"M-15 and M-16 - 1943" Topic
4 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestWorld War Two on the Land
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Rating: 
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article sargonII, traveling in the Middle East, continues his report on the gates of Jerusalem.
Current Poll
|
DukeWacoan   | 24 Jan 2023 9:40 a.m. PST |
I am looking at M-15 and M-16s used in Sicily and Italy 1943. Can someone give me a good source in terms of armament and armor? I am looking at the following units -
534th AA Bn
545th AA Bn
630th AA Bn
451st AA Bn
216th AA Bn (I have this as 37mm AA towed) |
| StarCruiser | 24 Jan 2023 10:48 a.m. PST |
I assume you mean the half-tracks: link link Both have the standard 1/2 inch armor plate, just enough to stop rifle caliber bullets. The M15 packed a M1 37mm gun and machine guns, the M16 was armed with the frightening quad-50 caliber mount. Both were okay-ish in the anti-air role (close range) and deadly against troops and lightly armored vehicles. |
| DukeWacoan | 24 Jan 2023 10:53 a.m. PST |
Some rulesets have the M-16 with a substantially higher armor rating, and that did not make sense to me. |
| HairiYetie | 25 Jan 2023 4:23 a.m. PST |
Hi Duke. This website shows M15 and M16 having same armour type (face hardened) and thickness. afvdb.50megs.com/usa/index.html The armour on the M17 (same as M16 but based on M5) was not face hardened but approx 25% thicker. |
|
