|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 17, 2021 19:55:45 GMT
Have tried getting hold of this kit, it is on ebay for around $5 or $6. It should have all the stuff you need including that M1 Carbine with the long magazine which appears in that episode;
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2021 20:04:02 GMT
Have tried getting hold of this kit, it is on ebay for around $5 or $6. It should have all the stuff you need including that M1 Carbine with the long magazine which appears in that episode; I've got that one. Unfortunately the grease guns are used on modern armor as my loaders always had them out for close in defense. When I would dismount from the tank, I carried one, too.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 17, 2021 20:14:23 GMT
You get M3s in that kit too. I needed a dozen or so K89k for my 1/72 German support weapons crews, most of the gunners and loader carried pistols but the ammunition carryers all had rifles. So I found as many spare German Infantry in crawling pose and snipped of their rifles, then with a bit of trimming and supa glue, they all carry rifles now. Have you got any 1/35 US Infantry armed with M3s? if so get your craft knife out.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 17, 2021 20:28:48 GMT
Is that an M5 and not an M3 in that TV show? These tanks were issued mid 42. I guess that early M3 crews would have had the Thompson as the M3 Greese gun only reached the troops in early 44.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2021 20:47:45 GMT
You get M3s in that kit too. I needed a dozen or so K89k for my 1/72 German support weapons crews, most of the gunners and loader carried pistols but the ammunition carryers all had rifles. So I found as many spare German Infantry in crawling pose and snipped of their rifles, then with a bit of trimming and supa glue, they all carry rifles now. Have you got any 1/35 US Infantry armed with M3s? if so get your craft knife out. Yep. There were like 4 M3s (Grease Guns, not the tank) and they are all gone. I ordered the early set of WWII infantry, one pitching a grenade, one firing an M1 off hand, one a Thompson advancing, and one kneeling with a flamethrower. I've got one guy who will be lying prone with a Carbine or Grease Gun (Driver) underneath the tank, one with a Carbine or Grease gun off of the left fender (RTO), a guy (loader) behind the turret firing the machine gun (which is an .30 cal, but I'm going to replace it with an M2) and maybe the TC firing the bow machine gun on one side or the other, but I will left him have the version with the stock. The gunner is inside firing the coax and maybe the 37mm, loading one handed.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 17, 2021 20:53:03 GMT
Was the Infantry version the M3 and the tank version the M3A1? I have both on my web site and I have both being issude to tank crews, so what is the main difference between Infantry and Tank?.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 17, 2021 21:02:40 GMT
The M3A1 was a simplified version of the M3. It corrected some of the design faults and was a wee bit lighter In other words a typical product improvement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2021 21:05:20 GMT
quincannon Tamiya M5. The kit is dated but okay. yanmacca I think you are confusing the eight types of M3s. : There is the M3 tank which had a slab sided turret and the M3A1 which had a round turret. The M5 had a little better turret, but was pretty much the same. Then there is the M3 and the M3A1 Grease Guns. The difference is the M3A1 had a safety built in which was a piece on the ejection port cover which fit into the bolt to prevent firing. This didn't always help since on of the guards (not from my company) at our kaserne in Germany managed to shoot himself in the leg three times when he was clearing the gun when being relieved. The M3A1 wasn't issued until Korea and you really can't tell the difference just looking at them, especially in 1/35th scale. The gun was issued to cavalry scouts and tankers. Then there is the M2/M3 Bradley. The M2 is for infantry and is an IFV and the M3 is for Cavalry and is a RFV. Then there was the M3 Grant/Lee tanks. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 18, 2021 10:14:38 GMT
No Mike I did not get confused at all, I know all about M3 lights and M3 mediums, the Bradley is not on my site, too modern. The reason why they called the improved Stuart the M4 was so it didn't get confused with the M4 Sherman, but they didn't think M3 light would get confused with the M3 medium, go figure!
I also know the changes made to the Stuart, the M5 was the result.
Are you sure the M3A1 didn't reach the troops till 1950?
So at the end of the day, if I had two M3 greese guns, one in each hand, one was infantry and the other tank, could you tell just by looking at them which was which?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 18, 2021 10:35:30 GMT
Ian: The M3A1 did not start production until very late in WWII, and it is highly doubtful than any reached Europe and into the hands of the troops before the war was over. The A1 was the only one in service during the Korean war, in that most of the M3's that remained in service were upgraded to at least a partial M3A1 standard. Infantry to the best of my knowledge, did not use the M3 or M3A1 on any widespread manner. In a rifle company in the mid-1960's we were authorized one, and no one ever carried it. It was an on board weapon, that was supposed to be on board equipment in either the company supply, or kitchen truck, I forget which.
It was always a secondary weapon for tank crews. It was issued along with the tank, so many M3's or M3A1's for every tank you had in the company. There was a similar arrangement for cavalry units, but I am not at all sure if anyone but the tank crews ever used them, and only then when the crew dismounted to secure the vehicle, the M3 giving the crewman a bit more firepower than the M1911A1 ACP he carried as a sidearm.
So to answer your last question, the M3A1 reached the troops before Korea, but Korea was the first major place it was used.
We are talking the U S Army here where nothing is what the bean counters say it is, and the abnormal is the norm.
As to the M3 Stuart, and the M3 Grant/Lee. The M stands for model, and the M3 Grant/Lee designated the third model of the Medium tank designed, and/or placed in service, while the M3 Stuart was the third model light tank designed/or placed in service. So each of the M3's was from a different series. There was an M8 Scott/Stuart and an M8 Armored car too. And an M3 Half Track, and a, and a, and a. You must ultimately come to the conclusion that if anything ever makes any sense to you, whatever it is that makes sense, is certainly not associated with the United States Army.
Now before you ask the question - If M stands for model number why do we have the M1919 machine gun and the M1903 rifle. Such high numbers would seem extraordinary? Well the answer is simple. Up to the mid 1930's the model number was determined by the year the piece of equipment was placed in service. The M1903 for instance came into service in 1903. After the mid 1930's the Army changed the model designation system to a series, then they changed it again, and again, and yet again. But even yet, that was not a universal means of designation. The first field jacket I was issued in the Army was the M1944, meaning that model jacket was first issued in 1944. Best damned field jacket the Army ever had, and the bastards could not leave well enough alone. Had it, and wore it through a couple of different changes in field jacket design until I had to retire it when the camouflage pattern field jacket was issued in the 1980's
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Feb 18, 2021 12:22:17 GMT
But I know all this Chuck, I have done so much work on the US almost as much as the German army.
That was the point I was trying to get across to Mike, I full understand how armies prefix their gear and most off them confuse themselves never mind their enemies.
You know how me and you have worked closely over the last decade especially concerning the US army.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 18, 2021 12:33:27 GMT
Has it been a decade?
I am sure you do know this stuff, but the people that read us may not. We do it for them, more than we do it for each other.
There was once an article in Armor Magazine, that was written as a narrative conversation between two Russian officers. They were each wondering why the U S Army insisted on sending their soldiers into battle with bright yellow chevrons on the sleeves of their combat uniforms, and yellow on black U S Army over the pockets, along with black on white name tapes on those same uniforms. After this long discussion they both came to the conclusion that the U S Army was trying to lull their potential adversaries into thinking they were so stupid, and so unprofessional, and the whole thing was nothing but a ruse to convince the Russians of some nefarious plot on the part of war making imperialists. Their verdict postulated that no one could really be that stupid without some sort of devious motivation. That, my friend is the United States Army, and to mirror Churchill's thoughts on the matter - Americans do everything wrong first, until they finally stumble on right.
It's all Baron Von Steuben's fault. George thought the SOB was a real baron, and he was really a shoemaker from Chicago, or maybe it was Milwaukee, so George was conned at Valley Forge. Told George it was neither snowing, nor was it as cold as a well digger's ass as well. We have not gotten it right since then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2021 15:17:35 GMT
But I know all this Chuck, I have done so much work on the US almost as much as the German army. That was the point I was trying to get across to Mike, I full understand how armies prefix their gear and most off them confuse themselves never mind their enemies. You know how me and you have worked closely over the last decade especially concerning the US army. Well. If that was your intent it sailed right by me. Now the interesting question is the combat car vs tank issue. Cavalry was not allowed to have tanks. Only infantry was. Cavalry had combat cars. There was an M2 Combat car that looked suspiciously like an M3 Stuart. You could pretty much only tell the difference if you knew what kind of unit you were looking at. So your infantry M3 and cavalry M3 threw me. There's no difference. It's the same gun. Apparently WWII cavalry platoons had a mixture of carbines and grease guns. They were meant to scout, not fight. But they had to fight and were at a disadvantage. I think they had Thompson's for a while. I liked the grease gun. Two per tank, Sheridan, or M88. Maybe some others. At the end they put in a rack for an M16 in some tanks by the TC stand. Now I think there are 2 M4 carbines per tank.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 18, 2021 16:08:06 GMT
Mike: The WWII cavalry platoons in the European Theater also had M-1 Rifles. The only platoon members armed with either the Thompson or Grease Gun were the 6 Jeep drivers. Of course that is what the MTO&E says, but who knows what they carried in practice.
Ian can probably verify this but I believe that the M2 Combat Car was later reclassified (post 1940) as the M2 light tank. I know the Marines used them on Guadalcanal, and maybe the Army in the Philippines. Not sure about the latter though. They could have been M3 Lights.
This is for neither of you, because I know that you both know it. The Combat Car subterfuge was brought on by the provisions of the National Defense Act of 1921. The separate Tank Corps of World War I was disbanded, All members of that Corps were transferred back to their basic branch. Patton back to Cavalry, Eisenhower back to the Infantry, and the place of the Tank Corps taken by the 66th and 67th Infantry Regiments. These two regiments were later re-designated Armored when the Armored Force came into being in 1940.
Sometimes being short sighted is the worst enemy of all.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Feb 18, 2021 16:16:47 GMT
In my day, our M60's had 2 grease guns, 1 for the driver, 1 for the loader. The gunner and TC both had the 1911 pistol. I, too, liked the grease gun. The oldest models had a charging handle on the outside, but most of the ones we had did not. You just pulled the bolt back with your finger after you opened the ejector/safety cover.
A little interesting story about the grease guns. I wound up being the OIC of the battalion's small arms range for the yearly firing of personal weapons, and I had drawn what I thought was enough 45 rounds for the battalion plus some extra. After shooting what I thought was all the companies I had a couple of hundred rounds left, plus an unopened case of 10,000, which I wanted to turn back in since it hadn't been opened. I had found out previously that the ammo point would not take back any ammo that had been opened. This forced everyone who drew ammo to shoot it all up.
As it turned out, the battalion CO allowed another company from the battalion next door to come shoot their tanker personal weapons on my range. When they got there I wound up being about 150 rounds short of enough to complete them without opening that case of 10k. So, had to pop the box open. Completed the shoot for everyone and found myself with about 9800 rounds of 45 cal to deal with. I send my driver to the arms room with instructions to bring every grease gun, magazine, and pistol available back to the range. With my range crew of 8 people, we spent the next several hours shooting until we couldn't stand it any more.
The grease gun didn't have a high rate of fire, and we found if you doubled up the springs in one by stripping them from another, you obtained a really great rate of fire, so 2 or three guys would stuff magazines while the rest fired, then we swapped out stuffers with shooters due to guys getting tired on both ends. After all that fun, the big fun was picking up all that brass in order to turn the range back in. By the end of the shooting session, I had 8 guys who were real good with the grease gun hitting the targets at 50+ meters, emptying the magazine with 1 trigger pull.
|
|