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

[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.

 

lol, probably would have done OK in the desert too, better than the German turretless efforts there at the time for sure.

 

 

Hook, line AND sinker

[Marek Tucan]

But surely it can be one thing for tankers to be happy with their tanks and quite another as to if those tanks are fulfilling the role required or needed of them. For example the British ended up using Crocodiles to provide the close support needed to reduce infantry casualties in attack. It took a long time for the Western Allies to realise that using steel was smarter than using flesh and I'm not sure that all involved wanted to realise that grisly fact at all. Much more 'fun' off doing your own thing rather than being tied to infantry. And probably safer too.

 

 

The British ended up using Crocodiles, because the close support of infantry was the job of Infantry tanks. The British aand Commonwealth also used Wasp, an Universal Carrier based flamethrower. Does not seem they picked up Churchill for Crocodile because of the armor (esp. as older Churchills were often converted, with less protection), but simply because it was an infantry tank.The Americans, Soviets or Germans did not have this distinction, so stuffed a flamethrower into light and medium tanks, often obsolete versions.

 

And Allies were throwing steel at problems from the get go. That is why Sherman A battalion of "good enough" tanks with every infantry division saved helluva more lives than would a battalion of übertanks at Corps level and nothing (or light obsolete stuff) at division level.

[richard g]

Infantry casualty figures may indicate otherwise.

[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.

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

 

lol, probably would have done OK in the desert too, better than the German turretless efforts there at the time for sure.

 

Hook, line AND sinker

 

Given what else was around at the time I can't see how the HB concept would not have made a valuable multi role contribution in the desert - assault gun, artillery, tank destroyer, infantry support. All roles except perhaps artillery were under serviced as any reasonable examination shows, particularly in regard to the infantry.

Edited January 16, 2015 by richard g

[Andreas]

Well I am sure the Desert Air Force would have performed better against those pesky Me 109Fs with F-15s too.

 

All the best

 

Andreas

[Andreas]

I have now found a report by Bonner Fellers to Washington that the excessive fuel consumption and consequent short range of the M3 Stuart was blamed on having to confirm on the speed limit of British artillery prime movers (15mph) when operating in columns, and that the British knew, but ignored the fact that if operated at higher speed, the fuel economy would improve for US tanks with radial engines.

I'm not convinced by this.

Any views?

The report is here: http://rommelsriposte.com/2023/08/12/m3-fuel-consumption-bonner-fellers-report/

All the best

Andreas

[Argus]

I'm willing to be their fuel economy would have been even worse with the tanks towing the arty tractors at 25 to 30 mph... I mean how else were they prosing to keep the column together?

[Arminius]

IMO "Thermite rounds" means "Panzersprenggranate", which is AP, but with HE content, which explodes after delay.

So "destroying a penetrated tank really good".

Just my opinion.

Hermann

[Andreas]

Yes I would agree with that.

Or if not destroying, making a real mess of the squishy lifeforms inside the tank.

All the best

Andreas

[CaptLuke]

On 8/30/2023 at 2:56 PM, Arminius said:

IMO "Thermite rounds" means "Panzersprenggranate", which is AP, but with HE content, which explodes after delay.

So "destroying a penetrated tank really good".

Just my opinion.

Hermann

My recollection is that you are correct: I remember reading about US ordnance comparing German APHE to American AP (plain shot) in North Africa and then machining the driving bands of captured German 75mm ammunition to get an APHE round into service.  It wasn't' my original source (which I've lost track of) but the Tank Archives site corroborates that story here.

Quote

One temporary solution was reusing captured German shells. A German 75 mm shell with a trimmed driving band was compatible with the M2 gun. In trials, it could penetrate the armour of the Pz.Kpfw.III from the same distance as the M61, but it had considerably greater beyond armour effects. A German shell burst after penetrating the tank's armour and would no doubt have killed the crew, while the American shot simply fell into the driver's seat intact.

 

 

 

[Andreas]

More comprehensive write-up here:

https://rommelsriposte.com/2023/01/23/george-burling-jarett-and-the-75mm-ammunition-challenge/

All the best

Andreas

[alejandro_]

In tankarchives you can find a report of a brigade equipped with M3 Stuart. Lack of range is not mentioned as an issue.

https://www.tankarchives.ca/2022/03/american-experience.html

[Markus Becker]

Wasn't the (small) HE filler there to start fires, which would in turn make the tank irreparable? Any WIA/KIA crew man would be a nice bonus though. 

[Andreas]

That's my understanding too, and from the analysis of the British command at the time, that's what happened, and it was a serious complaint that German ammo caused fires to British tanks quite regularly, while the reverse did not happen as they used solid shot.

All the best

Andreas

[seahawk]

Chicken - egg problem. The obvious effect was more fragmentation after penetration, with the small charge really just breaking up the shell and the kinetic energy remaining doing the rest. More fragmentation obviously meant a higher risk of fire inside a tank.

[Andreas]

I suspect you also get a wider spread of fragmentation from a round detonating inside a tank, as opposed to fragmentation following the direction of the flight-path of a solid shot round from it's entry point?

The trade off is I suspect that you are less likely to achieve penetration of the armour in marginal cases, as the overall weight and structural integrity of the APHE round is by necessity lower than that of an equal AP-shot.

All the best

Andreas