"Honey tank" - Turret-less or otherwise.

Hi
Just to add to the replys regarding the Honey Tank, Montgomery used a cut down Honey tank to visit his troops prior to going into battle in North Africa, and in particular at the Mareth Line
Rotherfield

 

The M5 with and without turret were used in Europe.

There is a small photo in the Osprey profile book on the M3 and M5.
This photo shows a Polish turretless M5 named Kobra from the HQ Squadron of the 1st Krechowiecki Lancer Regiment in Italy 1945.

The French used the M5 and went into Paris with them.

The tank may have been lightly armoured and lightly armed, but it was fast and very suited to fast Reconnaissance work.

Regards
Tom

 

Andy


and when you do, put a tiny model loader/op behind the 30.mg facing front and call him Ron

Ron

It would be an honour sir


Another one Recce Honey (M3A3, turretless), Italian campaign, vehicle sporting name BLOWER. No unit identification, picture taken IVO Florence. Dust brings shells...
Unfortunately I can not remember the source of picture, sorry.
Excellent photo greenbaron, first thing that struck me was the two soldiers looking at the camera, very haunting.

 

Stuart M3, Part restored - Armour and Tracked Military Vehicles - MILWEB CLASSIFIEDS



Adam,
I would be surprised if this restored tank was one that ended up in Brazil or South America.

From what I have read the Stuarts that were sold off at the end of the war were M5's, the latest models models.

This is a very early M3 as it still has the side sponson MG Hole visible.

Regards
Tom

 

Adam,

Thanks for that link.

I had not read that the M3 was exported except to North Africa, from 1942.

That explains the Sponson MG position.

Regards
Tom

 

Same M3 Adam pictured at W&P in 2009:

 

Another one still being worked on.

 

Paul,

They should look great when fully restored.

Regards
Tom

 

Found this document in the 142nd RAC War Diary for May 1944 WO170/867.

Hope others find it of interest, perhaps Ron Goldstein will?



Larger version here: All sizes | IMG_7195 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

All sizes | IMG_7197 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

All sizes | IMG_7196 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

Paul

Hope others find it of interest, perhaps Ron Goldstein will?


What do mean by "Hope others" find it of interest ?

You are speaking of my ex-chariot, my much maligned bloody "Honey", that was to bear me safely through various vicissitudes and deliver me safely back to my loved ones

My first shock on joining "A" Squadron was to find the following:
l. I had been assigned as wireless operator to the SSM (Squadron Sergeant Major), one Sgt. Major "Busty" Thomas, as Welsh as it was possible to be.
2. His tank wasn’t the nice, solid-looking Sherman on which I had been trained for the past three months, but was instead a Stuart tank from the 8th Army desert days. To make matters worse its turret had been removed and the only protection "up top" was a canvas hood that was designed to keep the rain off.
3. The SSM's job on the battlefield was to act as nursemaid to the squadron, and this involved anything and everything that no-one else had been detailed for, including picking up stragglers, prisoners, the wounded, and in fact every job that no one else could be spared for, or, would want to do.

Many thanks for the posting !

Ron

 

Paul - I find it odd that the recce unit of 6th Armoured Div i.e Derbyshire Yeo took the time to take a turret from a Honey with costs and benefits - involve a Brigadier who is on the point of having his Brigade enter the Liri Valley battle in support of the Canadian 1st Division - fortunately the 142 RAC were in reserve at that point and the North Irish Horse of Gerry Chester and 51st RTR - took a real beating on the first day of that battle losing 14 Churchill Tanks each -
Surely that was an REME task or further back at base in Naples...? very odd
Cheers

 

Cross-reference to related report: Turretless Stuart Conversion ex WO 204/7957

 

What is meant by 'ants' as in

2. Use of Recce Troop for Recce in force to locate ants etc where we
did not want to jepordise Churchills for this purpose, or for reasons of secrecy we did not wish their prescence to be known,
I thought it much more likely that ants would disclose themselves against a tank rather than a glorified carrier-agreed
___________________________________

DEMONSTRATION OF STUART CONVERSIONS
　
Orderly Room 142nd R.A.C.
12 May 1944
　
T/B/124
　
From 142nd RAC War Diary for May 1944. WO170/867.
　
　
The demonstration was arranged in order to show users a simplified form of conversion of the
Stuart tank to an armoured Recce vehicle. This simplified form was produced by the
26th Armoured Brigade
The following models were shown.
1 M.E. conversion
2. 26 Armd. Bde conversion
3 26 Armd. Bde conversion with bomb thrower mounted
4 26 Armd. Bde conversion with .50 browning mounted
5 26 Armd. Bde conversion with .50 browning stowed
6 Derbyshire Yeomanry conversion of Stuart to a command tank
　
The advantages claimed by 26 AB for their type of conversion are that time of conversion is
cut down, and there is, as well, a considerablre saving in gas (D.A and oxygen)
　
LAYOUT
　
The main difference in layout are as follows:-
　
M.E. design has a low vertical armoured shield, approx 6" high, welded to the hull all round the
outside terret ring, to give added protection to the crew. This is omitted in the 26 Armd Bde model
In the M.E. model drilled blocks are mounted on the shield, centrally both at 12 and 6 o'clock.
On either of these blocks the MG is mounted by simply using the crosshead pin. Good traverse
is obtained but it is not possible to fire on fixed lines and the .50 Browning is definitely muzzle
heavy when a belt is in the tray. When wishing to fire astern the crosshead pin is removed and
the MG removed from the forward mounting and fitted to the aft mounting.
The 26th AB model has 2 types of gun mounting. In each case they are fitted in the 12 o'clock
position and both make use of portions of the .30 Browning ground tripod.
The first model is fitted with a 2 inch bomb thrower which is inter-changable with the .30 Browning.
It is thought it would take the .50 Browning, but this has not been tried. The mounting consists of
the .30 ground tripod. This is welded to the fan outlet cowl and by using the crosshead pin the
bomb thrower or .30 Browning is fitted to it. Good elevation is obtained and there is approx 150-160
degree of traverse. It should be possible to fit a similar mounting to the 6 o'clock position.
The second model is similar to the first but in addition to the crosshead itself use is made of portions
of the two rear legs of the tripod and the fixed line shooting crossbar which is graduated. By employing these parts it is possible to mount a good deflector bag and also to shoot on fixed lines if required.
With the .50 Browning mounted balance is good. The mounting will also take the .30 MG. Elevation
is not soo good as the first model but traverse is similar. It is thought the bomb thrower can also be fitted
but it would only be possible to shoot at a low angle. In this case again it should be possible to fit another
mounting in the 6 o'clock position.
Neither model is intended for AA work for which purpose a Bren is carried
　
STOWAGE
　
The stowing and layout of the 26th Armd. Bde. model is a very much more convenient and more
roomy layout, and space is much better made use of.
　
CONCLUSIONS
　
The saving in man hours in the time of conversion, and the saving of gas are , in my opinion,
are the most important points to be taken into consideration when comparing the two conversions
　
The figures are as follows:
　
M.E. Model
280 man hours This includes 30 hours welding and cutting
　
26th Amd. Bde. Model
　
60 man hours. 1 hour 20 mins welding. 4 hours cutting.
　
　
The purpose of comparison, schedule of works to be carried out for conversion to 26th Armd Bde
model is attached (Appendix A) This does not include the fitting of gun mountings, which accounts
for the 3 hours not accounted for in the schedule
The fitting of the shield to the M.E. model does not, in my opinion, give very much added protection
and the additional labour involved does not make this extra effort worthwhile
.If a shield is required at all, a small one fitted to the gun mounting itself should suffice to protect the
gunner The better layout and packing, the simpler conversion, and better gun mounting are the outstanding features which make the 26th AB conversion infinitely preferable to the M.E. model
　
SUGGESTIONS
　
1. The biggest defect, to my mind, of both models in their present form is the fact that there is no
overhead protection for the crew against mortar fire and/or airbursts, and make them, in
consequence, little better than the carrier Universal. This should be remedied by the construction
of hatches fitted with periscopes, which can be closed if neccessary.
2 It should be possible, by using existing turret traverse mechanism, to produce a simple gun
mounting. With all round traverse, this could be worked in conjunction with the hatches, so that
the hatches and gun could all move together.
This wopuld obviate the neccessity of having a special mounting and would give an all round
traverse without having to change the gun mounting.
　
THE DERBYSHIRE YEOMANRY COMMAND TANK
　
　
This consists of a Stuart Tank with a turret removed and the interior completely gutted. In place of the
turret is fitter a squat round fixed false turret, made of sheet metal. In the front, half right and half left
front surfaces of this turret are fitted 3 plate glass windows. The turret is fitted with a hatch. In the interior
is fitted a large desk, extending the width of the tank, with seating accomadation for two. The whole thing
is roomy and light and makes an ideal weatherproof command vehicle. It is capable of being blacked out.
In my opinion a similar type of Brigadier's command tank could be made by using a Sherman chassis
and without removing the turret. Merely the complete interior would be gutted, guns removed etc. A
plate glass window fitted in the gun apperature. This window should be fitted with an armoured
sliding shutter which would serve the dual purpose of making the tank bullet-proof, and a black out
screen. Additional windows could be cut in the turret if the cutting plant is available. When fitted with a desk this vehicle would make a really good armoured command tank
　
　
　
DISCUSSION WITH BRIG. T IVOR MOORE RE TURRETS OFF-TURRETS ON
　
CONTROVERSY
　
Points
1 All units except 25 Tk Bde want turrets off
　
　
2. No Units have had any real battle experience with turrets off;
therefore he cannot say who is right and who wrong, but feels we are wrong
　
3. All replacement tanks delivered in future will have turrets off.
　
4 Role of Tank Regt Recce Tp liable to be different to that of
Armd. Regt. Tps. Armoured Recce Regt. furthermore, has 1 Sherman per troop. for hitting power.
　
Points brought up by writer in favour of turrets on:-
　
. 1 Crew have protection from mortar fire and/or air burst, and that
25 Tank Bde. are not prepared to accept the risk of unprotected crews,
as it would make the Recce Troop virtualy useless.
Agreed by Brigadier-suggested we should experiment with and
develop hatchesfor the turret opening, to be made out of
carrier armoutr plate or similar
　
2. Use of Recce Troop for Recce in force to locate ants etc where we
did not want to jepordise Churchills for this purpose, or
for reasons of secrecy we did not wish their prescence to be known,
I thought it much more likely that ants would disclose
themselves against a tank rather than a glorified carrier-agreed.
　
3. In the hilly country height of tank does not matter so much as
turret and hull down are obtainable-agreed.
　
4. The role of the Tank Regiment Recce Troop involved much more close recce
than that of an Armoured Regiment and would involve more fighting for
information-agreed. but stated that he thought that until the final break through
this close recce would be too much for a Stuart and would need real tanks.
　
Points brought up by writer on advantages of turret off, with proviso that mortar-proof hatches can be constructed.
　
1 Much less conspicious that a Stuart in certain types of country-agreed.
　
2. Useful for Squadron Recce Officer when working with infantry, who do
not like having a Churchill near their headquarters-agreed.
　
Points brought up by Brig.T.Ivor Moore in favour of turrets off:-
　
1. General Standard policy for whole of R.A.C desirable if possible.
Agreed by writer, providing tactical role allows.
　
2. Use of cut down Stuarts for bringing up supplies etc.and
evacuation of casualties when not otherwise employed. This
is easy with cut down type but not with turret on-agreed.
　
　
Genaral remarks by Brig.T.Ivor Moore
　
He stated that while he considered that all turrets should be removed, he saw
a point in a Tank Brigade requiring some with turrets on, and after some
discussion said that he thought 5 with turrets off was the desirable minimum.
Furthermore he stated that we were perfectly at liberty to make experiments regarding
the covering in with hatches of the turret opening.
In view of this, I suggest that experiments on these lines, together with gun mounting,
should be undertaken as soon as possible.
　
　
P.W. L Bolan (?)
Second in command 142nd Regiment R.A.C.
　
　
In the field
11 May 44.

 

M Kenny -
I repeat - it is absolute nonsense for this discussion with Ivor Moore on the very eve of the battle of the Gustav line in the Liri valley when his Brigade had a major role in supporting the 1st Canadian Division and for the Derbyshire Yeomanry to have taken the time to do the work on the turrets when they also had the main task of leading 6th armoured Division in the same battle -

as we know that the 17/21st Lancers of 26th Armoured bde of 6th Armoured Div. were involved in placing the Amazon bridge just two days after the date on 142 Regt's papers before crossing to start that major battle - absolutely pointless discussions at that time - tht Battle was not by any means a walk in the park -in my view of course ...
Cheers

 

What is meant by 'ants'

I'd say shorthand for 'anti-tank guns' from the context. Not seen the term before, though.

 

Thought it would be of interest!