The March 2016 book vote is focussing on the Duel series, with the editor providing 5 fascinating topics that could be covered. To give you a little help in making your decision, we have also included a rough synopsis of what the editor thinks each volume could cover. Please note that they are very early ideas and as such are subject to change.

DUE: M3 Stuart vs Type 95 Ha-Gō: 1941–42
DUE: Churchill vs Tiger: Tunisia 1943
DUE: Ferdinand tank destroyer vs SU-152 self-propelled howitzer: Kursk 1943
DUE: Cromwell vs PzKpfw IV: Normandy 1944
DUE: StuG III vs T-34: Eastern Front 1944

DUE: M3 Stuart vs Type 95 Ha-Gō: 1941–42

From November 1941 the US M3 light tank, christened the ‘Stuart’ by the British, equipped Allied tank crews fighting in North Africa, Europe and the Far East throughout World War II. The Type 95 Ha-Gō light tank, Japan’s most-produced tank of World War II, had seen widespread combat by the time it clashed with US M3 tanks in December 1941 during the struggle for the Philippines. The two types encountered one another again in Burma, where British Stuarts fought Japanese Type 95s in 1942.

DUE: Churchill vs Tiger: Tunisia 1943

Britain’s Mk III infantry tank, christened the ‘Churchill’, first saw action in November 1942, and by February 1943 the type equipped several British armoured units in Tunisia. Facing them was a German heavy tank battalion armed with the powerful Tiger I, which had made its North African debut in December 1942. In a series of battles during February–April 1943, the heavily armoured, highly manoeuvrable Churchill would be pitted against the Tiger I’s devastating main armament.

DUE: Ferdinand tank destroyer vs SU-152 self-propelled howitzer: Kursk 1943

Unwieldy and vulnerable at close ranges but offering deadly long-range anti-tank firepower, Germany’s Ferdinand tank destroyer made its combat debut at Kursk in July 1943. Based on the chassis of the KV-1S medium tank, the Soviet Union’s SU-152 self-propelled heavy howitzer was pressed into service at Kursk and elsewhere as a highly effective ‘tank killer’, relying on high-explosive blast effect rather than accuracy or high-velocity impacts to destroy enemy armour.

DUE: Cromwell vs PzKpfw IV: Normandy 1944

Making its combat debut, Britain’s Cromwell cruiser tank clashed with Germany’s PzKpfw IV medium tank in a host of battles in Normandy during June–August 1944. Offering a good balance of speed, protection and firepower, the Cromwell was faster and had a lower profile than the PzKpfw IV, a steadily upgraded veteran of all Germany’s campaigns since 1939. The two types fought in a series of bloody encounters from Villers-Bocage through to the Falaise Pocket battles of August 1944.

DUE: StuG III vs T-34: Eastern Front 1944

The Soviet Union’s innovative and hard-hitting T-34-76 medium tank quickly established itself as one of World War II’s best tanks, while Nazi Germany’s StuG III assault gun, with its low profile and formidable armament, fought in a host of actions on the Eastern Front and elsewhere. During June and July 1944 the StuG III – in Finnish service – and T-34-76 clashed in the battle of Tali-Ihantala, a decisive encounter that shaped the post-war settlement between Finland and the Soviet Union.

Head onto the homepage to cast your vote!

Now lets look back at last month's Book Vote, which saw a number of Men-at-Arms books battling for your vote.

MAA: Italian Colonial Troops 1883-1943
31%
MAA: Armies of the First Carlist War 1833-40
26%
MAA: Napoleon's Women Camp-Followers
18%
MAA: French Naval & Colonial Troops 1871-1914
15%
MAA: French Naval & Colonial Troops 1816-71
10%

Italian Colonial Troops 1883-1943 claimed the top spot, with Armies of the First Carlist War 1833-40 coming in a not-too-distant second. The suggestions for Napoleon's Women Camp-FollowersFrench Naval & Colonial Troops 1871-1914 and French Naval & Colonial Troops 1816-71 were all left trailing by a fairly substantial margin.

Post Comments

KenA posted on 2 Mar 2016 09:31:39
Well now, in light of previous comments I can’t resist putting in my two bob’s worth. Frequently I cast a vote in the monthly book vote even though I have absolutely no intention of ever purchasing the title concerned if it ever comes to fruition. I just vote for the title that seems most interesting (I’m a voting addict). I seem to have done rather well in each of the last three months as I’ve picked the most popular choice among voters.

Personally, I’m not a great MAA fan. I don’t consider them value for money. They don’t provide me with what I am after. I’m interested in what armed forces did and what equipment they had. I couldn’t give a toss as to how they were dressed. So, I have purchased very few MAA titles. This doesn’t stop me from casting a vote on MAA titles in the book vote though.

The Duel series, I find much more interesting, though there has been the odd title where the duel seems somewhat ‘manufactured’. This month’s book vote is really aimed at ‘The Tankers’, of which, I confess, I am not. Haven’t there been enough duel titles featuring tank duels? No? I can hear the cries half a world away. What is it about tanks that is so fascinating anyway? Now ships I could understand, but tanks!
Ranger08 posted on 2 Mar 2016 07:21:52
The March book vote is more interesting versus February. It would be helpful if the number of unique total votes was released along with the percentages. I wonder if potential Duel series books net significantly more votes than proposed MAA series books.

It will be difficult to decide on one of the Duel titles listed in the March vote. All are worthy.
AdamC posted on 1 Mar 2016 13:51:06
Wow!!! Excellent book vote this month folks!!! I'm spoilt for choice here as I happily see all 5 in print! I've gone for Churchill Vs Tiger as I'd Love to see more about Bovington's Tiger 131 (knocked out by Chrurchills in Tunisia!).

A plea - If you do do M3 Vs Type 95 please, please, please don't just focus on US experience in the Philippines. Do that AND look at British experience in Burma! The title will be much richer for it!

Painty - I think the comment about the Churchill being highly manoeuvrable is a reference to its impressive gradient climbing abilities which it demonstrated ably in Tunisia. It was widely accepted that the Churchill could go where other tanks couldn't and this ability was most famously demonstrated at Longstop Hill. A position the German defenders were convinced was unaccessable by allied armour!!!
Paintybeard posted on 1 Mar 2016 10:40:04
"... the highly manoeuvrable Churchill..."?!? That's a rather generous assesment.

Submit a Comment

You must be logged in as a Bronze, Silver or Gold Osprey member to comment on this post.

Click here to log in.