Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uwm.edu!lll-winken!sun-barr!olivea!oliveb!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: bxr307@csc1.anu.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: What's an "I" tank?
Message-ID: <1991Apr18.033039.22899@amd.com>
Date: 17 Apr 91 22:32:07 GMT
References: <1991Apr16.041123.27184@amd.com> <1991Apr17.055732.14098@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Computer Services, Australian National University
Lines: 63
Approved: military@amd.com


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