Favourite Allied tank of the War (and semantic digressions)

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by Arlo, Nov 7, 2007.

?

Your Favorite

  1. Churchill IV

    2 vote(s)
    4.4%
  2. Matilda (Any version)

    13 vote(s)
    28.9%
  3. M4 Sherman

    5 vote(s)
    11.1%
  4. M4A1

    5 vote(s)
    11.1%
  5. M4AE3

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Sherman Ronson

    2 vote(s)
    4.4%
  7. M-26 Pershing

    1 vote(s)
    2.2%
  8. T-34

    5 vote(s)
    11.1%
  9. T-34-85

    4 vote(s)
    8.9%
  10. SU-76

    4 vote(s)
    8.9%
  11. Other.

    4 vote(s)
    8.9%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. MarkN

    MarkN Banned

    Cap badge rivalry may be good in peacetime soldiering for encouraging extra effort on the parade ground or the sports field, but has rarely done anything good to enhance warfighting capability. In most instances, perhaps all, it has been a brake on battlefield effectiveness.

    Whilst no doubt the imbecility of whether the Charioteer should have been an RAC or an RA asset based upon whether the manual describes it as a tank or a tank destroyer is a great way to evidence the extent to which cap badge rivalry was so detrimental to battlefield effectiveness, it glosses over other elements of why the British Army doctrine and practice was painfully slow to catch up with, if it ever did, with the Heer's.

    Going into WW2, British "tank" doctrine was a poorly thought out muddle of ideas with little to no effort put into how it related to other arms' effort. If, for simplicity, we place those ideas into two strands: Infantry tanks and Cruiser tanks, this appears to be a 'tank' and 'tank destroyer' separation.

    The Infantry tank was to be used by Army Tank Battalions to lead the infantry on a planned assault on a fixed position. 'Tank'

    The Cruiser tank was to be used by Armoured Regiments in Armoured Brigades who are manouvering independently (cruising?) around the battlefield seeking out and destroying enemy tank formations. 'Tank destroyer'

    Of course, I am looking at this from the perspective of let's give them a description which fits what they are supposed to be doing. Silly me!

    Does anyone really have a perfect definition of what a tank was/is and what roles it is supposed to be for and no other?

    The key to understanding all this confusion lies not just in cap badge rivalry but the inability of individual cap badges to really be able to understand their own limitations and clearly plot a doctrinal blueprint and practical tactical applications that will work within those limitations.
     
    Sheldrake likes this.
  2. Nick the Noodle

    Nick the Noodle Active Member

    Reading my post above is a start, and why would users choose an A13 over the A10?
    The A13 (Mk II) has one advantage over the A10, and that is tactical mobility. It had a far higher bhp/ton (23 vs 11), and faster (31 vs 24 mph).

    The A10 has several advantages over the A13. It is a far better protected machine, more reliable, greater range, lighter, uses less fuel, and easier to maintain. As much of the A10's mechanical components as possible were used to create the Valentine, probably the most reliable tank of WW2, since they were proven. They also did not shed their tracks in the desert, unlike the Cruiser MkIV.

    http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....cruser-tanks&catid=37:cruiser-tanks&Itemid=56
     
  3. MarkN

    MarkN Banned

    But they didn't.

    And what's in your post above? If you mean the one with a link to the youtube clip, most of what you wrote is wholly inaccurate or misleading due lack of context.

    For example, you wrote, "The reason why the A10 was replaced by the A13 was....

    The A13 was contracted, was in production, and was in service BEFORE the A10.

    The last A13 off the production line was built and in service - and probably destroyed in the desert - before the last A10 rolled out the factory.



    I wouldn't rely to much on that data for it's accuracy.

    If that website is the source of your opinion, I highly suggest you do some wider reading.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2021
  4. Nick the Noodle

    Nick the Noodle Active Member

    But you said, and I quote exactly "Given a choice, the users would take an A13 over an A10 every time."

    The A10 was replaced by the A13 as the Christie suspension was deemed the future of tank design. The clue that the A10 came first is that it has a lower number, and that its prototype was nearing completion 23rd October 1936, about a month before the A13E1. The latter was not a true A13, the production prototypes being the A13E2 and E3.
    And why not? He had the usual quoted figure of 16mph top speed, until I showed him the actual figures dug up by a member here, Don Juan. He went to the archives himself, and used the correct speed. All three correct sources have already been quoted here. He has also corrected other elements over time.
    I have very many books on WW2 tanks, such as the adequate A9/10 by Janusz Ledwoch and Jacek Solarz, to the excellent A13 MkI and II by PM Knight. I also have books on particular regiments such as Taming the Panzers by Patrick delaForce, which gives the 3RTR's account of A10's in Greece. Tank Combat in N Africa by Jentz gives a very good overall insight of British armour in 1940/1. I don't do opinions based on one website.
     
  5. MarkN

    MarkN Banned

    Correct. I misread your response.

    The A10 was not "replaced" by the A13.

    I don't understand what you are saying.

    The prototype of the A10 came before the prototype of the A13. True.

    Production of the A13 started before the A10 and was completed before the A10 but was largely in parallel.

    The in service date of the A13 came before the A10. Indeed, all of the A13.Mk.I were delivered and in service before the first A10! Some of the A13.Mk.II beat the A10 into service too.

    What exactly are you trying to say with your "came first" and "replaced"? Are you discussing just the single initial prototypes of the two vehicles or the finished item in the hands of the troops?

    Are you basing your opinion on factory data or what was experienced by the user on the battlefield?

    The "top speed" numbers you quote (23.8 and 31) come from a document held at Kew. The numbers are in a table listed as Annex III to a official narrative not published. Written below the heading is "Despite great care in its compilation the information may not necessarily be correct, and should not be taken as authotitative.". I have a digital copy of the document on my HD and I suspect I could be the one who sent it to Don Juan as we have exchanged many files over the years and that's one I recall copying myself.

    In respect of those numbers, suspicion as to their veracity should be obvious when you read the same top speed for A9 and A10.

    On the battlefield, the user worked to somewhat different numbers. For example, when moving the A10 on proper roads up to the front (ie not cross-country in battle), drivers were recommended to do no more that "8-10mph". This comes from a document issued by AFV GHQ ME to prevent the excessive breakdowns of A10 after being driven too fast.


    Good. Then you will be quick to appreciate that quoting the top speed numbers you have done is unwise when it comes from a document stating "Despite great care in its compilation the information may not necessarily be correct, and should not be taken as authotitative."

    I'm also wondering about this statement by you too.
    Comparing the A10 with the earlier A13 is interesting. In David Fletcher's book, The Great Tank Scandal page 31, criticisms are levied at the A10, such as being too slow, unreliable and bad thin tracks. This was from a report by general R Evans of the 1st Armoured Division from his experiences in France.
    Which report by General Evans did this come from?
     
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2021
  6. Nick the Noodle

    Nick the Noodle Active Member

    If you can start using sources for your POV, as I have done, I would love to respond fully.

    Just one point. If you bothered to actually read my posts, you would have been informed that the A9's maximum speed was initially higher than the A10, at c32mph, but that the suspension could not cope with that speed, hence limited. By doing so, you would not need to ask questions that had already been answered :).
     
  7. MarkN

    MarkN Banned

    Since you have not mentionned the A9 previously in this thread, and thus offered no commentary on its speed or change of speed, bothering to read your posts was completely uninforming.

    But thank you for clarifying that you are not interested in "maximum speed" but a "limited speed" imposed by the user.


    I have provided information from 2 documents both held at Kew. Digital images of which are on my HD.

    As l have previously written, one is a draft official historical narrative that was never published and is the 'source' of the data retreaded by "administrator" on the website you linked to. The information you claim you gave him/her. The second piece of information comes from a note by GSO.1 AFV GHQ ME addressed to the GoC 7th Armoured Division and is dated 2 Feb 1941.

    Moving on.

    GoC 1st Armoured Division, Major-General Evans wrote several reports to various people at different times detailing part or all of the period the division was in France, 1940. One of those reports was titled "Report on the equipment and organization of the 1st Armoured Division". This report also resides at Kew and as a digital copy on my HD.The details Fletcher wrote in "The Great Tank Scandal" do not come from that report - or any other by General Evans. Fletcher doesn't claim they do - but you do.
     
  8. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Blimey. Thought I'd opened AHF for a second there.

    Easy, chaps.
    If we can't discuss old British tanks without maintaining a sense of humour & moderation, I fear we may have lost much of the point of discussing old British tanks.
    No issues with a bit of passion, but can't see much need for the aggression.

    Carry on.
    ~A
     
    Chris C likes this.
  9. Nick the Noodle

    Nick the Noodle Active Member

    My apologies. I wrote about the A9 on another forum :oops:.
     
  10. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Regarding the A10 top speed, I found several sources that put it around 23 to 24 mph, as I posted in a thread yonks ago:

    A10 Cruiser Tank Mk.II Performance

    It's clear that it was capable of 20 to 24 mph on tests. What A10's were capable of in the desert after they'd had a couple of overhauls is another thing entirely, but I think this would also apply to most tanks. The reports I have from Operation Compass tend to indicate that the A10 was the most popular tank, but this popularity died off against the Germans, when it was considered to be too slow, but how much this slowness was an excuse for poor tactical performance is again moot. The A13, after all, was easier to run away in.

    I think all these early tanks, including the M13/40 and the Panzer III up to the Ausf. G model, are much of a muchness, and are all more or less equally capable of defeating each other, so the "Top Trumps" arguments over them are a bit pointless, really.
     
    von Poop, Nick the Noodle and Chris C like this.
  11. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    I should add that tank speeds are more of a realm of mystery than is generally appreciated. For example the British regularly reported Geman armoured columns moving at up to 40 mph, but when AEC tested a captured Panzer III Ausf. F, they got the following performance:

    pz iii.jpg

    Which is notably less than what the Mechanizaton Board were quoting for the A10!

    Needless to say, this tank was not in tip-top condition, but British reports insisting on the better speed of German tanks are no more reliable than those insisting on their better firepower.
     
    TTH, Nick the Noodle and von Poop like this.
  12. Nick the Noodle

    Nick the Noodle Active Member

    You are one of the few people I truly miss from ACG. You are one of the few people that actually has better data on British tanks than I have.
     
  13. MarkN

    MarkN Banned

    Top Trumps is exactly what I think every time this sort of discussion crops up.

    The "factory" top speed is irrelevant to the user.

    My car has a "factory" top speed a whisker over 120mph but I am sure the car was not designed to do that speed continuously. And what good is that on British roads anyway? Moreover, I bet it wouldn't get close to that speed over a ploughed field. :D

    It appears you are not reading the same documents as me. I have Professor Hay's unpublished narrative "Design and Production of British Tanks, 1936-1943".
    - In the main text it says speed of A9 was 25mph and the A10 20mph.
    - In Annex 2, a brief overview of all the tanks covered on the narrative, it says A9 was 20mph and A10 20/25mph. No, I have not mistyped!
    - And Annex 3, a table comparing data on British, American, Russian and German tanks, notes them both at 23.8mph.
    3 different numbers in 3 different places of the same narrative!

    Life was tough for the designers of Top Trumps!

    But what about the user? Evidence suggests "normal road speed" was in the region of 16mph for the A10. But even that was then considered to be too high as it was wrecking tanks. Hence the note by Richards to O'Moore-Creagh in February 1941 proposing that A10's being delivered to the front use no more than "half throttle" and thus get up to 8-10mph speed.

    Then there is the battle itself. Normally off road, speeds fall even further from Top Trumps numbers. However, the A13 was able to maintain much of its road speed due to the Christie suspension whereas the Vickers suspension on the A9 and A10 forced a significant drop off. Whilst I don't recall anybody saying what exactly this fell to, reports are almost unanimous in their observations.

    Evans after France, June 1940:
    "These [A9 & A10] were found to be unsatisfactory both mechanically and tactically.
    (i) Slow rate of speed on the road and poor cross country performance."


    O'Moore-Creagh after Battleaxe, June 1941:
    "The A9 & A10 tanks have become a problem. ...
    The A9 is very lightly armoured and too slow. The A10 has better armour but is no match for the German Mk.3 as regards speed.
    The result is that the A9 & A10s cannot bring the GERMAN tank to battle unless the latter is prepared to accept the engagement."


    And so on...
     
    Chris C likes this.
  14. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    True, but this applies to the Panzer III too.

    It's pretty standard for tanks to move at reduced speeds in non-essential circumstances to reduce wear. For example Memo BM/AFV/B/7 issued by Charles Norman, Major-General Armoured Fighting Vehicles at GHQ, Middle East Forces, dated 5th September 1942:

    "Subject A.F.V.'s Speeds in Convoys

    The M.G.A.F.V. recommends the following speeds for A.F.V.'s:-

    Open Roads Towns & Suburbs
    Covenanter 12 6
    Crusader 12 6
    Matilda II 6 4
    Valentine 8 5
    General Stuart 12 6
    General Grant 8 6
    Armoured Cars 17 12
    Armd Scout Cars 17 12"


    We both know that the constant claim by British commanders that the 2 pounder was being out-gunned by the 5cm KwK 38 are disproved by test results. Why are claims about relative speeds from losing commanders any more credible?

    We have claims that the A10 versus the Panzer III was a Tortoise vs. Hare situation. We have tests that indicate it was more of a Tortoise vs Slightly Younger and Fitter Tortoise comparison.

    Why this is so is an open question. It could indeed have been the limitations of the A10 suspension became paramount in operatonal use, but there are other possibilties that we could consider. For example, as the Germans employed larger armoured formations, it would have been relatively easy for them to run down smaller British tank formations of equivalent speed, because if the tanks on both sides dropped out at the same rate then the Germans would be the winner.

    The other thing to note is that when the British had a definitely faster tank than the Germans, such as the A13 or the M3 Stuart, they never refer to this edge in speed as any kind of tactical advantage. The benefits of speed mysteriously only seem to have gone one way...
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2021
    Nick the Noodle likes this.
  15. ltdan

    ltdan Nietenzähler

    The regulation H.Dv. 470 (Training Regulation for the Armoured Forces,
    Guiding Principles for Education and Training in the Army) demanded:
    "The high-quality, technically difficult-to-operate equipment
    requires a detailed and thorough training of each individual
    man for the special tasks incumbent upon him."

    But:
    "Particular importance must be attached to toughness,
    courage, bravado and training for a fighting community.
    "
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2021
  16. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    Question, in all honesty (as in, I'm honestly ignorant): do the results show that the 2-pounder penetration values are equivalent/better, or that the effective range at which the enemy tank's armour could be reliably penetrated was equivalent/better?
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2021
  17. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Every single time I've dug into the 2pdr, I'm impressed by it as a piece of its time.
    No illusions that it seemed like a popgun to many that crewed it as the opposition stuff got heavier & more HV, but before everybody realised how fast things might move in the war years, it really was an advanced device; again 'for the time it was developed'.

    There's one at Fort Nelson, maybe cutaway (memory fails), and when you look at other 30s pieces it makes entirely reasonable sense. Impressive even.
    Quite hard to reconcile that with what it faced for the next decade (and the court of opinion of c.80 years), but trying to put it into its true developmental context, really: not half bad.


    Which makes me wonder if there's a decent specific book on the thing.
    Or, if any strange person, cough, might one day get around to writing one... Certainly a common theme in certain areas of interest.
     
  18. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    The tests are against nominal plate thicknesses of Rolled Homogenous Armour. There is a summary table in the British Official History here:

    HyperWar: The Mediterranean & Middle East, Vol.II (Appendix V)

    This tends to suggest the 2 pounder was slightly better than the standard Panzergranate shell fired from the 5cm KwK 38, although I think in practical terms which gun had a slight advantage is moot. Although the KwK 38 was a larger calibre it had a lower initial muzzle velocity than the 2 pounder (circa 2300 fps vs. 2600 fps). The alternative Panzergrantte 40 tungsten projectile had better nominal penetration but was comparatively rare and extremely inaccurate after a few hundred yards.
     
  19. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Designed by this fellow, dontcha know.
     
  20. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I often like to be reminded that so many significant figures in this world were originally Victorians.
    The age they lived through...

    index.png
     
    Don Juan likes this.

Share This Page