Stuart

That's a Wirraway!

 

Close, but no, a real Texan, from Texas. Supposedly it was Bob Crisp's driver who named it, using an expression he picked up from one of the U.S. Army technical representatives in the Delta who was a sergeant from Texas.

 

See my posting No.20
http://www.ww2f.com/topic/53082-favorite-tanks/
Ron

 

Yeah, a great trainer, perhaps rivalling the Tiger Moth...

 

So the M5 is the updated, official version of the Stuart light tank, not to be confused with the M3 medium Lee/Grant?

 

At least a clear rule.
The french Char B is always classified as "heavy", 26 tons. The german Pz Mk V (Panther) is a medium tank, 45 tons. Simply because there is a Tiger, which is even heavier.

 

In the case of the U.S. Army though, such definitions - as so often - were through Army Regulations. In this case, Engineering regulations, specifically AR 850-15, which defined the handling capacity of Army bridging equipment and also de facto defined what the general state of American road and railroad bridge and tunnel infrastructure was like during the period 1921-1945.

 

Oh dear.
More for the Nerdish heap.
http://usahec.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16635coll11/id/3104
Had never really connected the US definitions of armoured light/heavy etc. to a specific source, (despite always clocking bridge weight signs & relating it to British stuff...)

Picturing some nervous logistics/engineering officer staring at that in a worried manner every time some new machine emerged.

Got so many US manuals, and so many more available on the web - wonder if there's scope for a thread of them, but importantly with a little description or tag per link as to the real world- significance of each one. I tend to read them as curiosities as I'm obsessed with materiel details, but probably don't often enough place them in context.

 

This is an interesting discussion. I don't know much about armor, and threads generally favor the sexier tanks like the Panther, Tiger, T-34... I didn't know the Stuart was such a reliable and well-liked tank (within its proper role as a recon vehicle).

 

The original restrictions in place were 5 tons for light tanks and 15 tons for medium tanks in 1922. It remained in effect until spring 1933, when the War Department allowed an increase in light tanks to 7 1/2 tons. Then after the emergency was declared in September 1939, things started spiraling out of control...at least insofar as the Engineers were concerned. The Army Corps of Engineers found it a struggle to keep up with the expanding size and weight of the tank designs. After upgrading its 7 ½ and 15-ton ponton bridges to 10 and 23-ton capacity during the 1930’s, in May 1940 Ordnance informed the Engineers the next generation of Army medium tanks would weigh 25 tons. Then, just as the Engineers finished plans to upgrade the 23-ton bridge to 25-ton capacity, Ordnance told them the new Medium Tank M3 weighed 28 tons, its projected replacement would weigh over 30 tons, and heavy tanks in the 50 to 60-ton weight class were under consideration. The Engineers were left struggling to keep up – the 25-ton ponton bridge was reinforced to accept first 30 and then 35 tons – and began lobbying to have new weight limits imposed on combat vehicles. In February 1942, the Ordnance Department informed the Corps of Engineers the Army’s main reliance for the future would be the Medium Tank M4 in the 30-ton weight class. While tanks in the 35 to 40-ton class were under study, the likelihood of their production was so remote as to not “warrant any change in the procurement planning ... for bridging equipment." The result was the first wartime promulgation of AR 850-15 on 15 October 1942, which limited combat vehicles to a width of 108 inches and weight of 30 tons. That was enlarged to 124 inches and 35 tons on 28 August 1943. After years of forced acceptance of expanding size and weight requirements, the Corps of Engineers had lobbied strongly for the limitations, which governed the design of the bridges, assault ferries, landing ships and craft, cargo ships, and railroads used by the Army, and was not prepared to budge after getting them. When the T26E3 came along at 46 tons and 135 inch width, the War Department granted it a special exemption from the weight restrictions, but did not revise AR 850-15 again until postwar (1948 IIRC).

 

A fair few Stuarts made it into Soviet service (Quick check shows 1676 diesel-powered M3a1 sent over).
Not exactly one of the popular lend-lease models there... Though I'm sure I've read mixed reviews on that.

Funny old picture that if nothing else shows just how complete Lend-lease kit could be.
Soviet troops with Stuarts, Thompsons, .30 cals, and even US Tank helmets.

 

Yeah, but as the discussion makes clear, the role of the Stuart changed to a recon role rather than something you'd send against a Panzer. Just a happy accident that its reliability and mobility made it ideal for that new role, while its 37mm gun was quite effective at taking out infantry hard points. And (I suppose) the armor was just as effective at stopping German AT guns and fausts as the Sherman, which is to say quite ineffective. Yet, that armor stopped 8x57 rifle and machine gun rounds, so "shoot and scoot."

 

I bet the Tommy Guns were popular though. I think there were two in the crate of equipment that shipped with each Stuart. They were probably appropriated before they ever reached the crews.

 

Yeah, and you'd likely get a similar reaction from a Sherman driver discussing Panthers or Tigers. The alternative to recon with a Stuart was recon with a half-track or even a jeep (read Mr. Marion's account of recon with the 30th ID), so I'd suspect if the conversation had gone into that, he'd probably say he was very lucky to be in a unit with Stuarts.