Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: What's an "I" tank?
Keywords: 50th Anniversary of the Rats of Tobruk
Message-ID: <1991Apr17.055732.14098@amd.com>
Date: 16 Apr 91 13:58:25 GMT
References: <1991Apr16.041123.27184@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Lines: 31
Approved: military@amd.com


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