New Book on the Tetrarch Tank Released

Discussion in 'Books, Films, TV, Radio' started by Don Juan, Dec 23, 2021.

  1. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Here you go:

    Front_Cover 2.jpg

    It covers everything you needed to know about the Tetrarch, and also lots of stuff you didn't need to know but are going to be informed of anyway. Available at Amazon and Lulu amongst other places. I believe that the Lulu printers are higher quality than the Amazon ones, fwiw.
     
    Charley Fortnum, TTH, Chris C and 2 others like this.
  2. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Swine!
    Also: nice one on covering another somewhat neglected machine.

    It'll be next month for me most likely. (He says, with a vague feeling there's Lulu vouchers somewhere in the emails.)
    TBH. Haven't noticed a print quality difference and bought from both.
     
    Don Juan likes this.
  3. JeremyC

    JeremyC Member

    Copy ordered from Lulu - no need to make Bezos any richer than he already is!

    Thanks for the heads-up - I'm just glad to know P.M. Knight is still out there, beavering away in the archives. :D
     
    Don Juan and Chris C like this.
  4. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    Congratulations!

    All the best

    Andreas
     
    Don Juan likes this.
  5. davidbfpo

    davidbfpo Patron Patron

  6. Ewen Scott

    Ewen Scott Well-Known Member

    6 Tetrarchs had earlier seen operational service during Operation Ironclad, the invasion of Madagascar, in May 1942.
     
  7. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    That thesis has made the mistake that everyone makes about the Tetrarch in Normandy - that it was supposed to operate as a proper tank and proved too light to do so. Richard Gale in his Directive on the use of 6 AARR makes it clear that they were intended to operate in the reconnaissance role in terrain that was too rough for the unit's other vehicles. So the basic idea was the 'B' Squadron (carriers, jeeps, motorcycles) would largely conduct recce on road, and the 'A' Squadron (Tetrarchs) were there to conduct recce cross country. The Tetarchs also had a secondary role of supporting/screening the parachute infantry.

    So the point is that the Tetrachs were not there to go racing around blasting things and generally be tanks. They were there to do relatively mundane recce and support work, which is what they did, and why the reports on their use were on the whole quite positive. The only exciting aspect of their use was in how they were delivered to the battlefield.
     
    TTH and Chris C like this.
  8. Aeronut

    Aeronut Junior Member

    img003130.jpg

    Following testing the Tetrarch received a favourable Euro NCAP rating. :)
     
    Juha and von Poop like this.
  9. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian Patron

    Richard Smith of the Tank Museum has just included it in a new youtube video with a list of Bottom 5 tanks, calling it a complete waste of time, without regards to what DJ just described about the positive reports. Yeesh.

    Mind you, it's a really casual style of video.
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2022
  10. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Well, James Holland recently included the Panzer IV as a bottom five tank, which was a bit much even for me.

    I think The Museum Guys are now getting into "Here's why the Beatles actually sucked" territory, tbh.
     
    von Poop, TTH and Chris C like this.
  11. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    I think the Russians used a few as well, perhaps in the Caucasus fighting in '42.
     
  12. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    An image I couldn't leave be.
    Jan '44

    So is that

    20 Jan 44
    HH961
    Over shot and hit Nissen hut during EXERCISE MANITOBA

    or

    21 Jan 44
    DR858
    Damaged Beyond Repair by tank leaving glider

    Assuming the former, looking at some of the frankly mental images further down this fine page:
    Prangs!

    Just slightly disappointed there's not a perfect tank-shaped hole in that wing.
    Now I know it's a wing, 'cos at first... o_O
     
  13. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    I like the Chieftain because he doesn't do any of that. He always looks at the tactical role of the tank first and asks:"Did it or did it not fulfill the role it was designed for?"
     
    Andreas likes this.
  14. Orwell1984

    Orwell1984 Senior Member

    That they did. Great little article and some photos of Soviet Tetrarchs here:
    Tank Archives: Tetrarch in the USSR
     
    Andreas and TTH like this.
  15. Don Juan

    Don Juan Well-Known Member

    Yes, I think The Chieftain is the best Museum Guy.
     
  16. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    Oh, they do the vehicle collision element of the NCAP by smashing the tank into a (wait for it) NISSAN Hut? Is that the test?

    All the best

    Andreas
     
  17. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    Holland is on a mission to establish a narrative that British kit rocked, and German kit sucked. Who could forget his tweet comparing (unfavourably of course) the bombload of a Ju 88 C-1 night fighter with that of a Lancaster?

    I'm guessing it plays well with the potential audience, and who cares about actual facts, right?

    All the best

    Andreas
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2022
  18. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    I think a better comparator is maybe the German Panzer II Luchs (which was a dead end), the 8-wheel Puma or the various gun-armed half-tracks in armoured recce units. Mobility, armour and reasonable firepower in a neat package. You don't want to meet anyone serious, but if the job is to i) find and ii) get out of a scrape fast while being able to beat up the oppo as you do so, it's not an unreasonable solution to the tactical problem.

    All the best

    Andreas
     
    Don Juan and von Poop like this.
  19. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian Patron

    Wikipedia (ahem) mentions a Tetrarch CS version. Do we know if these were issued with HE, and were they fielded? (It seems a possibly more useful weapon than the 2-pounder, all told, but I know CS tanks were mainly intended to lay smoke, at least early in the war.)
     
  20. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Amen.
    I've certainly sat on the internet front line of defending allied gear, or at least opposing its lazy dismissal, while encouraging more scepticism about the Wunderwaffe brigade. And that was absolutely needed in many cases; but I've seen a few things of late that are frankly a backlash too far.
    It's as if you have to pick a team, dismissing nuance.
     
    DogDodger, ltdan, AB64 and 1 other person like this.

Share This Page