German vs. British tanks during Crusader

Discussions on WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#91

Post by Don Juan » 13 Apr 2014, 23:57

I have, in my general researches, come across some primary source information about the armour on British cruiser tanks in the desert that deviates sufficiently far from the received figures that I find it difficult to believe.

One model I have been able to check on is the Crusader Mk.III, a drawing of which, dated September 1942, can be seen below. The maximum armour thickness that is usually quoted for the Mk.III is around 50mm, as for instance in the Wiki article.
CrusIIIarmour.jpg
If you look at the highlighted figures, you can see that the turret front has 2" of armour (1.25" outer + 0.75" inner) which approximates to 51mm.

So far, so expected.

However if you look at the note in the bottom right, it states that an additional 14mm of frontal armour is welded on.

If this was added to the turret front (which you would expect, no?) then this gives a potential maximum for the Mk.III of 65mm.

All I will say for now is that this may not be the only British cruiser tank where the published armour values are possibly underestimated.
"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
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#92

Post by David W » 14 Apr 2014, 08:35

Interesting!


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

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#93

Post by Don Juan » 14 Apr 2014, 11:33

I've checked some photos of the Crusader Mk.III, and I can't see any welded portions added to the turret front, but there are welded portions added to the hull front. These can also be found on some Crusader Mk.II's. So it looks like the nominal thickness of armour for the Mk.III stayed at 51mm max., but the armour basis (i.e. the effective thickness of all sloped portions from the horizontal) was well above 50mm for some examples of the Mk.II and Mk.III.

Another anomaly I have come across concerns the A.13 Cruiser Mk.IV. The text below is from the first meeting of the Tank Board on 24th June 1940:
Pope1.jpg
The standard maximum armour thickness for the A13 Mk.II (Cruiser Mk.IV) is usually quoted as 30mm, for example in the Wikipedia article. The text above suggests that it was 40mm, i.e. 25% thicker. When I first read the above, I assumed that it referred to the A13 Mk.III (Cruiser Mk.V) Covenanter, which was designed to a 40mm armour basis. However, at this time, there was only one Covenanter in existence, a mild steel pilot model that had been delivered to the MEE at Farnborough on 23rd May 1940 for evaluation. The test report for this example wasn't released until 1st August 1940, and included no mention of experiments to increase the armour. The text above refers to introducing modifications to production, and seems to infer that these are for a current production model.

I also thought that General Pope could simply have made an error, and stated 40mm instead of 30mm, but the extract below, taken from the 5th Meeting of the Tank Board on 9th July 1940 seems to confirm attempts to update to 50mm, suggesting that a 40mm armour basis had already been found to be insufficient:
Pope2.jpg
So, it could still be the case that these comments are referring to the Covenanter, or that the 40mm armour thickness was a misquote. But the possibility also remains that the Cruiser Mk.IV was more heavily armoured than is generally supposed.
"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
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#94

Post by Urmel » 14 Apr 2014, 14:38

Don Juan wrote: Another anomaly I have come across concerns the A.13 Cruiser Mk.IV. The text below is from the first meeting of the Tank Board on 24th June 1940:
Pope1.jpg
The standard maximum armour thickness for the A13 Mk.II (Cruiser Mk.IV) is usually quoted as 30mm,
The text refers to the A.15 though?
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

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

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#95

Post by Don Juan » 14 Apr 2014, 16:30

I've been doing a bit of light spadework. The wiki article on the A13 Mk.I (Cruiser Mk.III) gives the usually quoted armour values for this vehicle as being between 6-14mm in the information column on the side. However the text is at variance with this information, stating:
At a meeting of the General Staff, an official specification was determined. This included 30 mm (1.2 in) armour, a 2 pdr gun, road speed of 30 mph. A subsequent review of the specification by Martel and Hobart approved 30mm armour all round provided cross-country speed could be kept at 25 mph.
This is from an old modelling book, so is far from definitive. However, the weight quoted by Wiki for the Mk.III is 14 tons. The article on the A9 Cruiser Mk.I, whose armour was also reputedly 6-14mm quotes a weight for that vehicle of 12 tons. The A10 Cruiser Mk.II, which was an up-armoured version of the A9 to 30mm basis is quoted by Wiki as being 14.3 tons, i.e. over 2 tons heavier.

By this measure, one would expect a similar doubling of the armour on the A13 from 14mm to 30mm to result in a similar increase in weight of around 2 tons. However, the Wiki article for the A13 Mk.II (Cruiser Mk.IV) quotes a weight of 14.75 tons. This makes a difference of only 0.75 tons, and suggests, on the face of it, a much less drastic increase in armour.

The sources for these values can be found here. These are all from secondary sources by the usual suspects (Hogg, Chamberlain & Ellis, Forty etc.) and not from primary ones.

So there is likely either an error in the generally quoted armour values, or an error in the weight values. There is a possibility that the A13, rather than being introduced with 14mm maximum armour, and being upgraded to 30mm, was in fact introduced with the 30mm standard, and then upgraded to 40mm.
"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
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#96

Post by Urmel » 14 Apr 2014, 16:40

Don Juan

I think we are talking past each other. :)
Capture1.JPG
It's very smudged, but could be read as '5', not '3'. Look at the lower part of the '5' in '50' in the text.
Capture1.JPG (26.29 KiB) Viewed 712 times
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

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#97

Post by Gooner1 » 14 Apr 2014, 16:49

Urmel wrote: It's about the weakest excuse in the book,
Didn't the British use the same excuse for when the Matildas were smashing through Italian positions?

Anyway from a captured German document and reproduced in ATM No.44, "As the Germans see us"

"3. Arms of the Service
..
Armoured troops have attacked with determination in spite of the German superiority in armament, of which they are aware. Dissipation of force, however, has prevented their achieving decisive successes. The armoured division, being too large and unwieldy, has almost always been employed by brigades; but at the same time brigade staffs have usually not been adequate to the independent tasks imposed on them.
The tank recovery and repair service has been up to now particularly inadequate; but it may be assumed that this is being improved."

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

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#98

Post by Don Juan » 14 Apr 2014, 16:50

Andreas - I'm 90% confident it is A.13.

Other factors that lead me to think that are, firstly, I'm pretty sure the A.15 also wasn't yet in production at this point, and secondly it was still the "great white hope" of the RAC at this time, so I doubt it would be being referred to wearily as "still required".
"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
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#99

Post by Urmel » 14 Apr 2014, 19:30

Gooner1 wrote:
Urmel wrote: It's about the weakest excuse in the book,
Didn't the British use the same excuse for when the Matildas were smashing through Italian positions?
Not sure I get you here. :)
Gooner1 wrote:Anyway from a captured German document and reproduced in ATM No.44, "As the Germans see us"
This particular German continues to see it like this. :)
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

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

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#100

Post by Urmel » 14 Apr 2014, 22:59

Don Juan wrote:Andreas - I'm 90% confident it is A.13.

Other factors that lead me to think that are, firstly, I'm pretty sure the A.15 also wasn't yet in production at this point, and secondly it was still the "great white hope" of the RAC at this time, so I doubt it would be being referred to wearily as "still required".
I enlarged it, and I think you are right.

Do you have a list of production numbers? 9 Lancers in Jan 42 had two sets it seems, commencing with 15xxx and 16xxx and 43xxx and 46xxx.

Maybe that would help figuring out production dates or even where they were delivered to originally?
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

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

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#101

Post by Don Juan » 15 Apr 2014, 01:04

Well, I've been going through some of the original Tank Board notes, and they are quoting the standard armour values for the A13 Mks III and IV (i.e. 14mm and 30mm), so I'm thinking now that the "A13" in the excerpts I posted must indeed apply to the Covenanter.

It just seems that General Pope was so excited about his future tank that he was talking about it as though it was already coming off the production lines.
"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

valentine III
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 16 May 2012, 13:14

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#102

Post by valentine III » 15 Apr 2014, 15:49

Of course a weapon is just one of the aspects in warfare. Training, organisation, command, ...etc have all it's influence.
But if you change a side's weapons, like adding 6 pdr armed Crusaders and Valentines and giving their infantry also the 6 pdr and most if not all the actions during Crusader and Gazala operations would have been different.

Yes British tanks charged forward but they had not other curse of action left if they wanted to engage enemy tanks with the 2pdr. Not so necessary with the 6 pdr.

British infantry could defence themselves pretty well with the 6pdr. Remember Snipe action. No more being put out of action from an out of range german panzer IV. ...

At Bir Gubi the italian tank counterattack would have been most probably catastrofic for the italians. If Totensontag was a German disaster imagine if the British AT guns had been much more effective than they were...just imagine the difference in any battle between german and British tanks...

Or the first day at Gazala: add 6pdr Crusaders to the Grants of 22nd and 2nd Armoured Brigades...well Rommel's name would be totally forgotten.

If you take Rommel the 88's something simmilar happens: Battleaxe battle would have been totally different. It doesn't matter what Rommel had planned if you change 88's for 37's then Matildas cannot be stopped....Perhaps the CW would lose the same but all those Matildas lost at Halfaya would have their influence in the Battle...

So, from my very humble point of view weapon's like all the rest matters, and sometimes matters most than other considerations.

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

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#103

Post by Urmel » 15 Apr 2014, 15:58

valentine III wrote:Yes British tanks charged forward but they had not other curse of action left if they wanted to engage enemy tanks with the 2pdr. Not so necessary with the 6 pdr.

British infantry could defence themselves pretty well with the 6pdr. Remember Snipe action. No more being put out of action from an out of range german panzer IV. ...
What's the big difference between the two? One is a tank attack, the other an infantry defensive action.

How on earth would having the 6-pdr instead of the 2-pdr changed the tactics of attack by 22 Armoured Brigade at Bir el Gubi? Please explain.
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

valentine III
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: 16 May 2012, 13:14

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#104

Post by valentine III » 16 Apr 2014, 11:37

After the introduction in enough numbers of the 6 pdr and if the CW forces had been able to deploy them, axis tanks were never more able to crush them as it has been so a common experience until then. Just delivered and just a few, they had an impact during Gazala battles, and at El Alamein they were decisive in stopping sometimes alone and other times with allied tanks every German tank attack or counterattack, of course with other arms like artillery.... Medenine is also an example. 6 pdrs were decisive in reducing in a decisive way the effectiveness of german tanks in the campaign.

If they had been introduced earlier, for example before Crusader, they surely would have changed the results someway. At Sidi Rezegh with the support group, at the frontier with the indians, at totesontag with the South africans, at El duda with British and New zelanders...etc. Their presence would have changed the tactics of CW and Axis forces because the CW now had an AT gun able to deal effectively with german tanks at a greater range than the 2pdr. And not least important releasing the 25 pdr's for their main task.

About Bir Gubi. Yes British tactics would have not changed but their guns possibly would have caused even more losses to the italians. With a 6 pdr you could destroy an M13/40 at any range and your shell is most destructive. Meanwhile if the Italian tanks want to be equally effective they must advance. Not the same situation but it remmebers 2nd Alamein when italian tanks were put out of action once and again trying to approach allied lines for their guns to be effective just to be decimated.

As it seems from this account of the battle (sorry it's italian), the Italian tank counterattack was the decisive reason for the British retreat. If the British had meet an effective defence at first possibly they woud have stopped their advance but the fact that at first they were able to "easily" defeat part of the italian defenders because they were not properly entrenched would lead them to insist in trying to finish them all....

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battaglia_ ... re_1941%29

Antonio Maraziti, L'"Ariete" a Bir el-Gobi, su Storia Militare N° 136 gennaio 2005, pag 5

By the way imagine how italian forces reputation would have changed if It was them the ones that had developed and deployed the 6 pdr in north Africa !! What then about the easily defeated italian infantry ? If this is not matters then what?

But all this is just alot of "If's". The CW forces did not have 6 pdrs until Gazala and just a few. And British tanks did not mount 6 pdrs till Alamein and also just a few.

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

Re: German vs. British tanks during Crusader

#105

Post by Urmel » 16 Apr 2014, 12:30

valentine III wrote:at the frontier with the indians
The Indians at the Frontier had no issues with destroying Axis tanks.
valentine III wrote:About Bir Gubi. Yes British tactics would have not changed but their guns possibly would have caused even more losses to the italians. With a 6 pdr you could destroy an M13/40 at any range and your shell is most destructive. Meanwhile if the Italian tanks want to be equally effective they must advance. Not the same situation but it remmebers 2nd Alamein when italian tanks were put out of action once and again trying to approach allied lines for their guns to be effective just to be decimated.

As it seems from this account of the battle (sorry it's italian), the Italian tank counterattack was the decisive reason for the British retreat.
I have that article, and there really isn't any support for your thesis in there. Furthermore, the view that the tank attack tilted the balance is an interpretation of a single sentence in the 2 RGH war diary. It is possible that 2 RGH decided they had had enough when the tanks came over in large numbers, considering how much they had suffered already. It is however also correct that none of the British regiments reports any trouble in dealing with the M13 tanks, the 2-pdr destroyed them just fine. The tank action with 2 RGH was also fought at short distances due to the visual conditions, so a more long-ranged gun wouldn't have made a difference.
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

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Africa & the Mediterranean”