After Dunkirk the British Army in the UK had very few tanks or anti-tank guns. I know that the decision was taken to delay production of the 6 pounder anti-tank gun and continue producing the two-pounder. This was to avoid the loss of productin while the productin lines changed over. I guess that the same thing happened with tanks. Many British tanks were exported to Russia as "Lend-Lease", but you can imagine what an ex-T34 commander would have thought on receiving his brand new Matilda or Valentine.
Tragically for British tank crews the new modern main battle tank "Centurion" only appeared immediately after the war against Germany had finished, but went on to be the tank of choice during the Middle East Wars.
Tom
British armor
Moderator: John W. Howard
british armour tactics
British armour tactics were profoundly affected by the limited performance of their tanks. Neither Churchills, cromwells or Shermans could compete face to face with a Panther. Only the few, at first, Sherman fireflys and challengers could fight them in "equal terms", even though, they still were underarmoured (americans were in an even worst situation).
The only way to fight german tanks was using a defensive tactics: fighting them with AT guns like the 17 pounder, or at short distances or flanks with the 6 pounder and PIAT and above all with artillery concentrations hoping to damage them and to separate german infantry from tanks.
In an ofensive context like the british found in Normandy, british units did suffer alot even considering their numerical superiority. Attaking units ussually move cautiously because they don't know what is in front and one well sited AT gun could stop a lot of tanks because "Who is the bravest one to run forward madly aganist the unknow.
In my experience as a wargamer, you usually know when finding an enemy tank or AT gun, how many there are in a scenario, and you can use your tanks to owerhelm the opposition. In real life you don't know so overwheming tactics aren't used very often.
Montgomery was conscient of their armoured inferiority and also knew its main strength: artillery and its well developed and tested capacity to fire on call. And British army did use artilery as the winnig weapon it was and still is. German offensive opperations in Normandy usually ended in the allied concentrations of artillery fire.
The only way to fight german tanks was using a defensive tactics: fighting them with AT guns like the 17 pounder, or at short distances or flanks with the 6 pounder and PIAT and above all with artillery concentrations hoping to damage them and to separate german infantry from tanks.
In an ofensive context like the british found in Normandy, british units did suffer alot even considering their numerical superiority. Attaking units ussually move cautiously because they don't know what is in front and one well sited AT gun could stop a lot of tanks because "Who is the bravest one to run forward madly aganist the unknow.
In my experience as a wargamer, you usually know when finding an enemy tank or AT gun, how many there are in a scenario, and you can use your tanks to owerhelm the opposition. In real life you don't know so overwheming tactics aren't used very often.
Montgomery was conscient of their armoured inferiority and also knew its main strength: artillery and its well developed and tested capacity to fire on call. And British army did use artilery as the winnig weapon it was and still is. German offensive opperations in Normandy usually ended in the allied concentrations of artillery fire.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Rodger,
Britain had archaic, WWI concepts of tank design that were not compatible with Blitzkrieg operations.
Brtain initially had numerous light tanks, but it was found that cheaper and more reliable armoured cars could do their role perfectly adequately, so production of these stopped during the war and the last, the Tetrarch, became Britain's airborne tank.
Then there were "infantry" tanks, like the Matilda and Churchill, with heavy armour for breakthroughs but without the speed or range for exploitation.
Finally there were the "cruiser" tanks like the Crusader, with the necessary speed and range for exploitation but without the armour to make a breakthrough themselves or survive long in heavy tank combat.
It was only when the infantry and cruiser lineages were brought together in the Comet and Centurion in 1944/45 that the British Army at last received a tank with the versatility necessary to conduct both breakthrough and exploitation operations and a gun that was really competitive in tank combat.
Cheers,
Sid.
Britain had archaic, WWI concepts of tank design that were not compatible with Blitzkrieg operations.
Brtain initially had numerous light tanks, but it was found that cheaper and more reliable armoured cars could do their role perfectly adequately, so production of these stopped during the war and the last, the Tetrarch, became Britain's airborne tank.
Then there were "infantry" tanks, like the Matilda and Churchill, with heavy armour for breakthroughs but without the speed or range for exploitation.
Finally there were the "cruiser" tanks like the Crusader, with the necessary speed and range for exploitation but without the armour to make a breakthrough themselves or survive long in heavy tank combat.
It was only when the infantry and cruiser lineages were brought together in the Comet and Centurion in 1944/45 that the British Army at last received a tank with the versatility necessary to conduct both breakthrough and exploitation operations and a gun that was really competitive in tank combat.
Cheers,
Sid.
As a Scot and ex-Highland soldier I find the duality of our regiments truly odd sometimes. As you say there are strong Jacobite elements to most if not all Highland regiments. Take the pipe march 'Johnnie Cope' for instance. A well-known and popular marching tune of the British Army which commemorates the destruction of the er... British force at the hands of the Highlanders at the Battle of Prestonpans. Still at least the British goverenment had the sense to recognize the abilities of their former enemies and put them into their own army!sid guttridge wrote:Hi Guys,
I think Tom2 is right in his explanation for the lack of "Royal" in the British Army's title. When Cromwell died his army's leadership couldn't find a successor of similar calibre, authority and legitimacy and invited Charles II back to be head of state in 1660. He may have lacked calibre and authority, but at least he had historical legitimacy. Thus I suppose the monarchy owes its renewed existence to the army and not the other way round.
Within the army there are numerous "Royal" regiments of more recent creation and even at least one Scottish regiment with secret Jacobite alleigances that, when toasting the monarch, passes its glasses over a water glass or jug to signify it is really acknowledging "the king over the water".
I think that British cavalry regiments were initially mostly issued with light tanks for the reconnaissance role for which that the Germans used heavy armoured cars. For example, I think the Lifeguards were the reconnaissance unit of the Guards Armoured Division. The RTR got the medium tanks. Later in the war the difference in vehicles seems to have partly disappeared. However, this is not my area so I would not take this as gospel without checking.
Cheers,
Sid.
Hitler...there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!! Mel Brooks, The Producers
-
Das_Reich
-
Rodger Herbst
- Associate
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am
I'v been skiming through Tim Place's "Military training in the British Army 1940-44 and i'v come to some conclusions,see if you agree.When the US tanks with 75mm guns became available tactics should have changed but the Brits seem to be mired in what worked against the Italians would work against the Germans others like the Guard Armored Division started to use the M4 as artillery althoughtoldnot to use tanks in place of artillery,i think the Guards also liked the Balacalva charge.There were several Brit officers who had armor experince,but the same old story,the people who should have listened,didn't.Thier armor\infantry co oporation was really bad,but the US wasn't much better.They seem to have a plan that kept changing infantry leads the tanks lead,but the experienced officers knew you had to be flexable,who lead had to be determined by the situation,tanks had a lot of shotcomings when going into combat,very restricted visability lot of noise,unable to hear shots fired and from what direction,thats where the infantry comes in and don't forget the panzerfaust.What is your verdict on the PIAT?
piat
Bloody dangerous for all concerned! I actually got to fire one once (dummy warhead i'm afraid) and it is a nightmare to cock and load and stop the bomb falling out at the same time! Typical WWII British Army kit - cheap and nasty.
Hitler...there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!! Mel Brooks, The Producers
PIAT was dangerous
I'm reading about operation BLUECOAT in Normandy, an PIATS appear sin some occassions: One of them carried by mounted infantry on a Sherman exploding by the heat of the engine !!!!.
In another case two direct Hits on the turret of an 102SS hpz. abt failed to penetrate even though the tiger abandons its dominating position in a village road.
In the third a PIAT demolishes a Panther with a side HIT.
So it was a dangerous weapon for friends and foes all the same.
Just as a resume, the british army forbade its use with live amunition just after the end of the war.
In another case two direct Hits on the turret of an 102SS hpz. abt failed to penetrate even though the tiger abandons its dominating position in a village road.
In the third a PIAT demolishes a Panther with a side HIT.
So it was a dangerous weapon for friends and foes all the same.
Just as a resume, the british army forbade its use with live amunition just after the end of the war.
-
Rodger Herbst
- Associate
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am
I take it from your post that you guy's don't think too much of the PIAT,how's about the Sten,ever have experience with it,how would you rate it?I really can't fault Brit industry,it was streched to the limit,same as the US industry.The air forces took huge amounts of production and manpower and engineering skill.It the same in every army i guess,PBI gets what's left although the German infantry fared better,M42 machine gun,MP40,etc,while the US&Brits had WW1 eqipment except in a few cases,M1Garand and a few other items,the MG's were WW1 leftovers except the mod duce.50 MG.Our bazooka AT launcher was a good idea but undersized,Germans copy the principal,make it bigger and have a winner.
It's a bit ironic isn't it - the history of the British tank is the history of 80 years of success and five years of failure - those five years unfortunately being 1940-45. The British of course pioneered the use of tanks, and entered the war with light and heavy models that generally were not inferior to the opposition. From the Centurion on, British tanks have consistently been first-rate. But WWII belonged to the medium tank, and they simply did not succeed in producing one of comparable quality to the what the Germans had, or to get the problem right conceptually. One explanation I have seen put forward for the problems is the fact that gun design and tank design was compartmentalised and at different locations - thus the failure to realise the problem basically consisted in producing an adequate gun and then build a suitably armoured vehicle around it.
cheers
cheers
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi Qvist,
Perhaps British military unpreparedness could be used as a useful predictive indicator of coming conflict. I doubt the army was ready for any war except WWI, and even then its unanticipated evolution forced a complete overhaul of our method of raising armies.
Thank God we are an island!
Cheers,
Sid.
Perhaps British military unpreparedness could be used as a useful predictive indicator of coming conflict. I doubt the army was ready for any war except WWI, and even then its unanticipated evolution forced a complete overhaul of our method of raising armies.
Thank God we are an island!
Cheers,
Sid.
Sid is right.
Each country built tank which will good in homeland. Russians built best all terrain and sub zero temperature tanks, easy to produce, and to drive, Germans like big and expensive panzers (like mercedes or bmw), UK was whole war not sure what they need (swimming tank? or maybe flying?), so they equipe army with US tanks, and USA made good deal, then they put old engine from airplane to tank and sold it to all allies.
Each country built tank which will good in homeland. Russians built best all terrain and sub zero temperature tanks, easy to produce, and to drive, Germans like big and expensive panzers (like mercedes or bmw), UK was whole war not sure what they need (swimming tank? or maybe flying?), so they equipe army with US tanks, and USA made good deal, then they put old engine from airplane to tank and sold it to all allies.
Most British equipment in WWII was sorely lacking i'm afraid. The artillery was pretty good, tanks were rubbish, but standard infantry gear was only slightly better then in WWI. Sten guns were an emergency weapon that needed to be produced quickly and cheaply post-May 1940. I fired them a few times as a cadet and they were very prone to jamming, magazines coming loose or even firing of their own volition! (never trust a Sten gun). The Bren was an excellent weapon though, powerful, easy to maintain, easy to fire on the hip even - but of course it wasn't really British, since it was a development of a Czech design! As has been stated most countries developed weapons that reflected their own forces. The British Army was very cost-concious and had a strong believe in excellence in musketry so most soldiers in section were armed with Lee-Enfield bolt actions (what a beautiful gun...) supported by one Bren or NCO with an SMG. A lot less firepower then an equivalent German or Yank unit but I guess they did okay...
Hitler...there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in ONE afternoon! TWO coats!! Mel Brooks, The Producers
-
Rodger Herbst
- Associate
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 5:47 am
I agree the LE was the best bolt action rifle in the war,how far were you allowed to strip it to clean it,i heard certain parts were off limits.I heard about the sten going off by itself but i thought they were giving me a line.The first Bren i saw was in Australia,some Aussies put on a demo for us,they had just came back from the desert,they loved thier Bren.Our squad used the BAR for a base of fire,it weighed 20#,plus a belt of 20 round clips,always seemed the smallest guy got to carry it,they figured with the M1Garand we had plenty of fire power,i'd still like something like the MG42 myself.s
The M4 Shermans with the 9cylinder air cooled radial was a stopgap untill the GAA or GAF Ford tank engine became available,it was a V8 overhead cam engine,it gave very good service.A guy i knew who was in armor told me he saw some with 5 Chrysler engines in them,don't quote me on this though.
Remember Sid the French General who said before the Franco-Prussian war that the French army was prepared"down to the last gaiter button" then get the hell knocked out of them?
The M4 Shermans with the 9cylinder air cooled radial was a stopgap untill the GAA or GAF Ford tank engine became available,it was a V8 overhead cam engine,it gave very good service.A guy i knew who was in armor told me he saw some with 5 Chrysler engines in them,don't quote me on this though.
Remember Sid the French General who said before the Franco-Prussian war that the French army was prepared"down to the last gaiter button" then get the hell knocked out of them?