Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
The attached reports describe a number of field modifications made by US troops in the European and Italian campaigns to their tanks and other armored vehicles to improve vehicle armament, protection and mobility.
The first four reports discuss the use of sandbag and log armor for tanks and tank destroyers along with a modification to tank destroyer machine guns. The report publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
The majority of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. This publication was a report issued by the Army Headquarters - European Theater Of Operations several times each week that discussed tactical and technical information for the troops.
The first report was taken from the March 1945 After Action Report of the 81st Tank Battalion.
The first four reports discuss the use of sandbag and log armor for tanks and tank destroyers along with a modification to tank destroyer machine guns. The report publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
The majority of the reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. This publication was a report issued by the Army Headquarters - European Theater Of Operations several times each week that discussed tactical and technical information for the troops.
The first report was taken from the March 1945 After Action Report of the 81st Tank Battalion.
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
The four attached reports describe the use of the turret machine guns on Sherman Tanks and several field modifications made to these machine guns on tanks, tank destroyers and armored cars by US troops in the European and Italian campaigns. These modifications were made during the 1944 and 1945 time period.
These reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. This publication was a report issued by the Army Headquarters - European Theater Of Operations several times each week that discussed tactical and technical information for the troops.
The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
These reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. This publication was a report issued by the Army Headquarters - European Theater Of Operations several times each week that discussed tactical and technical information for the troops.
The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
Re: Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
That's really nice information! How did you come across this?
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
The first attached report describes a field modification made to the M8 howitzer’s M66 HEAT shell (High Explosive Anti-Tank) to enable it to be fired by the 75 mm gun used by the Sherman tanks. The modification was made by the 191st Tank Battalion, most likely assisted by an Ammunition Ordnance Company, and they reported it performed well and provided useful anti-armor performance for their 75mm armed Shermans..
The M66 was a shaped charge type shell that was designed for use in the M8 Howitzer Motor Carriage's 75mm howitzer.
The second report was issued by Army Ordnance in the USA and states that their own tests of similarly modified M66 shells offered no noticeable armor penetration performance improvement. The difference of the two reports shows the contradiction of results obtained from combat use verses test range results.
The third and forth reports discuss use of small arms by tank commanders during attacks to clear enemy emplacement and for protection against enemy infantry.
These reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
The M66 was a shaped charge type shell that was designed for use in the M8 Howitzer Motor Carriage's 75mm howitzer.
The second report was issued by Army Ordnance in the USA and states that their own tests of similarly modified M66 shells offered no noticeable armor penetration performance improvement. The difference of the two reports shows the contradiction of results obtained from combat use verses test range results.
The third and forth reports discuss use of small arms by tank commanders during attacks to clear enemy emplacement and for protection against enemy infantry.
These reports were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
Re: Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
How would one use a flame thrower in a tank?
Re: Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
Hello All :
Mr. Oldbill posted :
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
Mr. Oldbill posted :
How would one use a flame thrower in a tank?
Respectfully :
Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !
Re: Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
The British Operations Research reports found that sandbags track links and other improvised armour had no effect at all.
Sand bags on the floor of Universal carriers saved the drivers legs if he ran over a mine,
British M10 crews liked the ran ge and hittign power of the 0.5 cal machine gun
Sand bags on the floor of Universal carriers saved the drivers legs if he ran over a mine,
British M10 crews liked the ran ge and hittign power of the 0.5 cal machine gun
Re: Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
That's a variant built to be a flamethrower. The memo seems to indicate using a man packed flamethrower. Or am I misreading what it said?
Re: Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
Either that or someone in 70th Armour battalion had a sense of humour.
Iyt is possible that earnest US Army investigations may not have recognized satirical or ironic responses.
The 12th Army group Lessons from operations reports includes a suggestion from the British airborne troops that they clear woods with a skirmish line of Sten Gunners followed by a skirmish line of hand grenade men who lob grenades over the heads of the sub machine gunners.
The US/British pamphlet on military terminology includes a whole raft of RAF slang terms such as a Wizzard Prang.
-
- Member
- Posts: 680
- Joined: 22 Mar 2020, 00:27
- Location: USA
Re: Field Modifications Made To US Tanks & Vehicles
The first report describes a March 1945 field modification made by the 744th Tank Battalion to their light tanks. The modification consisted of installing a spaced armor belly plate on a number of their tanks to protect the crews from anti-tank mine explosions. At this time period the 744th had 34 M24 light tanks in service along with several M5A1 light tanks but the report does not identify the tank type on which the modification was made. The attachment was copied from the 744th Tank Battalion After Action Report.
The second report describes the installation of additional armor plate to the bottom of the M8 armored car for protection against antitank mines.
The third report describes a steel shield added to the Sherman Tank commander hatch to provide protection from sniper fire.
The forth report discusses use of the M16 Half-Track to assist armored units during attacks by use of its quadruple 50 cal machine gun turret.
The second, third and forth were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.
The second report describes the installation of additional armor plate to the bottom of the M8 armored car for protection against antitank mines.
The third report describes a steel shield added to the Sherman Tank commander hatch to provide protection from sniper fire.
The forth report discusses use of the M16 Half-Track to assist armored units during attacks by use of its quadruple 50 cal machine gun turret.
The second, third and forth were collected from the US Army publication ‘Battle Experiences’. The publication date of each report is listed in the attachment title.