Monty on Tanks

As I said I don't claim to be an expert on US tank production but have picked up enough info over the years to offer an informed opinion I think. Also the development of the Sentinel is informative given the similarities between it and the Sherman. With way less resources than the US a three man turret fitted with a specially developed short recoil 17 pdr gun was prototyped and tested while the hull had a lower profile together with heavier armour than the Sherman but with a similar weight. It was just a matter on improving a basic vehicle, not tank rocket science.

 

That looks ridiculous. Got a date for it?

All the best

Andreas

 

Nope, you can't compare a late model improved Valentine with a veteran Matilda, at the time the Mat had a 3" gunned CS version the Val had the puny 2 pounder. Obviously for infantry support the 3" HE is way better and in addition the Mat was better armoured all round including track guards. All that was needed against the Val was to knock the unprotected tracks off with say a AA cannon and bye bye Val.

Then by the time the Mat finally got the 6 pounder and a proper turret the Churchill was well established as the 'I' tank of choice anyway. But converting the Val chassis to carry the 17pdr was the thing to do, in the anti tank and self propelled gun roles it seemed to be quite a decent thing.

 

The Valentine could also be - and was - armed with the 3" CS. However, it was a pretty poor weapon and the HE round was very much its secondary nature - doctrine called for smoke. The ANZACs made better use of it towards the end of the war in the Pacific when larger stocks of HE were available, retrofitting a lot of their Matildas with them.

 

The same issue with the tracks applies to the Matilda. Look at what I posted.

There were 2x3" CS Matildas in each Squadron, and they were issued primarily with smoke.

I really don't think that there was much between the Val and the Matilda from a battlefield point of view, until the 6-pdr Val came along in 1942 (not exactly 'late'), at which point it clearly was the preferable tank.

Looking at production numbers, I am suspecting that the Val was far easier to manufacture, it was probably far better in off-road conditions, considering its lower weight and ground pressure, and higher power-to-weight ratio. So there are lots of reasons to go for the Val from a war economy standpoint, and the speculation on whether it was so much worse on the battlefield is just that.

All the best

Andreas

 

Actually the 3" howitzer was a very good and popular weapon, and its HE, although short ranged, was very effective. I think it should have been used much more widely and aggressively by the British in the desert.

 

I think if 2 pounder APCBC had been issued, it would have allowed the Matilda to slug it out with the Pz.III on at least an equal basis, and possibily from a position of superiority.

The 2 pounder vs. 6 pounder debate for the 1942-43 period should take into account that British guns were being given non-optimal AP ammo.

 

The Valentines at Alamein were given a tough job, their main problem was in advancing against dug in German AT guns so what was required in that situation was the best possible all round armour plus an effective HE round to use against the AT. This would have been much more useful than the Valentine's MG's which is what they usually used. I've actually walked the ground in one place near Alamein where the Valentines advanced up a shallow wadi towards the German line and were decimated by AT. It would have been a 'turkey shoot' for the Germans who could see them coming for miles, brave boys in tin boxes, I shook my my head and walked away.

 

And how would a Matilda have made a difference?

All the best

Andreas

 

The Matilda Black Prince was a remote controlled tank that was experimented with as a decoy. The photo of the Matilda with the A24 turret looks like it has a dummy gun, but doesn't have the profusion of aerials that you'd expect from an RC vehicle.

 

Some brief notes on Sherman losses from The Business of Tanks which I have yet to read right through.

First (US) Army units suffered heavy losses in armour, during Dec 1944 they lost about 400 medium tanks, during the Battle of the Bulge losses were 510. There is another report on 24 Oct saying that the US had lost 1400 tanks completely destroyed, 90% being burnt out. 23 January it is reported that US tank losses were 800 per month, British losses 200 per month.

The sources of this info are noted in the book.

 

NWE Tank losses are known with some precision. US lost 4,367 mediums & 1507 light. The Commonwealth 4,042 mediums & 433 light. A total of 8,409 medium & 1940 light.
The German losses are incomplete but at least c.3000 AFVs (Stug/Jpz/Pz) in NWE during 1944. 1945 losses are impossible to quantify but production figures show 3,000 vehicles pumped out the factory door in December 1944 alone . I would reckon at least 4000 German AFVs were in play in 1945 though how many in the west is impossible to say.

My first response to that % would be 'bollocks' but I will let you provide the reference and I will find out where you are being led astray.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a high percentage of the write-offs being burnt out, since almost any other damage could be fixed in a workshop/factory, so would not be totally destroyed. If these numbers are true, who knows.

All the best

Andreas

 

The 24 October report was by General J.A. Holly in Detroit having returned from Europe.

 

I have tried to make that point myself, most recently in connection with a foolish 'what if' idea (on the sister forum I think) for putting a 75mm gun on a 6 pdr atk carriage. Redundant as hell of course, and a waste of time and factory space to boot.

 

An interesting little exchange from Notes from Theatres of War No. 20 : Italy 1943/1944 published in May 1945:

To me, that reads like someone is doing their damndest to restrospectively twist prewar doctrine to fit the facts. Amusingly, a couple of sections later, it refers to the reccce role and experience with the de-turretted Honeys in particular: "A tank with a turret is not a reconnaissance vehicle; it is far too blind."

 

I doubt it personally - Italy was an odd theatre which because its terrain was not conducive to the Sherman. This was why the Churchill was called into the theatre during April/May 1944. The British had hoped to employ the Sherman only in Italy, but as so many assaults were against well constructed defences on steep slopes in poor conditions, a dedicated assault tank was definitely needed.

It was the excuses trotted out for only initially employing the Sherman (e.g. concerns about bridge loadings) which whiff of the disingenuous.