A British Stug III?

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Alternative Scenario
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 May 2003, 21:52
Location: UK

A British Stug III?

#1

Post by Alternative Scenario » 21 Jun 2003, 02:04

Given the poor quality of British built armour during WWII why did they not develop an assault gun/tank destroyer based on the Stug III\Marder\Hertzer concept (effective anti-tank gun on an obsolescent but technically sound chassis).

After all German versions had been in action since 1940 and technical data (if not a captured model must have been available) to allow the Brits to copy the concept.

Perhaps the Valentine chassis married with a six pounder gun - this type of weapon would have been invaluable as stop gap in the Western Desert in 1942 (until the Shermans arrived and also would have supplemented the Grant tanks), would have suited the conditions in Italy and perhaps Normandy!

Any ideas?

Yngwie J.
Member
Posts: 310
Joined: 10 May 2003, 18:49
Location: Norway

#2

Post by Yngwie J. » 21 Jun 2003, 03:17

They did mount the 17pdr. on the Valentine chassis. This tank destroyer was called the Archer, but it didn´t see service until October 1944.

I´m not quite sure if I´m answering your question, but it could be interesting to have a small debate on the Archers abilities anyway.
Attachments
Archer.JPG
Archer.JPG (102.54 KiB) Viewed 2795 times


Alternative Scenario
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 May 2003, 21:52
Location: UK

#3

Post by Alternative Scenario » 22 Jun 2003, 02:23

Thanks

I have seen the Archer before - but the picture you attached reinforced one the points - it looked very similar the German "Nashorn" or prehaps a Marder III - so a bit of copying did take place? Why wait until 1944 to get into service?

The Archer must have been a decent weapon's platform as it was used after 1945 by the British Army and the 17 pounder a Tiger killing weapon!

But why not a less refined version in 1941 (with the six pounder) surely such a weapon could have made a difference in the battles leading up El Alamein i.e. Gazala??

User avatar
Aufklarung
Member
Posts: 5136
Joined: 17 Mar 2002, 05:27
Location: Canada

#4

Post by Aufklarung » 22 Jun 2003, 04:20

Archer was nice; Achilles was better.
Alternative Scenario wrote:But why not a less refined version in 1941 (with the six pounder) surely such a weapon could have made a difference in the battles leading up El Alamein i.e. Gazala??
No time and little to work with would be my guess.
At least they got the guns "mobile" (in a limited way) early.

regards
A :)
Attachments
6 pdr portee.jpg
http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/artefacts.htm
6 pdr portee.jpg (186.9 KiB) Viewed 2761 times
2 pdr portee.jpg
http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/artefacts.htm
2 pdr portee.jpg (35.81 KiB) Viewed 2762 times

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Re: A British Stug III?

#5

Post by Caldric » 22 Jun 2003, 09:18

Alternative Scenario wrote:Given the poor quality of British built armour during WWII why did they not develop an assault gun/tank destroyer based on the Stug III\Marder\Hertzer concept (effective anti-tank gun on an obsolescent but technically sound chassis).

After all German versions had been in action since 1940 and technical data (if not a captured model must have been available) to allow the Brits to copy the concept.

Perhaps the Valentine chassis married with a six pounder gun - this type of weapon would have been invaluable as stop gap in the Western Desert in 1942 (until the Shermans arrived and also would have supplemented the Grant tanks), would have suited the conditions in Italy and perhaps Normandy!

Any ideas?
It took time to get this stuff designed and built. They used the HMC M7 Priest for an assualt gun, much like the stug was used in the early parts of the war, it was fairly successful at this job to, and was much better then the Bishop which both were around in 1941-42. These were not anti-tank guns though.

The Bishop used a 25pdr but was not overly successful. The M10 was the American and British stop-gap TD until more time could be given to designing later models like the M36 and M18 TD.

The M10 was the first attempt at a real pure anti-tank weapon, it went into production late summer/fall 1942 about the same time as the Nashorn.

M10:
Image

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#6

Post by Andy H » 23 Jun 2003, 19:04

Why build tank destroyers when you were building or recieving '000's of tanks anyway, surely this would just dilute your production, increase costs and increase your logistics admin.

The best tank killer is always another tank

Andy H

Alternative Scenario
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 May 2003, 21:52
Location: UK

#7

Post by Alternative Scenario » 24 Jun 2003, 00:47

Good theory except when applied to British tanks!

What British tank 1940-44 was the equal of the German weapons?? Matilda, Crusader, Coventer? What we are talking about is only a stop gap - some method of sticking an effective anti-tank gun (6 pounder) on a armoured tank chassis which was basically obsolete but was still in production (Valentine). Limited re-engineering, limited impact on production = a limited but effective weapon! We are talking 1941-42 here - a possibility of still losing the war in the Middle East, only the (equally limited) Grant tank available - surely worth a punt??

User avatar
Kugelblitz
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: 16 May 2003, 06:08
Location: CE

#8

Post by Kugelblitz » 24 Jun 2003, 17:42

The difference of the Archer with other SPG, was that the gun point to back insted to front, this was to shot and run out quickly.

User avatar
Paul Timms
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 00:18
Location: Warwickshire

British Tanks

#9

Post by Paul Timms » 24 Jun 2003, 20:59

Sorry alternative but in 1940 which German Tank was superior to the Matilda, better armoued than any and in AT terms outgunning all of them. In 1940 most German tanks had the 37mm which couldn't touch a Matilda.
The Crusader was underarmoured but the 2pdr and later 6 pdr could penetrate most German vehicles. The Churchill was well armoured as well.
Tanks weren't the Brits problems it was tactics and the 88.
Don't forget the first 2 Tigers in Tunisia to be destroyed were knocked out by 6 pdrs so they weren't that bad. The 17pdr was the best mass used Brit gun and was a match for any German Tank.

Alternative Scenario
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 May 2003, 21:52
Location: UK

#10

Post by Alternative Scenario » 29 Jun 2003, 01:47

In 1940 the Panzer Mark IV was available (with short barrelled 75mm) and was superior in every respect to the Matilda except armoured protection!

I actually agree with you that the 6 pdr was good gun (17 pdr was an excellent weapon) and also about the issue of tactics - but in the situation the UK faced in 1940-41 I still find remarkable we did just stick a large gun on an armoured chassis and make it available to fight - given the Germans had shown it worked with the Stug III and Marder.

As mentioned above you can come with lots of sensible reasons why this did not happen but given the UK's industrial and engineering capabilities - it just does not wash

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

#11

Post by Andy H » 05 Jul 2003, 13:12

Wouldn't it make more sense for the AT-TK guns to be utilised best in prepared defensive posistions rather than on some temp gun platform that would offer min protection and more than likely an easy to spot target.

Andy H

Alternative Scenario
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: 12 May 2003, 21:52
Location: UK

#12

Post by Alternative Scenario » 28 Jul 2003, 23:19

Yes and No

The 6 pdr was an effective defensive weapon but also on an armoured platform a potential offensive weapon!

In my original comment the success that the Germans had with the Marder and Stug III suggests that the concept worked?

It was also a great way of utilising older quipment without redesigning a new weapons system

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 22:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

#13

Post by Caldric » 28 Jul 2003, 23:27

Most TD's in the US idea of tactics was to be part of the full mechanized unit, Tanks, SP Arty, Mech Infantry, Mech Assault Guns, and Tank Destroyers.

They had some good success but some considered it a flawed idea. Perhaps it was in the 1940's, but we can see the end result today in Iraq and in 1991.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#14

Post by Tim Smith » 08 Aug 2003, 20:22

In 1940-42 the British went for quantity rather than quality in their tanks. They knew their tanks had shortcomings, but correcting them would take time and their need for tanks was urgent, since the Army was expecting an invasion of the UK. So they just built more of what they had and settled for that. Their only battle area was North Africa, and they tried to overwhelm the Afrika Korps with superior numbers of Matildas, Cruisers and Crusaders.

Producing SP guns would interfere with tank production, so they opted against that idea.

In the end the British must have produced around 10,000 obselescent tanks that were used only for training in the UK, and shipped another 10,000 to the Russians who were not very grateful for them, since they were all much inferior to the T-34.

User avatar
Juancho
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 18 Nov 2002, 03:48
Location: Sydney, Australia

#15

Post by Juancho » 10 Aug 2003, 05:58

Andy H wrote:Why build tank destroyers when you were building or recieving '000's of tanks anyway, surely this would just dilute your production, increase costs and increase your logistics admin.

The best tank killer is always another tank

Andy H
Agree with you, but in those times, the concept of a MBT wasn't that clear, there existed the concepts of Infantry Tank, Heavy Tank, and other vehicles, before the portee concept was born. Besides, the cost of a tank was higher than the cost of a tank hunter. Finally, there still wa sthe battle between the armor and the caliber... and designers had to deal with costs, deadlines, production, effectiveness... too complicated for that era.

regards,

juan

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”