Anyone have any idea of what vehicle 7th A/T Regt R. A. used as an op vehicle alongside their M10s in Italy?
Info on markings would be a bonus as well.
In anticipation, thank you.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Op vehicle 7th A/T Regt RA Italy
iamheaminot
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 23, 2018 - 04:15 PM UTC
Greetings most knowledgeable people.
Anyone have any idea of what vehicle 7th A/T Regt R. A. used as an op vehicle alongside their M10s in Italy?
Info on markings would be a bonus as well.
In anticipation, thank you.
Anyone have any idea of what vehicle 7th A/T Regt R. A. used as an op vehicle alongside their M10s in Italy?
Info on markings would be a bonus as well.
In anticipation, thank you.
RLlockie
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 23, 2018 - 06:52 PM UTC
Did A/T regts use OP vehicles? Given that they would be mostly firing direct at targets they could see, did they need them? I know indirect shoots did take place in Italy by units not designed for them (due to the terrain) but I’m not sure if dedicated OPs were assigned to them. Does the War Establishment show anything in that role?
iamheaminot
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 23, 2018 - 07:43 PM UTC
Not sure so hence the question. I cannot imagine the BC or CO riding around in an M10.
This site has some interesting info
http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/albums/ra-anti-tank-regiment-reorg-in-italy.1308/
I quote from:
BRITISH ARTILLERY IN WORLD WAR 2 ARTILLERY METHODS by Nigel F. Evans
OP tanks were first introduced in 1942, by early 1943 batteries in armoured divisions had 2 OP tanks and one armoured OP, in infantry divisions it was the other way around. Army field regiments had no OP tanks but each tank 'battalion' in tank brigades held 2 tanks for OPs.
This site has some interesting info
http://ww2talk.com/index.php?media/albums/ra-anti-tank-regiment-reorg-in-italy.1308/
I quote from:
BRITISH ARTILLERY IN WORLD WAR 2 ARTILLERY METHODS by Nigel F. Evans
OP tanks were first introduced in 1942, by early 1943 batteries in armoured divisions had 2 OP tanks and one armoured OP, in infantry divisions it was the other way around. Army field regiments had no OP tanks but each tank 'battalion' in tank brigades held 2 tanks for OPs.
iamheaminot
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 23, 2018 - 09:09 PM UTC
Further research now tells me that Valentine Op tanks were used in some A/T outfits in France etc c1944. May be a better choice. Plus maybe a Sherman OP to go with a Sexton. Mmmmmm food for thought. 
BootsDMS
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 23, 2018 - 10:47 PM UTC
Rod,
It looks like the same Nigel Evans produced this site which I think makes things a little clearer; there appears to be no mention of OP vehicles whatsoever:
http://nigelef.tripod.com/anti-tank.htm
Like Robert, I cannot envisage any need for an OP for an Anti-Tank regiment.
As regards the BC or CO deploying on the battlefield I'm sure a Scout Car/Carrier would have been on the establishment and one of the many organisational/establishment tables at the link indicates just that.
Sextons of course equipped Field Regiments (as opposed to Anti Tank ones but I'm sure I'm in danger of teaching you to suck eggs here).
Depending on what you actually wish to model of course, an OP vehicle would normally be deployed - in action - some distance from the Guns it was directing; good luck with whatever you decide.
Brian
It looks like the same Nigel Evans produced this site which I think makes things a little clearer; there appears to be no mention of OP vehicles whatsoever:
http://nigelef.tripod.com/anti-tank.htm
Like Robert, I cannot envisage any need for an OP for an Anti-Tank regiment.
As regards the BC or CO deploying on the battlefield I'm sure a Scout Car/Carrier would have been on the establishment and one of the many organisational/establishment tables at the link indicates just that.
Sextons of course equipped Field Regiments (as opposed to Anti Tank ones but I'm sure I'm in danger of teaching you to suck eggs here).
Depending on what you actually wish to model of course, an OP vehicle would normally be deployed - in action - some distance from the Guns it was directing; good luck with whatever you decide.
Brian
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2018 - 04:53 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Further research now tells me that Valentine Op tanks were used in some A/T outfits in France etc c1944. May be a better choice. Plus maybe a Sherman OP to go with a Sexton. Mmmmmm food for thought.
Rod,
These vehicles in AT units were not so much OP (observation post) vehicles as commander's charger, or personal vehicles. Very different in purpose and equipment.
Many OP vehicles had the main gun replaced by a dummy so additional maps, radios and sometimes, an additional crew member could be carried.
Chargers were meant to get the battery commander around safely and, in extremis, provide some protection for the rather vulnerable AT SP guns.
I know that many Archer AT regiments had Valentines for the officers, but I don't think the M10 regiments did.
I have an old Armoured Acorn markings sheet that shows 4 Cdn AT Reg't, using M10 17 pdrs using cut down M3A3 Stuart's for battery commanders and not turreted AFVs. It has a note that these replace the Universal Carriers doing the same job in towed AT regiments.
HTH
Paul
iamheaminot
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2018 - 07:26 AM UTC
Thanks. Good info
Bravo1102
Joined: December 08, 2003
KitMaker: 2,864 posts
Armorama: 2,497 posts
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2018 - 07:56 AM UTC
I've seen lots of examples of the turretless Stuart tanks of all marks used as command vehicles. They were sometimed sourced from light tank units as they traded up to heavier armor.
But what about the obvious? Why not a Sherman? Commonality of parts and all that?
But what about the obvious? Why not a Sherman? Commonality of parts and all that?
iamheaminot
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Monday, September 24, 2018 - 10:13 AM UTC
Hence why I thought Sherman and Sexton which I have in the stash.
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 25, 2018 - 07:12 AM UTC
Quoted Text
But what about the obvious? Why not a Sherman? Commonality of parts and all that?
Part of the reason may be that the towed AT regiments were getting by on Carriers and the SP regiments just got a slight upgrade. That along with there being a stock of deturretted Stuarts available as front line units shifted from M3A3s to M5A1s and the older vehicles became available to other units.
Part of the reason may come from the fact that by later in 1944 the supply of Shermans was getting scarce and they were needed by other units, though that doesn't explain the Sherman OPs in SP Arty units.
Paul
ALBOWIE
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 - 08:57 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextBut what about the obvious? Why not a Sherman? Commonality of parts and all that?
Part of the reason may be that the towed AT regiments were getting by on Carriers and the SP regiments just got a slight upgrade. That along with there being a stock of deturretted Stuarts available as front line units shifted from M3A3s to M5A1s and the older vehicles became available to other units.
Part of the reason may come from the fact that by later in 1944 the supply of Shermans was getting scarce and they were needed by other units, though that doesn't explain the Sherman OPs in SP Arty units.
Paul
You don't see too many commonwealth M5 or M5A1 in Italy and as the US didn't use the M3A3 that source may be a dry well. The M5A1 in NWE tended to replace the M3A1 still in service first and there were still plenty of those in Italy as well
Al
RLlockie
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 04:57 AM UTC
Surely the Sherman OPs in field regts RA were because in armd divs (where they were found) it made sense for the OPs to be in the same type of wagon as that which they were supporting - less for reasons of spares and maintenance than of not standing out as a more interesting target. OP tanks (as opposed to battery commanders’ tanks in SP AT regts) also had specialised kit on board and were not easy to refit to gun tank configuration so probably not worthwhile. In 7AD, for example, at least some of the AOPs were Cromwells because most tanks in 22AB were Cromwells, although there were some Sherman OPs too, such as Wells’s one knocked out in Villers Bocage.
I think the AOPs in inf divs tended to be carriers (again, they blended in as well as being more concealable) but Italy did tend to be a bit more flexible as regards variations from the official WE, as it was a lower priority for resources.
I think the AOPs in inf divs tended to be carriers (again, they blended in as well as being more concealable) but Italy did tend to be a bit more flexible as regards variations from the official WE, as it was a lower priority for resources.
BootsDMS
Joined: February 08, 2012
KitMaker: 978 posts
Armorama: 965 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 06:19 AM UTC
Er, before we go any further are we now all agreed that SP Anti-Tank Regts did not have OP vehicles?
We might be muddying the waters a little here.
AOPs with Fd Regts fine - whether or not they were towed or SP - but NOT with Sp Anti Tank (or even Towed Anti Tank come to that).
We might be muddying the waters a little here.
AOPs with Fd Regts fine - whether or not they were towed or SP - but NOT with Sp Anti Tank (or even Towed Anti Tank come to that).
iamheaminot
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 08:41 AM UTC
Many thanks to one and all.
regardless I do like this pic - for discussion only - labelled as ..Valentine Mk XI OP serving in north-west Europe as the command tank for a battalionof M10 Tank Destroyers...see http://panzerserra.blogspot.com/2018/04/valentine-mk-ii-canal-defense-light-cdl.html
I have this kit and the M!0 so it is all go...
So as they say "Game on"
regardless I do like this pic - for discussion only - labelled as ..Valentine Mk XI OP serving in north-west Europe as the command tank for a battalionof M10 Tank Destroyers...see http://panzerserra.blogspot.com/2018/04/valentine-mk-ii-canal-defense-light-cdl.html
I have this kit and the M!0 so it is all go...
So as they say "Game on"
ALBOWIE
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 04:48 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Many thanks to one and all.
regardless I do like this pic - for discussion only - labelled as ..Valentine Mk XI OP serving in north-west Europe as the command tank for a battalionof M10 Tank Destroyers...see http://panzerserra.blogspot.com/2018/04/valentine-mk-ii-canal-defense-light-cdl.html
May I suggest getting the Bronco version of the Mk IX or X rather than a very old and dated kit of far lesser detail
Al
I have this kit and the M!0 so it is all go...
So as they say "Game on"
iamheaminot
Joined: January 03, 2004
KitMaker: 265 posts
Armorama: 185 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2018 - 05:32 PM UTC
Thanks. LOL I have the Bronco one as well. I do not mind old, cheap, nasty and not very detailed . Wait that is me. He he.
RLlockie
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 - 02:26 AM UTC
The Valentine XI is a battery commander’s wagon, not an OP (whatever the caption says). Some units used Crusader AA tanks for the same purpose.
A second class ride always beats a first class walk.
A second class ride always beats a first class walk.
barkingdigger
Associate Editor
#013
Joined: June 20, 2008
KitMaker: 3,981 posts
Armorama: 3,403 posts
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 - 04:12 AM UTC
Would the BC's ride retain a functioning main gun for self-defence? He wouldn't need much extra room for map tables etc found in arty OPs, being in the direct-fire game...
tankmodeler
#417
Joined: March 01, 2004
KitMaker: 3,123 posts
Armorama: 2,539 posts
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 - 04:36 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Would the BC's ride retain a functioning main gun for self-defence? He wouldn't need much extra room for map tables etc found in arty OPs, being in the direct-fire game...
From my knowledge, yes, it would retain the main gun. Maybe individual officers reduced the amount of ammo for more kit room, but as far as I have seen, they retained the gun.
RonV
Joined: February 13, 2003
KitMaker: 143 posts
Armorama: 120 posts
Posted: Friday, September 28, 2018 - 07:43 AM UTC
FWIW, this subject rather intrigued me and I wondered if my library might have an answer. Helion Order of Battle 2 British and Commonwealth Armies 1944-45 has the Universal Carrier OP used as troop HQ in M10 equipped anti-tank units. Archer equipped units used the Valentine in this capacity. In some instances, a halftrack might have been substituted and a jeep may also be available.
Ron Volstad
Ron Volstad
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.