German vs. British tanks during Crusader

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
Jon G.
Member
Posts: 6647
Joined: 17 Feb 2004, 02:12
Location: Europe

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#61

Post by Jon G. » 05 Nov 2008, 00:08

The discussion about British tanks now has its own thread at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5&t=145571

quechua
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 09 Mar 2010, 23:22

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#62

Post by quechua » 24 Jan 2012, 16:30

"I am leaving the Italian tanks out, since there appears to be no disagreement that they were poorer stuff. "

A very old thread but having come across it I wish to correct the above comment. Discounting the Italian contribution comes far too easily to too many.

Please see link below, pages 91 and 92, Auchinleck says that the Italian tanks, which had been dismissed as useless "... fought well and had an appreciable effect on the battle."

http://books.google.ca/books?id=zWNO8eJ ... an&f=false


ByronKH
Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 06 Feb 2013, 05:43

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#63

Post by ByronKH » 06 Feb 2013, 05:54

Agreed. Italian tanks, while outclassed by their opponents, were not so badly outclassed at this point in the war that they couldn't effectively meet the British AFV on the battlefield. More importantly, the Italians fielded better trained troops in the Ariete armored than the British had previously met and this formation, unlike the British formations, was a well balanced combined arms force. Bir el Gobi was a rude awakening for the British and it took some time for them to figure out that the 22nd armored had "taken it on the proverbial chin" against an Italian formation.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#64

Post by Urmel » 06 Feb 2013, 13:00

That's a bit of an overstatement. Tank losses at 1st Bir el Gobi were about 1:1. Which, considering the force imbalance (the Italians were in a strong combined-arms position where they were attacked piecemeal by three British armoured regiments with almost no support) is not a good outcome for the Italians. Where the British tanks met Italian tanks on more even terms outside Bir el Gobi they seemed to have more easily dealt with them, based on the actual combat reports (from both the British and the Italian side).

By the end of CRUSADER the Italians had lost pretty much all the tanks they had at the start.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#65

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 09 Feb 2013, 22:41

Hi,

I've posted some details from 3 RHA war diary for September 1941 on WW2 Talk which sheds light on the operation of one of those "Jock" columns that have been discussed here. I was amused to see reference to "order and counter order" which is I think quite a common remark about the operations of these types of formations at this time.

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/royal-arti ... post564898

Regards

Tom

dor1941
Member
Posts: 184
Joined: 22 Oct 2007, 19:44
Location: Texas, USA

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#66

Post by dor1941 » 10 Feb 2013, 01:49

Tom from Cornwall wrote:Hi,

I've posted some details from 3 RHA war diary for September 1941 on WW2 Talk....

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/royal-arti ... post564898
Tom

Thanks for the account above. This describes Rommel's reconnaissance-in-force code-named "Unternehmen Sommernachtstraum" ("Exercise Midsummer Night's Dream") undertaken in the lull between the British offensives of "Battleaxe" (June) and "Crusader" (November). Rommel personally accompanied this advance which comprised the bulk of 21. Panzer-Division (Generalmajor von Ravenstein) in two battlegroups, with Aufklarungs Abt. 3 providing a diversion to the west along the frontier wire. Kampfgruppe Stephen consisted of the rienforced Panzer-Regiment 5, and Kampfgruppe Schuette was composed of:
"Panzerjager-Abteilung 605 (less one Kompanie)
Maschinengewehr-Bataillon 8
Flak-Abteilung 606 (less one Kompanie)
one Kompanie/Pionier-Bataillon 200"
(Bender and Law, p. 119)
The British covering forces (7th Support Group) withdrew in the face of the German advance, and Rommel's stroke hit thin air, convincing him that no British offensive was in preparation. The Germans encountered some opposition, but there was no tank-vs-tank action in "Sommernachtstraum".

David R

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#67

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 29 Apr 2013, 20:46

Hi,

I've just come across the following account of British tanks engaging Germans on Sidi Rezegh airfield on 22 Nov 41 (2 RTR war diary) and thought it might be of interest:
...I halted behind a blazing 3 engined bomber, and had a good shoot at the forward enemy tanks who did not see me behind the burning plane. Range was 1200 yds and I destroyed two Mk IVs but my 2 pdr was bouncing off their Mk IIIs at this range. Meanwhile Major RUDKIN and the rest of the Sqn., while crossing the aerodrome were fired on by A 15s and lost 2 tanks, one of which was put on tow and recovered, the other going up in flames.
Regards

Tom

Dili
Member
Posts: 2201
Joined: 24 Jun 2007, 23:54
Location: Lusitania

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#68

Post by Dili » 30 Apr 2013, 03:05

Destroyed 2 MK IV at 1200yds? what is penetrating power of a 2pdr round at 1200yds?

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#69

Post by Urmel » 30 Apr 2013, 17:35

It should work against turret and hull sides at least.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#70

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 02 May 2013, 20:49

The difficulty of answering the question of the relative performance of "German vs. British tanks during Crusader" is brought out in the following point that was considered worthy of note in a list of lessons learned in the 2nd RTR WD for Nov 41:
The bold use the enemy makes of his anti-tank guns, which are always right up with his tanks, and are even pushed out in front of them in an advance. The crews of these guns act in a most fearless manner. If his tanks retire he covers them with anti-tank guns left on the ground. He also apparently uses them to protect his replenishment which he does with apparent disregard for our arty. fire.
Whether the British 2-pdr had a marginal edge in performance over the short 50mm of a Mk III had little importance if the Mk III was sat next to a long 50mm anti-tank gun... :idea:

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#71

Post by Don Juan » 01 Oct 2013, 16:21

Hello all,

I've been transcribing veterans' experiences with, and opinions of, the Crusader tank from the IWM sound archives. Here are some of the pertinent comments from the Operation Crusader period:
(IWM 19089) Stephen Kennedy, NCO, C Squadron 6 RTR

"They were fast and they were lightly armoured but they only had a 2 pounder gun - it was really of little use against German tanks, but of course it was great against soft vehicles."


(IWM 22117) Trooper John Bolan, 1 Troop, B Squadron, 6 RTR

"They equipped us all with new tanks, the Crusader, that was the A15's. Just did a bit of maneoeuvres with them, get used to them, then after that they started the push."

When asked his opinion of the Crusader tank:

"What did I think of any British tank? They were under-armed, they had no gun. You had to move, you couldn't stay still, because they had 75's and bigger guns; they're just blasting you. I wondered right to the end of the war. They still never had a gun. They had a two pounder on every type of tank; two pounder on infantry tanks, cruisers, light tanks. I think that was the biggest mistake of the war as regards British tanks. Under-armed. Definitely."

His experiences at Sidi Rezegh:

"In that battle we were left with twelve tanks. General Campbell called us up: "get out moving", and he led us into a charge, only twelve of us. He got the VC. I was on one of the lead tanks. My tank was called "Fearnought", that was the regimental motto. That was also the name of the tank. It was chaos as far as we could hear. (We were) Heavily battered. I went back to pick up a crew that was knocked out, came back again. We were moving, and another crew got knocked out, and I slowed down, picked them up, (told them to) hold on, and while we were moving a German armoured car was alongside, and we couldn't move the turret for the blokes that were on the outside of the tank just clinging on.

Anyway we got back. I was driving the tank and we got hit on the side of the tank, and it blew all the suspension, it was going, but the suspension of the tank was on an angle. We had to drive up again into action, and we handed all our tanks over to the 3rd County of London Yeomanry and they took our tanks over and then we went back, we were pulled out anyway. We'd lost a lot of men, lost a LOT of men, and they took us back to Cairo, to the Citadel."


(IWM 13089) Sergeant Adrian Charlton, 3 CLY

"Lovely tanks but hopeless in the desert because they overheated. They were beautiful tanks but they had one other snag - they had a two pounder gun, and when we fired the guns we could see them bouncing off the Mark VI (sic) tanks the Germans had. They had 75mm guns and ours were two pounder guns."

On the Liberty engine:

"It was just the wrong sort of engine for desert warfare, with the heat and so on."

On why he described the Crusader as "beautiful":

"They were lovely to drive. Very comfortable to drive, and we thought they were the ideal thing, but they only had fairly thin armour plating, which wasn't much good against the German tanks, that was the trouble at that time."


(IWM 892) George Kidston-Montgomerie, Officer, 3 CLY

"The two pounder gun was absolutely useless, or not quite useless because one did knock them out sideways on. One had to be jolly careful, and the Germans knew the answers pretty well, and we didn't mind our tanks being penetrated, which they were of course, if we could have hit back. But I mean we just couldn't hit back in the front, and if we'd had the six pounder then, and all the tanks had been armed with the seventeen pounder in Normandy, everything would have been alright. We were always undergunned, and we didn't have much armour but one has to accept something. We were more manoeuvrable than the German tank, we were much quicker, but they were mechanically very unreliable, our tanks, which were the Crusaders, and as I say the Germans could penetrate us easily."

"We could compete with the Italian tanks, more than so, we were better than the Italian tanks, and we could compete with the Mark II. It was the Mark III they had predominantly, we couldn't knock out. We could knock out the Mark II, we were about equal with them."

"You lost alot to mechanical breakdown. I can remember the regiment going into action with 56 tanks, and after about a week we got about 20 left. Sometimes less. "

"It was appalling, the breakdowns and the two pounders. And of course we caught fire immediately when we hit - pfft - like that. But the thing I was always going on about was being under gunned."


(IWM 12434) John Miller, Officer Commander B Sqdn 6 RTR

"It was the first time the new Crusader tank had been used. It was a very poor tank. It had a very poor engine. It had a World War One engine, the Liberty engine, (an) aircraft engine, it was a very poor engine, and it had just a two pounder gun."

Prior to Operation Crusader:

"Morale was high, one reckoned we had jolly good tanks though actually we saw more clearly we didn't."
Generally, the harshest appraisals of the Crusader come, unsurprisingly, from the Battleaxe/Crusader period but generally I would make the following observations:

i) The biggest fault is generally perceived to be the two-pounder gun. Most veterans single this out for particularly scathing criticism, with reliability being very much a secondary issue, and thin armour being generally accepted as the price for better mobility.

ii) It's clear that in the desert, actions pretty much come down to who can penetrate the other's front turret or glacis at the greatest distance - all other considerations appear to be fairly minor.

iii) There's surprisingly little mention of the lack of HE for the two or six pounders, the idea probably being that if German tanks could be knocked out, it would have been all over for the anti-tank guns anyway.

iv) The much-vaunted enthusiasm for the M3 Grant and M4 Sherman, isn't much apparent on these recordings. The M3 in particular is described as "crude" by Kennedy, and like something from the First World War by Bolan. What the crews are enthusiastic about is the 75mm gun. There is also enthusiasm for the six pounder on the Crusader III. In this environment, tanks are guns that happen to be mounted on tracked vehicles, rather than tracked vehicles that happen to mount guns.

v) The troopers, who are generally working class, seem to be able to appraise the tank more coolly and pragmatically than the officers, who have a tendency to hyperbole.

vi) It's quite alarming how command and control seems to evaporate as soon as these formations make contact with the enemy.

I can also transcribe Kennedy and Miller's accounts of the Sidi Rezegh battles, if anyone is interested.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#72

Post by ClintHardware » 01 Oct 2013, 20:30

Yes please transcribe Don Juan.

I have produced a Kinetic Energy Table to illustrate the differences between the key tank and anti-tank guns and their ammunition. It is often the energy delivered to the target that does the damage and looking at the figures there was no parity between the 2-Pdr AP Shot and the 5 cm Kw.K L/42 Panzergranat.

Please correct my figures if you see any errors.

Comparative Kinetic Energy List

The kinetic energy values in the table below were calculated from the muzzle velocity and weight of the armour piercing ammunition most commonly used during the weeks covered by this volume. The table serves only to illustrate the comparative margins of kinetic energy.

Kinetic Energy Comparison of Armour Piercing Projectiles using Muzzle Velocity
..................................................Joules............Foot lbs
2 cm Kw.K..............Pzgr....................44999.4...........33824.4
37 mm Bofors...........A.P. Shot............259063.8..........192183.8
47-32 (47 mm)..........C.P. Mod 35.........281640.6..........208932.0
2-Pdr (40 mm)..........A.P. Shot............338317.7..........250859.3
5 cm Kw.K 38 L/42....Pzgr & Pzgr 39.......482954.7.........358275.0
5 cm Pak 38 L/60......Pzgr 39...............717626.1..........532363.5
7.5 cm Kw.K 37 L/24..K. Gr. Rot Pz........503965.0.........373942.0
18-Pdr (84 mm)........A.P. Shot (18 lb)...1001126.9.........742675.7
25-Pdr (87.6 mm)......A.P. Shot (20 lb)...1685793.7........1250858.9
8 cm Flak 18 / 36...... Pzgr.................3108749.6........2306194.1
8 cm Flak 18 / 36...... Pzgr 39..............3250105.2........2411057.1


Formulas Used:
Joules: multiply the projectile weight in grams by the square of the muzzle velocity in metres per second (m/s), then divide the result by 2,000.

Foot-Pounds: multiply the projectile weight in pounds by the square of the muzzle velocity in feet per second (fps), then divide the result by 64.

To convert foot-pounds to joules, multiply by 1.348.

To convert joules to foot-pounds, multiply by 0.742.

15.432 grains = 1 gram, 2.205 pounds = 1 kg and 3.281 feet = 1 metre
Last edited by ClintHardware on 02 Oct 2013, 09:43, edited 7 times in total.
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#73

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 01 Oct 2013, 20:44

Don Juan,

Very interesting and I can only admire your hard work - my only doubt about the validity of the results that you produce is that I imagine these tapes were made many years after the events in question. I'm sure many of these veterans would have read the histories of their battles and spent years processing what they remember and what they read until, other than a few searing memories that could never be erased (no matter how much they wanted to), they began to construct memories which combined both sources. This is a well-researched phenomenom and not at all solely one that affects military memories.

I would suggest that the work you have done, whilst valuable, shows what the veterans thought now, but it would have to be balanced against what they thought then. This may still be possible to explore as there are reports detailing censor's comments on letters from Commonwealth soldiers from North Africa in the Austalian archives apparently.

BTW how easy is it to get hold of the transcipts of IWM interviews?

Regards

Tom

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#74

Post by Don Juan » 01 Oct 2013, 21:18

Hello Tom,

The original tapes are available here: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/searc ... =9&submit=

I think most are on pages 10-15. I'm transcribing them via the painful process of listening and then typing, so I don't know whether previous transcripts have been prepared.

You are correct that they were recorded long after the war, I think most of them during the 1980's and 1990's. I agree that these shouldn't be taken as a necessarily accurate portrayal of the events in question, but they shouldn't be dismissed either. There is quite a bit of exaggeration involved, for example Kidston-Montgomerie's assertion that the Crusader was equal to the Panzer II is obviously pretty inaccurate, but then there is also a reasonable amount that rings true.

I'm currently considering writing a detailed book about the history of the Crusader tank, one that gives a more detailed technical and combat history than what we've had so far. I'm pretty neutral about the vehicle at the moment, and so just want to gather data and evidence and then sift it to give a balanced portrayal. Even if I don't get round to writing a book, I can post it on a blog somewhere for others to pick up.

I'm particularly interested in Axis field reports or technical assessments of the Crusader, if there are any available. This would help to give a "two-sided" account of this tank, which is something the story of Allied armour lacks generally, I think.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#75

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 02 Oct 2013, 20:59

Hi Don Juan,

Thanks for the reply. The difficulty as I see it, is trying to separate the combat history of a tank from the combat history of the army that used it, if that makes sense. All these weapons were used on a very complex battlefield and depended for much of their effectiveness on other factors - whether command, doctrine, communications, effectiveness of supporting weapons, logisitic infrastructure, etc.

That's why my heart sinks when I see thread titles like "German v British tanks". :(

In any case, thanks for pointing me in the direction of the sound interviews, very interesting resource.

Tom

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”