"Bunker Busting on Nunshigum Ridge Scenario 6" Topic

The British make a second attempt to clear the Japanese bunkers from the hill in our final game of the campaign set around Imphal in 1944 using Chain of Command. After something of a debacle in the previous game it's time to see if any lessons have been learned and whether they can be applied successfully! The full AAR is here: Bunker Busting on Nunshigum Ridge Scenario 6

Amazing battle in reaality to replicate.

Both the tank squadron and the infantry company lost all their officers in the process and carried on led by their subedar major, and squadron sergeant major and finished the job.

To this day the successor regiment of the Carbineers, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards will parade on that day with 'B' squadron deliberately with no officers on parade to mark the anniversay of April 13th.

Amazing battle in reaality to replicate.

Both the tank squadron and the infantry company lost all their officers in the process and carried on led by their subedar major, and squadron sergeant major and finished the job.

To this day the successor regiment of the Carbineers, the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards will parade on that day with 'B' squadron deliberately with no officers on parade to mark the anniversay of April 13th.

Yes, it was reading about it that gave me the inspiration. I talk about that in the first post on the campaign where I give the background which is in this post Background to the Bunker Busting on Nunshigum Ridge campaign

Not sure if you've followed all the AARs but we've tried to capture the tanks crossing the ridge spine in the second scenario. A bit of a challenge but I think we got there, the first report is here Scenario 2: Riding the Ridge

Have you ever read Brian Perret's, "Tank Track To Rangoon"? it is a favourite. I have also gone through quite a few of the tank regiment histories on the Burma front.

The idae of punching a couple of AP rounds in to smash up the buuild of the construction and then follow up with a smoke round or two. Let the infantry know where the bunkrs were as well as their escape and connected trenches and tunnels. Everywhere else they referred to that as 'corkscrew and torch'.

Have you ever read Brian Perret's, "Tank Track To Rangoon"? it is a favourite. I have also gone through quite a few of the tank regiment histories on the Burma front.

Yes, I talk about it in that opening blogpost on the campaign, but here's a question for you – both bow MGs on the Lee were removed by June 1942, however there are first hand accounts in Perrett's book about them fired at Imphal in 1944. I've seen other accounts too, so what happened there? Retrofit in theatre?

The M3 had two mg's fixed in the hull front. They could not traverse left or right, just up and down for elevation. They were aimed by moving and steering the entire tank.

The original Stuarts had an mg in each corner or fender, and even the original Sherman or maybe just the prototype had the two gun fixed hull mount arrangement. Strangely enough, the BMD-1 (intro 1969)had an mg in each corner fender too! (Most likely for crowd control issues.)

Most everyone took them out as being useless. Space is precious in a tank and two near useless mgs are two less things to maintain. The M3 still had the coaxial mg in the little turret alongside the 37mm and usually the one on top at the commanders position as well.

Did they open fire with the hull guns or the coax or the commander mg?

Two points might give insight into hull mounted mgs here. Either some "Blimpish' type of CO who demanded their use because he read it in a manual somewhere,,, armies are full of people like that,,, can't swing a dead cat without hitting one,,, or most like that these were all second hand tanks that had already seen extensive service in North Africa or training and nobody cared if someone cut a hole in them to mount a more flexible mg in the hull. When your army is on the end of the logisitical tail and end of priority, quite a lot of local fixes either happen or are tolerated. Replacing the holes of the two gun fixed mount, with a one gun flex mount is not overly complicated when each regiment had a REME work detail. You'ld be amazed what can be done to a tank for a bottle of rum or a case of beer! Ball mount could easily be either made or scrounged from destroyed vehicles.

I expect most crews would have removed the fixed guns if given the choice as a waste of space. most people referred to them as, 'prophilactic fire'.

I hope some of that makes sense.

At some time I read an account of the 25th Dragoons regimental hostory, a tank regiment created from out of the Carbineers while in India.

Craziest descriptpion was one battle where a Japanese officer complete with samurai sword killed the commander on top and fought his way into the turret of the M3 where the loader took him out with a pistol.

I believe they wer on another part of the Burma front though.

Two points might give insight into hull mounted mgs here. Either some "Blimpish' type of CO who demanded their use because he read it in a manual somewhere,,, armies are full of people like that,,, can't swing a dead cat without hitting one,,, or most like that these were all second hand tanks that had already seen extensive service in North Africa or training and nobody cared if someone cut a hole in them to mount a more flexible mg in the hull. When your army is on the end of the logisitical tail and end of priority, quite a lot of local fixes either happen or are tolerated. Replacing the holes of the two gun fixed mount, with a one gun flex mount is not overly complicated when each regiment had a REME work detail. You'ld be amazed what can be done to a tank for a bottle of rum or a case of beer! Ball mount could easily be either made or scrounged from destroyed vehicles.

I've read nothing to indicate a ball mounted gun. This account is very specific and talks about the lack of traverse which is consistent with the original gun mount:

"They stormed in with pole charges, Freer opened fire, but the Lee's bow machine gun only elevated and depressed, there was no traverse. He could spray up the side of the tank to deter the Japanese, hitting anyone who crossed the line of bullets he fired, but little else."

This is very specific, so unlikely to be confused with the Co-axial or the turret cupola. Without a good source on this it remains a mystery .