enfant perdus | 19 Dec 2014 3:54 p.m. PST |
I've long wondered this, and digging on the interwebs has produced zilch. It would seem to me that it would have been quite suitable in providing highly mobile fire support for a Motor Battalion, Recce Reg't, or A/C Reg't. The Commonwealth forces were certainly acquainted with the M5 chassis, so familiarity wasn't an obstacle. Anyone know the reason? |
Ron W DuBray | 19 Dec 2014 5:05 p.m. PST |
OK it was a stop gap tank only 1,778 were build most given to the USMC in the Pacific but so were sent to Europe and the French got a bunch and even used them in Vietnam the Commonwealth got the M4 with the 105 instead hope that helps. |
Mark 1 | 19 Dec 2014 5:56 p.m. PST |
The M8 was the standard assault gun for US Armored Cavalry Squadrons and Armored Recon Battalions in MTO and ETO, replacing the T30 HMC (halftrack) after the Tunisian campaign. It was not (to my knowledge) used by the USMC in the Pacific at all. The value of the M8 was it's 75mm HE round, which added anti-infantry punch in a highly mobile platform to units equipped with a combination of Stuart light tanks and M8 armored cars (both with 37mm guns). The shortcoming of the M8 was that it could not stand up to return fire -- it's armor was no better than a Stuart and the open top made it vulnerable to air-burst artillery and infantry small arms in urban combat. As to why the Commonwealth didn't use it … my guess is that the British Army at that time was just not interested in improving the anti-infantry fighting capabilities of light tanks. British armored recon units had real medium tanks to do the fighting when needed. They even took to removing the turrets from many of the Stuarts they received, in order to improve it's scouting abilities in favor of whatever minimal fighting ability it had. So to me it looks like the M8 simply didn't fill an identified need in the British Army battle doctrine, and consequently it was not of interest to either British or Commonwealth forces. But that is only a partially-informed guess … -Mark (aka: Mk 1) |
Mako11 | 19 Dec 2014 6:17 p.m. PST |
The turret for the M-8 was used, on LTVs, in the Pacific. |
enfant perdus | 19 Dec 2014 6:47 p.m. PST |
Sorry for not being clearer. I'm aware of the history and usage of the M8, and because of that, I expected the Commonwealth forces would have found it filled a need. The Reconnaissance Regiments (not Armoured Recce) and Armoured Car Regiments often found themselves in need of exactly the sort of mobile firepower the M8 was designed to provide. The King's Dragoon Guards (an A/C Reg't) actually pressed some obsolete M3 GMCs into service to fill the need in Italy. It just seems like an odd oversight. |
Mserafin | 19 Dec 2014 6:51 p.m. PST |
The King's Dragoon Guards (an A/C Reg't) actually pressed some obsolete M3 GMCs into service to fill the need in Italy. Were they "pressed into service," or were they just never withdrawn in the first place? I seem to recall they liked them. |
bsrlee | 19 Dec 2014 6:58 p.m. PST |
The British Imperial forces already had a 3" howitzer 'kit' for all their 2pdr armed vehicles – Matilda, Crusader etc. A fair number were allegedly sent to Australia for use with their Matildas, and the 'kit' upgrade just replaced the entire mantlet and gun – unbolt, remove, replace, bolt in. Not sure about the ammo stowage |
Jemima Fawr | 19 Dec 2014 7:25 p.m. PST |
Far from being 'pressed into service', the M3 GMC was an issued piece of kit for virtually all Armoured Car Regiments (as well as Recce Corps Regiments, Indian Cavalry, etc in Italy), being replaced in one or two regiments by AEC Mk III late in the war. For example, the 11th Hussars and Royal Dragoons still had M3 GMCs in NW Europe (til they wore out), while the 2nd Household Cavalry Regt and Inns of Court Reft had AECs. The Canadian Manitoba Dragoons meanwhile were lacking a heavy support car, so acquired some M7 Priests as a stopgap before acquiring Staghound Mk III in 1945. The British Army did evaluate the M8 HMC and I seem to remember that they christened it 'General Scott'? However, by that time, all-Stuart regiments had been deleted from the British orbat, so they weren't really that useful (although not in India/Burma, where they would undoubtedly have proved handy). Armoured Regiments were already being issued with 75mm-armed and even 95mm-armed (later joined by 105mm-armed) tanks, so the M8 wouldn't have been of any use to the armour (aside from the Indian regiments mentioned that were probably overlooked…) The Armoured Car/Recce Regiments didn't want them for the simple reason that they didn't want tracked vehicles. |
enfant perdus | 19 Dec 2014 7:58 p.m. PST |
Thanks Jemima, that's what I was looking for. My error on the M3 GMC. I thought they had been withdrawn and the KDG had pulled them out of mothballs. |
miniMo | 19 Dec 2014 9:09 p.m. PST |
Jemima Fawr, of on a tangent of things Canadian — the info I have seen on the 12th Manitoba Dragoons is that they attempted to requisition M7 Priests but were not successful in this endeavor. Do you have any info that they got some? Also on a side note on the Royal Canadian Dragoons, yes they managed to hang onto their M3 GMCs even after being issued Staghound Mk.II with 2" howitzers, so their heavy troops packed a lot of punch. |
Jemima Fawr | 20 Dec 2014 7:09 a.m. PST |
EP, It's entirely possible – they might have gone into mothballs in expectation of AECs that then didn't arrive! :) The M3 GMC provided to be a wonderfully useful piece of kit, providing each armoured car troop with their own 'pocket artillery'. The 11th Hussars fired THOUSANDS of rounds with theirs from June 1944 to January 1945, but then had to retire them, as the barrels had worn out. Minimo, There was a superb thread on the Manitobas here about a year ago and someone there came out with primary sources for the Priests. Sometime after Normandy they were held in a regimental Gun Troop instead of Squadron Heavy Troops, which was crewed by the men who would normally form the AA Troop (which didn't exist in the Manitobas). It was a short-lived unit though and didn't remain in existence long enough to replace them with Stag III. When Staghound III arrived, they went to Squadron Heavy Troops AND the Regimental Gun Troop. Thanks for the info on the Staghound IIs! I didn't know that the RCD received them. I knew about the New Zealand Div Cav getting them, but not the RCDs. So were they grouped into Heavy Troops? The NZers simply allocated one Stag II per Amoured Car Troop. |
donlowry | 20 Dec 2014 9:25 a.m. PST |
My guess is: because the US didn't give them any. |
miniMo | 20 Dec 2014 9:36 a.m. PST |
The Staghound in Canadian Service, Roger V. Lucy, p.14. In late Dec. 44 the RCD received 8 Staghound Mk.II (3" howitzer, I typo'ed the wrong size in the earlier post). Assigned to the Heavy Troops along side the M3 which they managed to hang on to as well. They only lost 1 M3 to enemy fire in April 45. |
Jemima Fawr | 20 Dec 2014 10:06 a.m. PST |
Hi Don, The US didn't really give us anything – we bought it (and have only recently finished paying for it). As mentioned above, we had some for evaluation, but rejected it as there wasn't really a use for it by the time it appeared. I've no doubt that we'd have bought them as CS tanks for Stuart-equipped armoured regiments if they'd appeared in 1941. |
Jemima Fawr | 20 Dec 2014 10:07 a.m. PST |
Cheers MM. I looked up that earlier thread and it was you who gave me the Priest info! lol! :) So I presume that each Heavy Troop in the RCD had 2x Stag II and 2-3x M3s, plus a scout car? |
miniMo | 20 Dec 2014 10:35 a.m. PST |
That's what it looks like, a very Heavy Troop indeed! |
donlowry | 21 Dec 2014 9:52 a.m. PST |
I didn't mean to imply that they were free, just that they weren't made available. |