Sdkfz 234/1 And M8 Greyhound ?

[rmgill]

 

Hmm, I guess I've been conflating their profligate use by the British in WWI with the British having invented them.

Don't sell yourself short, the first British motorized armored wheeled vehicle was the Motor Scout built by F.R. Simms in 1898. It was a buggy with a machine gun firing through a shield. Not really an armored car though. However, 1899 Simms then went on to develop the Simms Motor War Car, and that vehicle was indeed an armored car, the first prototype being completed in 1902.

 

 

Hmm, and that FR Simms WAS one of the principles involved in the later Daimler Motors Limited which built the Daimler and other cars later to become the Alvis derivative designs.

[bojan]

Excepting for a very high ground pressure....

Only ~2t weight however. Armor was only 4.5-6mm, hence it was sloped to improve efficiency.

[Mikel2]

 

Excepting for a very high ground pressure....

Only ~2t weight however. Armor was only 4.5-6mm, hence it was sloped to improve efficiency.

 

 

Lies! Everyone knows the T34 invented sloped armor

[bojan]

Good one. And German tanks used diesel, right, Shermans were Tommy cookers and... Ugh, I can not do this even as a parody.

[CaptLuke]

Didn't it also depend on where each country planned to fight? Germany was always looking east, to bad roads, possible snow and mud and long distances, requiring large and very capable armoured cars.

 

The USA on the other hand was thinking more temperate western Europe, if it had to fight overseas at all. Western Europe had better roads and other infrastructure. Shipping was also a prime concern. More smaller cars could be shipped than larger ones, similar reason why the Sherman stayed in production and not replaced by something bigger.

 

The US had done testing earlier with the 13 tonne, 6x6, T19 design, and decided even that was too big for recon work. This is in line with the British experience with the 13 tonne, but 4x4, Staghound, which they thought was too large. The British were also quite keen on armored cars being able to get across a class 9 bridge, which was based on their engineering capabilities at the time.

 

So there were operational considerations in going for a smaller vehicle quite apart from shipping. Speaking of which, the M3/M5 light tanks, used for recon as you pointed out, and the Staghound were all significantly heavier than a SdKfz 234, but shipping light tanks and Staghounds was evidently not seen as an issue.

 

The US also accepted lower cross country mobility than they wanted; the T19's independent suspension was seen as highly desirable but was presumably inconsistent with rapid mass production.

 

When the US had time to design a 'proper' armored car for reconnaissance, they kept the light weight requirement but went for cross country capability much more aligned with the Sdkfz 234 than with the M8 It is interesting that the M8/T27/T28 all staid within the Class 9 bridge limit, though I haven't seen anything specifically saying this was a requirement.

[rmgill]

Speaking of T19s and T18s.

I always liked the T19 Mack.



And T18 Boarhound.

[Panzermann]

That T19 look like someone kit bashed a M3 half track and a M26 tractor.

[DougRichards]

 

 

Hmm, I guess I've been conflating their profligate use by the British in WWI with the British having invented them.

Don't sell yourself short, the first British motorized armored wheeled vehicle was the Motor Scout built by F.R. Simms in 1898. It was a buggy with a machine gun firing through a shield. Not really an armored car though. However, 1899 Simms then went on to develop the Simms Motor War Car, and that vehicle was indeed an armored car, the first prototype being completed in 1902.

 

Hmm, and that FR Simms WAS one of the principles involved in the later Daimler Motors Limited which built the Daimler and other cars later to become the Alvis derivative designs.

 

 

Sims also influenced some developments (that did not go far) in the New World, having spurred a certain Major Davidson, commandant of the (private) 'North-western Military and Naval Academy' at Lake Geneva Wisconsin, to contract for the development of two internal combustion engined machine gun carriers around 1900. There is no note of the (governmental) US Army or Navy paying any significant attention.

 

Back in the days when a private high school could play with machine guns.

[TOW-2]

 

 

 

Hmm, I guess I've been conflating their profligate use by the British in WWI with the British having invented them.

Don't sell yourself short, the first British motorized armored wheeled vehicle was the Motor Scout built by F.R. Simms in 1898. It was a buggy with a machine gun firing through a shield. Not really an armored car though. However, 1899 Simms then went on to develop the Simms Motor War Car, and that vehicle was indeed an armored car, the first prototype being completed in 1902.

 

Hmm, and that FR Simms WAS one of the principles involved in the later Daimler Motors Limited which built the Daimler and other cars later to become the Alvis derivative designs.

 

 

Sims also influenced some developments (that did not go far) in the New World, having spurred a certain Major Davidson, commandant of the (private) 'North-western Military and Naval Academy' at Lake Geneva Wisconsin, to contract for the development of two internal combustion engined machine gun carriers around 1900. There is no note of the (governmental) US Army or Navy paying any significant attention.

 

Back in the days when a private high school could play with machine guns.

 

 

Lake Geneva, you say? That answers a few questions about Gary Gygax!*

 

...

 

*=creator of Dungeons & Dragons, he confessed that his first wargame experiments involved throwing lady-finger firecrackers at groups of plastic and tin soldiers and tallying up the casualties to determine who won a given round's combat...! Plus the occasional purchase of TNT and Dynamite at the local hardware store for all kinds of 1940s and 50s boyhood mischief...

[Tim the Tank Nut]

getting back to the M-20 armored car for recon, it is all fun and games til the hydraulics take a dump. Everything is done up like brakes lines including the throttle. Most twitchy...

[rmgill]

When I first got into MV's I remember a collector bitching up a storm about having to replace the freeze plugs that are on the front side of the engine. I think there was an accompanying photo showing the guy on his belly on the top of the engine head and shoulders in the gap to reach the freeze plug.

Edited February 16, 2016 by rmgill

[rmgill]

[rmgill]

M8 Restoration in France.. Spain...Italy I think... Fock, somewhere in Europe....

http://jeep1945.skyrock.com

Edited February 16, 2016 by rmgill

[L.V.]

I can understand that they were in a bit of a hurry when the M8 was put into production, but why was the M38 armed with a manually loaded 37 mm gun? Were other options considered (e.g. 20 mm Oerlikon or Hispano)?

[DougRichards]

The US was never as big on 20mm (until after about 1945 anyway), basically going with .50cal and 37mm. Only the USN used 20mm in a meaningful way in WW2, either on board ship or in aircraft applications. Only three major USAAF aircraft used the 20mm gun, (P-61, B-29 and P-38). A quick read of wiki indicates that the US had some trouble with getting 20mm guns to work without stoppages, I cannot find any USA use of the 20mm in ground applications before around 1960.

 

A 20mm HS 404 weighed in at around 150lbs with a loaded magazine, and was 101inches long. In contrast, the 37mm Gun M3 weighted 191lbs and was 83in long. US designers and troops were experienced with the 37mm gun, and it is no surprise that the 20mm was overlookeed, or considered and disregarded.

[MiloMorai]

The P-51 used the 20mm cannon (4 and no MGs)

 

RAF Mustang IA serials FD418/FD437, FD450/FD464, FD466/FD469, and FD510/FD527 went to the USAAF.

[DougRichards]

Yes, A relative handful of 20mm armed ex-RAF P-51 went to the USAAF. These initially had two nose mounted .50cal also, but which were deleted, but P-51 aircraft made to US account were armed with 4 .50cal initially and later with 6.

 

Which is why I included the word 'major' when describing which USAAF types used the 20mm.

 

If you want to list every USAAF aircraft armed with 20mm then you can add 100 Beaufighters, a small number of DH Mosquitos.

 

All of these were originally British aircraft that were supplied to the USAAF and really demonstrate that the USAAF, even after using some 20mm armed aircraft, was firmly of the belief that the .50 cal was the best weapon for most air to air and air to ground applications. The exception being the P-61 whose 20mm armament was intended to shoot down medium and heavy bombers rather than fighters and light bombers / attack aircraft.

 

When it came to arming an anti-ship aircraft the USAAF went all the way to 75mm for the B-25 G and H variants, and this was at a time when the RAF was successfully using 20mm as the main armament of the Beaufighter.

Edited February 17, 2016 by DougRichards

[MiloMorai]

The P-51 wasn't a major US a/c?

[CaptLuke]

I can understand that they were in a bit of a hurry when the M8 was put into production, but why was the M38 armed with a manually loaded 37 mm gun? Were other options considered (e.g. 20 mm Oerlikon or Hispano)?

 

The US seemed genuinely happy with the 37mm, keeping it on the M3/M5 tanks as well as the M8's successor designs, both the T27 (loser) and the T28 (which went on to be the M38).

 

As with light tanks, the US was more interested in stepping up to 75mm than in moving to a smaller automatic weapon. The 37mm M3/M5 were superseded by the 75mm M24. For armored cars, a 75mm gun was trialed on the T19, 6x6 chassis and a 75mm turret was under development for the M38 when the war ended. A 75mm gun was actually test fired from the M38, by the expedient of bolting an M24 turret to the hull for firing trials.

 

My guess is that a lot of this had to do with the ground army being even more adverse to the 20mm than the Army Air Force, which, as Doug has detailed, was not into the 20mm. In ground service, light AA was either the .50 (too light for main armament on an armored car) or the 37mm automatic (probably too large for the M8), so, without adopting an entirely new weapon just for the small number of armored cars, their only choice was the 37mm.

 

I don't believe the US developed any 20mm armed wheeled vehicle, not even for AA use.

 

Edited February 17, 2016 by CaptLuke

[DKTanker]

I can understand that they were in a bit of a hurry when the M8 was put into production, but why was the M38 armed with a manually loaded 37 mm gun? Were other options considered (e.g. 20 mm Oerlikon or Hispano)?

It never progressed past the prototype stage, one of which mounted the turret of the M24 which included the M6 75mm.

[Lieste]

Yes, A relative handful of 20mm armed ex-RAF P-51 went to the USAAF. These initially had two nose mounted .50cal also, but which were deleted, but P-51 aircraft made to US account were armed with 4 .50cal initially and later with 6.

 

Which is why I included the word 'major' when describing which USAAF types used the 20mm.

 

If you want to list every USAAF aircraft armed with 20mm then you can add 100 Beaufighters, a small number of DH Mosquitos.

 

All of these were originally British aircraft that were supplied to the USAAF and really demonstrate that the USAAF, even after using some 20mm armed aircraft, was firmly of the belief that the .50 cal was the best weapon for most air to air and air to ground applications. The exception being the P-61 whose 20mm armament was intended to shoot down medium and heavy bombers rather than fighters and light bombers / attack aircraft.

 

When it came to arming an anti-ship aircraft the USAAF went all the way to 75mm for the B-25 G and H variants, and this was at a time when the RAF was successfully using 20mm as the main armament of the Beaufighter.

Umm. P38 Lightning?

[Simon Tan]

US 20mm Hispano was a mess because of the issues with unit conversion and localization. Tony Williams covers this in detail. 20mm Oerlikon was a USN gun. Both were rather underwhelming as ground weapons.

[DKTanker]

Off hand the only fielding and use of the 20mm by US ground forces would be on the M114 and various mountings of the M61 Vulcan, the most numerous being the M163 configuration of the M113.

[DogDodger]

I don't believe the US developed any 20mm armed wheeled vehicle, not even for AA use.

It seems they didn't during WW2, at least. The July 1941 requirement for the gun motor carriage that eventually spawned the light armored car M8 also sought to have the vehicle able to mount a multiple .50 cal mount, a dual 20 mm mount, or an 81 mm mortar. The multiple gun motor carriage T69 of mid-1943 used .50 cals on the M8 chassis, and the 20 mm option seems not to have been pursued.

 

While not wheeled, 110 half-tracked twin 20 mm GMC T10E1s were built. The 20 mm gun was an option to arm the MGMC T1 of October 1940, but the availability of the .50 cal MG led to it being adopted on the M13/14/16/17 instead. In July 1941, a 20 mm MGMC was specifically authorized, and the 20 mm Oerlikon Mk.IV gun was chosen over the Hispano-Suiza. The AA Board recommended production of 110 in May 1943, and this was accomplished during March of the next year. All but one of these vehicles were subsequently converted into .50 cal MGMC M16s...

Edited February 17, 2016 by DogDodger

[DougRichards]

The P-51 wasn't a major US a/c?

 

The 20mm armed version wasn't.

 

And it was originally built to Brit specification with 4X20mm.