in reserve and armor protection is on the light side the germans have self-propelled their 88. we should have our 90s self-propelled for supplementing lower power weapons for long-range operation against tank at least a few should be provided this is being considered given consideration by nato usa i.e north of the north africa theater of operations u.s army and report will be forwarded now that that's that series of reports has always kind of confused me what that and that report ended up creating was a t-53 gun motor carriage 90 millimeter and it was specifically because the germans have a self-propelled 88 they did but the self-propelled 88 at the time was the one that was on the 12-ton half-track which saw service in poland saw service in france i'm not sure if it should have been a should have been a surprise to anybody and i don't think it's all service in north africa the italians would eventually have a 90 millimeter on a truck but i don't think it was in service by that either it may have been but it may not be there is another document somewhere which states that they discovered this self-propelled 88 because a soldier who was captured happened to be carrying a picture of it and it may have been a memento that he took in you know in the french campaign he found one of these 8.8 self-propelled guns and he had his photo taken next to it so make of that what you will so that that tourist snap intelligence windfall may have led to the t-53 fire control for indirect laying must be provided on tank destroyers it is used for long range for long range from concealment and again i was talking harry idea a couple of days ago on the uh on the live stream if you didn't see that on the water tanks channel and uh it was very explicit that the indirect fire mission was a north africa invention the 75 millimeter on the half track has disadvantage of lacking the mobility of the tank tank destroyer must at least have mobility of tanks over all terrain and of course that was the the goal that tank destroyer command was trying to reach artillery our artillery is superior brightest spot of whole equipment some small refinements are needed oh requirements section by the way on that 90. this headquarters as previously stated believes that there is no need for a self-propelled 90 millimeter gun now as i say ordnance started building the t-53 when general bruce found out about this the guy in charge of tank destroyer command heath will fit and don't forget that nobody wanted the m36 either that at the time the t-71 was being developed it was only developed just in case we need it not because we think we need it and that includes tank destroyer branch thank you destroyer branch should not want a 90 millimeter gun uh okay there's a little bit of welding of hinge pin brackets equilibrator issues gas check pads wear out new firing mechanism or better primer will improve performance artillery has been used almost exclusively at longest ranges some splitting of spades and trails resulting is not serious and they may mention this a little bit later on but basically in north africa long-range artillery fire was the norm we're talking some pretty significant distances here between where the artillery is and where the targets are and they wanted long-range artillery but very few guns only the really heavy guns really had that long range heavy artillery is being considered essential and this is l okay heavy artillery is considered essential in proper proportions more heavy long-range artillery could have been used in north africa with good effect heavy artillery will be needed for the defeat of prepared fortifications when we attack on the continent of europe consideration must be given that american heavy artillery must support the british and french or be used to equip them as our heavy mobile artillery is most suitable for this purpose needs are being consideration by nato usa ito usa and by the british and will be submitted to ground forces etc the three inch wheeled mount for anti-tank work is essential and should give a good account of itself nato usa is requesting these of course the three inch wheeled anti-tank mount is the 3-inch gun m5 which would eventually equip half of the tank destroyed battalions a light 76 millimeter wheel mount with low silhouette for anti-tank purposes should be developed with the 76 millimeter mounted in the tank in the tank destroyer and on a wheeled mount we would have a standardization combination which would be most effective and such a gun was developed and it was a lot lighter than the towed three-inch inch anti-tank gun but by the time the thing was approved for production and they had realized oh my god we made a horrible mistake by moving to towed battalions there was absolutely no incentive for anybody to stick a toad 76 out there even if it was lighter than the three inch gun uh everything was going to be self-propelled by that point so the toad 76 never really went anywhere neither did the toad 90. no fuse setter has been provided have an improvised spanner for this all right 37 millimeter gun variously reported on is on the light side accurate as a rifle at short range is satisfactory against tanks used by infantry against machine gun nests with he now again it doesn't have much of a huge round but it is a gun that you can bring around with your uh and with your infantry we are light troops because it's light enough to drag along the left wheel of the 105 howitzer comes off and towing check with apg and they checked and says colonel evans says the trouble with the left wheel is not chronic in north africa uh one observation telescope is required for battery of field artillery the infantry allowance should be troubled they disagree any anti-tank artillery weapon must be provided with apc he and smoke otherwise it does not have sufficient versatility uh it doesn't mention anything on that the ordnance theater should be provided a suitable field chronograph okay so that's basically it's for measuring muzzle velocity uh pressure gauges etc to enable worn gun tubes to check for its serviceability otherwise guns will be salvaged before the useful service life is gone so basically what would happen is the the americans would fire a gun until it was worn out and then it would replace the gun as you can imagine and it would turn out that about two and a half to three and a half thousand rounds per gun was typical so propelled artillery the 37 millimeter sub-propelled is going out it is too low in power that would be the m6 good motor carriage the 105 millimeter on medium tank chassis is good that's your m7 priest silhouette is pretty high although not too detrimental in hilly country such as encountered in tunisia protection for ammunition has previously been noted and correction introduced um canon company of infantry has been equipped with two 105 howitzer motor carriages m7 six 75 millimeter howitzer motor carriages t30 those are on half tracks reported that they like them effectively used in iran landing used in firing over crest or in defilade fire no trouble reported however need a lighter lower silhouette weapon uh let's see six seed do they say anything yes they do neither of these carriages have proved very satisfactory some officers believe that the light or lower silhouette can be provided however in view of the fact that no such carriage is currently under development it is questionable whether or not it can be provided okay in the meantime the 105 millimeter heat m3 should remain standard equipment um all right let's move on the 155 millimeter gun motor carriage m12 could have been used behind divisions where guns were moved up close saving time and possibly by using the mobility could have been kept from being knocked out several battalions have been requested by nato usa staying behind the possibility but it's removed up close i guess what they're saying is that they they brought the 155s to to near to the front nato usa fifth army and general patents force are studying the need for self-propelled artillery in larger calibers and will report requirements some self-propelled artillery in all calibers for supplementing wheeled artillery shut i.e toad should be provided to support armored forces for quick changes and position in support of infantry divisions and the aircraft better fire control is needed to supplement director control uh pika site for 40 millimeter but force is favored i don't understand that they uh the guys want to know what's wrong with the vices site uh oh commanding general army ground forces ay mcnair is not convinced that self-propelled artillery in large caliber is essential he's probably right uh investigate sergeant hall's slight for 90 millimeter gun for use in attack of dive bombers a simple light man for caliber 50 gun is needed rockets as developed by the british for anti-aircraft except for barrage use over special areas are not acceptable they're expensive and ammunition can be put in the right place because of the dropping case are limited to temperatures below 85 degrees that's a problem in north africa and will have an altitude of only 16 000 feet the dual and quadruple caliber 50 guns in maxin turrets should be of great value nato usa has requested quantities of this and remember in north africa the americans did not have air supremacy uh let's see nothing particularly new there okay general patton wants a combination mount of 220 and 140 millimeter aa guns on a light tank chassis uh similar to the combination of 2.50 and one 37 millimeter a guns it actually says 250 millimeters but he's talking about the twin 50 with the 37 mount he is most enthusiastic about the performance of the latter and beliefs with increased armor the heavy combination should be effective the caliber 30 gun is absolutely no good for aa defense should be eliminated as simply waist ammunition the caliber 50 gun is the right size for low altitude defense a couple issues with the 19 to 40. ammunition in general our ammunition is performing in a superior manner ammunition is being expended in large amounts 1200 rounds per day per 12 howitzers is a big average day to blast hill uh 600 to 700 rounds per day for 12 howitzers for pointed targets is an average day expenditure in the 75 and 105 calibers as much as 10 of the cases are dented some sort of pad in the carton at the base of the 75 millimeter cartridge case should be provided but first test should be conducted to determine if denting is due to chucking of the projectile in the case when dropped decay cartridge case down i think chucking it means actually just placing it into the case not chucking it as i'm throwing it the new packaging and one of five moment ammunition had just arrived in no experience and began with it opinions differ as the 105 crate being too heavy um condition is not critical okay uh some premature detonations uh a few premature only two reported uh one twelve inches down the bore and one just outside the bore no cars determined uh fuses are as near perfection as can be expected uh scroll down scroll down fifteen thousand rounds and one of five millimeter ammunition including smoke has been the average daily expenditure rate of second core of which 10 and a half thousand rounds throw with m48 fuses the proportion of m48 to m54 fuses is 71 i have no idea what they are germans have a high velocity heat projectile with a nose fuse for the 75 at gun these heat projectiles are reported as very effective in causing fires in tanks the trajectory of the special animation should be the same as ap i don't think it is at long range they should penetrate where velocity has dropped to the point where penetration by ap is reduced we should have this field covered he's quite correct heat ammunition is just as effective at long range in fact technically if you account for slope it's probably more effective at long range because the heat round is on the way down meeting the front slope smoke with different colors is essential for grenades 75 three inch and one of five guns and howitzer 155 distinctive color is more important than volume this is not used for masking purposes but is used for target identification and ranging low velocity smoke shelf for 75 tank guns for masking is essential this was developed some time ago the ammunition is badly needed demand for the white phosphorus smoke shell is on the increase it is very effective against tanks extra supply of 5 over and above present allowance is demanded pyrotechnics do not like pyrotechnic pistol not enough range the 10 gauge very pistol is better latch is bad um there's a little bit about the issuance of ammunition a lot so i might as well skip that right so it turned out that i didn't how long this was going to take before i got going that according to my audio recorder i'm filming this after i finished this is nearly two hours long so i am going to put a break here and i will come back in a few days with part two of this sequence of reports from north africa so till then take care

Channel: The_Chieftain

Views: 49,060

Rating: 4.974287 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: USpg88J1tJU

Length: 58min 15sec (3495 seconds)

Published: Sun Sep 27 2020