Hi Gavin
If I might borrow?
Just to amend a couple of points with regard to the above... :p
Obviously a subject close to both our hearts. And just as fascinating as locos and their operation.
Hoping we can have present enjoyable discussion for others to read and interpret here even if in the final analysis we individually disagree re our interpretation of what are facts.
Black-Marlin wrote:
The 'heavy' and 'medium' tank designations were American, rather than British.
IME IRL and reading everyone from Liddell Hart through Guderian and Rutherford, an ex 'tankie' (Brit), they're actually generic terms used across all armies, like "tank" and "Panzer", but with respect to the ground weight of the vehicle rather than its role, although the two are often coincident. e.g. Tiger I & KV1 (heavy) PzKpfw IV & T34/76 (medium). Unlike other weapons like MGs which are classified light, medium and heavy, oftimes dependent solely upon their whether they are tripod or bipod fixed or mobile mounting, feed
loose belt/fixed mag vs
continuous belt fed from multiple boxes available in a pit/bunker, and whether they were presighted along fixed lines or impromptu "section MG to the high ground" dynamically deployed.
There's so much misinformation due to legend. e.g. It's well documented that due to their fearful reputation, pretty much all German tanks in the ETO in late '44 through '45 were referred to as 'Tigers' by Western Allied field ORs whether they were or not. Such is the confusion of war. "Achtung! Spitfeur!!! might be considered of similar accord to make the point.
We had 'cruiser' and 'infantry' tanks. The Infantry tanks were such vehicles as the Matilda and the Churchill, which were designed to operate in support of the infantry (rather than the other way around).
With diplomatic apology Gavin, but I can't let this slip by without challenge in the interest of truth and accuracy. That's simply not so. I'll refer to the later Valentine, Cromwell & Comet et al named Cruiser class tanks later, but the Matilda and Churchill were never designed
with that intention at all, nor is that how
any tank should be operated even where its role is tactically restricted to anti-infantry for use against unsupported hard points such as bunkers and heavy MGs. Perhaps you can link me to an operational doctrine elaborating otherwise? Whilst the Matildas were belatedly 'make and mend do'
adapted as AP (anti-personal) armour intended to operate in direct support of infantry
predominantly because they were useless against contemporary German armour in speed, manoeuvre, defensive and offensive penetrative firepower, the PzKpfw IIs & IIIs in North Afrika notwithstanding vs the Matildas and early Cruiser classes, the primary role of all "tanks" is to support infantry in the assault even where used as the spearhead of the assault cavalry style, or in the German's case lead element of a blitzkrieg assault of the Schwerpunkt,
not the other way around.
Doctrinarily, all arms principles require that armour
should never be used without infantry in support, unless they are going head to head with other armour in a cavalry like flanking dash typical of Brit tankers with their squadrons and Firefly once it's known the opponent armour is outnumbered in situ without other support (PaK/Inf) elements. But the inf would be right behind in support in this case, and recce would have been conducted prior. The Soviets adapted to this best riding into battle on their armour as is seen in much footage and photos, hoping off as they close to engagement range to directly engage inf handheld and PaK AT. Although they still walked into battle mostly despite the flawed mythology that pretends as historical fact, the Germans used the Sd.Kfz 251 of their mechanized PzG units to accompany their armour into battle in a similar way.
In the course of this, we saw direct armour to armour engagements occurring and armour must have the capability to contend with that leading to specialised types with weapons orientated specificlly for that role. The Firefly and Panther, the former a panic adaptation, the latter new by designed but rushed with its early flaws. But all armour carries HE as well as AP. However, the fact is, an expectation of armour unopposed dedicated infantry support tank or not, ALL armour must be supported by inf doctrinally
otherwise they are just targets to AT guns, AT rifles (early form of WWII inf non hollow core AT ineffective against heavy armour) land mines, magnetic mine attachment, and infantry fired hollow core weps/projectiles. e.g. Bazookas. PIATS, Panzerfaust and Panzershrecks. This was taught then, is true, and is still taught now AFAIK ... and was when I did all arms training (Brit derived inter arms doctrine) prior to being commissioned (Inf) as a young inf field subaltern prior to later changing services going from patrolling in miles per day to miles per minute. Hence the need for Aufklarung and why much as I wouldn't like to be in a schwere Panzer even with the advantage of superior firepower and range against vastly superior numbers engaging with shots bouncing off my hull, I'd like even less to be in a recce Puma or Dingo probing for PaKs or AT inf!
Matilda and Churchill armour was thick, making extensive use of casting making the tanks heavy, their 0 degree slope with shot traps everywhere design even poorer than the early German Mk II, III, and IV German Panzers, and they were under gunned for many reasons. Pretty much the same as the holding onto the rigid VIC in the air way past its use by date which the Germans field experience in Spain using their finger four pretty quickly and bloodily taught the Brits that lesson, stubborn as they were to formally drop the practice.
So after their absolute caning in France, which like the French Renaults was really much more about tactical deployment & C&C than equipment superiority or inferiority
at that time, they were relegated either to stop gap roles up against weak forces such as the Afrika Korps in the Desert, Matildas particularly, or direct infantry support and adapted with flame (Churchill Crocodile) which is self evident was never the original attention by virtue of the necessary fuel trailer, adapted and fitted with a SPIGOT mortar, or ordinary gun whose AP qualities were beyond mediocre so it supported inf with HE. They couldn't manoeuvre well at their weight, and despite their thickness of armour, with its shot traps and flat plate despite being cast, both were vulnerable to high velocity AP rounds of the various types the Germans excelled in the later LL75 & 88, and early on the adapted AA 88, characteristically engaging at long range in the desert with stunning penetration, bocage country excepted of course but which were equally deadly with all each hedgegrow hiding a Panzerfaust/shreck PaK 38 or 40 and every road & field Teller mined. Poor bloody infantry having to go in and clear that lot out only to have an MG42 ripping about their ears any time they left cover. Earned their King's shilling that lot.
As such, they were designed to be slow - because they had to accompany infantry moving at a walking pace.
This is just a nonsense. Those units were slow and poor manoeuvreing because they were overweight and under engined unintentionally by poor or outdated design whichever term is preferred. All engines have a throttle and gearbox. You use it to control speed and acceleration. How slow can you go is NOT ipso facto a limiting factor. Surface footprint (ground pressure) and power to weight ratio or excess power available to manoeuvre with sufficient speed and the ability to breach field obstacles and inclines are.
The cruisers, on the other hand, were designed to be much faster and mounted anti-armour guns.
Whilst this is true, they came about because of recognition of the deficiencies in the Matilda and Churchill. Even so, they weren't up to speed with their contemporary adversaries, but worked well enough in the Desert against what were by then already outdated largely IIs & IIIs relegated to Rommel's diversionary army whilst the major play in the East was demanding of all the best kit. Even the Sherman was a POS. It wasn't in the same class as the T-34 or even the German Mk IV although it dated from the same era. But it was produced in vast numbers and the Allies could not only replace their casualties, but had the time and facility to train them. The German's couldn't. And especially every member of the experienced cadre killed, led to lesser ability use to advantage the tactical or equipment superiority. And of course, complete Allied air superiority meant no moving in daylight in good weather and utter decimation if spotted from the air by the roving Jabos.
We do agree that evolved from experience with the Crusader, Cavalier and Centaur, the Cromwell and its evolution into the Comet and 17pndr Challenger outshone by the Firefly -all also Cruiser class (Firefly excepted), were best British tanks of that war. Inspiring names all though aren't they? Only talking dominant in field types here, the Cromwell/Comet was definitely the best all British tank the Brits fielded that saw significant use in the ETO.
Re Zimmerit and Schurzen. Gavin is right TMK in saying that the western Allies didn't use an equivalent of the former, or equally stupidly the latter which given the hollow charge rounds along with plethora of inf fired 'shrecks and 'fausts from every building and hedgerow by anyone courageous enough point and press the button in the case of the latter was really insane!!!!!!
Wolverine aka M10, Hellcat aka M18 albeit lightly armoured open turretted are TDs not tanks. Like all AT guns they pack a wallop. Self propelled open hull AT guns much like Marder IIIs and should be deployed as such. Western Allies didn't use closed hull AT TDs like the Hetzer et al. The Germans adapted their already in production PzKpfw II and IV basic chassis designs along with the Czech t38 chassis in the particular to many superstructures sited to roles AA Ostwind, Wirblewind, self propelled AT Marders (open susceptable to airburst/gren/small arms fire), Panzerjägers or Jägdpanzers in Hetzers, JägdPanther/Tiger, Jagdpanzer IV et al. And they had their Sturmmörser too in the Brummbär.
The Firefly was an emergency measure that put the best anti-tank gun of the Western Allies - the British QF 17pdr - into a tank. Although there were British tanks that attempted to mount it - the original Challenger, for instance - they weren't terribly successful. It had more success as a self-propelled anti-tank gun: fixed backwards on a Valentine hull it became a vehicle known as the Archer, while the most effective of the tank destroyers took an M10 (called a Wolverine in British service) and replaced its 75mm gun with the 17pdr, the resulting vehicle being the Achilles.
Pretty much agree with the crux of this, success being a relative term mainly attributable to Clausewitz's first and most general principle of victory, overwhelmingly superior numbers albeit with utterly appalling casualties by units which used them which you don't see so readily recorded in the same histories. The Germans didn't suffer the same confrontation casualties due their equipment. Their appalling personnel losses were from artillery and air support in conjunction with overwhelming superiority of numbers/firepower M10/18. As long as the casualty lists weren't making big headlines at home in an age before media went to war in the same way it did from Vietnam onwards, those losses were acceptable. US loss of life in WWII was minuscule in comparison with the losses of the German and Soviet conflict. Even in there biggest battles the likes of at Guadalcanal, (been there) Iwo Jima (not yet) & Tarawa (been there) and even Utah beach, their total casualties
including wounded wouldn't wouldn't even be a blip on the Eastern Front MIA/KIA scale alone.
Keiron
But there's a bit of nostalgia for you. I'm making a FROG Talisman from the original kit plan. Just for the fun of it.
