How was the British Infantry tank supposed to support infantry if its main armament was not equipped with a HE shell? Was the idea of the Infantry tank to help infantry advance? If so presumably an important target would be enemy machine gun positions, how could a tank with no HE shell effectively deal with these?
The Churchill I was equipped with a 3" gun for HE use why was this not used in earlier vehicles?
how did a british infantry tank support infantry?
- Gerry Chester
- Member
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 24 Jan 2003, 19:39
- Location: Now world traveller, UK, Bali, USA
- Contact:
Re: how did a british infantry tank support infantry?
The Churchill was the first I tank to capable of mounting a 3 inch howitizer. This was the Mk I with a gun mounted either in the turret or hull. Although this Mark saw service in both North Africa and Italy only three of them were part of a Squadron's inventory of eighteen tanks.daveh wrote:How was the British Infantry tank supposed to support infantry if its main armament was not equipped with a HE shell? Was the idea of the Infantry tank to help infantry advance? If so presumably an important target would be enemy machine gun positions, how could a tank with no HE shell effectively deal with these?
The Churchill I was equipped with a 3" gun for HE use why was this not used in earlier vehicles?
The 6-pdr, mounted on the Marks III had HE capability - it was effectively employed by the North Irish Horse in which I served in Tunisia.
The Mark IV had the same gun, however, as the need for a larger HE shell became apparent this was catered for when the following came into service::
Na75 - A Mark IV modified to carry an US manufactured 75 mm gun
MkV - Carried a 95mm gun
MkVII - Carried a British manufactured 75 mm gun
Should you be interested about the support given to the infantry by my Regiment, please see:
http://www.geocities.com/vqpvqp/nih/frontpage.html
Many thanks for the link Gerry, a fascinating site and much to read. I can see how effective Churchills could be in the later part of the war, the ascent on Longstop Hill being an amazing example of this.
I am interested particularly in the early infantry tank concept. The use of the 2 pdr gun seems to go against the idea of taking out mg posts in an infantry support role so why was it chosen?
I am interested particularly in the early infantry tank concept. The use of the 2 pdr gun seems to go against the idea of taking out mg posts in an infantry support role so why was it chosen?
- Gerry Chester
- Member
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 24 Jan 2003, 19:39
- Location: Now world traveller, UK, Bali, USA
- Contact:
While an I Tank's main purpose is close support of infantry, it must also be able to protect itself against enemy AFVs - hence the 2-pdr. As the female versions of the WW I Mark Vs had proven to be as effective as their male brethren, it was decided, prior to the commencement of WW II, that a machine-gun would indeed be adequate.daveh wrote:
I am interested particularly in the early infantry tank concept. The use of the 2 pdr gun seems to go against the idea of taking out mg posts in an infantry support role so why was it chosen?
During the early days of the war the 2-pdr was more than a match for the German and Italian tanks. The Matilda MkII, an I Tank, became known as the "Queen of the Desert" until the PKw IV showed up. As the gun's AP shell wasn't perhaps as effective against a mg nest as was desired, the decision was made to produce an HE shell - I have no knowledge that they were ever fired in combat - however, production soon ceased when the 6-pdr became the weapon of choice.
The Royal Artillery, proved that the new 6-pdr A/T gun (which replaced their 2-pdr weapon) could handle German tanks heavier than the Mk III. consequently the decision was made to mount the heavier gun in the Churchill. Also the production of HE ammo commenced, deliveries being made to both the RA and tank units at the end of 1942.
Regards, Gerry