What is the M3/75 in La Campagne de Tunisie?

[Blackcloud6]

The 4th Edition Rules tell us:

Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV): Any unit with a printed armor defense value (even a value of 0). This includes self-propelled artillery, armored cars, special armored engineering vehicles, armored personnel carriers, and other similar vehicles. A tank leader may activate any of these.

Tank: Fully armored AFVs with a printed armor value, anti-tank fire, and usually direct fire as well. They stack like other combat units and use Mechanized movement. Many scenarios use eliminated tank steps to adjust initiative as well as determine victory, and such step losses would include all units described above with the attendant armor symbol on the unit. So, units that would be excluded would be self-propelled artillery, reconnaissance, and APCs; while most tank destroyers would count, along with engineering vehicles like the British Crab or Crocodile.

The La Campagne de Tunisie does not list the M3/75 as a being a tank destroyer nor being open top, both of which are curious because it was a TD and was open topped.

Nothing else is mentioned in LCdT about what the vehicle is, so given only the definitions available by the rules, it is, in game terms, a tank.

This is important because the Special Rules for LCdT for tanks leaders uses the word "tank" and not "AFV" is telling who gets tank leaders: "All American, British, and German Tanks in La Campagne de Tunisie have tank leaders and armor efficiency."  

Your thoughts?

[cjsiam]

Shades of the Bufla!

There are a whole slew of armed Half-tracks in multiple armies during the 40-44 period.
Certainly they are open top...#1  Thus they are not "closed top AFV"

I'd think they have to be considered to have tank leaders, like a Tank, as they operate as Tank Destroyers....should be listed--that was an "OOPS"
because they are supposed to operate as TDs, I think they must be equipped with a leader and be efficient...

In terms of counting for step losses.....Should this jury-rigged mounted AT gun count as much as a Tank
for force damage? probably not....

[plloyd1010]

It is the M3A1 GMC. The vehicle is a M1897A5 gun mounted on a M3 half-track. It was adopted by Tank Destroyer Command, later the Tank Destroyer Training Center, as a training vehicle. The M6 GMC and M10 GMC are ina similar boat, thought the M10 was much more useful. American entry into WW2 happened about 2 years before Tank Destroyer Command was ready.

[Blackcloud6]

Thanks.  I was certain it is the M3A1 Gun Motor Carriage.  My concern is what it is in game turns so to know if in La Campagne de Tunisie it has an inherent tank leader.

[rerathbun]

The M3/75 in La Campagne de Tunisie is drawn from An Army at Dawn.  It also appears in Guadalcanal in USMC colors.

Per its library page, it is indeed the M3A1 Gun Motor Carriage, and is an open-top Anti-Tank Gun Carrier.

When I was researching it for inclusion in the library, one of the sources was part 2 of the three-part Daily Content Article on Tank Destroyers where it is mentioned specifically.  From all that I was able to find, the M3 was not considered to be a tank destroyer, but a gun carrier.  As far as I can recall, there is no real difference between the two in game terms.  The special rules section in An Army at Dawn does not mention the M3/75 at all, probably an oversight.  Likewise, it's not mentioned in the special rules for Guadalcanal.

I don't think it's specified anywhere, but I personally treat it as having inherent leaders, but NOT having armor efficiency per 11.2 (since it only appears in scenarios before 1944).  I also don't count it for double VPs when destroyed in scenarios where tanks are worth double.

[Blackcloud6]

The Special Rules in La Campaigne de Tunisie that matter to this discussion are:

8. Tank Destroyers.
The Italian Sem 47/32 and the American M6 are the only tank destroyers appearing in La Campaigne de Tunisie.

9. Open-Top AFVs (1.2).
The German SK233, SK10/4, and SPW-251, the Italian Sem 47/32, and the American M3 and M3A1 SC are the only open-top AFVs appearing in La Campaigne de Tunisie.

Coupled with the AFV and Tank definitions from the Series Rules I posted in the OP, I can only assume that designer intended that the M3/75 be treated as a tank in La Campaigne de Tunisie.  Thus, the M3/75 will have a Tank leader and Armor efficiency as stated in La Campaigne de Tunisie Special Rule 10 unless Leonard comes on here and says otherwise.

[Blackcloud6]

All US mounted Tank Destroyers in WWII were classified as "Gun Motor Carriages;" this was done to distinguish them from tanks.

The towed guns in the TD units were also "tank destroyers" in the general technical sense.  The reasons they were not "Anti-Tank Guns" were: 1. The "Anti-tank" concept was considered doctrinally a defensive doctrine.  The TD command did not want the TD units, both towed and mechanized, to be considered for defensive use only. 2. The Anti-tank doctrine belonged to the purview of the Infantry Branch; so, the Infantry Center and school formed the AT doctrine and requirements for materiel acquisition.  

However, many sources will call such guns as the M5 3inch gun and "anti-tank gun," the TD Command did not consider it such.

[plloyd1010]

In point of fact, the army also called the M6, M10, M18 and M36 gun motor carriages. As I point out in the article, the army was raising tank destroyer battalions, but didn't have tank destroyers to train with. The vehicle that Gen. McNair and Col. Bruce envisioned was eventually the M18 GMC. The problem is, that isn't arriving until very late 1943. The M3 and M6 vehicles were only intended for training, to a large extent, so was the M10.

The M3 and M3A1 also exist as infantry support weapons. I am sure Jay will have a couple in his 1941-42 Philippines game. There were also 2 battalion in Sicily being used for infantry support. Of course there is the company on Guadalcanal. The big difference between those in support formations and those in tank destroyer battalions is their level of training. Gen. Bradley made note of the training of tank destroyer crews were. So I contend that M3/75's associated with tank destroyer units are armor efficient (I still contend it is gunnery efficiency).

So far as it appears in Army at Dawn, only scenarios 3 & 38 have M3/75's from tank destroyer battalions. The other scenarios, which mostly involve the 1st Arm Div, are suspect because an armored infantry battalion is supposed to have a M3/75 for support. I would treat the M3/75 appearances according to where they come from.

[Blackcloud6]

McNair was a proponent of the towed tank destroyer, his reasoning being that they were inexpensive and could conceal very well.  Bruce wanted a highly mobile, light armored but heavily armed TD that could shoot and move to a new position before enemy artillery fell on the position they fired from.   This conflict continued until McNair gets killed in Normandy and by late 1944 it is decided to stop fielding the towed battalions and convert the existing ones to have GMCs.  That was not completed by the end of the war.

The M3, M6 and M10 were officially designed as "expedient" vehicles.  Bruce did not like any of them, even the M10 he considered too heavy to properly conduct the "shoot & scoot" tactic.  Hunnicut's book on US Destroyers shows the various concept vehicles that were tested and even some went into low-rate production but were not fielded.  There is also a book called "Tin Cans" that shows these vehicles.  It is quite fascinating to see to what extent the development took.  And yes, the M18 was what Bruce wanted all along and it was quite a successful vehicle.   They were made in Flint, MI by Buick.

I agree, the US TD units in the game should always have efficiency due to their training.  Which brings us back to La Campaigne de Tunisie.   I think Phillippe Leonard get is right by simply treating them as 'tanks," using the PG definition of such, not our common usage of the term.  Coupling that with the SR that gives US tanks effect, the M3/75s get it and thus work as they should.  The curious thing, to me, is why they were not classified as "open top."  Maybe he considered the large gun shield as adequate protection or that the crew was trained to fire and move and thus use mobility as protection against indirect fire.   Or it was an oversight, but I play by what the designer writes until he says otherwise.

As to optional rules, I would consider giving US TDs efficient move and fire as this would help replicate the tactic they were trained on from the very start of their existence.

As to infantry support.  The TD doctrine did call for infantry support as a secondary mission.  It even called for use of indirect fire from the TDs although their elevation and lack of a fire direction center inhibited such use somewhat.  In Italy, the TD battalions were used greatly to support infantry as there were not many German tanks, comparatively, to fight.  Tere was a great article a long time ago in Armor magazine on the effective use of M10 TDs in city fighting in Aachen in late 1944.  The infantry would walk a block or two ahead of the TDs which were paired and station on the sides of the street.  When encountering resistance, the infantry would signal to the TDs and indicate the target, and the TDs would blast the bad guys with the excellent 3-inch gun.  The open top nature of the turret was a benefit in that the entire gun crew could be up and observing.  As the war was drawing to a close, the TD Command was testing and writing doctrine for use of the TDs in the Pacific.  

One thing about the USMC M3A1's used later in the Pacific, they should have an increase in direct fire in the game as they had two machine guns installed for close in defense.