English Tanks Besides Sherman Question

[Aacooper]

This board has seen a lot of talk about the Sherman and its variants. What's the deal on the other '44 - '45 English tanks? I know about the Firefly and Achilles (M10), but how did the Churchill, Cromwell, and Comet do? How did they compare to the Sherman and German tanks, did the crews like them, were they reliable?

Also, is the Valentine in CM?

Thanks,

[Rommel]

as i understand it, they did ok, but the british had the habit of having large tank attacks without much supporting infantry, one account by maj.Von Luck in operation Goodwood or was it goodwind? oh well it was monty's attempt to break out of the normandy beach head, over 50 british tanks were destroyed by just 4 88's, because the british tanks couldn't see the 88's, and didn't have any infantry to go get em. Ironically the 88's didn't have any infantry support either, so just one platoon of brits could've wiped them out.

[Fionn]

British tanks,

Well there were two types.

Cruiser and infantry (and then they tried to get some universal tanks and adopted Shermans etc so things got a bit muddied but cruiser and infantry will suit for my basic explanation).

Cruiser: Fast, medium to poorly armoured, medium gun.

Infantry: SLOW, VERY SLOW, HEAVILY ARMOURED ( some of these had almost the level of armour of a King Tiger). We're talking 150mm+ of front armour here. Medium to tiny gun.

Basically they were either fast and easy to knock out or slow and difficult to knock out.

Unfortunately NEITHER type packed a big enough punch to really threaten the Panthers or Tigers.

Mix that in with the Cavalry Regiment dash, unwillingness to co-ordinate properly ALL the bad habits they'd picked up in North Africa and the fact that the tankers KNEW their tanks were not up to par and you realise that there were some major problems in the UK tank arm.

The 17 pounder-armed tank variants which came late in the war were much better though. A fast, medium-armoured tank with a heavy punch is a potent weapon as is a slow, heavily armoured tank with a heavy punch.

The single BIGGEST problem for the British in my opinion was their tragic undergunning of most tanks. At the time the Tiger was committed to battle the British still had 2 pounder-armed tanks (37mm) running around in the desert and about the best they had was the 57mm (6 pounder) variants. Frankly a Tiger had nothing to fear from a 2 pounder and little to fear from a 6 pounder.

Once the tanks got upgunned to 17 pounder level they were recognised to be pretty good.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Trooper]

I would about agree with the undergunning statment by Fionn, though I would also point out that the US tanks were hardly overgunned either.

Whilst getting the guided tour of Bovington (Go there!) by the librarian, Mr Fletcher, he went into quite a bit on the difference in philosophy between the tank designers of the different countries, from the USSR's 'Rough and ready, but by the Party, it works', through to the UK's 'Craftsman' designs. Before they got the knack of casting useful armor or welding, British tanks were bolted together in perfect fits. The British started off with some of the world's best tanks, but after the loss of a large portion of them by Dunkirk, they were down to emergency procedures:- ordering tanks directly off the drawing board. This was best (or worst) exemplified by the Covenanter. Some 1800 were built, none saw combat. (An ingenious low design but the engine kept overheating). Once M3s and M4s started coming into mass service, the British could afford the time to properly design and evaluate their vehicles before producing them, so by the end of the war, the tanks were again of good and high standard. The other small problem was that of 'expandability'. The German designs were built with an amazing ability to upgrade and expand, whilst most British ones were stuck with what they were designed with.

Specifically:

Infantry: Valentines (Successors to Matildas). Fairly reliable tanks, undergunned as always, but adequately armored. The Russians loved the ones that they got, particularly the mechanicals. (IIRC the comment was something like 'You put such a beautiful engine into such an undeserving vehicle..') Succeeded by the Churchill, some Valentines were converted into the Archer tank destroyer. To get the 17lbr to fit onto the chassis, it was fixed in a rear-facing mount, which seems eminently sensible for a 'shoot and scoot' vehicle.

Churchill. Almost as close to a WWI tank as the British built in WWII. Big, full height tracks, wooden track returns (no rollers), and not massively fast. Very successful though, particularly the engineering variants (Incl Crocodile Flamethrower). Some early versions had a 75mm howitzer in the hull, most ended up with 6lbr (75mm) guns in the turret, resulting in a tank with a decent armament for the job, more armor than a Sherman, and a bit less speed. A variant known as Black Prince was evaluated with a 17lbr, but that came to naught.

TOG II. If you haven't seen this, you should. TOG stands for The Old Gang. The crowd that built the original WWI tanks looked at the new designs and figured that if trench warfare broke out again, 'modern' designs would be shafted. So they built a WWI tank for WWII. 70 odd tons, and even had a 17lbr turret. Thankfully, they only built the one...

Cruisers: Centaur/Cromwell/Challenger

If I recall, the Centaur is a Cromwell with a Meteor engine, and extra road wheel (on each side) This extra length made it a bit unwieldy. Whilst more heavily armored than Shermans, and equivalently gunned with 75mms, the British had an aversion to sloping armor. The theory was that if the armor plate was perfectly vertical, it was highly unlikely that a round would strike it perfectly perpendicularly, so should bounce off. Of course, we know better now, but the result was that the effective armor was no greater than Sherman's. Challenger was a Cromwell with a massive turret with a 17lbr used in the cavalry regiments, but wasn't an outstanding success, more for the silhouette and 6-man crew than reliability reasons.

Achilles II: An M10 with a 17lbr vice the 3" gun.

Comet: Last of the true 'Cruisers', and I believe also the last UK tank to use Christie suspension. The 17lbr had two small problems. (1) It couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (But people didn't care.. if it <did> hit the target, at least it had a chance of killing it), and (2) it needed a very large turret ring, larger than would be comfortable in a new design. They decided that they could slightly reduce the pressure and slightly change the gun to allow an accurate weapon to fit onto a decently sized vehicle with only a small decrease in penetrating ability. 77mm, IIRC it is, and this is what they stuck onto Comet. The UK's answer to the M26 Pershing.

Centurion. Believe it or not, it's a WWII tank. The first ones made it to Germany the same month the war ended, but didn't see battle. New bogie suspension, and still in service over 50 years later with a lot of countries. (And after a lot of upgrades, of course) Need I say more?

A 32lbr gun was made out of an AA gun, which, the words of an evaluating officer 'was the first gun we have gotten in years which can both hit and penetrate the target', but that was only ever stuck into the Tortoise tank destroyer which made it to Germany after the war ended. Only three were built, it was bigger than Jagdtiger.

Overall. The British make outstanding tanks, and barring the period 1940-1943 or so, always have; and have always been my favourites, with innovations from the introduction of Hunter-Killer systems on the Conqueror in the '50s, through the sheer 'I'm here to fight' build of Chieftan, or the invention of Burlington (Chobham) armor.

In WWII, lighter British AFVs, like the Universal (Bren) Carrier or Daimler Scout car were also successful, being used in British units that had US equipment (read M3/M4), but I haven't heard many words spoken against any of the late-war British tanks. I would also point out that 90% of the modifications to the Sherman were British in concept. (all the 'Funnies') Both as combat vehicles, and for the usefulness of continuing research and vehicle design, I would have to rate the later British WWII vehicles as good as the Americans. (Sadly not German or Russian though!) (Aside: Apparently, the Opposition managed to bring a Cruiser and a captured Tiger to the House of Commons and parked them outside so that they could invite the government to inspect the equipment that the differing sides were to fight with. Forewarned (Or maybe because you can't miss a Tiger in front of Parliament), the Government declined.)

Usual Disclaimer: The above are opinions and information from reading books, email debates, and listening to lectures. I'm working from memory, so please excuse small errors or omissions, but I won't flame comments!

[Bullethead]

Fionn said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Frankly a Tiger had nothing to fear from a 2 pounder and little to fear from a 6 pounder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly, in what was no doubt an extremely rare event, the Tiger I at Bovington was knocked out by a 6-pounder, I think mounted in a Centaur or Cromwell. You can still see the scars on the Tiger. The 1st shot broke up on the upper edge of the gun mantlet and the splinters took out the exposed TC. The 2nd shot actually scraped along the bottom of the Tiger's gun tube, glancing off each successive increase in diamter, until it hit the mantlet, which deflected it down through the hull roof. I believe this somehow jammed the turret. The surviving Tiger crewmen then bailed out.

Pretty amazing. What gets me is the sheer balls of the Brit tank crew. Looking RIGHT DOWN THE BARREL of the Tiger's 88 and blazing away with their little popgun anyway.

-Bullethead

[SS_PanzerLeader]

hey what about the AVRE are we not gonna see this?

SS_PanzerLeader

[Rommel]

yes nobody will dissagree that the centurion was a great design, which influenced many later generations of tanks. But the problem is that the earlier generations of brit tanks (1940-mid1944) just weren't up to the task.

ALSO i totally agree with my colleagues quote that "they brought bad habbits from north africa" this was quickly brought to light in operation goodwind (or is it goodwood?). Maybe if germany had captured moscow and only had the western front to worry about, maybe then when the later tanks like the centurian would have been brought to the action could the british tanks gotten a good rep, but the fact is, is that in north africa, the british simply outsupplied their enemy in men and material, and in europe their tanks were just easy targets.

Now true the Sherman being the mainstay of the american forces wasn't exactly suberb, but it was mass produced, had somewhat adequete armor, and had a gun that at least the panthers and tigers had to have a small margin of respect for.

[howardb]

Why didn't they just build Stuart's?. I mean in the realistic game of CC4 I lost several Panthers to the 37mm gun of the Stuart.

[dumbo]

Another "bad habit" for British tankers was the regimental system. This is the classic example of a bad bad tradition that outlived its usefulness.

Not only did the regimental system deprive the Brits of excellent officers (by giving high posts to family members of previous officers) but it also handicapped cooperation with other units. This system was excellent during the colonial wars when the regiment could be self contained but its weakness against a continental army became apparent.

While the Infantry arm of the British infantry lessened this weakness as the war went on, the Armoured regiments (tellingly they inisted on still being called cavalry) integrated less well and often operated without support by thier own choice. In fairness to them this approach was not always a bad idea as they could react to situations quickly and scored some notable successes in Africa.

For all that criticism its worth noting that the Brits did actually WIN using these tanks and tactics in Africa so perhaps we shouldnt be so hasty to trash em.

_dumbo

[von Lucke]

Well, I don't know as you can really say that the Brit's won in N. Afrika, so much as Rommel lost the campaign due to lack of supplies

[Rob Deans]

All this talk of tanks. Don't forget that the British Army at the time of the game was equipped with primarily Shermans (and variants) with Churchills forming the next BIG chunk. Honey (Stuarts) were used in a recce role within the armoured regiment and therefore a lesser role. The Cromwell/Challenger was used in the armoured recce role (1 regiment per armoured div)and equipped completely one of the three fighting armoured divisions during this time (Shermans equipping the other two). Of these tanks, all but the earlier versions of the Churchill had 75mm+ guns. These few six pounder Churchills were fitted with 75s during the campaign. My point is that the British Army was kitted, in tank armament, very much like the other allies. Their undergunning was by no means strictly a British problem. On the Centaur, it was only used by the Royal Marines who fielded two "Armoured Support Regiments". In five vehicle "batteries" the vehicle was the Marines' close support tank. Only 80 were ever produced. The Achilles and the Archer were used by the Royal Artillery anti tank regiments in the Armoured Divisions (a div asset) in four vehicle batteries. They were used in a similar role as the towed 17pdrs in the infantry divisions.

[Bullethead]

dumbo said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not only did the regimental system deprive the Brits of excellent officers (by giving high posts to family members of previous officers) but it also handicapped cooperation with other units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't resist this . In one of the Flashman books, Flashy describes how he got into a stylish regiment via patronage. Then he says that reformers pointed out alleged problems with this system and changed it all. But "they made as big a mess of the Boer War as we did of the Crimea" so what's the difference?

-Bullethead

[dumbo]

Bullet: hehe that is a good one,. although the "reforms" he is refering too were widely ignored by the army through WW1 & 2 and to some extent still are today.

Vone Lucke: Yeah I hear you on that score I would probably say the Royal Navy had more to do with the African Victory than anything else, but spins on wars are notoriously innacurate beyond the basic result. I am always skeptical when I read that for example that Russians won by brute force against "brilliant" german commanders or that American and British routs in the early war were due to being vastly outnumbered etc.

I get weary when I hear the dreaded phrase "vastly outnumbered and ill equiped the brilliant armies of {insert your hero here} were driven back." I have seen this phrase applied so often to commanders of all nationalities that I now just skip it and mentally replace it with the shorter more accurate version "He lost."

_dumbo

[This message has been edited by dumbo (edited 12-05-99).]

[Guest L Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In one of the Flashman books, Flashy describes how he got into a stylish regiment via patronage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, I just finished rereading the Flashman series a couple months ago. I hope the ACW book comes out before Frasier leaves us.

Leland J. Tankersley

[Trooper]

I have heard it said that the British Regimental system was both an asset and a disadvantage. One the plus side, there was no tighter and better controlled unit on the battlefield than the average British regiment, because of the emphasis that there was on that formation. Further, sometimes men would go on fighting for the Regimental Colors when God, King and Country would no longer have sufficed (For Normal people, at least). The downside was, as mentioned, that at Divisional level, there was a lack of co-ordination and communication in comparison with, say, the US.

I don't knock the Regimental system per se, there is something about tradition and history that makes you march with your shoulders straighter when you think about it.

"You're on the Barracks Square now.. men have died fighting for this square..."

BTW, what's wrong with armored units being called 'Cavalry'? The term is used nowadays for the role more than the equipment.

DWH

Manic Moran. (Cavalry trooper)

[Major Tom]

From what I understand of the British Regimental system, is, that it is only applied to for peacetime organization. When war erupts, the regiments are divided up into their respective Battalions, and then sent off to join brigades and divisions. Indeed, a few regimental battalions were in the same formation. Of course, I could be WAY off, so don't chew me off for this!

As for British armour being known as cavalry formations, in most sense this is/was true. Most British tank units were, before the late 1930's, cavalry units. They traded in their horses for Mark VI light tanks and Cruiser Mark I's, of which, I might say they would have been safer on their horses in battle. The Royal Tank Regiment doesn't claim any cavalry status, as, it is one of the only units created specifically for the use of AFV's. I might be wrong here, but, from what I read this what the assumption was. The 1st US Cavalry division cashed in their horses for choppers and gone tearing around the Nam looking for trouble, they still call themselves cavalrymen. As Trooper stated, it is more symbolic than anything else.

Going back to British Armoured equipment during 1944-45, I would much rather be in a Cromwell than a Sherman. Each of them had a 75mm Gun (Some Cromwells had 6pdr, other versions 75mm) and the armour was virtually similar. The main point being, is that the Cromwell has a much lower siloette. The one good thing about Cruiser tanks, is, that they can go hull down very easy, due to their low hull and turret. When the situation was desperate enough for British tank commanders to use good tactics (vs. charging mass numbers of unsupported tanks piecemiel across the desert) even the venerable Cruisers were easily placed into hastily produced ambush positions, due to their low stature. Indeed, the Stuart was a welcome weapon to the British arsenal, but, many tank commanders complained about them being too much of a target, as they were so high. The same with Grants (American Lee's) and Shermans.

The main handycapp for Cruisers was the lack of a reliable engine. The Crusader Mark II had the capability of doing 49 Miles per hour, even faster than the speedy Stuart, but, they were forced to govern their speed due to bad engines. The Australians designed their own Cruiser tank, which if the supply of Shermans didn't flood the tank market it would have been a much welcomed weapon in Western Europe.

Cruiser tanks are very underrated in history. Plagued by insufficiend development time, and bad deployment. Nobody seems to mention that the Cruiser Mark IV actually slightly outclassed contemporary Panzer Mark III and IV's in armour, speed and gun power (British 40mm vs. German 37mm and short barrelled 75mm), but neither tank was very reliable when it comes to breakdowns.

I can't wait for CM12 "The Battle for France", when the Allies actually have better equipment than the Germans! Ah yes, the Matilda Mark II, Char B1, Samoua S1 and the H39.

[dumbo]

Just to clarify a bit my critique of the term "cavalry" was based around the habit of Brit armour units to go tear assing around without infantry support etc.

"Trading in horses for tanks" is all well and good so long as you trade in your tactics at the same time. Tanks are NOT horses (neither are helicopters) and although you can make generalized statements about the similarities it was the lack of wholesale rethinking of tactics that I thought was summarized in their lack of name change.

Still I accept the corrections y'all have made, good reading.

[Major Tom]

Oh yeah, I certainly agree that the British had a terrible time in coordinating Infantry and Armour.

One quote that I have, although I don't have the book on hand, so don't quote me on this , but, during Operation Crusader, November 1941 North Africa, the British were getting their butt's nocked around, and at a certian point I think the 4th Armoured Brigage was being engaged by the 15th Panzer Division. The 2nd New Zealand Division was close by, with full Divisional Artillery, 3 Brigades of Infantry, and one Battalion of Infantry tanks. However, the commander of the 4th Armoured refused support, stating that it was to be a purely tank vs. tank engangement (even though the Germans refused to follow this advice and used large amounts of artillery and Infantry). Later, General Freyburg, the Commander of the New Zealands sent a message to the Commander of 4th Armoured, stating "Is this a private war, or can anyone join in".

The British tactics stem from a pre-war belief that war in the Desert will be a truely armoured affair. They related it to Naval war in the desert. They didn't want to be "handycapped" by large numbers of "slow" Infantry and Artillery. For Crusader, the 7th Armoured division had over 500 tanks and only 2 Battalions of Infantry. 80% of the tanks were knocked out over the course of the battle, with little return. The reason that the British failed so badly in most of their armoured assaults in Western Europe, and in Italy (the 1st Armoured was worn down to the strength of a Brigade attacking in hilly terrain in Italy) is, that they were so used to the flat terrain in the desert, with little room for Infantry to hide and get close enough to tanks for ambush. In Europe there were multiple places for snipers to pick off tank commanders, and, the limited avenues for armoured assaults (fields and roads), especially in Normandy.

You would think that the charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean war in the 1850's would have caused the British to rethink the value of charging with cavalry and tanks against enemy positions? Indeed, you are correct in the mentality of the cavalry formations. They seem to get the most casualties, for the least amount of gain.

I could talk about militiary blunders and hipocracy all day. But it gets me to darned depressed.

[Bastables]

The Charge of the light Brigade, death knell of the elan of a British Charge? Well I think it proved the problems inherent in assulting a enemy who is well emplaced with adquate support, which confound any type of attack. But there are instances which come to my mind which indicate the charge as a useful battle winning tactic. The 12th and 4th regt of the Australians light horses charge vs the empalaced (16 field guns and 10 MMG +5000 riflemen) though suprised Turkish positions at Beerheba on the 31 of October 1917. What makes this even more suprising is that the Australians carried out the Charge with only their bayonets drawn, due to the lack of lances and sabers.

[Major Tom]

The Australian Light Horse had suprise though, of course, it may have just been the movie I watched. No, they didn't suddenly sneak up on the Turks, it was just that in previous engagements with the ALH they always dismounted out of range of enemy guns and attacked like infantry. From what I am aware, the ALH were basically mounted Infantry, not true Cavalry. The reason they didn't have lances or swords, was the fact that they weren't ever really used as cavalry. The shock value of this unexpected move helped overwhelm the Turks. Of course, I am not saying that Cavalry charges are stupid, most of them actually got good results, however, USUALLY at a high price. I may be totally wrong about this, my field of study doesn't really move into WWI in the Middle East, so I am relying on the usually flawed historical movie industry.

[SimonFox]

I think that the movie you refer to was pretty much spot on with regard to that action. Their casualty figures were ridiculously low as well for the era. I think suprise and shock were a big factor though the Turks were pretty well dug in. Given the expectation that the battle to capture the place was expected to be pretty bloody and the attackers were outnumbered it is justifiably regarded as one of the most amazing military feats of WWI.

On the subject of the Brit tanks in the desert the Commonwealth divisions got so pissed off that they basically raised their own armour. I know at least one Aussie division used captured Italian mediums. Monty takes a lot of flack for being cautious but from my reading he was fairly untrusting of his armour. His original plan for Alamein was pretty much a classic mobile battle to destroy Rommels armour and then take on his infantry but because of his concerns (and lack of faith expressed by infantry divisional commanders) he opted for the surer approach.

As for Normandy the British armour infantry cooperation was pretty good there. The operation you refer to was Goodwood and the tanks had outrun their infantry and artillery support which was still held up clearing out pockets of resistance they had bypassed. Their armoured divisions didn't really quite have the mix right but at the time they were very concerned about infantry casualties. They seemed to work much better when they attached a tank regiment to an infantry division.

[dumbo]

Actually I read a pretty good new book on the crimean war recently ("Death ir Glory" Edgerton). What struck me was how, far from causing the British to rethink such cavalry charges, the event was instantly canonized and held up as an example of heroism to be emulated. Possibly this "Dunkirk" spirit is a purely British phenomeneon but I did find it interesting. It also rings a cord with me, I still get choked up reading about the charge of the LTBG or listening to Churchills speech on Dunkirk when he tries (in vain) to remind my countrymen that they lost.

If anyone knows of some good other Crimea books I would be interested to hear.

cheers,

_dumbo

[Bastables]

I'm not sure how the Aussies possesing suprise undercuts my feelings that like any arm/technolgy of the military, they (cavalry), gain relativly Bloodless victory's due to suprise. One could infer from your statements that Cavarly charges exclusivly suffer heavy losses when attempting to subdue prepared postions whereas Infantry do not, forgive my language but bollocks! Infantry are not any more resilant agaisnt dug in positions due to the fact that they are infantry. Real battles are not like starcraft with its appalling Rock, paper, sissors approach to combat. And this is why the British did so poorly relative to the germans. There text book infantry, Tank/cavalry battles were not modified with local condidtions in mind. Your statement that the aussies were not proper Dragoon's or lancers and therefore not equiped as such in no way undercuts the fact that they carried out the charge with British textbook spacings, ie Sqn's in successive lines separated by 300yrd with about a 5 yrd spacing between each horse. Not to mention that a number of their officers were old school cavalry hack's with a penchant for fox pelts. If any thing the success of indiffrent cavalry units (ie they were not raised as such but as mounted infantry) tends to underline the charge as viable tactic in they day's of MG's.

During the counter stroke after Stalingrad, Major Kurt Mayer (SS Leibstanderte), sighted

a mixed Russian column of infantry, T34's and limbered guns. 'Is it an ambush?' Meyer asked himself. 'Probably not.' So what did he do with his 3 coy of PIV ausf G? He charged 2 of them with one held back firing in support. German losses 2 men killed and a handful wounded in exchange for an entire Russian battalion group. Like everything else, charges work with minimal losses if conditions are good for that tactic, with special note attached to suprise.

Heh just re read it forgive the baiting/ angry tone.

Oh and about shock being a major factor, thats the whole point of a charge, to unhinge and shatter enemy formations/positions becuse the enemy give in to hystria and breaks from the battle. Note that casulties inflicted by cavalry units do not become signficant until the cavalry are merciless hacking down small knots of men fleeing from the battle. This happens in CM, chaps break pull a runner and their exposure goes thru the roof. Thrill as a single 7.5cm HE shell or MG burst kills 4 chaps becuse they are running away from the battle.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-06-99).]

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 12-07-99).]

[Berlichtingen]

The australians got their surprise because the weren't cavalry. The Light Horse was mounted infantry (thus no lances or sabres). The Germans & Turks were expecting them to dismount... not charge. They had their sights set with that in mind and wound up over shooting the charging horsemen.

[Bastables]

They were so shocked by the Aussies tally ho! That they forgot to reset their sights when the Aussies kept comming or to shoot low. The K98 does not possess a complex sight.