"French Tank Hunter (6x6) W-15T-CC " Topic

Ugly!… and nice too!… 1/72.

link

Main page
French Tank Hunter (6x6) W-15T-CC

Amicalement
Armand

Had a silent chuckle at the armored windshield with a bull's eye painted right in the center of it -- and open sides.

Similar to the US army truck:

link

The major difference it the huge white star to aim at rather than the bull's-eye on the windshield. :)

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

The prototype was fully armoured but because of the urgent need, the production versions of these only had armour protection for the cab and an extended gun-shield.

They may look silly, but proved very successful in combat.

The 54th BACA had great success using the 47mm against German tanks.

Little more info:
link

Thanks!

Amicalement
Armand

Similar to the US army truck:

link

The major difference it the huge white star to aim at rather than the bull's-eye on the windshield. :)

Well, yes, but other differences being 2 years later with a weaker gun. 8/

More seriously, the success of the W15T CC had a very significant affect … not so much on the German campaign in France in 1940, but on the US campaign in France in 1944.

It was a strong contributor to the conceptualization of mobile warfare that led the US Army to establish the Tank Destroyer Command, and was an inspiration to the development of dedicated tank destroyer vehicles. The M6 "Fargo" was the little brother of the W15T CC, the M3 75mm Halftrack was the big brother, and the M18 Hellcat was what they all wanted to be when they grew up.

All were designed with the same key requirements: vehicles which had better mobility than tanks and gunpower optimized for anti-armor work, to implement the same tactical and operational doctrine that the W15T CC pioneered: taking advantageous position ahead of an enemy armored advance, ambushing enemy tanks, and withdrawing before effective return fire, using their advantage in mobility to fight from successive ambush positions.

After studying the campaign in France in 1940, the US Army added three components to the tactical concepts used by the French W15T CCs: 1) Tactical reconnaissance, with recon elements embedded all the way to the platoon level, 2) Tactical scale, with tank destroyers organized into GHQ Reserve (ie: independent) battalions of 3 dedicated tank destroyer companies, each with 3 platoons of tank destroyers (not just tank destroyer companies with only a single platoon of tank destroyers, as the French did), and 3) Operational scale, with Tank Destroyer Group commands, which were to activate as needed to contain and destroy large scale enemy armored penetrations, bringing together independent tank destroyer battalions into brigade-sized commands.

Of course, once they got into the combat theaters all that well conceived theory went out the window. The independent tank destroyer battalions were attached to corps or divisions, who cared not one wit for tank destroyer doctrine, being more focused on their own combat needs than theory, and typically parceled them out a company or even platoon at a time, as poorly designed tanks or low-end self propelled artillery, depending on need.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

The Wikipedia article says:

Some of these 37 mm guns were mounted onto halftracks to provide the armored infantry with a gun halftrack.

I've never seen or heard of this practice before. Of course, the Germans did it, so I suppose it's only natural that the US would follow. Anyone have photos? Data?

It was 2nd (maybe also 3rd) armored that took the old 3.7Ls (replaced by 5.7L) that had been a part of every Armored Inf company and mounted them on halftracks. Have not found much picture evidence but a few seem to exist.

They copied German practice – not sure either side found the 3.7s that effective though.

Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
Combat Commnd

The M6 was built in enormous numbers given its very brief and limited combat life. As I understand it, all of 2 Tank Destroyer Battalions took them into Tunisia (601st and 602nd). Each had 3 platoons of M6 Fargos, one platoon per each of their 3 Tank Destroyer Companies. That makes a total of … wait for it … 24 M6 Fargos going in to combat (plus replacement stock, of course).

24+ saw combat. Then the whole concept of the "light Tank Destroyer" was abandoned, and they were declared obsolete and surplus to requirements. More than 5,400 were made!

Most had their guns removed, and the trucks were returned to service as regular old WC-55 light trucks (usually called weapons carriers, for their place in transporting support weapons in infantry divisions).

A quantity of the conversions were done in French North Africa. The guns were left just sitting about. Several different units might have picked up a few. But many of the M6s were also snatched up in unconverted form (with shielded gun in place).

It was not uncommon to see M6 Fargos in HQ and rear echelon logistics units in MTO.

The shielded guns might also have appeared in a variety of places. I could see 1st and 2nd Armored having some, as they were active in NATO and had ample opportunity to acquire them as local stocks of M6s were converted.

It seems that engineering units were inclined towards them. In particular, in the Italian campaign, it was not uncommon to see engineering units with M6 Fargos, and / or with the guns and shields from M6 Fargos mounted on M3 Halftracks.

In ETO, I believe it was more common to see just the M6 Fargo itself in the engineering or rear echelon units that had transferred from NATO/MTO. Most units had a certain number of trucks on their TOEs, and no one was much fussed about transporting a truck with a cannon, if the transport order called for transporting a truck anyway.

Or so I have read.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)