ARM: Book Review - The Skink in Canadian Service

Book Review: "Weapons of War" Series; The Skink in Canadian Service
by Roger V. Lucy; Service Publications, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2005;
24 pp. with B&W photos and one painting diagram; price CDN $9.95; ISBN
formatting link

Advantages: First comprehensive history of this Sherman "cousin"
with good description
Disadvantages: Plans may not be detailed enough for some modelers
Rating: Highly Recommended
Recommendation: for all Sherman and Commonwealth armor fans, as well as
"Duck Hunters"
One of the more curious offshoots of the US M4 Sherman family of tanks
is the Canadian designed and built Skink, a four-gun dedicated
antiaircraft variant that never got into full production. While all
histories of the Sherman mention it, it is usually just as a footnote
and little more is said about it.
Now Roger Lucy, who has thus far found some of the more fascinating
subjects in this nice range of books from Service Publications of
Canada, delves into its history and background.
When the British Army found it did not have anything to counter
low-level attacking aircraft, they began a search for an effective
self-propelled weapons system to keep up with their armoured columns. A
6 x 4 truck armed with multiple 20mm weapons was proposed, but the only
two that got into service were the lackluster Crusader AA Mk. I with a
single 40mm Bofors gun and the Crusader AA Mk. II with twin 20mm
Oerlikon weapons. While the British wrestled with their shortcomings,
the Canadians, who had decided on equipping their combat formations
with the Grizzly or US M4A1 Sherman tank, did not want to have to
maintain oddities in their formations but instead have a common
chassis. The Sexton self-propelled 25-pdr used the compatible M3/Ram
derived chassis, so using a Sherman chassis seemed most logical.
The Canadians pressed on and developed a new turret mounting four 20mm
guns - while the Canadians wanted to use a Canadian designed weapon,
the British wanted the 20mm Polsten lightweight Oerlikon-derived gun;
but as it was not ready, the prototypes used 20mm Hispano-Suiza guns
made in the US. A welded turret was developed for testing, and the four
guns and their feed mechanisms were mounted in it during testing in
November 1943.
In the meantime, due to futzing around the Canadians decided to drop
production of the Grizzly but due to commonality of components simply
manufacture drop-in turret sets that would fit any of the first five
models of Sherman - I-V or M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3 or M4A4.
Once the welded turret had been sorted out, a cast turret was
developed. But this immediately needed redesign due to the switch in
early 1944 to the Polsten gun from the US made Hispanos. Nevertheless,
most of the changes were kept to a minimum and the changeover was very
easy to make. This gave the Canadians the option of using the proven
Hispano if the Polsten came a cropper.
But by this time it was now late July 1944, and Field Marshal
Montgomery had decided the Commonwealth forces did not need a dedicated
AA tank. To add insult to injury, he then unilaterally decreed that the
Hispano was not to be used in Europe by any Commonwealth forces.
The orders for Skinks had gone from 275 machines to 130 turrets to
zero. Unfazed, the Canadians sent Skink Production Model No. 1 to
Europe for trials, where it served in combat with no less than six
different Canadian armoured regiments, all of whom liked it and
appreciated its ability to subdue enemy resistance when used in a
ground support role.
When the dust settled, only eight Skink turrets were made, and all but
two have gone missing since the end of the war and the Skink program.
While the US was interested in this fearsome AA weapon, they made do
with the M16 quad .50 caliber and M19 twin 40mm weapons at the end of
the war and in Korea, using them again in a ground support role.
The concept was revived by the Soviets as the ZSU-23-4 "Shilka"
some 20 years later, and they proved themselves in Afghanistan the same
way as the Skink did - ground support against dug-in enemy infantry.
Thanks to Clive Law for the review copy.
Cookie Sewell
Reply to
Loading thread data ...

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.