Horses to Horsepower - AFV's and Organizational Transition

[dave]

Speaking of the Twilight Zone, I watched the "The 7th Is Made Up of Phantoms" episode late last night again. I was able to pick up on all the errors made by the cast members and chuckle to myself since I am so educated now. It certainly detracted from the enjoyment of the show.
The M3/5 Stuart was the star of the show and stole the scenes.
Regards
Dave

[yanmacca]

Dave I am 100% sure it was a M5 (just look at the raised engine compartment), the US army realized that they needed a new light tank, so while they designed one they made do with a up-graded M3, they called it the M5 because a M4 would clash with the M4 Sherman, anyway they finally got their wish with a new light tank and it was a top notch AFV, it was called the M24 Chaffee.

Yan.

[dave]

Yan
Thank you for sharing your expertise about the armor vehicles. Just one quick question, did the Stuarts serve much purpose at all. They seem to be mixture of too many ingredients to be of any use. Too light for the big boys and not strong enough to be on its own, or is that an incorrect view?
Regards
Dave

[yanmacca]

They were a godsend in 1941 and it provided our troops with a fast reliable tank with a fairly good gun, the M5 37mm was not a bad weapon for its calibre.

Yan.

[quincannon]

Dave: The M-3/M-5 Stuart, the M-24 Chafee, and the M-41 Walker, were designed as cavalry tanks and the offspring of the earlier (1930's) Combat Car, the bushwa name given to light tanks to get around the legislation of the 1921 National Defense act that mandated that tanks were the domain of the Infantry. You see this in the lineage recently given to Colt on 1-67 Armor, where for about 10 years the unit was labeled the 67th Infantry, with a parenthetical designator = medium tanks. There was no Armor Branch then only Infantry and cavalry.

Some fairly forward looking people in the cavalry branch led by Chafee realized the horse was good for racing, polo and riding but not much use on the battlefield in large scale conflict. They were hampered by this legislation, so they set about lying about what they were tinkering with, a light tank, calling it a combat car. That's your background and I would refer you to "Through Mobility We Conquer" for a full picture of the times. Poorly edited, repetitive book, tiresome to read, but all the necessary information is there.

This in effect brought the U S Army into WWII with a cavalry tank, and a medium tank.

The cavalry tank was supposed to be fast, lightly armored, and have just enough firepower to get it out of trouble. It was never meant to be a slugger. It was designed for that defining and shaping cavalry mission I spoke of a day or so ago. They were to be the standard equipment for the Troop E's of the cavalry squadrons who along with the assault gun troop were to get the recon troops out of trouble. You even found a company of them (Company D) in each of our WWII tank battalions, meant to form a screen behind which the medium tanks and armored infantry of the task force would maneuver.

That was their doctrinal assignment

In practice none of this worked very well. To an enemy gunner in a Mark IV or Panther, they were just another target unable to stand up to a high velocity long barrel 75 or larger. Cavalry meat for the Panzer's table.

It was not until after Korea that the U S Army wised up and melded all three tank types (there was also a heavy tank category)into a multi mission main battle tank, and from then on you have the M48, M60, and the current M1.

[dave]

Would I be wrong in thinking the Bradley Fighting Vehicle was a modern form of the M3/5 for the Armor Cavalry folks? With the TOW missile could the Bradley could fight with the Big Boys if they shot first?
Great thread and very interesting to me and others.
Regards
Dave

[Beth]

would anyone mind if I take this tank discussion out of this thread and put it with the one in the Military linage one? Or perhap give its own thread. I would love to know and understand more how the cavalry of 1875 became the cavarly of today but I don't believe the discussion should be in here.

[quincannon]

I would suggest that there be two threads established.

The first a category for discussion of armored fighting vehicles, and that as Ian can verify can fill a web site of its own.

The second should be a Horse to Horsepower thread detailing the transition of the cavalry arm, and how that transition formed a split between cavalry that we now use as recon-security-economy of force organization and the main battle function of mobile armored forces.

I am going to address what Dave ask here but feel free to move these things, so we can get back to JSIT which seems to have taken on a life of its own.

[Beth]

Thread drift happens and I am always afraid by moving thread it will end an interesting discussion. Create the new areas then move this conversation later.

[quincannon]

Dave: The Brad comes in two versions the M2 Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and the M3 Cavalry Fighting Vehicle. Not a whole lot of difference between them and both mount the TOW.

If you don't want to get real dead real quick you acquire a target for the TOW at great range, and get off a shot still at great range. It is best if two Brads fire TOW's at the same time at a single target which makes it harder to evade or take countermeasures against.

The TOW is wire guided so the gunner and vehicle must be exposed for the duration of the flight time. When the TOW first cam on line there was a certain range advantage the TOW had over the tank. Over time that gap has closed. If you in the next life decide you wish to ride in a vehicle equipped with a TOW, make sure you personal affairs are in order.

We in the history of the U S Army have never developed a truly satisfactory reconnaissance vehicle better than the jeep, or today the open topped HUMVEE. We have tried to armor and track a small vehicle many times, for crew protection and more all terrain capability. We have overcomplicated and over-engineered a steel ball and failed each time we tried.

You need a simple, rugged, and reliable vehicle for scout work. It must be fixable at the front with simple tools. It should mount a rifle caliber machine gun, have room for three, shun armor protection, and the cavalrymen that ride in it should know that field craft, stealth, and not trying to pick a fight, are the keys to the old age home.

Ground cavalry will soon be relegated to close in work anyway. The cavalry of the future is in the air, because of a thing, most required, mobility differential ----- Boot is to track/wheel, as track/wheel is to rotor. The cavalry force must have a differential speed equal to at least twice the ground maneuver force.

To elaborate. In the days where Infantry exclusively walked the horse mounted cavalry had that mobility differential. As the horse gave way to wheels and tracks, the differential was maintained. The differential was completely lost when the ground maneuver elements became themselves mounted or mountable.  Therefore the only thing we can do to regain that differential is mount cavalry on rotors. Gavin saw this as early as the mid 1950s and his "Cavalry And I Don't Mean Horses" stands the visionary test of time. The work of the Howtz Board in 1963 examined all the possibilities. It was not until Brigadier Richard Simkin in "Race To The Swift" and his theories of air mechanization were put forth in the early 1970's though that the air and mechanized forces were melded into one. The work is far from complete although progress has been made. As always it is more branch politics rather that an absence of good ideas that is the primary drawback. A matter of you can't have the toys I played with for a century. Bunkum and Bushwa. The new divisional air cavalry squadrons with Apaches and RQ7 drones seem to be a breakthrough though.

[quincannon]

This is the place to discuss the Armored Fighting Vehicle, the 20th and 21st Century horse, their design, development, and utilization, as well as the changes in organization they brought about in the U S Army and the armies of the world.

[Beth]

I would like to recommend to everyone this wiki article as a basic primer of the history of the horse in warfare.  I find the constant evolution between man and beast interesting especially to the point were we finally just left the beast behind.

Horse in Warfare.

[dave]

QC
'ppreciate the post about the Bradley and its place in the military. I was not aware that the TOW system was wired guided and required the shooter to hold the picture till contact. Does not sound like a sure way to do twenty and retire.

You mentioned "It should mount a rifle caliber machine gun", meaning .30 caliber or a .50 caliber gun? Would not the .50 more damaging to the enemy instead of the .30?

I imagine there will always be the need for the boots on the ground and a land vehicle to
carry them to poke about quietly which you can't do from a chopper.
This is where the drones come in, right?
Regards
Dave

[quincannon]

Tube launched - Optically tracked - Wire guided = TOW

Rifle caliber 30 Cal - 7.62 - 5.56. The 7.62 would be my preference. During WWII a Brit unit called Popski's Private Army (no crap) used a 50 Cal and a 30 Cal mounted on the same jeep. They were an SF outfit similar to the SAS and the LRDG. They would recon and attack deep so that extra firepower came in handy. The problem though is that cavalry operating in the main battle space, must be discouraged from fighting, doing so only when it is the ONLY way to obtain information. I personally don't want them armed with a big gun, for fighting ain't looking and reporting, the two scout functions. Didn't Brother William just discuss this yesterday or today. I know of what monastery he took holy orders in and I'll be damned if I will take issue with the Smoke Bomb Hill School For Boys, Wine Making, and General Disruption of the Bad Elements In The Human Race.

There are a few things that air cavalry cannot do, but those are generally close in tasks, like route and bridge classification, and the down in the weeds technical work that scouts are trained for.

There is a solution in the divisional air cavalry squadron, and were I still in the business I would suggest the organization be:

Headquarters and Headquarters Troops
Troops A-B-C ( each with 8 AH64 Apaches)
Troop D ( 8 Special mission UH60 Blackhawks each mounting 8 dismount cavalry scouts, with each eight organized so they may split into two four man scout teams or stay together as appropriate for the mission)
Troop E ( 9 RQ7 drones)

Problem with organizing the Troop D is that they would cost  about 1500 spaces force wide in a 480 K space Army. There is no present bill payer around that could be used to let us afford those spaces. It is always a spaces-faces-bill payer trade off in the force structure business, just like in your household budget. When times are lean then you must get by, adapt and overcome doing without things you really need. Things are always lean in an Army, even in wartime.

[yanmacca]

Dave the .50 M2HB could fire either M2 ball or M2AP type rounds (12.7x99mm), and both could penetrate armour;

M2 Ball:
12mm @ 500m @ 30°
22mm @ 100m @ 30°

M2AP:
19mm @ 500m @ 30°
28mm @ 500m @ 30°

Now looking at this we can see that at ranges under 100m that the .50 M2HB can damage AFVs with 28mm of armour, but by 1943 nearly every German tank had frontal armour of at least 30mm, I am talking about light tanks here like the Pz Mk. II that the Germans were still fielding in 1943, but as soon as we get into 1944 then the only real use for the .50 cal against AFVs is when it takes on APCs or light armoured cars, as the Germans up-armoured all their mediums and introduced a new range of vehicles which had really thick armour.

Yan.