anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (04/13/91)
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au In an article by Corporal tim Feaarnside (an Australian member of the Rats of Tobruk), there is a reference to an "I" tank. Could someone tell me what's an "I" tank ? -- Anthony Lee email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au TEL:+(61)-7-365-2697 (w)
thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) (04/16/91)
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) In article <1991Apr16.041123.27184@amd.com> anthony@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >In an article by Corporal tim Feaarnside (an Australian member of the >Rats of Tobruk), there is a reference to an "I" tank. Could someone >tell me what's an "I" tank ? Before WWII, the British had envisioned three different roles for tanks, and produced three different kinds of tanks. The light tanks (reconnaisance) were on their way out when the war broke out, since they were obviously of limited use. This left the infantry (or "I") tanks, for assisting the infantry in assault and breakout, and the cruiser tanks for exploiting the breakthrough. British infantry tanks were slow and heavily armored, while their cruiser tanks were fast and lightly armored. Both used the same guns, which, in the desert war, were generally the 2pdr (the 6pdr was in some tanks later in the campaign). The 2pdr (and 6pdr) were unusual in that the tanks did not have HE ammunition, but only AP. Therefore, some infantry tanks were designated CS for close support; these would have short guns that fired HE only. (So why did most of the infantry tanks have main armament that was useless against infantry?) The main "I" tanks used in the desert were the Matilda and the slightly more mobile and versatile Valentine. The Crusader was the dominant cruiser used. DHT
wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) (04/17/91)
From: wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) In article <1991Apr16.041123.27184@amd.com> anthony@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >In an article by Corporal tim Feaarnside (an Australian member of the >Rats of Tobruk), there is a reference to an "I" tank. Could someone >tell me what's an "I" tank ? Infantry tank. At that time (and for most of the war, really), Britain had three types of tanks: 1) Light tanks - Mk's I through VI. Fast, light armor. For recon, etc. 2) Cruiser tanks - Various marks, including the Crusader which typifies the class. Fast, light/moderate armor. Usually a 2-pounder (later, 6-pounder) gun, but some with a 3.7" howitzer for close support work. They were the new cavalry, for fast exploitation of penetrations. 3) Infantry tanks - Most notable were the A11 "Matilda", the A12 "Matilda II" (which is the tank people mean 99% of the time they say "Matilda"), and the Valentine. The first carried only machineguns; the latter two also had a 2-pounder. (Valentines were eventually upgraded to 6-pounders). These were as a class slow, being geared to advance with infantry, and carried very heavy armor. The Churchill culminated this type. The Matildas were the first I-tanks in the desert, and made quite a reputation fr themselves. They were instrumental in Wavell's first offensive, which kicked the Italians out of their forts near Sollum, Egypt and chased them to El Agheila. The Matildas literally drove through the Italian forts, and nothing in the Italian arsenal could deal with them. They were also used in capturing Tobruk. They remained a problem until the Germans fielded the Pz IV with long 75mm (PzKw IV F2 and later) in quantity. The 50mm gun of the Pz III could just defeat the Matilda at close range (and was itself quite vulnerable to the Matilda's 2-pounder) , and while the 88's were very effective (epitomized by the action at Halfaya Pass, where they decimated a Matilda attack) they were not plentiful enough. Valentines were also built in Canada and exported to the USSR. They were apparently popular there despite being obsolescent; I have heard anecdotal claims that this was because the Valentine had an efficient heater, lacking in Soviet-built tanks. Still, not all western tanks were so well liked; the Matilda's side skirts were prone to jamming in deep snow, and the M3 Mediums (Lee) we sent over were nicknamed "Coffins for Seven Brothers." The timing is also interesting; a Valentine was recently recovered from a Ukranian bog, where it had been well preserved. It was aquired by the Canadian Pacific Railroad (its manufacturer), which restored it and donated it to a museum (in Britain, I believe). -- Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com
pete@minster.york.ac.uk (Pete Fenelon) (04/17/91)
From: pete@minster.york.ac.uk (Pete Fenelon) In article <1991Apr16.041123.27184@amd.com> anthony@cs.uq.oz.au writes: >From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au >In an article by Corporal tim Feaarnside (an Australian member of the >Rats of Tobruk), there is a reference to an "I" tank. Could someone >tell me what's an "I" tank ? As far as I can remember -- all my references to this subject are 100 miles away -- the term dates back to the British armoured policy of the late Thirties/early war years. Basically all tanks (apart from light tanks) were divided into two main classes, Infantry tanks (I Tanks) and Cruisers. Infantry tanks were intended for close support work -- very heavily armoured, but not necessarily all that heavily armed. The original Matilda 1 was the classic I tank of 1939-40; very hard to destroy, but only armed with a couple of machine guns. Matilda 2 was still classed as an I tank -- whereas tanks like the Valentine, Churchill etc. were cruisers; tanks primarily intended to engage other tanks. As the war progressed the I tank role became obsolete as British cruisers improved, and as British medium tanks became more advanced (Comet etc) the concept of the MBT gradually evolved. (I believe the first Centurions were just about built in time for the end of the European campaign) Pete Fenelon pete@minster.york.ac.uk
vaivads@hobbit.gandalf.ca (Vic Vaivads) (04/17/91)
From: vaivads@hobbit.gandalf.ca (Vic Vaivads) In <1991Apr17.055715.14043@amd.com> wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) writes: >Valentines were also built in Canada and exported to the USSR. > [ stuff deleted ] >The timing is also interesting; a Valentine was recently recovered from a >Ukranian bog, where it had been well preserved. It was aquired by the >Canadian Pacific Railroad (its manufacturer), which restored it and >donated it to a museum (in Britain, I believe). Well, not quite. I do volunteer work for the Canadian War Museum, and can clarify this a bit. The Canadian built Valentine was to be acquired by Canadian Pacific from the Ukranian village which pulled it out of the bog. However, there were some snags and the deal has not yet been completed. Canadian Pacific in turn was going to donate the Valentine to the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa. These Valentines were built by the Montreal Locomotive Works. -- Vic Vaivads Gandalf Data Ltd, Nepean, Ontario vaivads@gandalf.ca
cmort@ncoast.org (04/17/91)
From: cmort@ncoast.org BXR307@CSC.ANU.EDU.AU (Brian Ross) writes: > He was referring to what was called in the British Army as the >"Tank, Infantry, gun". In otherwords the specialist infantry support tanks >like the Valentine and (or as this was at Tobruk it was more than likely) the >Matilda. Gee BXR, I've always envied you your M-113 Fire Support Vehicles (FSV). It certainly seems like a cheap and effective solution to infantry fire support against non-armored target (and BMPs too). I guess that it's too cheap and effective to merit consideration from Ft. Benning! Of course we didn't have a lot of armored car turrets sitting around either.... :) cmort@ncoast.org --- Chris Morton "Well just whose opinions do you THINK these are?"
bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au (04/18/91)
From: bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au >From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) > British infantry tanks were slow and heavily armored, while their cruiser > tanks were fast and lightly armored. Both used the same guns, which, in > the desert war, were generally the 2pdr (the 6pdr was in some tanks later > in the campaign). The 2pdr (and 6pdr) were unusual in that the tanks did > not have HE ammunition, but only AP. Therefore, some infantry tanks were > designated CS for close support; these would have short guns that fired > HE only. (So why did most of the infantry tanks have main armament that > was useless against infantry?) What is even more unusual and not very readily known, was that the 2pdr was in fact capable of firing a HE round. The round was developed and deployed. However it was apparently only used in the 2pdr AT gun. Which in itself was a very unusual choice. The 6pdr, which was originally designed purely as an AT gun also had a HE round developed for it later in the war. American 57mm (a direct copy of the 6pdr) however never had the round. Also something which both you and Bill have missed is that the penultimate infantry tank, the Churchill, was equipped with a 75mm gun (in fact the early versions were 6pdrs resleeved to take a 75mm tube) which had been designed from the start to fire HE rounds. In addition the last version of the Valentine, was also armed with a 75mm gun, although because of the cramped quarters inside the turret its usefulness was questionable. Finally, I think in criticising the infantry tanks as being unable to fire a HE round which would be used against infantry rather misses the point of why these vehicles were developed. They were designed to support the infantry in their attack _and_ protect them against other armoured vehicles. As a consequence they were equipped with a weapon which was primarily meant to be used to defeat other tanks, not destroy infantry. It was felt that the destruction of enemy infantry and support of friendly infantry with HE fire was meant to be either weapons integral to the infantry (mortars/2pdr AT guns) or by the much more powerful artillery units in support. When it was necessary to allow the tanks to back up the infantry with HE fire, that was when the CS tanks were developed. Although they were assigned initially only on the basis of 1 or 2 per squadron, their purpose was later negated by the introduction of 75mm gun armed tanks like the Churchill. In addition most of the CS production was dedicated to cruiser vehicles (which was actually developed before the infantry tank versions) as the cavalry squadrons were expected to operate well forward of effective artillery support, exploiting the breakthrough produced by the infantry. Today, based on the experiences of war when armour was fully utilised we are able to criticise the British for planning to use armour in the infantry support role which could not fire HE. However you must remember armour doctrine was still very much in its infancy. Even the German Army only had 3.7cm KwK guns on their standard tank, the Mk.III (Mk.I & II's only had machine guns and Automatic cannon). They had decided on a similar organisation to the British by assigning Mk.IV's which had short barrelled 7.5cm guns which were designed to fire _primarily_ HE rather than AP, as support for them. So who was to know any better at the time? -- Brian Ross "If we got it so wrong in the Middle East yesterday, what makes you think we are going to get it right this time?" -- Arthur Schlesinger
bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au (04/19/91)
From: bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au >From: cmort@ncoast.org > Gee BXR, I've always envied you your M-113 Fire Support Vehicles (FSV). It > certainly seems like a cheap and effective solution to infantry fire support > against non-armored target (and BMPs too). I guess that it's too cheap > and effective to merit consideration from Ft. Benning! Of course we didn't > have a lot of armored car turrets sitting around either.... :) The FSV (as it was known. In a fit of renaming the Oz army has now designated them MRV - Med. Recce. Vehicle) is a neat solution. However its not meant to supply fire support for infantry. Its meant to supply fire support for recce squadrons, operating well forward of the normal artillery support. They were only deployed to the Recce Regiments, not to the APC units. That I think was a mistake, but, well I wasn't ever consulted on the matter. :-) I'd have rather seen each squadron of the APC units also equipped with an FSV vehicle. The Oz army though is about to have to come up with another solution similar to the MRV version of the M113 as its starting to aquire LAV-25's from the US to act as its wheeled recce vehicle in the North of Oz (2 Cav.Regt. is being redeployed to Darwin in the near future). I think they will most probably go for the obvious solution of purchasing Canadian versions of the Mowag Pirahana, which I believe are called "Grizzlies" and armed with the British Scorpion turret. BTW, while the original FSV had an armoured car turret off our old Saladins (and as a result was not capable of amphibious operations due to weight considerations), the latest version uses a Scorpion CVR(t) light tank turret and has extra floation panels attached. -- Brian Ross
howard@uunet.UU.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz) (04/19/91)
From: cos!howard@uunet.UU.NET (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Early WWII British tanks were of two types, the "I[nfantry]"
and the "C[ruiser]". I tanks were relatively heavy and used
in direct support of infantry; C tanks were faster and used
in a cavalry role.
--
howard@cos.com OR {uunet, decuac, sun!sundc, hadron, hqda-ai}!cos!howard
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Corporation
for Open Systems, its members, or any standards body.pete@minster.york.ac.uk (Pete Fenelon) (04/19/91)
From: pete@minster.york.ac.uk (Pete Fenelon) In article <1991Apr18.033003.22789@amd.com> pete@minster.york.ac.uk (Pete Fenelon) writes: >whereas tanks like the Valentine, Churchill etc. were cruisers; tanks Oh dear - just spotted the mistake I made when I posted that article. Of course the Valentine and Churchill were the later infantry tanks.
wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) (04/23/91)
From: wbt@cbema.att.com (William B Thacker) bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au writes: > Also something which both you and Bill have missed is that the >penultimate infantry tank, the Churchill, was equipped with a 75mm gun (in >fact the early versions were 6pdrs resleeved to take a 75mm tube) which had >been designed from the start to fire HE rounds. I didn't exactly miss it. The first marks of the Churchill were armed with 2-pdr turret guns and a 3" howitzer in the bow plate (a Close Support version reversed the gun positions). The Mark III switched a 6-pdr for the 2-pdr. Not until the Mark VII (1944) was the 75mm version produced, though troops in the field had refitted a number of Mk IV's in January '43, and more Mk IV's were upgraded with the 75mm as Mk VI's in December '43. The 6-pdr to 75mm conversion, BTW, was inspired by the success of the US-built 75mm gun tanks (Grant/Lee and Sherman) in North Africa, and the gun was specifically designed to fire American ammunition. > Finally, I think in criticising the infantry tanks as being unable to >fire a HE round which would be used against infantry rather misses the point of >why these vehicles were developed. They were designed to support the infantry >in their attack _and_ protect them against other armoured vehicles. I think the issue being questioned is the wisdom of that theory. Germany, the USSR, and even France recognized the need for dual-purpose guns in tanks. French tank guns as small as 37mm were equipped with HE rounds. The Soviets opted to equip the T34 with a 76mm gun despite the superior armor penetration of the 57mm competitor, specifically because of the 76's better HE capability. And while, as Brian points out, the German Pzkw III, their intended main battle tank, was originally fitted with a 37mm gun, it's worth noting that it's design specifically allowed room for upgrading to a 50mm weapon (with HE capability). This upgrade was performed beginning in 1940/41. (For the US Army, I make no apologies. We were as clueless as anyone at this time.) Britain used the 2-pdr in every gun-armed tank ready for combat in 1939, save for a small minority of CS vehicles. They essentially put all their eggs in one basket, and in so doing seriously compromised their tank program for several years. Not until 1944 did British tank guns begin to catch up with the standard of the day. I think there's a valuable lesson here; a diversity of equipment is important, and over-standardization should be avoided if possible. I'm not trying to run down the British armament ministry with the weight of history; but failures should never be ignored, including this one. -- Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com