A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

[Don Juan]

The effectiveness of combined arms partly depends on the effectiveness of the arms you combine.

Bugger all purpose for British tankers to withdraw behind a 2-pdr anti-tank gun screen.

Well, they had their worst moment at Gazala, when they had 6-pounder guns and M3 Grants.

[Urmel]

The British Army would have spent its time more productively wondering how to combine all arms rather than worrying about relative penetration ranges for its tank guns.

The effectiveness of combined arms partly depends on the effectiveness of the arms you combine.

Bugger all purpose for British tankers to withdraw behind a 2-pdr anti-tank gun screen.

But lots of purpose of bringing in the 25-pdrs to deal with the Axis gun screen from outside its effective range, wouldn't you agree? Oh, but you don't have any, because the people who put together your Armoured Brigade didn't think about combined arms (other than combining them inside a tank), and then if you're offered them, you turn them down, because actually, you don't believe in it either (Gatehouse in the opening stages of CRUSADER). And then you get spanked by the Axis, but that's the fault of the 2-pdr, and what does it matter, you get your DSO in any case.

I think not.

[Marcus]

Several posts were emoted to the existing thread "22nd Armoured Brigade losses on 19 November 1941".

/Marcus

[Clive Mortimore]

Have I got my history wrong?

I have always believed it was British tanks that paraded in Berlin in 1945 not German tanks in London. So who had the inferior tanks?

So come on guys stop dissecting every tank action to prove the theory that British tanks were crap. They were as bad as any other nations.


Clive

[Urmel]

Clive

I think the point of the discussion was rather to show that the failure or success of the action often had nothing to do with tank quality.

As for your general point, yes.

[Attrition]

The British Army would have spent its time more productively wondering how to combine all arms rather than worrying about relative penetration ranges for its tank guns.

The effectiveness of combined arms partly depends on the effectiveness of the arms you combine.

Bugger all purpose for British tankers to withdraw behind a 2-pdr anti-tank gun screen.

But lots of purpose of bringing in the 25-pdrs to deal with the Axis gun screen from outside its effective range, wouldn't you agree? Oh, but you don't have any, because the people who put together your Armoured Brigade didn't think about combined arms (other than combining them inside a tank), and then if you're offered them, you turn them down, because actually, you don't believe in it either (Gatehouse in the opening stages of CRUSADER). And then you get spanked by the Axis, but that's the fault of the 2-pdr, and what does it matter, you get your DSO in any case.

I think not.

Someone must have been thinking though, the Bishop programme (based on the most excellent Valentine chassis) began in June 1941.

[Aber]

And of course the experimental unit in the 30s had self-propelled 18pdrs before they went off in the all-armoured direction.

[Gooner1]

But lots of purpose of bringing in the 25-pdrs to deal with the Axis gun screen from outside its effective range, wouldn't you agree? Oh, but you don't have any, because the people who put together your Armoured Brigade didn't think about combined arms (other than combining them inside a tank), and then if you're offered them, you turn them down, because actually, you don't believe in it either (Gatehouse in the opening stages of CRUSADER). And then you get spanked by the Axis, but that's the fault of the 2-pdr, and what does it matter, you get your DSO in any case.

I think not.

I don't disagree, but there's typically no more than one arty regt. per armoured brigade so two troops per regiment. Clearing an anti-tank is likely to be a time consuming business.

[Urmel]

Substantially more than that in the division though?

[Gooner1]

As if concentrating the armoured division all in the same place at the same time?! Sounds crazy ... but it might just work

To be fair I believe that was Cunninghams intention for Crusader. A shame that Gott was in charge of the division though.

[Urmel]

I have a lot more time for Cunningham than for anyone below him in the command chain of 30 Corps and 7 Armoured Division. I think the poor man was hard done by. Gott at the helm of 8 Army would have been a dream opponent for Rommel. Ironic the way he did not get him.

[fdsdh1]

I have been speaking to some people at my uni on this matter (one is something of an operation Goodwood expert)

they all say this basically:

British tanks weren't actually that bad, some were good, some were mediocre and most were as good as or better than US, Soviet and German designs.

At the start of the war British tanks were very good, much better than their German counterparts.

the problem came in the Desert where combat ranges were very long (in Normandy average combat range was around 80 yards, in Italy I think it was 300 yards), meaning powerful AT guns dominated the field. British tanks got along fine until larger guns were fitted to German tanks. British tanks were too small and the machinery was unavailable to make larger turret rings to accommodate equivalents of the Pz IV's 'long' 75mm ect. Meaning for a short time British tanks were severely disadvantaged. British tanks also had to be able to fit through rail tunnels meaning there were tight width restrictions.

However this situation was temporary, with the mounting of the 6pdr gun on the Crusader, a truly effective tank had been created, these were used extensively and to success in Tunisia. The 6pdr levelled the playing field with German tanks making the Crusader an even match against the Pz IV. The Crusader had a lot is potential, however with the introduction of the Cromwell and the large number of lend lease vehicles available it was phased out.

The 6pdr had superior AT performance to the US 75mm mounted on Shermans, and also the British 75mm (using same ammo as US). The 75mm 'replaced' the 6pdr in many cases as it had better all round performance, especially against infantry. However this did not necessarily impact upon AT capability of a unit as 1in4 (later 1in 2) tanks were armed with a 17pdr. From the Normandy Campaign onwards the biggest threat to tanks was infantry.



In late 1944, what could be considered the predecessor to the universal tank entered the battlefield, the Comet armed with a powerful derivative of the 17pdr, the 77mm HV, which was in many ways superior to the 75mm mounted on the Panther.

Not forgetting the arrival of the Centurion in 1945 (not in combat), arguably the best tank of the mid 20th century era.


US tanks were much worse than British tanks, the Sherman was good when first introduced, however by 1944 it was showing its age. The British had adopted a new tank the Cromwell by this time. The US was also slow to adopt a Sherman Firefly equivalent. US tank destroyers were also poor in many cases, the 3 inch gun on the M10 Wolverine proved to be ineffective against the stronger German types, the British mounted a 17pdr to many of their Wolverines (creating the Achilles) however the US did not follow suit, instead waiting for larger tank destroyers to arrive in Europe. These decisions were foolish and costed lives.

Even worse was the Soviet army which suffered huge tank losses, much worse than that experienced under any other allied army (on a 1 to 1 comparison basis)

[Don Juan]

I think in the early war some British tanks were at least as good as German tanks, and a couple of the best British tanks were for a short period arguably better than the best German tanks.

The whole Crusader-in-the-desert saga is fearfully complex, but the Crusader's main problem as far as the British Army was concerned was unreliability, and then gun power. The gun power issue when it involved the 2 pounder was as much about ammunition as the gun itself, as the uncapped 2 pounder AP shot was really the wrong ammunition to take on German tanks with face hardened armour. The 6 pounder Crusader was not as effective as was anticipated because firstly it was the short barrelled version of the gun that was initially mounted, and secondly it was again issued with uncapped AP shot, which was felt to be less effective than the Sherman's 75mm APCBC ammunition.

The issue of Crusader reliability is even more vexed, but although the 8th Army bitched long and loud about the tank's reliability, when they belatedly bothered to set up a proper REME maintenance routine for the tank (instead of leaving the maintenance to the crew), its reliability improved remarkably, allowing it to perform one of the longest continuous advances of WWII. That said the Sherman was always a much better tank than the Crusader, though being 8 tons heavier, so it should have been!

From 1944 onwards, the Sherman was still a very good tank, and the US tank destroyers were perfectly good vehicles. However, the reports I've seen from NWE are pretty unanimous that the Cromwell, Churchill and Comet were all preferred for their respective roles, so you could say that British tanks were a bit better than the 75mm Sherman, though the British did not receive the improved Shermans with the 76mm gun. Although everyone tries to pretend it's a myth nowadays, the Sherman DID have a poor reputation for combustibility in British units, though this may be because they didn't get the wet stowage arrangements that were fitted to US Shermans.

Beyond this, German tanks are generally over-rated, and Soviet tanks are generally under-rated, both nation's vehicles being the subject of many undeserved myths.

I think the main problem with British tanks during the war was not the vehicles themselves, but the idiots and Cassandras who blew up often minor technical problems into major crises, and alas it was these people who the post-war historians, seeking the publicity of controversy, took as the guides for writing their books.

[Attrition]

You can bruit the advantages of US and Russian tanks but the Valentine is still the best tank of the war, with or without the uberstylish side-mounted drop tank.

[EKB]

However, the reports I've seen from NWE are pretty unanimous that the Cromwell, Churchill and Comet were all preferred for their respective roles, so you could say that British tanks were a bit better than the 75mm Sherman, though the British did not receive the improved Shermans with the 76mm gun..

“... A British major with extensive armor experience stated that ‘The commander of a unit equipped with Shermans can be confident of taking 99% of his vehicles into battle [while] if he were equipped with Cromwells or Centaurs he would be in a continuous state of anxiety as to whether enough of his tanks would reach the battlefield to carry out the normal tasks expected of his unit’ …”

Christopher Wilbeck. Sledgehammers: Strengths and Flaws of Tiger Tank Battalions in World War II.
©Aberjona Press, 2004, see p.207.

The Challenger with 17-pounder gun shared parts with the Cromwell and inherited many of its problems. This tank was not very reliable nor was it considered to be cost-effective, which led to a more widespread deployment of the Sherman Firefly.