News

T51 25pdr Howitzer Motor Carriage

T51 25pdr Howitzer Motor Carriage


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

T51 25pdr Howitzer Motor Carriage

The T51 25pdr Howitzer Motor Carriage was produced in response to a British request for a self-propelled mount for the 25pdr gun, similar to the M7 105mm Howitzer Motor Carriage 'Priest'

The T51 was produced in June 1942 by mounting a 25pdr Mk II on the second of the T32 pilots (the prototype for the M7 Priest). The first version of the T51 used a riveted gun cradle, but this failed during tests at the Aberdeen Proving Ground.

A new welded gun cradle was produced and installed on the T51 prototype, and the testing resumed. Tests continued into 1943, but the programme was cancelled in March 1943 because of the success of the Canadian Sexton.

The Sexton was actually a very similar design to the Priest or the T51. It was based on the Canadian Ram tank, which used the chassis of the M3 Lee medium tank, but with a revised superstructure and that rather resembled the M4 Sherman. Perhaps inevitably given this background the Sexton closely resembled the M7, with a new open fighting compartment and low mounted howitzer. The min visual different was the lack of the anti-aircraft 'pulpit' that had given the Priest its name.


Sexton (artillery)

The 25pdr SP, tracked, Sexton [2] was a self-propelled artillery vehicle of World War II. It was based on Canadian-built versions of the American M3 Lee and M4 Sherman tank chassis, which entered production in Canada as the Ram and Grizzly. When Sherman production in the US expanded and supply was no longer a problem, in 1943 it was decided to switch the Canadian production lines to produce the Sexton to give the British Army a mobile artillery gun using their Ordnance QF 25 pounder gun-howitzer, which could fire an 87.6 mm (3.45 in) 11.5 kg (25 lb) HE shell or an armour-piercing shell. It found use in the Canadian and British Army, as well as numerous other British Empire and associated forces. Just after the war, a number of Grizzly and Sextons were sold to Portugal, who used them into the 1980s.


Improved Early War British Tanks?

OK but that doesn't exactly speak well of it as suggested tactic and key part of general combined armed doctrine does it?

Don't get me wrong if your facing say rifle fire from infantry pinned in place directly in front of the tank I can see what's going on in that photo working better then in other situations

Marathag

Coulsdon Eagle

and what is that a P2? a small tank even by 1939 standards.

Plus if you really think infantry chose to make a habit of bunching up like that you are kidding. for no other reason that is HE round or MG nightmare. so whats the context, who are they fighting?

Don't get me wrong I'm sure it happened but one photo doesn't make a combined are doctrine

Brazen

Gardner diesels could well be the answer to the need for a tank engine, the modular nature of the engines could well be used to get an engine to suit most needs, the 6 and 8 cylinder LW don't offer great HP but do give strong torque across the entire rev range.

Perhaps a joint venture with the RN to develop V8, V10, V12and even V16 models with cast iron crankcase for naval use and alloy for vehicle use, the engines have a reputation for reliability that is held up By the number still in use or being rebuilt 30 years after Gardner's ceased production.

Cool! That was my first thought because of the size but the turret/gun looked wrong to me so I 2nd guessed myself with the P2, So yeah a small tank

McPherson

When I write Sherman I MEAN Sherman, not GARBAGE.

The crane has to REMOVE the hatch covers for engine lift clearance.

M7 Priest - Wikipedia

In the case of Priest you are wrong.

Work not mine, see citation. (^^^)

Asked and answered. Moving on.

The point was that it was possible to reverse the drive, not if the vehicle was better than the Abbot

As I noted, not aware of how a Sherman was assembled.

True, but that goes to rear engine design again.

He lifts off hinge points. Try dead lift off the tank to clear a crane path to the engine.

You pull a Costello, of COURSE I will counter with an Abbott.

ANOTHER FAILED PROTOTYPE (POSTWAR) that never entered service. I wonder why?

Not avoiding anything. You keep citing failed projects and I will keep pointing out the dis-ingenuity of your examples and WHY they failed.

It is a scavenged Sherman deplated that shows internal damage. LOOK AGAIN.

From the position of the shot, that driver is DEAD. No legs.

Not on those early war British tanks. THAT is the point. And I told you why when I described how you have to ACCESS the problems.

Same again, and add if you have to drive OUT of a bermed position it is easier to back out and pivot out than to run forward and then turn sideways to be shot.

You mean you need to stop asserting and making statements as claimed facts and/or provide rational relevant arguments? Not my call, or even my right to tell you to do that. I cannot tell you what to do. I can only point out the mistakes you make and try to convince you to reexamine your position with negation of your conclusions.

See previous comment. Also ad hominem.

Interesting, how do you REMOVE the PTO and gearbox? (^^^) without clearing the engine?

About reliability and maintenance.

If you do not discuss reliability and down time rates, loss on road march %s and ready for action at the point of contact, and what the poor mechanics have to do, then one must ask if one knows what is 90% of a tank's and tanker's life?

I don't like the merkava, and I don't like how other people overly hype it. Take the whole "it can carry infantry" argument except for the fact that to do so it needs to remove ammor racks to make room.

Despite the Sherman doing it?

Peg Leg Pom

SwampTiger

Derwit

Peg Leg Pom

Alfredtuomi

Gardner diesels could well be the answer to the need for a tank engine, the modular nature of the engines could well be used to get an engine to suit most needs, the 6 and 8 cylinder LW don't offer great HP but do give strong torque across the entire rev range.

Perhaps a joint venture with the RN to develop V8, V10, V12and even V16 models with cast iron crankcase for naval use and alloy for vehicle use, the engines have a reputation for reliability that is held up By the number still in use or being rebuilt 30 years after Gardner's ceased production.

SwampTiger

So much was wrong with British armor design from 1930 to 1938. Bad ideas included machine gun only armed tanks, lack of central design/request process, failure to anticipate tanks would meet other tanks or antitank guns with similar penetration, thus poor armor, lack of proper engines, the fascination with Christie suspensions, and failure to maintain a testing apparatus for proper doctrine. Choose what area you wish to improve.

Say someone takes a close look at the Six-Ton Vickers in 1929, my favorite POD, and realizes it may not be perfect, but it is a match for the 12 ton Medium Mark II on slightly more than half the weight. It has the same gun, a better power to weight ratio, and more reliable tracks. The Six Ton could be the basis for a useful tank. The Army duly requests an improved Six Ton, now called the Ten Ton Light Tank Mark I using a slightly larger hull with a raised deck covering an all new Armstrong Siddeley air-cooled V8 based on the Six Ton four cylinder of 140 hp, uses a strengthened version of the Vickers Light Mark II suspension with three bogies per side. An armor basis of 1 inch(25.4 mm), with a 1.25(31.6 mm) inch front glacis and mantlet cover protects the crew and mechanicals. With a slightly lengthened and widened hull the turret ring is widened to the edges of the hull, adding some six( 15 cm) or so inches to the turret ring, allowing a dedicated loader in the turret.. The resulting tank is more reliable, tougher, more nimble than anything in the British inventory.

Another three or four years of experimentation with the EMF/Armored Force, would drive the British Army to an improved doctrine The increased focus on military spending in the mid-late 30's would see larger, improved tanks such as the well armored, uprated power Vickers Mark IV Medium, based on John Carden's proposal for a "cruiser" tank using his newest bogie design from the Light Tank Mark III. The Army decided, after extensive testing, the Horstmann system was as reliable as the Christie, easier to replace/repair, and adequately sprung. The slight loss in crew comfort was offset by maintenance ease. The loss in absolute speed was only over the road and on flat, firm ground.

SwampTiger

Alfredtuomi

Paul_Sussex

TheLastSterling

I'm pretty sure you meant panther, because that was what I mentioned and you responded to that.

Are you that desperate to one up me? did you really think I called the priest as based of the grizzly and ram, because I was calling the sexton that.
well if wikipedia is the bar you want to set for evidence, okay.

Well if you not even bothering to mention your argument again, probably a bad one.

No, the point was that front drive tanks are suspetible to petrol bombs just like rear drive.

Hinge points, also known as access panels. far more easier to get to without a need for a crane.

You clearly missed the point was that you don't need a front engine for a 25pdr

Still desperate for a one up? The argument wasn't about whether or not it was accepted, it was to show that even the crusader chassis can carry a 5.5in and therefore the lighter 25pdr.

All you say it that it wasn't accepted. Not everything built was supose to be considered for production, but rather to test ideas.

Internal damages that shows more to have been caused by an ammo rack with that turret having been lifted.

Avoiding the difference in damage effect, okay.

So ignoring my images of a single man lifting access panels all by himself? You keep misconstruing ease of maintanence with mechanical reliability.

So you're suggesting an archer design so you don't have to have the problem of needing to turn to drive away?

You misconstrue my arguments in order to strawman.
I say ease maintanence, then you go on a rant about rear drive are inherently unreliable, vulnerable to petrol bombs, etc which has little to do with what I just said.
Trying to convince me to reexamine my positions isn't working when you are not even arguing against my points.

That wasn't an attempt at an argument.

About reliability and maintenance.

If you do not discuss reliability and down time rates, loss on road march %s and ready for action at the point of contact, and what the poor mechanics have to do, then one must ask if one knows what is 90% of a tank's and tanker's life?

Once again miscontruing my argument for ease of Maintenance into something about reliability.

Miscontruing again.
The sherman was built as a tank first. they then used the design for other variants because they could. It wasn't designed from the ground up to include being able to be built as a SPG or whatever.

M7 Priest - Wikipedia

If you read again
The Priest came about when the army wanted a SPG and tested if a design based of the M3 medium and later M4 could work. Which is my point, a Tank design first, then modified to serve a different role.

You trying to convince me to reexamine my positions isn't working when you are not even arguing against my points. If you want to convince me then actually argue my points instead of creating a strawman.

It is easier to access transmission components when it is rear since you don't need to armor the acess pannels as much as frontal drive transmission housing.

-For the Sherman you need to use a crane just to get to the transmission, unlike Crusader which you can juse lift panels. - I provided images of the crusader & sherman transmission being accessed.
-The bolts holding the transmission housing can be damage making it harder to take off. - I provided images with the Chieftain's comment on this.

When I say ease of access, I mean ease of access not reliablity. Cromwell, Comet, Centurion, were rear driven without mechanical unreliability. And like you said, the crusader would have been much more reliable if it had the parts and mechanics, nothing to do with being rear driven.

If I were to take a sherman and a cromwell equally reliable, mechanics equally trained, and all the high quality parts they could ask for. then the cromwell would have the easier time since it doesn't need a crane to remove the transmission housing to work on it unlike the sherman. Only time the cromwell would need a crane would be to removed the transmission or engine.
That is my argument.


For the standard 25pdr, you don't need to have a front engine SPG. the OTL sexton's 25pdr barely pertrudes out the front of the vehicle.

-Me showing the Archer was to display how small the 25pdr is that even the small Archer could have mounted one. - I am not arguing the Archer 25pdr should have been in production.
-Me showing the Crusader 5.5in was to display that even such a small tank could carry a 5.5in and should be able to carry the small 25pdr. - I am not arguing that the Crusader 5.5in should have been built, especially since it was a post war test vehicle where better chassis existed.
-Me showing the FV3805 was to display that it is possible to reverse a transmission so that a rear engine vehicle can become a front engine vehicle. - I am not arguing that the FV3805 should have been built over the Abott.

I am not suggesting for the Archer 25pdr, Crusader 5.5in or FV3805 should have been built. I was using them to set examples of things that are possible. The small Archer still capable of carrying a 25pdr, the Crusader capable of carrying the heavier 5.5in, and the FV3805 showing that it was possible to reverse the transmission. The point was that the 25pdr gun doesn't need a large chassis or a frontal engine to counter it's weight, and that if you really wanted a front mounted engine then reversing the transmission is viable idea.


Kit, Academy 13210, US Howitzer Motor Carriage M7 Priest

Oct 21, 2007 #1 2007-10-21T00:02

13210, US Howitzer Motor Carriage M7 Priest. 1/35th-scale injection-molded styrene kit. Contains: 407 styrene parts, two vinyl track lengths, four decal/ markings schemes and nine pages of instructions in 12 steps.

Academy continues to kit US subjects that have been wanted for some time, for which we modelers should be grateful. However, since the advent of their Stuart and Lee kits, it has become apparent that “looks” can often be quite deceiving when scrutinized closely, their products are often found lacking in the detail and accuracy department. As much as it distresses me to say it, this is still the case with this manufacturer, as shown in this latest kit.


On the other hand, it is readily apparent that Academy has heard the “voice” of modelers on the internet. This new product, loosely based on their previously-released M3 Lee medium tank kit, has new parts to correct the VVSS suspension bogie trucks and volute springs this is a major “plus” in many respects, and bodes well for the future.

These consist of a pair of vinyl lengths that are designed to be heat-joined. They are well-detailed and properly configured (i.e., the end connectors stretch between the links) and represent the T51 flat rubber pad style quite nicely. They have several pour stubs on each length, on the inner face of a few links these will need a sharp knife and some care to be removed. It should be noted that this particular medium will “shed” paint if handled too roughly during installation, even if primed proper planning will serve to mitigate any negative effects.

The good news is that the height issues related to the bogie trucks and VVSS springs have been addressed. They are now properly-configured. The better news is that the outer segments are provided in two styles (one set has the small horizontal ridge the other does not), so one set of outer bogies will be left-over. If the modeler has the Academy Lee kit still un-built, these parts will help correct that kit Saul Garcia has already posted photos describing the procedure here at ML and over on Track Link. Check it out!


There are also new drive sprockets to compliment those on the two “generic” M4 VVSS sprues that are included in order to supply the road-wheels. The latter consist of two complete sets of six-spoke pressed or five-spoke welded type road-wheels, as well as pressed or welded idler wheels. Complete (and superfluous to this kit to a degree!) straight-arm VVSS units are included these have two track skid variations and will be quite handy for those who have a Tamiya M4 in the stash. They are virtually a drop-fit on the Tamiya hull. Of course, these early M7s could be seen with these suspension bogies this provides yet another option in this area and is another major high point of this kit.

The hull pan is straight out of the M3 Lee kit and will need some items on the sponsons cut away to accommodate parts on the new M7 the instructions show what needs to be done. The odd oval plug (what’s that all about, anyway?) for the belly plate seen attached to the inner floor on the Lee kit, is now a separate part pop it into place and fill as required. Overall detail on the hull pan includes crisply-rendered rivets and VVSS mounting plates, as well as reinforcement strips on the belly this represents the riveted construction of the original very nicely. The rear plate has separate engine access hatch doors and includes tow clevises, trailer hitch with mount and square section air cleaners. The latter includes separate connecting rods and rounded bottoms. Exhaust stubs are molded with properly opened “fish-tails”.


Up front, a six-part assembly represents the three-piece cast/bolted transmission/final drive housing. There are lubrication plugs molded on the parts that encase the final drive segments and one of them has a foundry part number molded in place. The remaining parts are devoid of these numbers, a few lube/drain plugs and any hint of a cast surface texture. Some work by the modeler will be needed to bring this section up to par. The unit is finished with tow clevises and rings.


Separate front and rear fenders are then attached to the sponsons.

The basic shape of the superstructure is captured quite well. The side and rear panels around the fighting compartment are of the type without the folding extensions that covered the ammunition stowage bins. The front plate captures the appearance of the curved top section very well. There are subtle weld beads where applicable, and the lower lip of the side plates have nicely-done sand shield mounting strips, complete with opened bolt holes. Separate head-lamp mounts and horn are provided, as are the commendably thin and appropriately-shaped brush guards, as well as a separate view-port flap. The head-lamp mounts have separate lenses (they are not clear parts) and there is a separate horn face, so shrinkage will not be a problem with those parts. The three grouser boxes are provided, but they are stowed with spare track links. “Officially” this is incorrect.


The engine deck is where one encounters the first of many problems, particularly since this kit, in most other major areas, represents and earlier M7. There are some minor detail issues and the two prominent vents with their sheet metal covers are nowhere to be seen. The tool stowage is well done and these items are separate parts. However, although tow cable end loops are given, no material for the actual cable is supplied. The two stowage boxes appear to be properly-sized and represent the second type with top hinges, but no vents or screened bins on the top. The rear engine deck plate is then attached as are the tail-lamps.

There are a number of detail, accuracy and construction issues here as well. To begin with there are a number of ejector pin marks for the modeler to deal with on all inner wall surfaces. The ammunition racks are filled with very nice, slide-molded closed packing tubes, but each individual cell wall is not provided. Lots of extra work will be needed by the modeler to complete the appearance of these parts. No actual 105mm rounds are provided. Many small brackets and fittings are not given and will also need to be added by the modeler for maximum accuracy.


The driver’s instrument panel is incorrect and represents the type with Ford engine instead of Wright radial engine. There is a separate floor panel for the driver, to which a two-part seat is added. Most of the driver’s controls are given as separate parts. The transmission interior is made up of multiple parts, but details are missing. I am not sure why the crew of an artillery piece would need two M1 rifles in racks, since specs call for sub-machine guns. The stowage bin for four boxes of .50 cal ammo is nicely-rendered, while the M2 itself is a multi-part affair with separate grips, sights, trigger and cocking lever it comes from a slide-mold so is pre-bored. There are actually TWO M2s given one has the barrel changing handle, while each has a different style of molded-on cradle. Ammo boxes, trays and two styles of pintles complete the MGs. There is also a nice .30 cal. “with all the trimmins”, which can go to spare-part heaven.


The MG mounts onto a movable skate rail mount, which in turn gets attached to the ring mount. The ring mount is very under-detailed and does not represent the actual item except at casual glance the prominent braces for the mount are not given. The “pulpit” is otherwise a proper representation of this type.


The howitzer has some interesting design solutions and is based on a two-part slide-molded gun tube, with a separate slide-molded breech block. The small balancing spring seen under the recoil slide is also the product of a slide mold. The recuperator cylinder is also a very well-done multi-part item that includes a separate end-cap. This is all very nice, but it’s all down-hill from here!


There is a host of very ill-placed ejector pin marks to deal with and the sliding wedge for the breech block has a sink mark that needs filling. The elevating and traversing arc parts and the recoil slide have many ejector pin marks that must be dealt with, but some are in very difficult spots. The sights don’t quite make it as proper visual representations of the actual item, and the firing lanyard is molded on the recoil slide in an extremely “shrunken” fashion.


Molding, Fit and Engineering.

Molding and fit is generally OK, but those ejector pin marks are an absolute pain to deal with! The rendition of many of the small details indicate that Academy still has a ways to go in order to be a true 21st Century kit maker.

There are a vexing number of accuracy, omission and detail issues throughout the kit as follows:

• The shape of the driver’s visor does not match photos and the “Protectoscope” mounted within it is too small the lip around the visor on the superstructure is improperly shaped, because it matches the visor’s outline.
• The small circular openings on either edge of the forward engine deck panel, aft of the grill work, are located between bolts three and four they should be between bolts four and five.
• Photographs show a screened rectangular opening (a vent for the engine compartment) on either side of the aft engine deck lid. Both have a spaced, “L”-shaped cover over them none of these items are included.
• The three open boxes on the superstructure front are grouser boxes, not spare track link stowage boxes (although they could be used to stow the latter, I suppose). Nice spare links are given, but no grousers are included.
• The padding on the circular seats features a cross-hatch pattern scribed in place. This represents canvas texture quite poorly.
• The cast three-piece transmission/final drive parts don’t have any texture, and only have one set of foundry numbers on one area.
• The engine deck screen is molded in place.
• Tow cable end-loops are provided, but no material is provided to simulate the cable.
• The rim around the .50 cal. ring mount is not wide enough, is improperly configured and lacks details seen in photos. The rather noticeable braces seen in photos are also absent from the kit.
• The driver’s instrument panel does not match the configuration seen in photos for vehicles powered by the Wright radial engine it appears to be the type seen on Ford-powered M7B1s.
• The driver’s controls are incomplete, as are the internal sections of the transmission/final drive unit.
• The howitzer mount is riddled with hard-to-remove ejector pin marks and has some dodgy details, particularly the firing lanyard assembly. The sighting apparatus is extremely over-simplified, which creates shape and configuration issues.
• The two rifle racks are filled with .30 cal. M1 rifles. According to Hunnicutt, specs call for “Provision for (3) .45 cal. SMG M3”.
• A number of small fittings seen around the fighting compartment are not provided.
• The details under the sheet metal cover at the rear of the fighting compartment only “resemble” the actual items seen in photographs.
• The two frames used to support the canvas cover over the fighting compartment, commonly stowed on either side of its outside walls, are not provided.
• Although there are some nice packing tubes to fill the ammunition racks, the individual square cell walls are not included. With full racks, the cell walls are still readily visible.


When “push comes to shove”, the majority of the problems mentioned above can be overcome by the so-called “advanced” modeler. But, the manufacturer should have paid greater attention to specific details, thereby saving all modelers a great deal of extra (and unnecessary) work.

These are clearly-drawn, logically laid-out and should present no problems to the modeler.


Decals and Markings Information.


The designs are in perfect register, have crisp edges and feature fine color saturation carrier film is thin, glossy and cut close to the edges. Markings are provided for four vehicles, as follows:

• “Franche-Comte”, French 2eme Division Blindeé, France 1944.
• “Baboon”, 14th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, US 2nd Armored Division, France 1944.
• British 11th Regiment, Royal Horse Artillery, 1st Armoured Division, El Alamein 1942.
• US 2nd Armored Division, Sicily 1943.

The markings are largely based on information provided by Steve Zaloga in reference number 3 and match the color plates quite well in some particulars. Two sets are confirmed in that publication, but actual vehicle configurations differ. For example, “Baboon” is depicted in that reference (as a color plate and as a contemporary photo) as being a later M7 with the folding armor plate extensions around the side and rear of the fighting compartment walls, as well as being field-modified with mine racks typically of the length seen on the M3 and M3A1 half-track it also features the deeper machine gun pulpit, none of which are options in the kit. “Franche-Comte” matches the color plates precisely, but is without markings seen on the front (the plate neglects that area as well). The British 11th Rgt., RHA markings are similar to, but not identical to, those seen in photos. The Sicilian vehicle is quite “generic” in nature, since the markings merely consist of three ringed Allied stars.


Taken altogether, the markings, although “nice”, fall short in several respects.

There are too many issues with this kit that are indicative of poor research by the manufacturer and the use of less-sophisticated molding techniques. It is a wonderful thing to have a major item (the suspension bogies) improved upon it is not so wonderful to be then let down in so many other particulars.


Lest the reader get the idea that this kit is a “horror”, that is not my intention it will just need what I consider to be too many corrections and too much extra work by the modeler to get it to look good. While much of what needs to be done falls well within the skill level of many modelers, Academy could have done so much better with only a bit more effort.


Recommend with reservations.


Frank V. “Curly Stooge” De Sisto


References consulted for this review included, but were not limited to:


T51 25pdr Howitzer Motor Carriage - History

A large number of support vehicles were developed using the chassis from both the M3 and M4 Medium tanks. This was due in part to fill needs for a number of support roles, as well as to find useful purposes for older, and now obsolete vehicles. For many of the vehicles listed below, it can be difficult to remember which chassis provided the basis for the vehicle, given the convoluted developmental history of this series. Thanks to the number of available aftermarket accessories and the subtle differences between the two chassis, kit-bashing models from a number of different available kits can produce variants that are missing from the tables below, regardless of whether or not the kits are M3s or M4s.

Due to the large variety of support vehicles produced during (and after) the war, many of which are not yet available in kit form, I will list below only those that are currently available as model kits, and perhaps a few other important versions that we are currently lacking, in order to highlight their absence to potential manufacturers.


Artillery units

  • This topic is locked

#1 Rygar

akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/selfpropelledguns/usspg-M7105mm-a.jpg" />

Based on experience with mounting 105 mm howitzers on half-tracks the US Army wanted a fully tracked version. Used a modified M3 Medium or M4 Medium tank chassis. Upper hull was modified to hold a 105 mm howitzer in the front. A drum-like cupola was added on the right side to hold a .50 cal MG. Two prototypes were built and designated T32. Had an open superstructure with a M1A2 105 mm howitzer installed to the right of the center. It was accepted and standardized as the M7 HMC in February 1942. Was declared Substitute Standard in January 1945. Production models had modified shields and a cupola for the AA MG. 105 mm had velocity of 1,550 ft/sec, and range of 12,205 yards. The MG compartment looked like a pulpit and was nicknamed "The Priest" by the British.

Dimensions: 6.19 x 2.54 x 2.87 (h) mt
Weight: 22.6 tons
Armor (max): 62 mm
Speed (max): 40 km/hr
Engine: Ford GAA 450 hp
Armament: 1x 105mm M2A1 L/22.5 cannon
Crew: 7

British Valentine Bishop (25 pdr)

Birmingham Carriage & Wagon was asked in June 1941 to develop a SPG using a Valentine chassis. Turret was fixed and it restricted elevation of gun. The pilot was produced and ready for trials in August 1941. Used in the Royal Artillery batteries, through North Africa and into the early stages of the invasion of Italy. However, the British Tank Mission to the USA noted that the M7 Howitzer Motor Carriage was a superior vehicle and further orders were nullified. In July 1942, with 80 of the first 100 already built and British fortunes at their lowest ebb, a new order arrived for 50 more. The vehicle was considered unsophisticated and a disadvantage due to it's high silhouette. To get maximum range they had to be driven up onto ramps usually made from dirt.

Dimensions: 5.57 x 2.66 x 2.8 (h) mt
Weight: 17.5 tons
Armor (max): 60 mm
Speed (max): 24 km/hr
Engine: Diesel AEC, 131 hp
Armament: 1x 85 mm Q.F. 25pdr Mk 2 cannon, 1x 303 Bren MG
Crew: 4

French ARL V39

Designed as a self-propelled gun for the DCRs, the Infantry's armoured divisions, 72 ARL V 39 (including 24 unarmed command variants) were ordered on 15 October 1939 to arm 8 battalions each with two batteries of 3 vehicles (two battalions per DCR). On 9 May 1940, the order was increased to 108. The ARL V 39 was to have 50mm armour and be armed, like the SAu 40, with a new "high power" APX 75mm gun of which only two prototypes existed, both mounted on the SPG prototypes. None were produced other than the single prototype, evacuated to Morroco and abandoned there.

Dimensions: 5.8 x 2.57 x 2.45 (h) mt
Weight: 25 tons
Armor (max): 50 mm
Speed (max): 42 km/hr
Engine:
Armament: 1x 75mm APX cannon
Crew: 5

Russian Bm-13 N "Katyusha"

The Soviet Army was the greatest user of rocket artillery in the Second World War, and one of its most successful designs was the lorry-borne rocket system, a configuration given the nickname 'Katyusha'. The particular type depicted in the game is the BM-13N, consisting of the BM-13 rocket system on the American Lend-Lease truck, the Studebaker US9. Kayusha's were initially used in the defence of Stalingrad. In March 1941 the first successful fire tests of BM-13 rocket launchers were carried out and 21 June mass production order was sign. Originally this system was based on standard ZIS-5 but this experience wasn't successful. Afterwards ZIS-6 was chosen. At last BM-13 was mounted only on Studebaker-US6 (BM-13N).

Dimensions: 5.41 x 2.1 x 2.2 (h) mt
Weight: 3.69 tons
Armor (max): 30 mm
Speed (max): 50 km/hr
Engine: Hercules JXD, 94hp
Armament: 16x 132 mm Multiple launched rocket system
Crew: 3

German Panzerwerfer 42 auf Maultier

The Panzerwerfer 42 auf Maultier, Sd.Kfz. 4/1, first went into production in April of 1943, and was produced until March of 1945. Hitler called for production of the vehicle in January of 1942, and the vehicle saw it’s first tests on the front in fall of 1943. The rocket launcher was on a chassis referred to as "Maultier", which means "Mule". The vehicle is referred to with the suffix "42", but all of the German texts about the vehicle refer to it as the Panzerwerfer 43, a reference to it’s first year of production. Opel was the main manufacturer, producing most of the components, including the 3.6 liter, 6 cylinder Adam Opel engine, which had 68 horsepower and an 80 liter fuel capacity, Throughout the three years it was produced, 300 Panzerwerfers and 289 of it’s variant, the Munitionkraftswagen, were made. The Munitionkraftswagen, or Sd.Kfz. 4, was the exact same vehicle, just without the rocket launcher. It was mainly used for ammo re-supply. The Panzerwerfer had a 150-millimeter, 10-barrel rocket launcher, which traversed 270 degrees, could be elevated up to 80 degrees, and was guided with the RA35 optical sight. The Panzerwerfer saw action on both fronts, seeing it’s first combat in Russia in late 1943. As to whether it saw action at Kursk, there is not enough solid information to support that but it is very possible. The rocket launcher was used for larger scale rocket barrages against positions of Russian resistance where a large bombardment of a big area would be more effective than more accurate artillery fire. The Panzerwerfer’s rocket barrages covered much larger areas and added more psychological elements to the fight: the amount of noise, smoke, shrapnel, and flying debris as the rockets hit and exploded was tremendous. The extensive use on the eastern front showed that this weapon could be employed effectively on the western front as well. The weapon was finally introduced throughout the army on May 14, 1944, in France.

Dimensions: 6 x 2.2 x 2.5 (h) mt
Weight: 7.1 tons
Armor (max): 30 mm
Speed (max): 40 km/hr
Engine: Gasoline Opel
Armament: 10x 150 mm Nebelwerfer 42 1x 7.92 mm MG34
Crew: 3

Italian Semovente M43 da 105/25 "Bassotto"

This vehicle came into production on 2 Apr 43. Considered to be the best in Italian Self-Propelled Guns (SPG) it was armed with a 105 mm 25 Calibre howitzer on a M43 chassis. This chassis was the same as the M 15-42, but widened 2.4 meters. The hull superstructure had 70mm of armor protection and the rest of the vehicles armor ranging from 15 mm to 50 mm. This was the heaviest armored vehicle built by the Italians during WW2. Owing to it's width and low silhouette, Italian armored artillerymen affectionately called it "Bassotto" (Dachshund). Only one "gruppo" was operational prior to 8 September. This unit fought the Germans outside of Rome for control. Surrendering vehicles were used by the Germans and RSI armored elements in Italy.

Weight: 16 tons
Dimensions: 5.8 x 2.82 x 1.74 (h) mt
Armor (max): 75 mm
Speed (max): 38 km/hr
Engine: Diesel SPA M15 (15TB), 190 hp
Armament: 1x 105 mm 105/25 Ansaldo Gun, 1x 8 mm Breda M38 MG
Crew: 3

Japanese Type 4 Ha-To

The Type 4 30cm SP Mortar "Ha-To" was developed in 1944. Ha-To had a Type 3 300mm Mortar Its chassis was converted from the prime mover "Chi-So" or "Chi-Ke". Its weight of projectile was 170kg and the effective range was 3000m. Ha-To was regarded as an effective vehicle, but it was not mass produced due to the progress of rocket artillery.

Weight: 15 tons
Dimensions: 6.8 x 2.4 x 2.75 (h) mt
Armor (max): 8 mm
Speed (max): 4 km/hr
Engine: Diesel Engine, 165 hp
Armament: 1x Type 3 300 mm Heavy Mortar, 1x Type 97 7.7 mm MG
Crew: 7


Новые: самая низкая цена

С самой низкой ценой, совершенно новый, неиспользованный, неоткрытый, неповрежденный товар в оригинальной упаковке (если товар поставляется в упаковке). Упаковка должна быть такой же, как упаковка этого товара в розничных магазинах, за исключением тех случаев, когда товар является изделием ручной работы или был упакован производителем в упаковку не для розничной продажи, например в коробку без маркировки или в пластиковый пакет. См. подробные сведения с дополнительным описанием товара


IPMS/USA Reviews

Shortly after the beginning of World War II, it became apparent to US Army planners that there was a dire need for an armored, self-propelled artillery vehicle to support the troops involved in armored operations. Until something more viable could be developed, the army used the M3 half-track with an M2 105mm howitzer mounted in the crew compartment. This vehicle was designated as the T-19. However, this quickly proved inadequate and needed to be replaced, preferably by a fully tracked, armored vehicle able to offer better crew protection. Using the chassis from an M3 medium tank, two pilot models designated T32 were built and tested. Upon successful completion of the tests, the T32 was accepted for service in February 1942 as the M7 HMC (Howitzer Motor Carriage) with production starting in April 1942. The main armament was the M2 105mm howitzer, along with the M2 .50 cal. machine gun for AA and personal defense. The M7 HMC had stowage for 69 rounds of ammunition with 36 rounds being in the ready service bins mounted on the floor on either side of the fighting compartment. Ninety M7's were shipped to the British 8th army in Africa. They were the first to use the M7 in combat during the second battle of El Alamein. The M7 was successful and was well-liked by the crews. A total of 3,490 M7's were built and were used in combat by all allied armies, with several soldering on in smaller armies until the 1960's.

The Kit

This new Dragon release follows their first release of the M7 Priest mid-production (# 6637) and incorporates all the necessary changes to backdate the model to depict an early production version of the M7. This "Smart Kit" release has 302 parts (297 in styrene), 4 etched brass parts, and one turned aluminum barrel with nice, delicate rifling. The kit includes two lengths of DS100 track molded in soft styrene that can be glued using styrene cement. The track pattern for this release is the T41 which had the flat reversible track pads. The T41 are accurate and detail is depicted nicely however, the use of T41 tracks on the M7 was short-lived and a set of T51 tracks would have been more useful. The early Priest used the early VVSS M3 suspension and this is depicted nicely. The road wheels are the open welded type with 5 spokes. All the suspension parts have fine casting detail but do not have part numbers or foundry marks present. Unlike earlier Sherman releases, the axle spindles for the idler wheels are not adjustable. This will not allow you to manipulate the axle to insure proper track tension unless it's modified. To insure proper track tension, I cut one link off before gluing the track run together. This helps give the correct track tension without having to modify the idler axle spindle. This is also easily accomplished with the glueable DS track. The instructions are typical DML - well drawn, but at times busy. There are also a couple of numbering mistakes, which will be pointed out later. Due to the low parts count (low for DML), the assembly is accomplished in just 12 steps. Also typical for DML instructions is the ever-present painting instructions with only a few colors being indicated. Also, step 8 calls for decals (yellow stripes) to be applied to the ammo tubes. However, unlike the first mid-production release by Dragon, this kit does not include the stripes. I didn't mind that too much as it saved me the time of placing 25 decal stripes on all the ammo tubes in the bins. Not an easy task at all.

Construction

As is typical, construction starts with the bogie assemblies. These were of the early M3 type and are well represented. The casting texture is fine however, there are no casting numbers present on the bogie housing. The kit has 5 spoked, welded wheels while the idler has the correct 6 spokes. The drive sprocket is the flat machined type. The transmission cover is assembled in step two. This is a new three-piece transmission cover that has the casting numbers as well as the drain plugs present. The interior transmission and driver's controls are added to the final drive housing, and this whole assembly is then placed aside until added to the hull later in construction.

The rear armored bulkhead (part A1) is assembled next. Dragon took a short cut here. Not only are the engine access doors molded closed, but the grab handle on the door itself is molded as a solid strip. This looks nothing like the actual handle. I cut mine off and made a proper handle from wire. The exhausts are well represented but the connection to the bulkhead is a little fragile. I managed to break mine off a couple of times before getting the bulkhead secured in the hull. The interior rear bulkhead (part A7) is next. The armored cover (part A8) needs to have a PE grille added. The spot where the grille is placed is molded solid. This is a bit unusual, as there are two open vents next to the grilled vent. These were molded open, but the area where the grill goes is solid. Actually it's a non-issue as nothing is visible beneath the grille anyway. Dragon did, however used the same molding technique with the vents on top of the engine deck. I chose to leave off the aiming stakes (part D36) that are mounted to the armor plate until later in the construction.

Construction moves on to the 105mm howitzer. The main part of the gun, which includes the recuperator, recoil cylinder, and gun tube are slide molded as one piece. This is nice, as it eliminates cleanup of the seam, which would be difficult. The end of the gun barrel is turned aluminum and has fine rifling on the inner surface. The instructions indicate that the travel lock pin on parts A13 and A43 need to be trimmed. I followed the instructions and trimmed them off as indicated. This proved to be erroneous, as when the actual travel lock was added in step 8 it did not engage with the gun carriage. I ended up having to shim the pins I cut off to get them to fit properly. I suggest using the travel lock (part C4) as a guide when trimming the pins on the carriage. Adding the gun shields was a bit difficult. The instructions were not very clear in this step. Start by gluing the bottoms (parts C25 & C26) to their respective shields. The bottoms have notches molded into them. Test fit to the bottom of the gun carriage. There are corresponding notches on the bottom of the gun carriage that the shield bottoms fit into. Test fitting is the only way to determine exactly where they fit. Start by gluing the right brace (part C8). Before the glue sets on the brace, glue the shield (part C28). Then manipulate the shield until it engages the brace. The top of the brace is notched to fit the top of the shield. Align it as best as possible before the glue sets completely. Now add the left brace the same way. Brace first, then shield. Glue part C18 between the two shields. Now, while still curing, look down the length of the barrel from the muzzle and align the shields until they are squared up. Actually, it's not as hard as it sounds - just take your time and everything should line up.

Once the howitzer is completed, assembly moves back to the interior of the vehicle. There are a few errors in the instructions at this step. Parts numbers C14 and C15 are reversed. This becomes obvious when trying to put them into the floor (part C17). Even the drawing is wrong. The uprights should bend outward and not towards each other as indicated. The ammo bins have several 105mm rounds in shipping tubes molded in place. They look all right but I would have preferred to have the bins molded empty, as in the old Italeri kit. As stated earlier, the instructions show the decal stripes being added to the shipping tubes however, there are no decal stripes included in the kit. Also parts B37 and B38, as well as B33 and B34, are reversed. Unlike previous Sherman-based kits, parts B33 and B34 are fixed in place and not adjustable. This makes getting the proper track tension a little more difficult. In previous Sherman-based kits, this part was adjustable. This can be made to be adjustable with some trimming but I chose to shorten the length of track to get the proper track tension.

The riveted hull has all the drain plugs and inspection plates present and is the correct hull without an escape hatch. It has the 8 vertical hex bolt heads down each side as well as the 20 bolts across the bottom of the hull. The inside of the hull has slots to mount the interior floor, and there is also a drive shaft that runs from the bulkhead to the rear of the transmission. The driver's area is well represented and the instrument panel is the long rectangular one instead of the square one seen in later versions. Unfortunately, there were no instrument faces included in the decal sheet, which would have been a nice touch as they are visible when viewed. There are no crew weapons included, but the weapon brackets are molded into the side walls. The side armor plates are new moldings with the short machine gun pulpit. Use care in cleaning these up. At first viewing, what I thought was flash was actually fine weld beads that fit nicely to the front glacis plate when the superstructure is assembled. The fit of the side walls and the front glacis was very nice, and the ammo bin brackets molded on the inside wall fit to the ammo bins extremely well, helping to align everything.

The rear engine deck has the extra vents properly located however they are not open but rather molded solid. The two side vents have an armored cover, so not being open is not an issue. However, the main engine vent located at the front center of the deck is also closed. This really is not a major issue as little is visible below the grille anyway. Just to be safe, I painted the recesses flat black before adding the grilles. The only other issue I had with the rear engine deck was with the tow cables. The molded eyes on the ends seem grossly undersized when compared to other Sherman-based tow cables. They can't be replaced easily because the locking brackets are molded to the ends of the eyes. I also had a major problem with the tow cable supplied in the kit. The wire cable was very springy. I heat treated it a couple times and still could not get it to be less springy and coil properly. Also, the wire supplied was the same diameter as the end of the eye, making it impossible to drill out to accept the springy wire. After a few tries I tossed it and ended up using some line I have for rigging. Using rigging line was much easier and a lot less frustrating. The fit of the engine deck to the superstructure went without problems and everything seemed to fit very well, with construction going quickly and without problems. I finally added the track. To improve the fit, I cut one link off the end on each side. The track glued together without any problems and the fit was fine after the one link was removed.

The kit includes the usual water-slide decals printed by Cartograf. All markings have crisp edges and were perfectly registered. There are six marking options included: three unidentified US Army units,. one ETO unit in 1943, one Stateside unit in 1942, and one unit from Anzio, 1943. There are two British A Squadron Priests from Egypt in 1942, and finally a Free French Priest attached to the 2nd Armored Division in 1944. I chose the unit from the ETO in 1943. The white stars have a disruptive OD covering, which comes as an extra decal to add over the white stars. I was curious to see how this worked, and it went well and I was happy with the final results. My vehicle was painted overall OD. I gloss coated it and got the decals mounted. At this point I had to stop because of time constraints and needing to finish this review. I shot the pictures of the gloss coated model to complete the review. I do intend to weather the Priest as soon as my professional life stops interfering with my modeling life.

All in all, this was a fun build. There are some shortcuts taken by Dragon but, for the most part, the kit engineering was excellent. I was a little concerned at first with a multiple-part superstructure and just how difficult it would be to keep everything lined up, but my concerns proved to be unfounded. Everything went together quickly and cleanly and I am happy with the final result. I can safely recommend this kit to anyone having a few builds under his belt.

Special thanks to Dragon/USA for the review sample and IPMS for letting me build and write this review.


T51 25pdr Howitzer Motor Carriage - History

Conversions: US Conversions

Le char moyen M3 fut convertis en différents véhicules utilitaires ou canons automoteurs dont voici la liste:

  • M31Tank Recovery Vehicle: Véhicule de récupération de char basé sur le M3 et doté d' un faux canon de 75 mm. Il était également équipé d' une fausse tourelle et d' un treuil d' une capacité de 27 tonnes. Il pouvait tracter les chars légers, moyens et lourds en tous terrains. Il servait également à manipuler les tourelles des chars moyens. Quelques-uns sans treuil servirent comme tracteur d' artillerie notamment pour les obusiers de 155 mm "Long Tom".
  • M31B1Tank Recovery Vehicle: Véhicule de récupération de char basé sur le M3A3.
  • M31B2Tank Recovery Vehicle: Véhicule de récupération de char basé sur le M3A5
  • M7 Priest: Obusier de 105 mm automoteur. L' obusier était installé dans une superstructure centrale ouverte.
  • T6 155 mm GMC (M12): Obusier de 155 mm automoteur. L' obusier était installé dans une superstructure arrière ouverte. Le moteur était déplacé au centre.
  • Mine Exploder T1: Véhicule démineur équipé de lourds rouleaux anti-mines à l' avant et parfois à l' arrière (Expérimental).
  • Special Mine Clearance Vehicle: Véhicule démineur équipé d' une potence pivotante pour la pose de charges explosives. L' onde de choc devait en principe faire exploser les mines. 5e Armée en Afrique du Nord (Expérimental).
  • Shop Tractor T10 (Canal Defense Light): Blindé de reconnaissance équipé de projecteurs pour les combats de nuit (Expérimental).
  • Cargo Carrier T14: Transport entièrement chenillé (Expérimental).
  • Heavy Tractor T16: Tracteur lourd (Expérimental).
  • 76 mm GMC T4: Canon de 76 mm automoteur (Expérimental).
  • 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage T25: Obusier de 105 mm automoteur (Expérimental).
  • 75 mm GMC T26: Canon de 75 mm automoteur (Expérimental).
  • 40 mm GMC T36: Canon de 40 mm automoteur (Expérimental).
  • 76 mm GMC T40(M9): Canon de 76 mm automoteur (Expérimental).
  • 25 Pdr GMC T51: Canon de 25 Pdr automoteur (Expérimental).
  • Flamethrower Vehicles: chars équipés des projecteurs E3 et M5R2 (Expérimental).

The Medium Tank M3 was converted into various utility vehicles or self-propelled guns of which here the list:

  • M31Tank Recovery Vehicle: Tank Recovery Vehicle based on M3 and equipped with a false gun of 75 mm. It was also equipped with a false turret and a winch of a capacity of 27 tons. It could tracted the light, medium and heavy tanks into cross-country. It was also used to moved the turrets of the medium tanks. Some without winch were useful like tractor of artillery in particular for the howitzers of 155 mm "Long Tom".
  • M31B1Tank Recovery Vehicle: Tank Recovery Vehicle based on M3A3.
  • M31B2Tank Recovery Vehicle: Tank Recovery Vehicle based on M3A5
  • M7 Priest: Howitzer of 105 mm motorized. The howitzer was installed in an open central superstructure.
  • T6 155 mm GMC (M12): Howitzer of 155 mm motorized. The howitzer was installed in a rear superstructure open. The engine was moved in the center.
  • Mine Exploder T1: Mine-exploder vehicle equipped with heavy anti-mines rollers mounted in front and sometimes to the back (Experimental).
  • Special Mine Clearance Vehicle: Mine-exploder vehicle equipped with a swivelling frame the installation of explosive loads. The shock wave was in theory to explode the mines. 5th Armey in North Africa (Experimental).
  • Shop Tractor T10 (Canal Defense Light): Armoured tank of reconnaissance equipped with projectors for the combat of night (Experimental).
  • Cargo Carrier T14: Tracked cargo carrier (Experimental).
  • Heavy Tractor T16: Heavy tractor (Experimental).
  • 76 mm GMC T4: 76 mm self-propelled gun (Experimental).
  • 105 mm Howitzer Motor Carriage T25: 105 mm self-propelled howitzer (Experimental).
  • 75 mm GMC T26: 75 mm self-propelled gun (Experimental).
  • 40 mm GMC T36: 40 mm self-propelled gun (Experimental).
  • 76 mm GMC T40(M9): 76 mm self-propelled gun (Experimental).
  • 25 Pdr GMC T51: 25-pdr self-propelled gun (Experimental).
  • Flamethrower Vehicles: tanks equipped with the E3 projectors and M5R2 (Experimental).

Char anti-mines spécial poseur de charge explosives

Mine Exploder T1
src: M3 Lee/Grant in Action, Squadron signal Publications - Armor n°33

Tank Recovery Vehicle M31 Heavy Tractor M33
src: site US's Vehicle History src: La Seconde Guerre Mondiale,
Éditons C. Colomb

Heavy Tractor T16 M31 Tank Recovery Vehicle
(Patton Museum)
src: M3 Lee/Grant in Action, Squadron signal Publications - Armor n°33 Copyright 1993-2004 Masa Narita

Le canon antiaérien de 40 mm, fut l' arme de ce type la plus utilisé pars les USA en raison de son poids et de sa puissance de tir. Le T36 était un Medium Tank M3 modifié, armé d' un 40 mm Bofors dans une tourelle aux formes spéciales. Ce modèle datant de 1942 ne fut cependant pas accepté pour la production.

The anti-aircraft gun of 40 mm, was the weapon of this type more used by the USA because of its weight and its fire power. T36 was modified Medium Tank M3, armed with one 40 mm Bofors in a turret with the special forms. This model going back to 1942 was however not accepted for the production.


Overlevende

Et overlevende køretøj vises nu på Deutsches Panzermuseum Munster (German Tank Museum Munster).

Et restaureret køretøj på det australske rustnings- og artillerimuseum i Cairns er udstyret med et malearkema for den amerikanske hær fra 2. verdenskrig.

Overlevende køretøj ved Vermont National Guard Library & Museum Colchester, Vermont

En overlevende M7, der blev brugt i den østrigske Bundesheer (hær) efter 2. verdenskrig, udstilles i den private Robert Gill-samling i Østrig www.militarymuseum.at [Wien, Østrig]


Watch the video: 25 pounder gun (June 2022).