M3 Stuart Tank - Assessment After 2 Weeks Of Battle, 1941

[Andreas]

Hi

 

I thought members might be interested in these contemporary documents assessing the M3 Stuart performance in the Sidi Rezegh battles.

 

http://rommelsriposte.com/2014/09/29/an-assessment-of-the-m3-stuart-tank/

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[shep854]

Nice find; TANKS!!

[Panzermann]

Good find.

Something to read this evening.

[Andreas]

Not too difficult to find since I wrote it.

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[Colin]

Speaking of range - Valentine - 140km , A10 -160km (road), Crusader 235-322km off and on road

 

 

 

 

Speaking of Aux. fuel tanks here is a picture of them

 

Edited October 6, 2014 by Colin

[Andreas]

Thanks Colin!

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[John_Ford]

One of the things that was mentioned in Robert Crisp's Book Brazen Chariots that the Honey's had air-cooled engines (radials) and didn't require any water. It was a major issue as the daily ration besides cooking and drinking had to go to servicing the vehicles. The Containers they used (flimsies) weren't the best either as they leaked profusely.

Edited October 12, 2014 by John_Ford

[shep854]

" It was a major issue as the daily ration besides cooking and drinking had to go to servicing the vehicles."--John_Ford

And not necessarily in that order...

[rmgill]

Water was scarce enough that laundering of clothing was accomplished with petrol.

[Andreas]

That also helps with lice though.

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[irregularmedic]

.

 

Funny, they always had water and fuel for tea.

[Beitou]

Nothing funny about it, an essential for British forces, nothing better as a pick me up than a hot brew. Consumes the same amount of water as cold, yes uses some fuel but the moral effect of a brew will make up for that. Nothing sadder than a Brit with no access to a brew.

[irregularmedic]

Nothing funny about it, an essential for British forces, nothing better as a pick me up than a hot brew. Consumes the same amount of water as cold, yes uses some fuel but the moral effect of a brew will make up for that. Nothing sadder than a Brit with no access to a brew.

 

It's funny because the 8th Army would be held up for lack of fuel and yet every morning, as far as you could see would be fires visible from crews brewing tea by filling half a gasoline tin with sand, pouring in fuel and using that for a stove.

[Andreas]

Well I'd like to see some examples where the amounts of fuel we are talking about would have made an operational difference in keeping the army moving. The loss of fuel out of burst flimsies was surely a more important factor?

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[Markus Becker]

Water was scarce enough that laundering of clothing was accomplished with petrol.

 

Had the Germans known, their morale would have taken a huge blow. An enemy so well supplied they can use gasoline for washing cloths?

[Colin]

The Brits reported spillage rates in NA at 20% of fuel delivered, much due to crappy fuel cans, that dropped to 5% with the introduction of the Jerrycan.

[Andreas]

The Quartermaster rule of thumb as of 26 April 42 was:

 

10% to cover petrol sand fires, losses from enemy air attacks and small dumps being overrun etc.

1% for each 10 miles of bad going

1/2% for each 10 miles of good going.

 

While the 10% appears high, it covers a number of items, and of course as soon as active ops start, it is going to be dwarfed by the 1%/10 miles

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[irregularmedic]

Thanks for that!

 

I didn't figure it was a figure that had a real significant impact, but something about the vision of fuel being openly burnt while your army is halted for lack of fuel just strikes me me as funny.

[Andreas]

True. On the other hand, they would still need some fuel to heat up their food (even if you ignore the brew-ups), so even those QM figures overstate the impact in my view.

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[Colin Williams]

It's interesting that Brigg's early opinion of the Stuart as only suited for light tank work, despite its far superior reliability, essentially became official opinion within 8th Army through the course of 1942. By the 1st Battle of El Alamein the Stuarts were being segregated into the 4th Light Armoured Brigade, with the Crusaders staying with the Grants in the other armoured brigades. Considering the reliability issue and the shared/similar components between the Stuart and Grant, the Crusader must have proven itself the superior tank. I suspect (but don't know) that the Crusader II, with its 49mm of turret armor, its lower height, and its superior profile (i.e., less exposed vertical armor surfaces, fewer shot traps) was more capable of surviving tank vs. tank combat.

 

[Andreas]

It's interesting that Brigg's early opinion of the Stuart as only suited for light tank work, despite its far superior reliability, essentially became official opinion within 8th Army through the course of 1942. By the 1st Battle of El Alamein the Stuarts were being segregated into the 4th Light Armoured Brigade, with the Crusaders staying with the Grants in the other armoured brigades. Considering the reliability issue and the shared/similar components between the Stuart and Grant, the Crusader must have proven itself the superior tank. I suspect (but don't know) that the Crusader II, with its 49mm of turret armor, its lower height, and its superior profile (i.e., less exposed vertical armor surfaces, fewer shot traps) was more capable of surviving tank vs. tank combat.

 

 

It was also the view of 30 Corps in a December report, so this seems to have been quite widely held throughout 8th Army.

 

It's also possible that, given the range issues of the Stuart, the Crusader II was considered a better fit with the Grant? I would suspect them to have more similar ranges, making the logistical side of things a bit easier in terms of petrol refuelling.

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[richard g]

For any evaluation of the Stuart it should be kept in mind the theatre it was operating in and the fact that they were initially new and not worn out like a lot of the British tanks were at the time. With a way lot less room to manouver in Europe for a start the comment would have been a lot different.

[DougRichards]

For any evaluation of the Stuart it should be kept in mind the theatre it was operating in and the fact that they were initially new and not worn out like a lot of the British tanks were at the time. With a way lot less room to manouver in Europe for a start the comment would have been a lot different.

 

what was needed was the Honey Badger not the Stuart or other worn out tanks.

[Colin]

North Africa was getting quite a few new tanks at the time so many of those Brit tanks would not be worn out

[shep854]

DRIFT!!!

As I read Richard G's last post, I wondered if the Sherman's reputation would have been blemished, had the Allies been able to stay out of the bocage.

Edited January 11, 2015 by shep854