Retreating from Crete like one of my grand uncles did, I will return to the orginal thread.
Barnett doesn't come across as angry, it is more of a rage. Rage at thousands of young men dying beause their country sent them to war in death traps. His language may be harsh but that does not mean his points are flawed.
A couple of things from me first. At the end of WW1 British (Male tanks) mounted two six pounder guns with a variety of ammunition to break through enemy lines. In 1939 the British Matlida Infantry tank mounted a single two pounder firing only solid shot to do the same job. How was its pop gun supposed to damage a pillbox? A serious retrograde step in the interwar years and one never really explained. It simply shows that old adage is true, the best minds do not go into the peace time army. If I remember also the Nutfield engine was a 1916 design that kept being tinkered with till around 1943. The RAF went to the US to buy fighters in 1940, why couldnt the RAC have gone and bought a decent Detroit engine for it's tanks? ie prempt the Sherman by two years.
British tanks, I see so many excuses here and arguments "well at this battle they did this, and at that battle they did that". Trouble is most battles, they simply died. Monty quoted a battle in July 1942 just before he took over in the desert, that 118 British tanks had been lost for just 3 German tanks in return. He was staggered that such stupidity at the higher levels of the Royal Armoured Corp could still exist in the desert after two years of warfare. Particularily as the Germans used the same tactic each time, luring the British tanks onto the anti tank guns time and again.
Barnett gives a timeline. It took the British 3 years of war to get a six pounder gun and a HE shell. It took 5 years of war to get a half decent engine (the Meteor). It took 5 years of war to get a 17 pounder gun, that could only fit in a US tank. They
never managed to get the right balance between speed, armour and gun till post war with the Centurion (it had twin Merlin aircraft engines as its powerplant). The Russians could, the Germans could, the British couldn't. The British wartime tanks were
always flawed and by 1944 that was totally inexcusable with the huge battlefield experience the British had. The US Sherman compromised two thirds of all tanks post D-Day, and indictment on the quality of British tanks and British Industry.
A example of what dogged the British can be best explained by the German 88mm cannon and the British equivalent the 3.7in ack ack gun. The Germans to their delight found the 88mm to be an excellent anti aircraft cannon (ack ack) and an excellent anti tank one. Cries of
wundabar all round and
prosit! The British 3.7in ack ack cannon in 1940 had a longer range than the 88mm and could have been a powerful anti tank gun. However it was designed to be an "ack ack" gun and that was that. Bureacracy at the War Office and inter service rivarily between "ack ack" and "armour" sections of the Army actively discouraged any attempts to develop the cannon. It didnt matter that men died , what mattered was the 3.7in was an anti aircraft gun and nothing else. It was used once as anti tank gun at Tobruk but that one-off was forgiven. This closed mindset was a common feature in British Tank Development.
(off topic but on that subject, Brigadier General "Mad Mac" Murray McIntyre who pushed for the 3.7in to become a anti tank weapon, he is supposed to have formed a battery of German 88mm cannon for anti tank work. Has anyone heard of this? Or is just a bit of colourful rumour?)
Delta Tank asked for what was said of American tanks, so here goes
.
Detroit was perhaps equally open to blame. The thirty ton M-4 Sherman tank whose surprise advent on the battlefield had helped turn the tide in the desert in 1942, had all the merits and defects of the US Automobile Industry such as Ralph Nadar in the 1960's savaged as "Unsafe at any Price".
It could be mass produced in vast numbers: it was fast (30mph) and spacious and comfortable (until it brewed) for it's crews, compared to the British Cromwells: but it had an uncomfortably high profile in battle. It had inadequate armour, easily caught fire and mounted a 75mm gun descended with little modification from the famous piece that had been the mainstay of the French Army in 1914 - though too light even then. Excellent in 1942, by 1944 it was totally outclassed.
The same fault that Barnett lays against the British can be laid at the US as well. Why between 1942 and D-Day 1944 were there not serous modifications made to the Sherman (ie wet storage, a bigger gun and more armour). Or more simply why was a new tank based on the Sherman not ready for D-Day?
The Sherman was by far the best allied tank, but to little modifications were done in 1943 and 1944. The vertiable German Mark 1V was upgraded and upgunned throughout the war. The first 75m long barrelled ones had arrived for Rommel before the Second Battle of El Alamein (some mere 26 or so), it could outgun the Sherman even then. The Germans introduced the Panther and Tiger and the excellent Sturmgeschütz III / IV tank killers during the war, all had faults and they have been seized on by apologists in here but the fact remains they went into production and killed allied tanks easily. Infra Red sights were being experimented with by German Panthers at war ends, the Allies always seemed to lag behind.
Wittmann and Co at Villers Bocage clearly show the difference in quality and temperment between the Germans and British. A very small number of Tigers, stopped the veteran British 7th Armoured Divison cold, destroying dozens of vehicles at will and forcing the 7th to withdraw completely. That battle gets played up or down depending on whose side someone likes but it shows overwhelming the chasm between in the two armies in battle. On one side a confident and aggressive enemy in a first class tank, on the other, battle worn men in inferior tanks , who know their equipment is inferior and so react timidly. That sums up Barnetts argument I think.
An edit. the performance of the 7th Armoured Divison (the Desert Rats) in Normandy has beem questioned, battle worn, away from home so long etc are reasons given for its medicore performance. German Panzer troops could equally make the same excuses, long years on the Russian Front. The difference Barnett says is the 7th Armoured always fought in inferior tanks and the men knew it. With the exception of 1941 and the shook of the T34's German crew always fought in first class tanks and knew it. That is possibly a reason that Panzer crews could fight far longer than their Western equivalents.
Who discovered we could get milk from a cow? and come to think of it what did they think they were doing at the time? Billy Connolly
They didn't repeat it...
All tanks have strengths and weaknesses. How do you protect it's weaknesses and exploit it's strengths, now that is the trick.
