"? Rubber tyred Lee tanks- Kohima" Topic

Hi,

I am pretty ignorant of WWII Burma/India operations. So I got the book " Kohima The Furthest Battle " by Leslie Edwards.

On page 169 when referring to 5 Brigade part of the relief force attacking Bunker Hill, it mentions "… five rubber tyred Lee tanks of 149 Regiment, Royal Armoured Corps, …."

Not being very familiar with armour, I know that some armoured vehicles had rubber on the road wheels and some didn't. But don't think that would be mentioned in ageneral description of an attacking force.

So would these Lee tanks mentioned not be tracked but actually have rubber tires ? My only knowledge of Lee's were from North Africa where they were tracked. Could you please enlighten me.

Thank You.

Like many tanks, the M3 Lee's road wheels (those that carry the weight of the tank, rolling over that portion of the track in contact with the ground at any point in time) had rubber tires.

It does sound like a pointless detail, of which military histories often abound… ;o)

If you're interested, the Lees in question belonged to the 254th Indian Tank Brigade's reserve/replacement squadrons that were held at Dimapur (five tanks per 'squadron').

Now if the issue were whether the road wheels were the earlier stamped, spoked type as opposed to the later solid type… no, that would be a pointless detail as well!

Edwards suggests that as a result of the "rubber tyres", the Lees were less than ideally mobile, does he not? Odd.

Allen

Historians need wargamers to set them straight. Haven't we seen enough examples of this in the past?

(Rivet counters hat on…) Rubber TRACKS rather than tyres might make more sense, there being a variety of metal & metal/rubber tracks available for the Lee & Sherman. (takes off the rivet counters hat….)unless that somehow makes any difference to traction/reliability then it's still a pointless detail though.

Photos of Lees in Burma do generally show them to have the earlier type of track, shod with rubber blocks. However, I'm not sure what the author's point was in emphasising this minutiae. Is he suggesting that this gave them some sort of advantage or disadvantage in the engagement?

Pretty obscure & badly made then if it was…….. ;-)

It's been a long time--I picked up the book and skimmed through it on a trip to the Military Parade Bookshop in Marlborough, but set it down in favor of "Imphal", Ferguson's and Stibbe's narratives of the Chindits, and "Tank Tracks to Rangoon" (it was a Burma binge that day)--but I recall that the author suggested that (sit down) because these Lees were *wheeled*, they were at a disadvantage.

I may have misread it, but that was one of the things that caused me to pass over the book.

Allen

This sort of thing does crop up in books written by historians who know the big picture, or the human aspect of the story, but haven't got a scooby-doo abut the nuts and bolts of small units, how they work and what kit they use.

I could point to similar faux pas by Hastings, Keegan, Whiting and other such worthies. Even Tim Saunders, a serving British Army Officer, misunderstood the term 'Troop Carrying Vehicle' in his book 'Hill 112' – he took it to mean 'Ram Kangaroo' and helpfully included a nice photo, though of course Ram Kangas didn't appear for several months after the battle (a TCV is simply a 3-ton truck)!

As far as I'm concerned, it's the result of university writing – one learns to puff up one's communication needlessly in university with redundant details and statements so that you can get your essay to the magical 500/1000/2000/5000 words in any arts course. It's a style I had to completely unlearn in the real world and one that this author obviously still hasn't shaken.

My opinion, of course, FWIW.
--
Tim

Have to agree that the author probably was talking about tracks. The most common track on the Lee, originally, was the plain rubber block T41. This was replaced by the plain rubber block T51. Indeed they would have been at a bit of a disadvantage with those tanks using say the T56E1 all metal track as these gave superior traction in things like mud. The Soviets resorted to wrapping their T41 and T51 tracks with barbed wire to increase traction. They also found this type of track fell apart, usually through disintegration, much faster then the other types (though wrapping in barbed wire no doubt contributed there).

It is possible in the humidity and conditions in Burma the plain rubber block tracks were at a disadvantage both in traction and longevity.

The Soviets resorted to wrapping their T41 and T51 tracks with barbed wire to increase traction.

That sounds highly unlikely – barbed wire breaks ever so easily when you are talking about tank traction – do you have any cites for that?
--
Tim

Well both the road wheels & the actual track had rubber components, much like today. Of course WWII rubber vs. today's rubber compounds used on AFVs is notably different. If the actual track pads were smooth(like I've seen on some M3s) they would have a bit more trouble in muddy terrain. And rubber usually does not fair well in the long run in tropical climates. As Marc stated … And wrapping Barbwire around the track pad would probably do as much harm as good …

Thank You for the clarification.

At this point in the book he has not made reference to ruber tyres being a pro or a con.
At this point it does in the book it does seem to be a useless point. Maybe later on it will become relevant.

"That sounds highly unlikely – barbed wire breaks ever so easily when you are talking about tank traction – do you have any cites for that?"

"Many tank commanders and driver-mechanics instinctively felt the first cause of the disaster was the rubber-shoed track. They began to modify it by installing makeshift cleats. They twisted barbed wire on the outside edges of the track and installed bolts in the openings of the track blocks. The results were immediate. Our march speed increased sharply, and the journey was completed without further adventure."

Page 7 of Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza, Translated and Edited by James F. Gebhardt, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln & London, 1996.

Well that's good old "Bolshie know-how" !