Any ideas on this Achilles wireless setup

[Maurice Donckers]

I have seen several with the 2 pots on the front like the color picture from the one in la Roche , could this have something to do with the afv 38 set ?

[Tim Bell]

Originally Posted by Maurice Donckers

I have seen several with the 2 pots on the front like the color picture from the one in la Roche , could this have something to do with the afv 38 set ?

WS38 AFV did not get into service much before Feb 45.

Before that vehicles were fitted with the WS38 Mk2* manpack radio.

Tim

[Jack Geratic]

I downloaded a digital copy of this book and THE only mention of radio equipment is the A and B set for the No.19 wireless. Suppose there is a chance the info is wrong or incomplete.

Screenshot 2024-02-15 at 09-47-54 Tank Destroyer Achilles and M10 British Army Anti-Tank Units W.jpg

[Ed Storey]

The sources quoted will give you a pretty good idea how accurate the book may be.

[Chris Suslowicz]

Originally Posted by Jack Geratic

I downloaded a digital copy of this book and THE only mention of radio equipment is the A and B set for the No.19 wireless. Suppose there is a chance the info is wrong or incomplete.

Attachment 136999

The M10 is a small self-propelled gun, basically a 17-pdr with more mobility and protection. It would not require supporting infantry (which was the main role of the 'C' set (WS38, then WS38AFV, WS88AFV and WS31AFV later on), as I think its own role was support for other armour).

I'll have a look in the "Wireless Diagrams" section of the Royal Signals Pocket Book (Part 2, Wireless Diagrams, 1945) at some point - this shows typical Nets, set allocations, etc. for units and formations - and see what's listed for the RAC at the close of WW2.

Bear in mind that armoured vehicles were common to various armies and those armies had very different ideas about the radio fit required - so the tank hulls and turrets would be manufactured with a "default set" of aerial mounting positions and what would be fitted depended on the country, role, and individual unit - with later modifications for "specials" such as command tanks, etc. as tactics evolved.

(Fitting the WS19 'A' set aerial base to a Sherman required different parts to a Pershing (T26E1) because the later U.S. aerial base used a hole in the armour about three times the diameter of the UK tank(s) - so there was a spacer kit and big washers involved!)

Best regards,
Chris.

[Jack Geratic]

Concerning the book, it does include footnotes at the end of each chapter for specific info, but none provided for the subject of the wireless.

The M10 and Achilles were based on the Sherman M4A2 hull, but were obtained to equip AT units which were part of the Royal Canadian Artillery. Regiments of course were assigned to both infantry and armour but they remained RCA. This may be a factor on how the assigned wireless may have been altered or converted once in the field.

[Chris Suslowicz]

Originally Posted by Jack Geratic

Concerning the book, it does include footnotes at the end of each chapter for specific info, but none provided for the subject of the wireless.

The M10 and Achilles were based on the Sherman M4A2 hull, but were obtained to equip AT units which were part of the Royal Canadian Artillery. Regiments of course were assigned to both infantry and armour but they remained RCA. This may be a factor on how the assigned wireless may have been altered or converted once in the field.

OK, that explains why they are using the hull-mounted aerials (American type), whereas the British and Canadian tanks mostly mounted wireless kit in the turret where there was more room. It also means there is no way in hell that the turret can be rotated 360 degrees without hitting the aerials (which in most cases will not survive the experience).

...


...

Gah! (Gives up on Pinterest, which has everything scrambled together and nothing resembling a radio fit in any detail.(Or in Bovington's case, _at_all!))

More when/if I find the aerial mount.

Chris.

[Jack Geratic]

The American use of the M10 required just the one antenna, and the hull side location was specifically made just for this. Their aerial base looks better designed to bend with the turret rotation.

us m10 small.jpg

us m10 cropped.jpg

[Jakko Westerbeke]

Originally Posted by Jack Geratic

The M10 and Achilles were based on the Sherman M4A2 hull, but were obtained to equip AT units

It’s probably a good idea to mention here that the British/Commonwealth views of vehicles like the M10 is that they were not tank destroyers but self-propelled anti-tank guns. Which is to say: American doctrine was that these vehicles would essentially rush forward to stop an enemy breakthrough, or go tank-hunting, while the British view was, basically, that they were anti-tank guns that happened to not need a vehicle to tow them, making them more mobile and easier to reposition. This probably affected the radio to be fitted as standard to them, though the unit they were to work with would as well, I suppose.

I recently read Chris Camfield’s new book on the Archer, which talks about the radios fitted on page 112. It seems Archer had a No. 18 set as standard, which was also issued to towed 17-pounder units from Normandy on. However, it had all kinds of issues, mainly being underpowered and going off frequency if the vehicle moved, and so units preferred to replace them with No. 19 sets if they could get them. Not sure what was in the M10 in British/Commonwealth service,* but it could well be much the same?


* All this talking about M10 vs. Achilles also makes me want to note that “Achilles” was a nickname for all types of M10 in British service, but it was rarely, if ever, used in. The normal name in service was “M10” for any vehicle of the type, and “3-inch M10” or “17-pounder M10” (or variations on those) if a specific variant was meant. Somehow, after the war, “Achilles” stuck for the 17-pounder version only — and having read the Archer book and its explanation about the name, in Appendix 3 on page 141, I’m now inclined to think “Achilles” might just have been actively rejected by the War Office just like “Archer” was. (In short: “Archer” was a Ministry of Supply designation, which the British Army did not want to use.)

[Jack Geratic]

Hello Jakko, thank you for stopping by and bring up those points.

I have read the reason the Army, or more specifically the Royal Artillery et al, did not adopt that name, since being gunners, they were primarily concerned with the gun type.

Anyhow another interesting variation of the B Set aerial where the bottom extension is not in use

Screenshot 2024-02-16 at 01-00-09 Tank Chats #88 Valentine Archer The Tank Museum.jpg