British Armor Policy

[herroberst]

What lead to early war British decision to field armor that only fires AP or Smoke but not both nor HE? Restriction on type of gun or a policy decision stemming from lack of understanding of armored warfare?

[Fubar]

Check this out....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser_tank

...and this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_tank

[herroberst]

Thanks, had seen those but still don't understand why British alone set their tanks to fire only one type of ammo although maybe it was specialization into infantry and cruiser and support tanks. I learned that HE ammo was available to British crews in Africa but was not issued. No other army's did this with ammunition.

[Fubar]

The Infantry tanks were meant just for supporting infantry assaults whilst the Cruiser class were never meant to engage enemy infantry so there was no need for HE shells.

... from Wikipedia

The infantry tank was a concept developed by the British in the years leading up to World War II. They were generally more heavily armoured compared to the lighter cruiser tanks, which would allow them to operate in close concert with infantry to help them break through heavily defended areas in the enemy lines. Once they had opened a gap, the cruisers were expected to exploit their higher speed and longer range to range far behind the front in order to cut lines of supply and communications. In more conventional terminology, the infantry tank was essentially a heavy tank, while the cruisers were either mediums, lights, or even armoured cars.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

The Infantry tanks were meant just for supporting infantry assaults whilst the Cruiser class were never meant to engage enemy infantry so there was no need for HE shells.

... from Wikipedia

The infantry tank was a concept developed by the British in the years leading up to World War II. They were generally more heavily armoured compared to the lighter cruiser tanks, which would allow them to operate in close concert with infantry to help them break through heavily defended areas in the enemy lines. Once they had opened a gap, the cruisers were expected to exploit their higher speed and longer range to range far behind the front in order to cut lines of supply and communications. In more conventional terminology, the infantry tank was essentially a heavy tank, while the cruisers were either mediums, lights, or even armoured cars.

Yes, but the infantry tanks still had no HE capability.
That is the OP's original question.
So while the Matilda II was an infantry tank it had no capacity to take on infantry! Same for the Valentine I - VII, Only the Churchill I (having a 3 inch in the hull) had HE capability

Prior to 1942 the Brits had very little HE capability in their armor cruiser or infanty.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Fubar]

Yes, but the infantry tanks still had no HE capability.
That is the OP's original question.
So while the Matilda II was an infantry tank it had no capacity to take on infantry! Same for the Valentine I - VII, Only the Churchill I (having a 3 inch in the hull) had HE capability

Prior to 1942 the Brits had very little HE capability in their armor cruiser or infanty.

Thanx!

Hawk

Well you should know that us Brits like to do things the hard way.

[Monster Company]

I recall seeing this subject discussed by the Grogs on the Battlefront message board.

Its my understanding that the british pre-war plan was that the main gun on the infantry tanks would be for killing other tanks, and that the coaxial machine gun was to be used to attack soft targets. that is why there was no HE for some british tanks in the early period of the war.

In the instance of the infantry tanks, they were to be used in conjunction with infantry, so the conventional wisdom was that they should concentrate on killing enemy tanks and assist the infantry advance by suppressing/killing enemy infatry with their machine guns. The infantry tanks are also generally much slower and heavily armored, so they are able to withstand more but only need to keep pace with the infantry.


The cruiser tanks also show specialization, as some are equipped with smoke shells, and some have HE, but little AP. AIUI, that was because they were to be the "breakout" force. They were supposed to exploit the attack and would race ahead of the infantry, so they would be without combined arms and would need the HE/smoke support.

[Mad Russian]

Thanks, had seen those but still don't understand why British alone set their tanks to fire only one type of ammo although maybe it was specialization into infantry and cruiser and support tanks. I learned that HE ammo was available to British crews in Africa but was not issued. No other army's did this with ammunition.

The British weren't alone. This was the dawn of mechanized warfare. Nobody knew back then that the way to go was to have a multipurpose gun on a tank.

When you go hunting elephants, assuming of course that you do hunt elephants, you use an elephant gun you don't use a multipurpose gun. You don't have an over and under, an elephant gun on top and a shotgun on the bottom in case you come across some quail while you are out on your elephant hunt.

The same thing applied to the British concept.

Look at it this way. If my tank is designed to kill other tanks then using a multipurpose gun does several things negatively.

1) It cuts back on the number of AP rounds I can carry for the primary purpose of the weapon.

2) The gun has to be able to fire the HE rounds. Which means that research and development have to go into HE rounds for the gun. Which all means that somebody has to take the time and effort to make an HE round for it.

3) Or another less capable multipurpose gun already in existance can be used.

When you see the evolution of tanks and their weaponry you see that #1 is a fact of life. A tank carries a variety of different types of rounds. That cuts down on the others.

We also see that the British were the only nation to go with the dedicated tank per mission type practice and that it didn't work out like they thought. For one thing, tanks ended up being more fragile than any of the participants thought they were going to be. They often didn't stay on the battlefield long enough to use up all the ammo they could carry so that wasn't as a big a factor as they thought it would be. Tanks broke down, were hit and disabled, etc.....

Several nations opted for the #3 solution. Many times a gun that was less capable in one area would be chosen for a specific purpose. A great example of this in the 70's is the smooth bore vs rifled tank cannon debate but it was all done through the 20's, 30's and 40's before that. The great attributes vs the draw backs of a particular gun and why it was chosen.

So, in hind sight it looked like the British practice was almost criminal neglect. At the time they could have been right and the rest of the world might have ended up doing the same thing. In one respect the British concept was right. But in the opposite direction.

The Americans tried to develop tank destroyers that were going to fight German tanks and the American tanks would roam around shooting up infantry. Something like 4 or 5 times the ammount of HE was fired by tanks compared to AP.(I cant remember the exact ratio at the moment)

So, the British concept of a single purpose weapon on an tank could have been that most tanks had HE firing weapons. The Germans were using this concept with the PzIV and StuG's. And finding it very successful. UNTIL the Allies starting putting so many tanks in the field with more and more armour on them that EVERYTHING the Germans had must be able to kill tanks.

The Soviets started the war, and kept the practice all the way through the war, that every single gun they accepted into the Red Army be equipped with both an HE and an AP round. That includes all of their artillery as well, not just tank guns. But everything. AT guns, tank guns and artillery guns. Not of course mortars.

But then the Red Army knew about tanks. When they were invaded in 1941 they had more tanks than the rest of the world combined. Yes, most of them were junk but they still had them. And they knew they were going to always have them in large numbers. They still do. The Soviets are arguably the most tank aware nation on the planet and always have been.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Liebchen]

But then the Red Army knew about tanks. When they were invaded in 1941 they had more tanks than the rest of the world combined. Yes, most of them were junk but they still had them. And they knew they were going to always have them in large numbers. They still do. The Soviets are arguably the most tank aware nation on the planet and always have been.

The Soviets were also, IIRC, the only nation that had ever really fought a war with what was then modern armor. Not counting their opponent, Japan, of course, but they don't count because it was their last real venture into the arena of armored warfare.

All the rest of them had only 20+ year-old experience to learn from, and other than that just lots of theory.