M10 'Grouse' 3 Inch Tank Destroyer in South African Service

[Would you like to see this in-game?]
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters

M10 Grouse 6th

Introduction

Established in early 1943, the 6th South African Armoured division was a mechanised division representing the bulk of South Africa’s heavy armour during WW2. The division was composed of South African volunteers and integrated Allied forces. Under the command of Major General W.H.E. Poole, the division was trained in Egypt for much of 1943, before being deployed into the invasion of Italy alongside the British, Americans, and other Allies.

Over the course of the campaign, the 6th South African Armoured Division distinguished itself highly, including during the liberation of Florence and battles in the Apennine Mountains. It played a vital role in disrupting German defensive lines, utilising its tanks effectively, despite often being significantly outmatched by Axis armour. The Italian campaign was an absolute hellish slog, against well entrenched German forces, but the South Africans consistently managed to do more with less. By the end of the war, the division had a well-earned reputation as an effective fighting force, leaving a lasting legacy in South African military history.

The tank discussed in this suggestion is the M10 tank destroyer, known as the ‘Grouse’ in South African service. It is a lend-lease vehicle that served with the 6th, specfically the 1/11 Anti-Tank Regiment, SAA, representing the main self-propelled tank hunting capability of the division. It served from 1944 to the end of the war in the Italian campaign, attached to various other divisions, including the 11th Armoured and 24th Guards Infantry. At the end of the Italian Campaign, the M10 Grouse also took part in the Monza Victory parade, famously being photographed in full colour (above).

Specifications

Spoiler

image

Images

Spoiler

M10 Grouse 6th 2

Sources

Spoiler

South Africa in WW2

South African Tank and AFVs (1950-2030)

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/south-africa

https://www.saarmourmuseum.com/exhibits-cfvg

https://www.britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/124/2019/12/6-South-African-Armoured-Division-1944-45.pdf

https://www.gf9.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4419

2 Likes

+1!

-1 unecessary, Britain has their own variant of the M10, they shouldn’t have a US one as well

4 Likes

Britain has the 17pdr SP Mk II Achilles, not the 3" SP Mk I or Mk IIs (aka. M10) that they historically used in large numbers during Operation Overlord. The Achilles could easily be pushed up to BR 3.7 without suffering, making room at BR 3.3 for a 3" SP.

+1 for Grouse in an Independent ZA TT, or failing that +1 for a British or ZA 3" SP in the GBR TT, with the other as a skin.

5 Likes

Achilles is fine at 3.3, and doesn’t need to be pushed up just to add the unnecessary M10. It has no place in the British tree regardless if they used it or not when they have their own specifically built variant.

Unless the US gets the Achilles, the M10 should stay out of the British tree.

2 Likes

+1 for a ZA tree, or at least a base skin for a UK one at worse.

1 Like

Fair enough, as others have alluded too this suggestion is partially to demonstrate the validity of an Independent South African Tech Tree.

(Yes this particular vehicle is lend-lease copy paste, but so is all of low tier China)

Well to be fair, Gaijin just couldn’t be bothered to fill out low tier China with any of the other various amalgamations both the PRC and ROC developed in reality.

The M4A1 (75) is actually a somewhat interesting example of these modifications, but I personally don’t enjoy it because Gaijin thinks that the better turret armor is a fair reason to put an otherwise standard M4A1 at 4.0.

3 Likes