British Tank Development.

Fine
And you?

 

I think mid 1942 is pushing it a bit, but certainly the A9/10 and Valentine would have been more suitable for the Heer 1939-41.

German tanks do tend to be over revered, including their main medium early in the war. In Haynes book on the Pz III, concerning the Polish campaign, it is stated that out of the 87 Panzer III's that took part, after 1 month, 26 had been knocked out, and 60 were under repair. That leaves a single Pz III available.

Apart from the lack of a HE round, the Matilda 2 was from a little to considerably better than the 1941 KV-1, and yet close to half the weight of its Soviet counterpart.

Back to the actual subject in question, I have two books by Dick Taylor. I personally found Firing Now! to be a disappointment, more a coffee table book, than a reference. OTOH, Into The Vally is superb, as detailed as the excellent P M Knight books, and an easier read. This is definitely one of my favourite books ever.

 

Yes but the Valentine didn't make it to the British army in 1939/40 either and only first managed to get into combat during CRUSADER, by which time it was (despite being the best tank of the war, no doubt) bordering on obsolescence other than for the Soviets who somehow found a niche for them. I don't think anyone could seriously argue the A9/10 were fit for the 1941 battlefield at all, and I cannot recall a single action where they did anything but being kicked around the battlefield rather badly.

In fairness though, the 1939 Panzer III and the 1941/42 Panzer III were quite different beasts. Substantially uparmoured and upgunned. And that in itself is a big benefit of the platform over what the British fielded. I agree they are overrated (don't get me started on the Panzer IV), but that in itself doesn't make the British early tanks any better than they were.

i) Apart from the lack of a HE round is a bit akin to 'Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play'?
ii) That may well be the case for the KV-1, which was after all too heavy for its own good. I am less certain the Matilda II would walk away from a comparison with the T-34 unscathed though. While the early T-34s were a mess, the machine improved over the war, showing that it was a far more capable platform.

I have a lot of time for the British I tanks, but they were limited machines along a number of important aspects, coming at a time when other parties had clearly conceived something substantially better in the form of a more (note not 'the') universal tank. Interestingly, just days before the Valentine first saw combat, the German Heereszeugamt ordered the 75L43 into production, and by March 42 they rolled off the production line.

All the best

Andreas

 

Valentines were heavily involved with the defense of Moscow 1941. The Soviets found a niche for them because, given the vastness that was the Soviet Union, they were tough, reliable and easily maintainable. You get a lot of tank for the weight of the Valentine. True, most Valentines only had 2 man turrets (design called for an auto cannon that was eventually used on the Hurricane IID iirc), but so did T-34/76's and KV-1's effectively.

The A10 would have been perfect for the Heer during the first stages of Barbarossa. It may not have been as capable against the latest Pz III and IV's, but that's not what was important. The Soviets either fielded masses of light tanks, ie T-26's and BT-5/7's, which both the A10 and Pz III's could easily deal with, or T-34's and KV-1's, that neither the British or German tanks were effective against. Tactically, neither has an advantage over the Soviets in their designs.

Contrary to what almost every website states, the A10 was reliable. France 1940 and Greece 1941 were not campaigns where British tanks can be fairly evaluated. In fact, this tank was used as the excuse why British forces fared so poorly in both campaigns. However, the Valentine, possibly the most reliable tank of WW2, was built using A10 components because they worked. Obviously there were teething problems with the Vally 1. While the suspension of the A10 was praised, once you add a foot of track, and over 3 tons of weight, there were issues with the Valentines 1 suspension.

As a side note, the reason why certain websites should not always be trusted is not just down to the stated maximum speed, 16mph. It is the range of 100 miles that is most easy to dismiss. A Valentine 1 with a fuel tank availability of c60 gallons has a range of c102miles. An A10 with 97-98 gallons, depending on source (probably 445 litres), and around 3 tons lighter, will not have a shorter range, especially since it has the same engine.

That the Pz III and Pz IV were better than British cruisers in 41/42 is more than possible, at least on a tactical level. The Pz IIIJ was the basis of the Stug IIIG, and was mechanically decent afaik. OTOH, as I stated earlier, the Soviets had basically light and heavy tanks, the latter which no German tank before mid 42 really had a chance against, all else being equal, just like the A10.

Agreed on your last statement.

British I tanks were a success in WW2. However, I think it's fairly clear that they were a dead end as far as design was concerned, even if the best tank in WW2 was probably one of them.

 

And yet the Panzer IV was a heavy close support/infantry support tank, while the Panzer III was a cavalry type tank. That doctrine sounds awfully similar to the British doctrine. If you compare the numbers the German tanks come off worse than the British ones in their performance. And Britain was working towards the idea of a medium tank pre-war. The A.14 'Modified Monster' (it's real name) was a development exercise/test-bed/proof of concept for a medium, and the A.16 was due to enter service in 1940 as the standard medium tank for the British.

 

The Panzer IV was not an infantry support tank. It was a tank support tank, and nearer the British CS tanks in purpose, except the 75mm L24 KwK 37 also had a decent AT round for the early period of the war. The Germans had Stug's for infantry support.

 

Damn, beat me to it!

 

No, it wasn't. If that's what you believe I suggest you read up on German tank tactics/doctrine in 1939-41. You can do so through the medium of British after action reports as well.

I get the recent drive to make the British kit look better than it was, and Mr. Holland in particular has made a well-going business out of that. But that doesn't make it true. The German tanks weren't the super tanks of 1960s/70s lore, but they had very distinct advantages as combat systems over the British ones. This was in particular the case in 1941, after a round of up-gunning (the thing British tanks couldn't do without further compromising their performance) and up-armouring. Conversely, the British tanks and guns weren't as useless as they were made out to be, and in my view much of the utter failure to deal with the Germans came down to incompetent armour commanders on the British side, with a heavy dose of bad organisation of support, but they certainly weren't better machines than the German ones.

So what? If imaginary weapons could win the war, you guys would all be speaking German now.

We can discuss that further when you've read up on what the Germans actually used the Panzer IV for. I don't think there is much point before then.

All the best

Andreas

 

Edited post.

I completely disagree that German tanks were better than British ones in 1941, if you look at what the Germans actually needed to win against the Soviets. The Matilda 2 was equal or better than the 1941 KV-1 in all respects, except a lack of HE shell. That said, the Heer was joined up enough to overcome this failing by using other weapon systems. They did this later, with Pz IIIN's supporting Tiger 1's for example, so the latter could concentrate on tank killing.

The PzIIIJ and PzIVF1 were better than the A10 and A10CS respectively, if working, and on a tactical level, if fielded against each other (which I don't believe they were), but each against the Soviets it is a different story. Both the German and British cruiser tanks can deal with the lighter Soviet tanks easily, while neither countries tank are really effective against the T-34 and KV-1. That makes them tactically equal in this regard. However, the A10 is much lighter, requiring less fuel and bridging equipment. Further, the Pz III was an unreliable tank. For example, during an 80 mile route march conducted in Jan 41, 5 out of 12 broke down, 1 irretrievably. OTOH, A10's in the desert of N Africa could drive 1000-1100 miles without incident, with the engine, gearbox and suspension all being praised for their reliability. Further, you would need only one tank to cover both roles of the 2 German ones, simplifying maintenance and repairs. It also had a greater range than the III, 147 miles vs 102.

I would go as far that Germany only had the best tanks in WW2 from mid 1942 to late 42. In 1943, you have Sherman's and reliable Churchill's, which gives the West an edge the Germans never regained.

 

I find that a bizarre yardstick, given that the only place that really mattered at the time for this comparison was the desert.

You keep saying that, but what is the basis for that assessment?

The J was just an amalgamation of lots of different stuff.

henkofholland mastermodelling military vehicles scale 1/72-1/76

In the desert in 1941 you see the F/G/H BefWg (mostly PR5) and H (mostly PR8) facing successively from April A9, A10, A13, and A15 cruisers and Matilda II and Valentine infantry tanks. Early J variants with the short 50mm came in December 1941, and J Specials from March 1942. They then really cleaned the clock of the British tankers because of the improved frontal armour.

There isn't a single action I can think of where the cruisers beat the German tanks or even caused them serious concerns. The Matilda II held its own, and the Valentine also did well, but they were design-limited vehicles. The design issues are well known, and I really cannot see how there is real world evidence that would lead me to rethink my view that German tanks in 1941 were on the whole better than British tanks. The absence of an HE round, turret constraints, lack of upgradeability, all work against the British tanks, cruiser and infantry alike, while lack of reliability may well have been a wash. The German tanks certainly had issues there.

I'd like to see some primary evidence for this.

How many A10 tanks really made it to Beda Fomm over these vast distances? At 1125 on 6 Feb 1941 and after some fighting on the day 2 RTR reported cruiser numbers as follows:

A 2xA13
C 4xA9 & 3xA10
HQ 4xA13

So that's 3 tanks. Then there are 10 more unspecified cruisers arriving with 1 RTR which I suppose were A10s. So 13 tanks of 175 produced. I am not sure if drawing general conclusions on the reliability of a vehicle can be justified with that sample.

Digging further, on 1, 2, 3 Feb 2 RTR had rest days, maintaining their tanks. On 4 Feb 41 0600hrs they set off with 27 cruisers, a good number of which were not A10s. On 4 Feb 2015 hours with no combat and after three days of rest and maintenance they reported 18 cruisers, then rising to 19 on 5 Feb. It's possible that 1/3 of tanks that had fallen out were all A13s of course. Regardless, all I can observe is that we talk about the Panzer III being unreliable, then lets have that conversation, on the basis of primary data, for both sides. I cannot see what tanks 1 RTR did bring to Beda Fomm, but in any case it was not more than 10.

Maybe the A10 really was the wonder tank of 1940/41 that nobody realised. But I'd like to see the evidence for that.

All the best

Andreas

 

The desert is the only campaign to really access the ability of early British cruisers. France 1940 and Greece 1941 both have a whole different level of issues that prevent an insightful focus of British armour.

On every aspect that matters. The Matilda 2 was better armoured, and almost certainly had better quality armour. It had a proper 3 man turret, not one with effectively a 2 man turret with a 3rd member crammed in to use the rear turret mg. The KV-1 gearbox only had a lifespan of 125 km, which makes the Panthers final drive life span of 150 km look positively respectable. The KV-1 was nearly twice the weight, twice the size, but without any additional combat ability against afv's.

The British could and should have had 6pdrs on their combat tanks by then. They had a 17pdr on a working cruiser in Aug 1942 after all.

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/1319-Article%20Text-3524-1-10-20210603.pdf

The source is T Jentz in his book on Armoured Warfare in N Africa. I've been trying to track down where he got that source myself. Given the rest of his input is sound, I have no reason to believe this particular statement is false.

There were about 52 A10's that were sent to Greece. They were sent because they were the only tanks still (barely) working.

My comment about the reliability of Pz III's comes from Dick Taylor's book on the Pz III, the Haynes manual on that tank.

The A10 was never going to be a wonder weapon in 1940/41, because the British command and organization was completely subpar at that time.

However, a heavy cruiser was considered the way forward, after the experiences of France 1940, as judged by the Bartholomew report, where all tanks in the RAC should be cruisers, preferably heavy cruisers. This is after General Roger Evans, 1st Armoured Div, had called his A10 tanks sub standard in that campaign.

https://ia600803.us.archive.org/8/i...be learnt from the operations in Flanders.pdf

Part 3Biii

 

I had never clocked on to this until you mentioned it, but it's really an interesting comparison and pertinent point.

The British CS tanks were supposed to enable maneuver by providing smoke cover, while the Panzer IV were supposed to enable maneuver by providing fire support. That's a pretty big doctrinal difference in close support conceptualisation right there. Then you can get into numbers, where every battalion had ten Panzer IV concentrated in a company, compared to each regiment or battalion fielding two or so CS tanks in squadron HQs. It's not surprising that when tested on the battlefield, the British concept was found wanting.

And that's before we get into conversations about combined arms, where the Germans would usually send a 105 battery along with the tanks which could of course also provide smoke if needed, or HE on identified targets, while the cruiser tank jocks at least didn't care for having redlegs alongside.

So a German battalion could call on 10-14 indirect fire weapons capable of throwing HE, smoke, and low-level AT engagements, while a British cruiser regiment or battalion had six smoke throwers with a spattering of HE rounds.

Edited because I cannot count.

All the best

Andreas

 

Thanks, that's a helpful comparison.

I refer you to my point about which language we would be typing this in wenn man den Krieg mit Wunderwaffen hätte gewinnen können.

I think something went wrong with the link there?

It has me wondering as looking at the Beda Fomm war diaries I am not sure I see it.

They're the ones who are being referred to as constantly breaking down in 'The Gods were neutral'? When being handed over to 3 RTR in January they had 1,000-1,1000 miles on the clock, and needed an overhaul which it didn't look they got.

Thanks!

Yup.

All the best

Andreas

 

Weren't pairs of CS tanks on establishment at Sqn HQs (not HQ Sqn) in that period?
The developmental aspect is the Germans building a different tank for a different gun versus the British developing a new 'gun' to fit existing tanks. The German approach obviously gave them an advantage down the line, but was that more accident than design?

 

The differences between Matilda and Mk III were that the British side preferred armour to mobility, while on the German side it was the other way round.
On the German side, however, the 3-man turret had the advantage of allowing a significant increase in calibre. (In fact, the last versions of the Mk III had the same gun with which the Mk IV began its career).
Both sides then developed their own learning curves through their respective experiences, resulting in new tanks
The different tanks for different guns (I assume you mean the "Big Cats") were in fact entirely due to experience on the Eastern Front, where the aspect of compensating for quantitative inferiority was crucial.
(I will not dwell on the German tendency towards overengineering and its well-known disadvantages now).

 

Definitely not! I'm not daft enough to make sweeping pronouncements like that in this company. Simply that the 'close support for armoured units' requirement (ignoring the doctrinal smoke v HE difference) was tackled completely differently by the British and Germans.

It's just one of life's little injustices that the Germans' lazy design (just build a tank bigger than it needs to be) gave them a significant advantage going forwards because it was big enough to be upgunned.

 

Yeah, thanks for pulling me up on that, I corrected for that error by providing the right number of 6xCS tanks per regiment/battalion but overlooked this.

All the best

Andreas

 

You say 'lazy design', I say 'foresight and future proofing', or Vorsprung durch Technik, which isn't a bad translation of that.

All the best

Andreas

 

I read it to mean having the Panzer III for the 37mm AT work and the Panzer IV for the 75mm howitzer support work. They might have been able to get away with one tank doing both jobs, similar to what the British did for their cruisers and I tanks.

All the best

Andreas