Jeff Duquette Posted November 17, 2001 Share Posted November 17, 2001 I thought this might be interest to a few more hardcore WWII armor aficionados on the board here. This is a bit of correspondence I had with David Fletcher of the Bovington Tank Museum regarding British Army 95mm CS-Tanks…CS-Cromwell and CS-Churchill. The following is text of my email to him as well as Mr. Fletcher’s reply. ======================== Dear Dr. Fletcher: While reading various accounts on the famous tank engagement at Villers-Bocage, I had noticed a reluctance on the part of a Lt. Bill Cotton of the 4th County of London Yeomanry to employ his CS-Cromwell in encounter with Tiger I's of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 101 and MkIV's of the Panzer Lehr Division (even more reluctance perhaps than what might be typically expected from Allied Tankers forced to face Tiger I's). Apparently in post action reports and\or interveiws, Lt. Cotton indicated the CS-Cromwell was of little use in a Tank vs. Tank encounter. Cotton apparently dismounted his CS-Cromwell and directed the fire of the Firefly and Cromwell (6-pdrs) of 4Troop B Squadron while on foot. His unit’s tally by the end of the battle was apparently 4 Tigers and 3 MkIV's. I was hoping you could clarify several things regarding the CS-Cromwell (and I suppose the CS-Churchill). Didn't the 95mm CS gun have a shaped charge round? At what point in the war was the shaped charge round for the 95mm CS tanks first employed? If the Shaped charge round was available at the time of VIllers-Boccage what do you suppose motivated Lt. Cotton into thinking his CS-Cromwell would be of any less use than his 6-pdr Cromwells in the close quarter fight with German Armor that characheterized Villers Bocage ? One last question...somewhat unrelated...I am curious as to when a smoke round for the 95mm CS first began being fielded? Thanks very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely Jeff Duquette =========================== From Mr. Fletcher: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Jeff Not Dr Fletcher yet alas! Thanks for your message. I cannot find a date for HEAT but it was not available (apparently) when the stowage diagrams for 95mm tanks were compiled in May 1944. Smoke was probably available from the start, it is included in a stowage diagram for the Churchill V in November 1943. Even if it was available (HEAT that is) I am not sure they would have used it. In British service the Close-Support tank was originally intended to deliver smoke. HE rounds were available but the official stowage diagram dictated that the tank would carry about 95 per cent smoke and a few odd rounds of HE. I suspect that this narrow attitude continued. By 1944 undoubtedly HE had been adopted in a big way (although most 75mm gun tanks could also deliver it) so the tank would be stowed accordingly while troop and squadron leaders would be trained to instinctively employ dedicated anti-tank weapons against tanks. DavidF<hr></blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted November 17, 2001 Share Posted November 17, 2001 Interesting info. Jeff. Looks like these two particular tanks might be the case of the exception that proves the rule as far as BTS is concerned. i.e. it looks like they got it wrong although they have managed to get most else right. However, it's always fraught with danger in making such a statement when you don't know BTS's sources of information in relation to the operational use of the close support tanks of the Brits. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts