Morris-Commercial CDSW AA Tractor in Tunesia

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Morris-Commercial CDSW towing a 40-mm Bofors AA gun passing a destroyed Panzer IV in the Kasserine Pass, Tunesia (picture was recently auctioned on eBay).

[Stellan Bojerud (RIP)]

Nice picture!

Interesting to see the "long" 40 mm GB Bofors mount.

But I thought Kasserine Pass was an US affaire. What did the British do there and when?

Stellan

[Kuno]

Are you sure, that the pic shows the area of KASSERINE? Ok, I agree - the background is not very clear...

But as I know, KASSERINE was really an US-affair. The british were employed further to the north --- and naturally behind Rommel at the MARETH-line.

[Kuno]

:

[Kuno]

:

[Garry Shipton (RIP)]

I agree.The book about the "Big Red One" regiment's first action tells of the Sherman tank's baptism of fire where they lost a lot of tanks & I think that battle was where they got the nickname of "Ronsons" where they brewed up after being hit,being gasoline powered

Originally posted by Garry Shipton
I agree.The book about the "Big Red One" regiment's first action tells of the Sherman tank's baptism of fire where they lost a lot of tanks & I think that battle was where they got the nickname of "Ronsons" where they brewed up after being hit,being gasoline powered

Well, not entirely correct, and I'm making a rather simplistic summary of it.
The Americans were routed at Kasserine suffering huge losses in men, material and armour, the day was only saved by the intervention of a hardened division of the Coldstream Guards that halted Rommel's advance and allowed the remaining US forces to withdraw.

The advice of the experienced British N. African commanders during the US planning for the offensive was cast aside in a somewhat arrogant manner and the US command assumed that Rommel was a wholly spent force, a huge mistake. US forces were of course entirely green and unexperienced.

Great things were expected from the M3 Grant tanks, not M4 Shermans, again ignoring the experiences of British forces previously operating these. The M3 suffered not only from being easily ignitable but being rivetted these detached and caused severe damage to the interior, and crew, when hit.

The connection that both the M3 and M4 burnt easily because of gasoline power is wholly erroneous, it is poor ammunition stowage and protection that causes the fires when shell propellant from burst cases is ignited. With the exception of the T34 and a few British/US variants, all WWII tanks were gasoline powered and did not necessarily burn readily.

The US learnt to be more flexible in their command structure and place less blind faith in armour after the battle, the general in command was relieved immediately afterwards also, having shown to be rather lacking.

There is a fair amount of material about Kasserine on the web.

R.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by Kuno
Are you sure, that the pic shows the area of KASSERINE?

No, I just quoted the caption. . .

H.

[Stellan Bojerud (RIP)]

Originally posted by Hanno Spoelstra
Morris-Commercial CDSW towing a 40-mm Bofors AA gun

Hanno,

I have identified the gun as a GB made MK III on a MK II carriage. The sights is not easily identified but seems to be of the pre 1943 type.

Greetings

Stellan

[Stellan Bojerud (RIP)]

Is this the same type of truck?

I know guns better and suggest that it is a Belgian-made MK I on MK I carriage.

What does the number sign tell us?

Stellan

Originally posted by Stellan Bojerud
Is this the same type of truck?

Yes it is, Morris Commercial CDSW gun tractor.
C Type truck, D dual axles, S six cylinder engine, W winch fitted.

I know guns better and suggest that it is a Belgian-made MK I on MK I carriage.

Excellent picture which I shall print for Rory (M-C) Ballard 400yds down the road. There is a mud up restoration of a CDSW breakdown happening there but as usual the work and detail means I cannot post a picture for many years yet I think.

What does the number sign tell us?

We touched on this in another thread:
http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/sh...&threadid=2492
It means the truck may not be driven above 20mph so if you're stuck behind it don't expect to get anywhere fast!!!!!!

It was common and legal practice pre-war to legally limit certain types of vehicles to a maximum speed, just as today, we have actual speed limiters on heavy trucks. In fact I see separate 70, 80 and 90 (kmph) plates on the continental trucks here.

Pre-war England had various types limited to 20 or 30 mph and the military followed suit to fit in with civvy practice, it carried over into war-time since this M-C truck is of '36 vintage.

To this day the current army has speed limiters in its HGV type trucks, and the civvy legally required tachographs. Army drivers are obliged (ordered) to follow the civvy law for driving hours and rest periods although they are exempt in reallity and it is all ignored on exercise or war situations.

You wil also find, especially the early M-Cs even, have a tax disc holder on the rear left of the bonnet (hood) upright panel, its not put there for the convenience of today's restorer who must have a valid disc for road use, but even the army pre-war and for some time into WWII was obliged to formally register vehicles and pay the Road Fund Excise Licence for them based on the RAC HP rating. In this case the engine is rated for taxation at 25hp from a formula (which I have quoted somewhere in MLU) that makes some gross assumptions and ignores the cylinder stroke.

This is one reason we have always had small cars incidentally; taking the above example this Morris engine was also used in their large limousine, the Morris 25, and you would have to pay tax at a rate of 25 pounds a year. But at a time when the average wage was probably about 10 pounds a month!!!!!!

Hence the tiny 7, 8 and 10"hp" cars, even so you'd have been well off back then to afford one.

R.

[Stellan Bojerud (RIP)]

The pic earlier posted: On the gun there is a shield below the barrel with text RHK 112 or RMK 112.

Does that make any sense?

Stellan

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Another CDSW towing a 40-mm Bofors AA gun. Is that a Morris-Commercial PU 8-cwt leading the column?


ID Number: 007073
Maker: Hurley, James Francis (Frank)
Physical description: Black & white
Summary: 1943-05. WITH THE INDIAN ARMY ON THE ROAD TO KEREN. AN ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUN ON ITS WAY TO KEREN AND BEYOND.

Originally posted by Hanno Spoelstra
Another CDSW towing a 40-mm Bofors AA gun. Is that a Morris-Commercial PU 8-cwt leading the column?

Rory says it is, if only we could see to the right, there's probably a column (battery) of CDSWs and Bofors guns.

The PU would be the OIC transport and of course the radio station for command chain when set up; wouldn't it be nice to know if it has the 11 set or 19 set fitted. (I don't think I've ever posted the inside picture of Rory's fitted PU, perhaps I can sneak a shot today)

Pity the OIC though having to sit in the passenger side of a PU during the heat of an Indian day, maybe that's him on the roof though. . . . . . . . . .

Interestingly as far as we can see, the CDSW is in Caunter camo.
The PU may or may not be and the Bofors looks like OD.

R.

[Kuno]

...dont know, if this helps:

The destroyed tank belonged to 15. Pz.Div.

[Stellan Bojerud (RIP)]

It is a MK I or more likely MK I* gun on a MK I carriage.

Here a MK I of 8th Army at Qattara. Mountain in background is Quaret al Himsinat. Photo just prior to El Alamein.

The MK I carriage had the wheels fixed also in battery position. That was also the case with US M 2 carriage wich is a welded version of the MK I = US M 1 = ex British of which 192 was sent to US in Dec 1941 and 22 in Jan 1942.

On the British MK II carriage the wheels were allways removed when in battery position.