Have you noticed how Britischers are obsessed with their gaps? Especially the Little Englander ones. You visit London as a tourist and you take the city transport. Non stop you have this electronic voice warning the locals to "mind your gap, mind your gap, ...".Richard Anderson wrote:Gaps? I don't need no stinking gaps.
I included them because, I believe, they are included in ljadw's confirmation bias google data hunt. At least that's what the source document would suggest. For example, the data offered by ljadw also includes the mild steel prototypes of the Light Tank Mk.II/III/IV/V !!!! I'm looking forward to his/her knowledge-based answer as to what fighting effectives value these tanks possessed. Was it "first rate", "second rang" or ????Richard Anderson wrote:I did not include them because they were too "second rang". And Indian tanks are definitely "second rang".
Where has he/she got to now? I was hoping he/she would come back with some of his/her expert knowledge to help fill the obvious gaps in my knowledge.
The 126 noted for India are ones ordered by the Colonial Office for the Indian Army. There may well have been others sent to India from WO orders.Richard Anderson wrote:Thanks for the Indian data. I thought they were there, but never found numbers. So of the first "second rang" then.
Reconciling the tank state during the summer of 1940 is a hopeless task. Why? Because the data kept by the WO - especiacially SD.7/AFV - is fragmentory to non-existant and each document contradicts every other. Some of the data contained in the RAC half yearly reports I can demonstrate as being manifestly wrong.
Nevertheless, a series of 'tank states' in various formats existed to help planners plan the defence of GB and leaders (mainly the PM) to understand the problem. Some of the data included is pure fantasy and is a rather embarrasing indictment of the quality of the (average) British staff officer. Some of the errors were picked up and queried, but most were just accepted.
Post war, when the official historians started to do their research, the contradictions and errors were pointed out and clarification sought. This lead to another round of staff officer fudges and fantasy calculations to try and come up with an official set of 'accurate' numbers. For example, the numbers posted by ljadw come from Basil Collier's The Defence of the UK, HMSO, 1957 with the commentary "According to a statement furnished by the War Office in May, 1947, the numbers of armoured fighting vehicles held by units in the United Kingdom (including depots and training units) on 1st June, 1940, were as follows:". The information he references as coming from: File H.S. 47, Annex VII, enclosure dated 9 February 1955 and table attached to it (Cabinet Office, Brig. Latham). I have a copy of the original note and attached data table from the Assistant Quarter-Master-General to Latham dated 28 May 1947. So I know what the basic data posted by ljadw includes and excludes. I bet my gap is smaller than ljadw's void in knowledge.
The Assistant Quarter-Master-General's note contains the words: "[the numbers] were extracted from the War Office Monthly Distribution Statement as at 1st June 1940". He later states that this data has been checked and "confirmed". All well and good so far?
However, 5 months later, October 1947, in response to another author's request for information, Latham responds with a different set of information. The file also includes his notes where he takes the numbers given 5 months earlier by the Assistant Quarter-Master-General, crosses them out, and replaces them with others!
Then, in January 1948, another author - the Australian Chester Wilmot - writes to say that all the numbers provided don't add up and can it all be rechecked and reconfirmed for his book(s).
The circle comes round AGAIN in late 1949 when Ellis queries the figures once more...
Back to (Vickers) Light Tanks for a moment. Have you noticed that there is no single definitive answer as to how many were produced of each type? Several coffee-table glossy books claim definitive answers, but well researched and written books by credible historians duck the answer.
****
Edited to correct and add.
The number of India Pattern Light Tank VI.b ordered by the Colonial Office for the Indian Army was 136 not 126. My bad. Please adjust calculations accordingly. In addition, 10 Light Tank VI.a were ordered by the War Office on behalf of Australia. These are rightly included in the production totals too but ought to be reduced from the 'remaining in UK' number.