Home > Discussion Groups > Allied

Message posting guidelines:
1.

Full real names must be used at all times.

2.
A valid e-mail address must be provided. (This is not optional)
3.
Images must be posted at low resolution (72 dpi) and no larger than 760 pixels wide, and copyright/trade mark owners must be credited whenever reasonably possible.
4.

From 20 April, registration is compulsory if you wish to post messages on the Discussion Groups. For further information, please see the following message: http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=47208&messageid=1113823018

Please read our Community guidelines before posting.
By contributing to this discussion group, you indicate your agreement to the Terms and Conditions of Use.
Posts that violate the guidelines or Terms and conditions of Use of the Missing-lynx.com discussion groups will be erased, and repeated violation of this policy may result in termination of the violator's account.

Advertisement

  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

26th Infantry, anti-tank company

January 25 2010 at 10:11 PM
  (Login jedbodine)
Missing-Lynx members
from IP address 68.63.93.20

I have been asked by a friend to build a model for her father who served in the 26th. He crewed a half track with a 57mm gun (towed). I have found a Resicast gun and I will be getting a half track shortly, just have to determine if it is an M2 or M3 (I'm not familiar with the WW2 stuff). Anyway, I have done a search for images of this unit and have come up with a couple of shots of the 57mm gun in action but, nothing of the half track or unit markings. If someone could let me know where I may find the needed photo reference it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply

(Login tanker635)
Missing-Lynx members
69.247.217.97

Re: 26th Infantry, anti-tank company

January 26 2010, 12:52 AM 

M2 was the prime mover for it in Mech units.

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login gary.binder)
Missing-Lynx members
198.203.245.8

M2/M2A1

January 26 2010, 3:16 PM 

As Gary O said, the M2/M2A1 was the authorized prime mover for the armored infantry battalions. The 1st Infantry Division was one of those few "regular" divisions who also used M2A1s in their regimental AT companies. I don't know if tyhis was from the Sicily campaign or from being one of the assault units for Overlord. There is agreat photo of troops from the 18th Infantry or 26th Infantry unlimbering their 57mm from the halftrack near Butgenbach during the early phases of the Battle of the Bulge. I know it is in the Army "green book" history of the Ardennes and it has been reproduced elsewhere (I just can't remember where off hand).

For most units the authorized towing vehicle for the 57mm was the Dodge 1 1/2 ton 6X6.

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Nikanor)
Missing-Lynx members
82.2.18.81

26th IR at Butgenbach

January 26 2010, 3:25 PM 

[linked image]


[linked image]

HTH.
Paul.

--
Find all my latest models here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/p.l.james/Models.htm

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login KenAbrams)
Missing-Lynx members
70.19.211.7

Top picture is an M3A1 scout car...

January 26 2010, 4:56 PM 

I have seen it labeled as a half track all over the web but it's way too short in height and too close to the ground to be a half track.

The M2/M2A1 was indeed the designated prime mover but they did use the M3/M3A1 sometimes to tow as some photos show.

HTH

[IMG][linked image][/IMG]

___________________________________
Build how you like, like how you build.

http://armorfarm.blogspot.com/

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login gary.binder)
Missing-Lynx members
198.203.245.8

bottom photo is a 3" AT gun

January 27 2010, 8:31 AM 

The weapon being towed in the bottom photo is a 3" AT gun, used by towed Tank Destroyer battalions. This gun did have the M3A1 as the designated prime mover as the crew was larger and the extra seats were needed.

The top photo is the 37mm AT gun. I posted on this board about the use of that gun in ETO and was informed that the 2nd and 3rd Armored Divisions still operated under the 1942 TO&E and the 37's didn't get replaced by 57's until later than other units.

Nice photos.

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login RoyALingle)
Missing-Lynx members
63.167.255.152

37mm AT gun?

January 29 2010, 6:18 AM 

That doesn't look small enough to be a 37 to me. A 37 would not need five men (even in mud) to move it.

Confused,
Sgt, Scouts Out!

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login gary.binder)
Missing-Lynx members
198.203.245.8

top photo, 2nd set of photos...

January 29 2010, 8:29 AM 

clearly a 37mm antitank gun M3

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login KenAbrams)
Missing-Lynx members
70.19.212.221

Re: 37mm AT gun?

January 29 2010, 1:15 PM 

Roy,

look at the single photo that I posted, which is two photos cropped together as one for ease of posting. Garys' description of the two weapons was correct. I merely posted that picture to show that the designated personnel carrier, the M3/M3A1 was often used in the prime mover role even though the M2/M2A1, which had large stowage bins up front to hold the ammunition of the weapon it would tow would seem to make more sense.



___________________________________
Build how you like, like how you build.

http://armorfarm.blogspot.com/

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login Steve.Zaloga)
MODERATORS ONLY - Allied WWII
68.49.184.55

Top photo is M2 HT

January 27 2010, 11:17 AM 

Ken:
Top photo is a M2 half-track. It has a split bumper like a HT, not the continuous one as on the M3A1 scout car, and it has a single row of tie-downs instead of the double row seen on the M3A1. There's also evidence of a mine-rack holding the supplementary shield on the side that other photos of 1st Division Half-tracks show.

[linked image]

 
 Respond to this message   

(Login KenAbrams)
Missing-Lynx members
70.19.195.76

When you realize you've made a mistake, make amends immediately....

January 27 2010, 3:07 PM 

...It's easier to eat crow while it's still warm. ~Dan Heist

I stand corrected, looking at all of that it does indeed appear to an M2. Perhaps its sunken in the mud and that's why it sits so low to the ground, and what I thought looked like a tire on the left of the picture, just behind the mudflap must be the track, disappearing into the mud.

Something still looks odd to me though, it rear armor plate just seems too short in height. And the mine racks placement is very high, right inside the mounting handle. Just an all around odd picture for me to wrap my head around.


[IMG][linked image][/IMG]

.



___________________________________
Build how you like, like how you build.

http://armorfarm.blogspot.com/

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - 26th Infantry, anti-tank company
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  


Terms and Conditions of Use
Report abuse