Tractor, Arty Light?

You aren’t following my question.

Yes, it was Ford in America not Canada that built the T16/T16E2 at its Somerville MA plant for export to Britain. But what were they used for and by which units? They very rarely rate a mention and then it’s often postwar.

 

Thanks. But what about British units who also had the Loyd carrier for at least some of these tasks?

 

I have refrained from joining in this debate since so many experts with better archive material than mine are involved, but.

I suspected as Gary indicates above that there may be no need for a workshop to differentiate between a Field Artillery Tractor and a LAA tractor. Both were built on Ford CMP chassis and all mechanical parts were presumably identical.

Mike

 

Carrier production for export to Britain began at the Windsor, Ontario plant in early 1940. Another production line was added at the Somerville, Massachusetts plant in the fall of 1942.

 

Hi Temujin,

Thank you for that. It is much more information than I needed but I did not realize that we were using half-tracks to pull the 17 pounders. Would those have been M3s?

I thought somehow from the images you posted that maybe the LAD war diaries were on the heritage.canadiana site but I guess not. Do you happen to have the WD for 35th LAD, which I believe was the one attached to 3rd Canadian A/Tk Regiment? If so, is there any chance I could obtain a copy for 1945?

It seems like you never know what you might find in a document. 7th Canadian A/Tk Regiment's war diary does not contain full information on their Archer strength over the winter of '44-45. But in 67th LAD's war diary I found reference to modifications done to 10 Archers in Jan 1945, so they had at least that many (and maybe 12).

 

Chris, as far as I know, their are no LAD War Dairies on Heritage Canadiana’s web site. Not saying their isn’t any at LAC though. As you said, it’s hit and miss on some of the units like LAD’s. I have discovered info on LAD’s on unit War Diaries they were attached to at Heritage Canadiana, and then sometimes nothing.

If you’d like a copy of the Vehicle Data Book (Canadian military) I can sent it to you by e-mail or Dropbox? Let me know (by PM) so I can give you that. I’ll look up the half track in it and add to this post in a minute…..ALWAYS remembering, that doesn’t mean a Unit wasn’t issued vehicles made from somewhere else (US, Britain etc)

Also, let me see if I have anything on the 35th LAD (always have to check, memory isn’t what it use to be)

Here’s the 1/2 track from the Vehicle Data Book




And thought I’d add this……interesting, I’ve never seen photo’s of this in use, says it was used in Armoured Divisions

 

The authorised users for the Loyd in British units were Inf and Motor Bns, Recce Regts and Atk Btys (RA) as towers and auxilliary towers for the 6-pr gun, and also in MG Bns and Indep MG Coys for the 4.2-inch mortar and associated trailers. I've seen a few Canadian returns covering holdings of various types of vehicles but I don't recall seeing similar for British formations, so I've no idea if the Loyds were replaced in the field during the course of the war.

There's a lot of discussion on the preferred towing vehicle for the 17-pr gun in the RA Notes series that Chris posted up about a while ago now. Issue No.3 of Mar43 stated that interim policy was to use 30-cwt 4x4 or the FAT, with long term policy being the introduction of fully or half-tracked vehicles. No.16 of May44 notes that six M5A1 half-tracks were being issued for assessment to Home Forces as a tower for the 17-pr. No.18 of Jul44 notes it had been approved in the role and in Nov44 an amendment was issued to one of the relevant WEs at least (II/186/2), which replaced the previous 'tractors, 4x4, anti-tank' with 'trucks, 15-cwt, half-tracked, with winch' as the towing vehicle. A footnote advised that the 4x4 atk tractor or FA tractor could still be issued in lieu.

Gary

 

No, that's ok, thank you! I took photos from two LAD war diaries a while ago. I should pick up the 35th's next time I can actually go to LAC.

 

Was looking for something else, and spotted this page…..shows a photo of the 28,988 Universal Carrier built by Ford of Canada……plus other stories about Ford in Two World Wars

 

In answer to the original Q. - there is an typo or informal shortening as there was no 'Art. Light'. Rather than go down discussion of 75mm Howitzers etc, pulled by jeeps, I'd suggest it can only be Light AA.

 

On where the discussion has gone - FAT's and half tracks were tested, approved and used for 17pdr towing in British & Commonwealth forces(B&C). Officially, iirc, only one Canadian unit (Regt level?) had them as the designated vehicle on their ToE however they were used elsewhere (there is a readily available IWM photo of the combo in Italy) . Some British (at least) Armoured Div. Infantry units replaced the Lloyd Carriers in the Anti Tank Platoon with half tracks.
B&T HTs were almost exclusively International Harvester variants - M5A1, M9A1 and de-gunned M14. There was a standard field modification to fit a rear door in the M14. Annoyingly they were all officially lumped together as 'Truck, 15cwt, Armoured, Half Tracked'. Worse they were informally referred to as 'Whites' (as were M3 Scout Cars).

 

I don't think "Arty Light" can be read separated from the context of "Tractor Arty Light" which I do think has to be read as "Tractor Arty, Light", i.e. "Light Artillery Tractor".

As far as I know, even if it wasn't officially listed in their ToE, multiple infantry divisional A/Tk regiments in both Canadian and British forces in 21AG were issued the FAT as their 17 pounder tower. Take a look at this priceless bit from the WD of 55 Anti-Tank Reg't (of 49 Div). I just love how forthright the writer (Lt Col Bacon) is here:



(Here we have to read "tractor FA", expand that to "tractor field artillery" or "tractor, field artillery" and realize that's the FAT.)

 

I looked at this for Normandy. The FAT was the standard tractor for the 17 Pounder for the anti tank regiments of infantry divisions. It was far from ideal as it was not sufficiently armoured to operate in forward zones.

Various half tracks were considered. RA memorandum from 1943 remarked that (M3) half tracks trialed were under powered. Subsequently, the M14 versions seem to have been issued to the towed batteries of the Anti tank regiments in armoured Divisions

The Towed batteries of the anti-tank regiments for the assault corps for D Day were issued with Crusader gun tractors. (The concept of using a tank to tow an anti tank gun does trigger the obvious thought of the benefits of mounting the gun ON a tank chassis.)

 

In 1942 they did look at the concept of mounting the 17 pounder gun directly onto a Crusader with turret removed. It was rejected because the trunnion height was too great and the crew only had the gun shield for protection.

 

They then waited 18 months and fitted one to a Valentine with only a gun shield for protection....

 

Not quite. It is more complicated than that’s with most things involving British AFVs.

Design of both a tank and an SP gun fitted with a 17pdr can be traced back to Aug/Sept 1941. A year later both were to be based on the A30 chassis and in due course became the A30 Challenger tank and the A30 SP2 Avenger. But as the design and development of the tank took precedence, the SP gun would be delayed, so a stop gap was needed using a gun with limited traverse firing over the front (to be based on the Cromwell) or the Rear (to be based on the Valentine). Ultimately the Valentine option went forward because Vickers Armstrong had spare production capacity as Valentine tank production was due to end.

A prototype Archer was demonstrated in May 1943 and despite its drawbacks was accepted for production in June 1943, with production of 800 scheduled to start in Q1 1944. The first vehicles rolled off the production line in May 1944 and reached front line units in Oct/Nov 1944. Production ceased in June/July 1945 after 665 vehicles.

During 1944 it was decided that production of the SP2 Avenger would follow on from the Challenger tank (which ran from March 1944 to Aug 1945 for an eventual 200 units). The first prototype was built in Feb 1945 with production machines following from May 1945. Eventually 80 (2 prototypes and 78 production examples) were built through to April 1946.

 

Ewan is largely correct but the Archer crew had protection from small arms and splinters on 4 sides. The crew of this Crusader concept would have practically been standing on the hull with nothing whatsoever to protect them from the sides or rear. That's what the drawing of the concept looks like.

The development did take longer than ideal and at times it's unclear why, although Vickers Armstrong were told to put less emphasis on it compared with new projects like Centurion. I do know that the start of production was delayed from Jan 44 due to the need to develop a power traverse.

PS Archer

 

My reply was slightly tongue in cheek. British SP Anti tank guns were contentious because of a turf war between the RA and the RAC about the role and ownership of AFVs with a main armament.
Reading between the lines this may have been a factor in the non-appearance of the high velocity 3 " 20 cwt armed Churchill.

The highly positive comments from RA units equipped with the M10 SP with the suggestions to improve it by adding a turret roof and co ax MG were uncomfortable reading for the RA as the users were arguing for tanks - and the Archer was not a tank. The post war Charioteer looks a lot like the ideal requested by anti tank units in Normandy. Charioteer (tank) - Wikipedia It is also on David Fletchers list of the worst ever British Tanks.
But the RAC never grasped the difference between a tank destroyer and a tank....

I suspect the Gunners who would have had to use them would have preferred a an SP Crusader to a 17 Pounder towed by a Crusader. I suspect side shields could have been fitted to protect the crew against mortar or shell splinters.

 

I'm just coming back to this to post an image

I'm not clear about the "non-appearance" of the 3" (20cwt, as you say) Churchill. It was produced in small numbers and used by a Canadian detachment for a while, but I think it was pretty much unnecessary when it actually came off the production line. Right? Do you think that a "turf war" delayed production?

I do agree about the Charioteer. I think it might have been a good RA anti-tank weapon if it weren't for the reported fact that it was too crowded for all the men to stay in the vehicle while in action. (I feel some hesitation mentioning this because apparently one Canadian regiment felt that way about the Archer but it seems that few others did.) I would have to listen again to Fletcher's comments but I don't think he was looking at it from the point of view of "an anti-tank vehicle which fires from concealment and repositions often".

I really only came here to post the conceptual drawing of the SP Crusader to show what they had in mind:

 

I wonder if anyone has considered that it is a typing error:
One Ford Tractor Arty.
Light (type unspecified) and several cookers.................