A British Stug III

I have calculated that the penetration of the 3" 16cwt gun would be a little bit better than the American 75mm gun on Sherman and Chaffee (about 10% better) and somewhat inferior to the 76mm gun on the M-10 and M-18 (about 25% worse).

I asked about the 3" AA guns anti tank performance on Tony Williams site Military Guns and Ammunition http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun and I was told the 12.5 pound AP shot would penetrate 86mm at 1,000 yards. Not sensational but probably enough to kill any tank in 42/43 at a good range apart from the Tiger 1. Plus it would fire a useful HE shell.
 

Markus

Banned
I asked about the 3" AA guns anti tank performance on Tony Williams site Military Guns and Ammunition http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun and I was told the 12.5 pound AP shot would penetrate 86mm at 1,000 yards. Not sensational but probably enough to kill any tank in 42/43 at a good range apart from the Tiger 1. Plus it would fire a useful HE shell.

That is as good as a Pak-40 with APCBC, with APCR ammo the gun would do much better and unlike Germany the Allies had enough tungsten to make shell cores out of it.
 

Markus

Banned
Bump, bump bump bump...BUMP!

Armadillo v. Tiger at Kasserine Pass!


IIRC German Tigers were almost as rare in Tunesia as the Siberian Tiger is today. The Pz.III was the most numerous tank, followed by the Pz.IV. Armadillos should do very well against these tanks.
 
IIRC German Tigers were almost as rare in Tunesia as the Siberian Tiger is today. The Pz.III was the most numerous tank, followed by the Pz.IV. Armadillos should do very well against these tanks.

Read the TL, there's only one Tiger, and it's next to half a dozen other vehicles.
 
Finally, new updates.

British Stug III (part 2)

The Armadillo Mark II fought with the British Army for the rest of the Tunisian Campaign. Bizerte was taken on May 2, and Rommel surrendered on the 6th. Armadillo was credited for destroying about one hundred enemy armored vehicles.

However, there were still a few problems left with the design. It was unreliable, just like the Crusader tank on which it was based. The armor was found to be insufficient against enemy 75mm and 88mm guns. While the 3 inch gun was superior to both the 6-pounder on Crusader and Valentine tanks and the 75mm gun on Grant and Sherman, but it still could not penetrate Tiger's frontal armor at longer ranges, nor was it particularly accurate at long range.

In order to remedy these deficiencies, plans were drawn up to mount the 17-pounder gun on the chassis of the new Cromwell tank, again in a well-armored, limited-traverse mounting. The new design, named Ocelot, was intended for use starting in early 1944. Until then it was left to the older Armadillos to fight in the tough terrain of Sicily and Italy.
 
Part II: Jagdcromwell (finally)

On December 6, 1943, the first Ocelot prototype was built. It was a Cromwell tank chassis with the turret replaced by a superstructure with 92mm thick, sloped armor plate extending from the hull front and vertical side armor that was 40mm thick. It mounted a 17-pounder gun in a limited-traverse mount with a coaxial machine gun. To accommodate the large weapon and its ammunition, the chassis was lengthened with an extra road wheel.

There were previous plans for modifying the Cromwell to carry a 17-pounder gun in a turret, but these were scrapped following the Ocelot prototype's success.

Production of the Ocelot Mk I (barely modified from the prototype) began in May 1944. As the tank was too large to be shipped to France until the Mulberry Harbors were installed, the tank first went into action in Italy on July 12.
 
Last edited:
I've gotten a couple dozen views so I think this is worth continuing.



The Ocelot Mark I first arrived in Italy in July 1944. It fought several small actions.

Its front armor was strong enough to withstand German 75mm rounds from longer ranges if it took a hit at a bit of an angle. The 17-pounder gun was very powerful as well. However, a brief combat report from July 22 by Lieutenant Ernest T. Harper tells much:

"We had three of the new Ocelots with our company, commanded by Sergeants Jagger, Harrington and Hayes. We had to take a ridge of hills near the village of Sacrobaco. We encountered several German howitzers and machine-guns, which the Ocelots defeated easily to let the infantry advance towards the ridge. Two German Tiger tanks appeared, and our tanks destroyed them in minutes at no loss. However when our forces advanced up to the ridge, a German infantry anti-tank team succeeded in disabling two of the Ocelots from the side with rockets from an area of good cover."

While the existence of Tiger tanks in Italy is dubious (in all likelihood they were Panzer IVs) the importance of close infantry protection to assault guns could not be underestimated. Just as it took the British a dreadfully long time to learn to stop head-on tank charges against emplaced guns in North Africa, it would take a while before British doctrine changed significantly to emphasize good cooperation between assault guns and infantry.
 
OK, it appears there's not much enthusiasm for this. I think I'm just going to retain the Armadillo but kill Ocelot. The British never send a Jagdpanzer IV-style tank destroyer to France. I've got several other ideas for TLs so it's not a big deal.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The OP text is excellent, but the sketch needs some work. If you are looking for 15 degrees of reverse elevation the gun needs mounting lower (I'd just change the figure as a higher gun is better). The 'box on top seems needlessly cut short at the back. Why not have a similar slope to the front and provide more room and protection to the crew? The all round view periscope seems a bit close to the roof of the 'box'. That would limit the view on uneven ground. A higher cupola makes an easier target, but it is worth it.
 
Last edited:
The OP text is excellent, but the sketch needs some work. If you are looking for 15 degrees of reverse elevation the gun needs mounting lower (I'd just change the figure as a higher gun is better). The 'box on top seems needlessly cut short at the back. Why not have a similar slope to the front and provide more room and protection to the crew? The all round view periscope seems a bit close to the roof of the 'box'. That would limit the view on uneven ground. A higher cupola makes an easier target, but it is worth it.

Thanks for the input. I'll see what I can do.
 
First 100 Shermans to GB?

I might be wrong,but didn't the first 100 M4 Shermans produced in the U.S. go to GB for use in North Africa?
 
Top