"Honey tank" - Turret-less or otherwise.

That one is going to confuse our Andy...

 

Would have been funnier if it had been a Priest. Does the partisan on the left back hold a Schmeisser?

All the best

Andreas

 

You are right, mate; an MP40 it is. Unfolded folding stock betrays it.

 

So many new things for me in this one. Diesel Stuarts, Guiberson radial, Coffman shotgun starter from inside the tank and clearing the radial with a lever from the driver's seat.

 

The Duxford Honey is a gun tractor - used post war for towing 17 pounder anti tank guns.
Chris

 

So good to see that this thread, started in 2006, is still going strong !
One small point regarding posting No.165 (thanks Dave !)
Both Hewie (our driver) and I were responsible for fueling and thereby humping the jerricans of Diesel and I still remember that we both had scaly skin on our hands from the diesel spillage. SSM Busty Thomas, by virtue of his rank, was obviously excused this task which took place after every trip

Ron

 

Hi Ron,

I didn't know your Stuart was a diesel. Of course until yesterday I didn't know any of them were
The whole idea of radial diesels makes me happy.
How was it cranking it over by hand from the drivers seat? The guy in the film makes it look so easy. I bet it was much more difficult than the movie.

So grateful for your detailed diaries and notes. You're a great writer

 

Dave

Funnily enough, it never occurred to me that other Honeys could have used Petrol (as opposed to Diesel) so I did a bit of research and on Wikipedia found the following:

5,811 vehicles were produced.
1,285 M3s had Guiberson diesel installed and were called "Stuart II" by British.

As regards to cranking over the engine by hand this was strictly the driver's domain and I don't recall ever having to drive our own particular Honey

Ron

 

Does anyone know how many infantrymen could be carried in a Turretless Stuart modifed to the troop carrier mode? I'd presume most likely M3A3's (AFAIK, out of the British units, only the Guards had M5A1's in NW Europe?).

 

Here's my 1/6 scale R/C Stuart (Honey).


Regards
Tom

 

Old Git

I have to confess that my short term in recent times is shocking but i still have strong memories of the Honey I fought in during the closing stages of the war in Italy.

I would be very surprised if it could carry more than 6 fully kitted infantrymen at any one time in addition to it's normal crew of 3.

Ron

 

Ron,

thank you for that mate, that's exactly what I wanted to hear!!! I am talking to a chap whose father served with 13 Fd Sqn, 11th Armoured Division, in 44/45. His father has left a note mentioning the various vehicles they had in the unit, which lists the usual stuff like Half-Tracks, Humber's etc. But he also added that the unit had three Honey tanks, with six infantrymen apiece, attached to it as a protection unit. Given they were attached to 3RTR anyway I couldn't understand why the RE unit would need it's own tanks and then it occured to me that it might be turretless Stuarts used in the troop carrying role, which would explain the six infantrymen. Voila, seems I might have guessed right. The next question is why the RE Fd Sqn needed extra protection? I always thought the Sappers saw themselves as fighting soldiers before they were engineers!

Nice Stuart Tom, I'm a wee bit biased but it might look a wee bit better done up for the Guards or 3 RTR (just saw a pic on IWM of a M5A1 Stuart in 3 RTR service in 1945).

Pete

 

The answer is probably (not that OG can see this ) that it was felt they required more protection when escorting armour/clearing roadblocks etc.

I mean half-tracks did the job to an extent, but this feels a logical extension - especially after experience in NWE.

 

On the whole turretless Stuarts were used either as:
A proportion of the Recce Sqn. of an Armoured Regiment had turrets removed at the OC's discretion. Once considered obsolete, the 37mm gun in a two man turret did not suit the purpose as the commander could not observe and work the gun. Two or three men could operate from a turretless version and potentially have extra radio equipment. These were often used as Regimental 'hacks' for armoured resupply and casualty evacuation.

Specific factory or depot converted versions for specific towing tasks. E.g. 17pdr Towing. These were specifically kitted out for the role. As part of the hull roof was also removed there was space for a reduced gun crew of about six.

There was disquiet about the ability of half-tracks to keep up with the tanks and some units - eg. RE - were considered for Stuart Kangaroo in correspondence, I was not aware any were used 'in the field'. It makes sense as the carrying capacity was too small for an infantry section. A criteria of Kangaroo regiments was that they were all one type - Rams or Priests. It is important to note that the Kangaroo role was to get troops to their operational start line over any terrain, with their armoured support and protected from AP mines and speculative artillery NOT as AFV's.

I am happy to be proved wrong!

 

Matt posted this article on the Mahony VC thread.
It is Edward Perkins account of the taking of the Melfa crossing and has interesting details on the operation of Recce Honeys in Italy.

http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1146&context=cmh.

 

It should be noted that Tank Regiments often removed turrets of their Stuarts in NWE as well, 34 Tank Brigade started doing so very early on after a few mishaps under heavy bombardment.

 

I'm not sure they were RE troops and the impression I had was that they were assigned additional infanty, possibly from 8 RB or one of the other attached Inf units from 11 Div. I've asked that very question though and the chap is working through his Dad's notes, diaries etc. to see what he can turn up so if there's any definitive word on who, or what they were, I'll post it here. The other thing is that the other impression I got was that this was a permanent assignment as opposed to a Divisional Ad Hoc arrangement implemented when certain tasks had the potential to get a bit hairy.

It may well be that at that stage, going into Germany, there was a lot of work for the RE in terms of mine clerance and bridge building and, given the level of resistance they were meeting on German soil, that the RE simply needed additional protection to get the job done. Over 3 - 6th of April 1945 this particular Fd Sqn was pretty much decimated. Whilst attempting to bridge the Wesser, the OC became a casualty, 2iC Killed, 2 Subalterns Casualties (1 killed) and 32 OR's casualties (about 16 of which were KIA). Maybe they got the extra protection because they simply didn't have the manpower, in those final days, to do the work required and post a section in defence of the work area. I'll know more when my chap has read through my questions and tried to match them up to what inforation he has in his Dad's papers. For the time being I have what I wanted a simple guide to how many infantrymen can be easily carried in a Turretless Stuart, which of course correlates to what I've already been told. Whether one proves the other is not something I'd be prepared to gamble on, but as it stands it means my initial guess at Turretless Stuarts might have a wee bit more meat on the bones after Ron's wonderful feedback.

Pete

 

Just been reading over the war diaries for this Fd Sqn (13th in case anyone is interested) and have found the following little snippet...

Which bears out ceolredmonger's earlier point and does indeed show that Kangaroo's were being used by this Fd Sqn attached to 11th Armoured Division.

 

Pete

As a unit, the 4th QOH was equipped with an large variety of vehicles that would assist it to carry out it's recce role, ranging in size from dingos to kangaroos and I was never more conscious of this than on the day of which I wrote about here: BBC - WW2 People's War - Charlie 4 Is Not Answering My Signals

The kangaroos could carry at least a troop of infantry but, like our own honey, were equally exposed to shell & mortar fire

Ron