Nomenclature+ for MGs on Tanks

[gunnergoz]

I would think it would have to be the hull MG...if it were the coax, who would aim and fire it with its own telescope? The loader is busy, the commander is too far back and the gunner has his own sight and primary weapon to deal with; I just can't see them giving him a different sight for the coax.

On virtually every tank I've heard of, the coax is fixed in place in the mantlet parallel to the main gun and fired by the gunner using the main gun sight, possibly just using a different grid superimposed on the sight reticule. The loader usually takes care of reloading the coax but it usually had a very large ammo supply so that was something that could until after the engagement was over.

[RookieCAF]

It had to be to keep up with their tanks. Some odd critters there.

I believe I read the Armored Assets had a seperate supply chain, but still. All that oddball stuff, and then add in the American stuff they ended up using as well.

[Magpie_Oz]

What odd ball stuff?

From what I can see all tanks used the 75mm main gun or 17lbr, MG's were the 7.92 BESA (which could use German ammo!) or the 30 cal and 50cal on the Shermans.

[gunnergoz]

What odd ball stuff?

From what I can see all tanks used the 75mm main gun or 17lbr, MG's were the 7.92 BESA (which could use German ammo!) or the 30 cal and 50cal on the Shermans.

I was speaking of mechanical and design variations, not armament. The Brits called it The Great Tank Scandal, referring to the question of why the innovations of WW1 were not resulting in GB having the best tanks in the world by WW2 and instead (as many saw it) fielded a succession of mediocre and unreliable designs.

[RookieCAF]

Thats about what I meant as well, Didn't word it so well with my eyes at half mast

[Magpie_Oz]

I was speaking of mechanical and design variations, not armament. The Brits called it The Great Tank Scandal, referring to the question of why the innovations of WW1 were not resulting in GB having the best tanks in the world by WW2 and instead (as many saw it) fielded a succession of mediocre and unreliable designs.

Not sure that the UK tanks were all that much more diverse than any other army maybe to some extent but the organisation of the UK forces minimised the drama by grouping similar types together.

"The Great Tank Scandal' was created by a member of Parliament that really had no understanding of what he was talking about and perpetuated by Liddle-Hart for his own agenda.

As we have seen the M4 was as good a tank as any with as many pros and cons as the enemy.

The British Firefly had the best gun in Normandy.

The Cromwell was as good if not better than the Sherman, the Comet was far better and could rival the Panther.

The Churchill was the most heavily armoured tank in Normandy and had excellent mobility, in fact had little bother with the dreaded bocage.

[Blackcat]

"The Churchill was the most heavily armoured tank in Normandy and had excellent mobility,"

It could certainly climb very steep gradients that other tanks couldn't. It wasn't very quick though; wasn't its top speed around 15m.p.h..

[Magpie_Oz]

"The Churchill was the most heavily armoured tank in Normandy and had excellent mobility,"

It could certainly climb very steep gradients that other tanks couldn't. It wasn't very quick though; wasn't its top speed around 15m.p.h..

True enough but that suited its role, that of infantry support, which in the bocage was a huge boon.

[wokelly]

"The Churchill was the most heavily armoured tank in Normandy and had excellent mobility,"

It could certainly climb very steep gradients that other tanks couldn't. It wasn't very quick though; wasn't its top speed around 15m.p.h..

That is more of an issue of speed. Good mobility, poor speed is how to characterize the Churchill. The British during the Rhineland Campaign actually managed to push a regiment of Churchills through the waterlogged forest with infantry to come out behind the main German defensive line.

[gunnergoz]

Not sure that the UK tanks were all that much more diverse than any other army maybe to some extent but the organisation of the UK forces minimised the drama by grouping similar types together.

"The Great Tank Scandal' was created by a member of Parliament that really had no understanding of what he was talking about and perpetuated by Liddle-Hart for his own agenda.

As we have seen the M4 was as good a tank as any with as many pros and cons as the enemy.

The British Firefly had the best gun in Normandy.

The Cromwell was as good if not better than the Sherman, the Comet was far better and could rival the Panther.

The Churchill was the most heavily armoured tank in Normandy and had excellent mobility, in fact had little bother with the dreaded bocage.

Yes, but take some time and look at the state of British tank design in the late 30's and what it generated...TOG for example. Much wasted time and effort on throwbacks and poorly conceived rubbish. By the time the Churchill had evolved and the Cromwell and 17pdr gun came along, the British design establishment had finally begun to pull their collective heads out of their @sses. Thank goodness for that for they eventually came up with the Centurion, one of the classic battle tanks of the second half of the century.

[Magpie_Oz]

"Yes, but take some time and look at the state of British tank design in the late 30's and what it generated...TOG for example. Much wasted time and effort on throwbacks and poorly conceived rubbish."

Nah don't see that as a fair comment.

Pre war (late 30's) German tanks were of scant armour and meagre guns they were out armoured by many British, French and Russian designs , the German tanks were just used better. Were the Matilda and Crusader bad tanks? No, they were quite effective given the doctrine but it was the doctrine that failed.

The Battle of Arras shows pretty clearly how much better the British and French tanks were.

Even into the Norman Invasion itself the Allies made critical errors in judgement in regards of there armoured doctrine. The US Army believed that the role of Armour was to support the infantry and the anti-tank mission was the job of the Tank Destroyer battalions so the Sherman got the better HE of the 75 rather than the better AT of the 76.

UK forces as well, using their experience of the desert, felt that Antitank guns would be the main enemy and so favoured weapons with better HE performance.

Both armies found out quickly that Tank v Tank was all the rage in NWE and so scrambled to re-equip.

[Michael Emrys]

Were the Matilda and Crusader bad tanks? No, they were quite effective...

Although the Matilda suffered in the desert for the lack of an HE shell.

Michael

[Magpie_Oz]

Although the Matilda suffered in the desert for the lack of an HE shell.

Michael

True enough but that is doctrine raising its ugly head because they were supposed to use the MG's against infantry/ATG's

[Michael Emrys]

True enough but that is doctrine raising its ugly head because they were supposed to use the MG's against infantry/ATG's

Yeah, it was like the RAF flying its fighters in vics. I think the problem was that the war started a few years too soon for the Brits. A few years later and they might have had a proper tank (the Centurion) and a proper bomber (the Lancaster) and better thought out doctrines to go with them. Or maybe not. Who knows?

Michael

[gunnergoz]

"Yes, but take some time and look at the state of British tank design in the late 30's and what it generated...TOG for example. Much wasted time and effort on throwbacks and poorly conceived rubbish."

Nah don't see that as a fair comment.

Pre war (late 30's) German tanks were of scant armour and meagre guns they were out armoured by many British, French and Russian designs , the German tanks were just used better. Were the Matilda and Crusader bad tanks? No, they were quite effective given the doctrine but it was the doctrine that failed.

The Battle of Arras shows pretty clearly how much better the British and French tanks were.

Even into the Norman Invasion itself the Allies made critical errors in judgement in regards of there armoured doctrine. The US Army believed that the role of Armour was to support the infantry and the anti-tank mission was the job of the Tank Destroyer battalions so the Sherman got the better HE of the 75 rather than the better AT of the 76.

UK forces as well, using their experience of the desert, felt that Antitank guns would be the main enemy and so favoured weapons with better HE performance.

Both armies found out quickly that Tank v Tank was all the rage in NWE and so scrambled to re-equip.

I disagree. British experience in the desert showed the flaws in many of their cruiser and light tank designs, to the point they very much welcomed the arrival of US lights and mediums - even the Grant was seen as a godsend. If you are arguing that the Pz III and Pz IV were inferior to equivalent French and UK designs in the 1940-41 time frame, I just cannot find merit in that argument. Pz II and I of course don't count since they were clearly obsolete by then too, other than for very limited duties: the former could scout and the latter (a training tank, really) could help secure supply lines or whatnot. But you are of course entitled to your opinion.

[LemuelG]

The Churchill was the most heavily armoured tank in Normandy and had excellent mobility, in fact had little bother with the dreaded bocage.

My great-uncle (NZ 19th armoured reg., Italy 44-45) wrote glowingly of the 'Arks' (bridge-laying Churchill) and Crocodiles - in his memoirs there are neat photos of Arks being placed one on top of another to enable crossing of deeper channels, and of one placed by a river, with a camouflaged Sherman driven on top of it in order to fire over the stop bank. They were highly useful.

Maybe one day we can have these interesting things in the game too (Fire! Bridging, meh ).

[Magpie_Oz]

even the Grant was seen as a godsend.

Because at last they had a gun that could fire decent HE and attack the anti-tank guns that were their greatest threat from beyond their effective range.

If you are arguing that the Pz III and Pz IV were inferior to equivalent French and UK designs in the 1940-41 time frame, I just cannot find merit in that argument.

OK

France 1940:

PzIII Ausf H : 37mm gun 31mm @ 500m, 30mm armour, 40km/h

Pz IV Ausf E : Short 75mm Gun 39mm @ 500m, 30mm armour, 40km/h

A13 : 2lbr Gun 54mm @ 500m , 30mm Armour, 48Km/h

Matlida II : 2lbr Gun 54mm @ 500m, 78mm Armour, 26km/h

Char B1 Bis: 47mm Gun 60mm @ 500m, 60mm Armour, 25 km/h

Somua S35: 47mm Gun 60mm @ 500m, 47mm Armour, 40km/h

The German tanks of 1940 could not penetrate ,or only just penetrate, the front of their enemies nor resist the return fire.

In the desert then in 1941:

PzIII Ausf H : short 50mm gun 47mm at 500m, 30mm armour, 40km/h

Pz IV Ausf E : Short 75mm Gun 39mm @ 500m, 50mm armour, 40km/h

Crusader II : 2lbr Gun 54mm @ 500m , 49mm Armour, 42Km/h

Matlida II : 2lbr Gun 54mm @ 500m, 78mm Armour, 26km/h

Still no joy in 1941.

End of '41 - things change dramatically.

[Fetchez la Vache]

However the PzIII and PzIV had 3-man turrets and routinely equipped with radios, which gave a tactical advantage that one could argue negates the armour issue in France?

Desert a bit different. However the 2-pdr couldn't chuck a HE shell which meant that the Brit Matlidas needed decent support to back them up. Again I think one could argue that these things balance out armour differences.

The Crusader II is widely regarded as a poor tank, especially it's reliability in the sand. The only place it had 49mm was on the turret front - the front hull was more like 35mm and the rest of the armour was approx. 20-30mm. The Brits reported that their 2-pdr was effective only under 500m, whereas the German 50mm could penetrate their Crusaders at 1000m. On the other hand the Crusader could be fitted with a canvas screen that made it look like a truck from a distance... :-)

[Magpie_Oz]

However the PzIII and PzIV had 3-man turrets and routinely equipped with radios, which gave a tactical advantage that one could argue negates the armour issue in France?

Yes of course the designs had their problems which is why the Germans were able to out fight them in France, the British tanks less so as they had 3 man turrets and radios, not so the French but the main reason was tactics. The Pazners went where the allied armour wasn't. When they did stumble upon each other the Panzers got a rude shock, al la Arras.

Desert a bit different. However the 2-pdr couldn't chuck a HE shell which meant that the Brit Matlidas needed decent support to back them up. Again I think one could argue that these things balance out armour differences.

Again it was a matter of tactics, German armour would draw the Brits into pursuit and lead them into an ATG trap, mainly because they couldn't go head to head with them. Which is why an HE shell became important and why the Grant was such a godsend.

The Crusader II is widely regarded as a poor tank, especially it's reliability in the sand. The only place it had 49mm was on the turret front - the front hull was more like 35mm and the rest of the armour was approx. 20-30mm. The Brits reported that their 2-pdr was effective only under 500m, whereas the German 50mm could penetrate their Crusaders at 1000m. On the other hand the Crusader could be fitted with a canvas screen that made it look like a truck from a distance... :-)

Like the Panther the Crusader suffered from reliability problems which did limit its effectiveness because it needed better maintenance than could be provided however, when it worked, it did outclass its opposition.

Early 42 the Pz III and IV received armour and gun upgrades that spelled the end for the Crusader, but we are talking 40-41 here. The 50mm that could take them down at 1000m was the L60 model of the Pz III J which became available in late 41, prior to that the Germans were out gunned by the 2lbr.

Not sure that looking like a truck helped much.

It was the flaws in the tactics and logistical support that were the problem, the designs were sound for the doctrine it's just that the doctrine was flawed.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

PzIII Ausf H : 37mm gun

50mm, surely?

[Magpie_Oz]

50mm, surely?

Sorry typo, should be Pz III Ausf D in France

[TrailApe]

German armour would draw the Brits into pursuit and lead them into an ATG trap

Which killed off a lot of cavalry minded officer types (although spare a thought for the OR's in the tanks) and possibly why the British armour was used more circumspectly following Alamein. Can you imagine Normandy with the tanks being officered by incredibly brave (but dim) Fox Hunting Ruperts?

First bocage hedge would look like Becher's Brook in the Grand National at Aintree.

For those of you who are not familiar with the English Grand National Steeplechase - just picture a big hedge with a heap of horseless jockeys and and riderless horses piled on both sides of it. Swap the horses for tanks and through in a few flames and a couple of explosions.

"Bally hedges are a dashed nuisance old boy, get me a new mount"!

[Fetchez la Vache]

Like the Panther the Crusader suffered from reliability problems which did limit its effectiveness because it needed better maintenance than could be provided however, when it worked, it did outclass its opposition.

Well, the multi-part Liberty engine literally used to come apart when driven fast across the rocky desert terrain. Sand in the cooling system would erode the water pump and cause cooling problems. These tanks had fundamental reliability issues in the desert. Also they were infamous for brewing up.

Normally I suffer from a slight, natural, national bias which lends me to typical try to see the upside of British tanks in WW2. However I simply can't defend the early Crusaders at all. For me, they (and the Covenanter) are pretty much the archetypal poor British tank that was an embarrassment to the legacy squandered after WW1.

I have only ever read accounts which describe the Crusader I and II as being overall inferior to the PzIII and PzIV in North Africa. I firmly believe that this in one of those cases when comparing armour/guns of opposing tanks does not permit an accurate comparison of their performance in battle. Their may have been a moment in mid-late 1941 when the Crusader II (but not I) was on paper slightly better to the PzIIIG (prior to H and J) fielded against it, but I can't accept that it was an overall superior MBT, for reliability reasons alone.

[TrailApe]

but I can't accept that it was an overall superior MBT

Also, from reading of contemporay accounts, the early cruisers would throw a track quicker than a a subaltern could throw a pink gin down his neck. I think it was in 'Bronze Chariots' when they tried out their first Stuart, they had it screaming around in circles and were amazed that they still had their tracks on.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY

it looked a lot 'Kooler'! (especially in that blue/sand/grey dazzle cammouflage)

although the 'coolness' might have had something to do with all those 50mm perforations:D

[Magpie_Oz]

Well all I can say is that 1941 ended with Operation Crusader, the first victory for The British/Commonwealth forces against Germany, the battle taking its name from the tank.