The plan was to form a tank brigade, but they were well short of that at the moment, the best they had been able to do was pair the 2nd Northamptonshire Yeomanry with the 1st Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers,
Doctrine would be a tank brigade to an infantry division IIRC so 1:3 tank:infantry, plus supporting arms.

The ideal solution would be to add the tanks to an infantry brigade together with an artillery battalion, anti-tank/AA battalion, and engineers etc in a balanced force, but Malaya rules will apply with CoxCol and OthoForce.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
The basic problem in Malaya is that there isn’t the terrain where armoured forces can deploy in the way that they would elsewhere. The basic use of tanks and armoured cars will be very much the same as was initially envisioned, in the First World War, as mobile pill boxes able to engage enemy strong points and defend ground against enemy assaults. While the armoured forces purists will want to keep the tanks in one concentrated unit, able to overwhelm the enemy. However this fails to take into account is that the local geography doesn’t favour such tactics, and in many ways splitting the regiment into smaller units, is the best option for the present. It should be noted that even today most of the various nations in the Far East do not have large numbers of tanks, preferring modern wheeled armoured vehicles, equipped with light guns instead of heavy tanks with a big gun. I doubt that the sort of collaboration between individual units that is slowly developing in Britain and North Africa right now, will not happen in Malaya. What is more likely to happen is what happened IOTL, after the Normandy landing, were units of the 79th devision were lent out as needed to infantry units that required armoured support.

RR.
 
If they don't have CS tanks, they might want to attach some spare Carriers to the forward tank platoons, with two inch mortars and a stock of WP smoke and HE.

British_Army_reconnaissance_regiment_soldier_fires_a_two_inch_mortar_Europe_1943.png

This photo is from 1943, but Carriers equipped with two inch mortars were in service in May 1940 and subsequently.
 
Last edited:

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
If they don't have CS tanks, they might want to attach some spare Carriers to the forward tank platoons, with two inch mortars and a stock of WP smoke and HE. That already should be known from Libya.

One difference being, jungle dampness hampers the effectiveness of normal titanium tetrachloride screening smoke, so the alternate WP smoke shells' heat and whiteness/opacity are useful. The ordnance chaps should have that in hand.

Also signal shells for the mortar attached to the tactical command troop, in case night comms break down in battle; and illumination shells, for backlighting enemy ambush positions.

wph2.jpg

pyr2.jpg
Hi JWilly48519, thank you for this, I wonder if the signal bombs can be used to mark targets for the RAF in a close support role?
 

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
Are these Valentines equipped with external infantry phones hooked to the intercom?

The British are believed to have been the first to experiment with tank phones, during WWI. So, it would seem that even if early-war Valentines weren't so equipped from the factory, the Royal Signals fellows would have it in hand.
Hi JWilly48519, honestly I don't know if they have external phones, but I'm gonna say no, and then make that one of the lessons learnt while in combat.
 

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
Doctrine would be a tank brigade to an infantry division IIRC so 1:3 tank:infantry, plus supporting arms.

The ideal solution would be to add the tanks to an infantry brigade together with an artillery battalion, anti-tank/AA battalion, and engineers etc in a balanced force, but Malaya rules will apply with CoxCol and OthoForce.
Hi Aber, yes you're right about the doctrine, as these are Infantry Tanks, and I do want to try to keep to the thinking of the time. That said, pairing them up with a dedicated infantry battalion is a big stretch, and I should have just attached them to an Infantry Bde as suggested. My main reason, although I could have done it with the Infantry Bde, is to highlight the shortcomings of British doctrine, training and their equipment in the Far East environment. I'll do this both with dedicated stories about the tanks, and also as tit-bits dropped in other stories. Using the the surname or part of it, of the commanding officer, along with Col (Column) or Force is very much the British way of naming their temporary formations, and we'll see quite a few of these as the story unfolds. Going to have some fun with these tanks!
 
British_Army_reconnaissance_regiment_soldier_fires_a_two_inch_mortar_Europe_1943.png

This photo is from 1943, but Carriers equipped with two inch mortars were in service in May 1940 and subsequently.
Is that not a 2" mortar in the photo?

In 1941 a 'UK Battalion' would have about 19 carriers on it table of Establishment.

A number of those would be to support the Battalions 8 (I believe it was 8) 3 inch mortars which would represent the largest single unit of firepower at the Battalion commanders call within his own unit.

The carrier would 'carry' the weapon (Tube, Tripod, base and sight which came in at 52 kilos) as well as its ready use ammunition but the weapon would be dismounted and setup.

Meanwhile any carrier could be used as the 'carrier' and the carrier could conceivably be used for other carrier jobs (used as a runner, cas evac, ammunition and supply to the forward units) and the mortar could be setup in places that even a carrier cannot go - also if and when the carrier breaks down you lose both it and the weapon

The original intention of the carrier was to bring ammunition, food and water the odd soldier and heavy weapons across the last 500 meters behind the fwd positions

This had been a major task in WW1 and often proved to be impossible without a herculean effort that placed a major burden on troops conducting these tasks as everything had to be man packed / carried.

Lastly the Carrier is not an AFV its not really bullet proof even - it was used as such several times in WW2 particulalrly during the battle of France and usually only as an act of desperation to allow parent forces to escape / disengage

I personally think it would be better to keep the weapon and carrier separate at this time.
 
I think from memory that all Universal carriers ended up with the base plate of a 2" mortar built in. So any spare 2" tubes would end up with the Carriers.
 
Hi JWilly48519, thank you for this, I wonder if the signal bombs can be used to mark targets for the RAF in a close support role?
Sure. Note though that the "signal" shells depicted above were most effective at night, when the firework-like stars would be most visible. I'm doubtful that those signal shells would have been very readily spotted from a fast moving aircraft at some distance.

But smoke shells are a different story. Two colors available...titanium tetrachloride smoke is gray, white phosphorus smoke is white. In jungle, titanium tetrachloride smoke (which is relatively cool) would tend to hug the ground below the treeline. It might be a good choice in relatively open ground, i.e. a plantation or farmed field...but less so in jungle, where it might not be readily visible from the air at a distance. WP smoke OTOH is hot and rises, plus it's very white and would contrast with the green environment, so it likely would be readily spotted from the air in a jungle or dense-forest setting. But, WP smoke also dissipates quicker than TT, because it rises away from its aim point. So, there'd need to be good time-coordination between the ground troops marking the target and the pilots looking for the target.

Out to their practical range limit of a couple of hundred meters, marking rifle grenades might be a more convenient jungle option if the vegetation isn't too dense. They began emitting colored smoke shortly after being fired, so they produced an arcing smoke-path pointing to the target. Marking grenades were available in multiple colors. Yellowish-green wouldn't be very useful, but violet, white and red would be.

Obviously with any marking / masking / fragmentation ordnance, you need to be quite sure you don't fire it into overhead vegetation.
Is that not a 2" mortar in the photo?
Yes, definitely. There was a special model of the 2 inch designed to mount directly to the mortar version of the UC. It also could be used dismounted, and had a mounting plate / baseplate different than the "normal" infantry carried version. I'd think if the mortars were intended to take the place of absent CS tanks, the tank commander would want the mortars to be vehicle mounted...so that when the tanks move out, the mortar UCs can follow right along.

The most important function of the CS tanks in the Western Desert was defensive. Advancing tank units would have their CS tanks in the front ranks or close behind. If the tank unit came under enemy fire...if they had driven into an enemy AT gun trap, for instance...the CS tanks would rapid-fire smoke shells in front of the unit's lead tanks so as to create a masking smokescreen to cover their retreat to safety. That's why the standard CS tank loadout in the Western Desert was about 3/4 smoke, and the rest HE.

As you note, the infantry will have their own 2 inch mortars close to the front, and 3 inch mortars in their support units. Those can be hauled as dismounts by the infantry's own UCs if available...or at least, their ammo, which is the greater part of their loadout weight, can be.
 
Last edited:
The Aussies in 1942-43 began mounting their 3 inch mortars directly to Carriers, much like the British 2 inch mount. Compared to the original British Carrier, Three Inch Mortar which just transported the ground mount gun and its ammo, the Aussie approach gave them more aggregate mobility, a much shorter time between vehicle stopping and first round away, and ammo haulage that was more convenient to the gun's firing position. The British may have done something similar in the 1944 timeframe.

I don't think any of the relevant armies had three inchers mounted in firing position early enough to be in Malaya...other than possibly as individual field one-offs.

Aust_3_inch_mortar_carrier(AWM_134428).jpg
 
Last edited:
With regard to using Two Inch Mortar Carriers as substitutes for CS tanks in the defensive-smoke and offensive-HE roles, note that those mortars were not limited to the relatively-long shell arrival times of an infantry two inch mortar that, to achieve a close impact point, had to be fired at a very high angle.

The Carrier base-plate-mount allowed quite low angle freehand firing, and capably absorbed the recoil force. So this sort of this was entirely practical.

A_Universal_Carrier_crew_of_the_2nd_Sherwood_Foresters_fire_a_2-inch_mortar_from_their_vehicle_in_the_Anzio_bridgehead_Italy_April_1944._NA13646.jpg


At the lowest firing angle, the shell impact on level ground was something less than a hundred yards out.

That had to be hard on the driver, though. Lots of powder burns, and likely a bit of concussion, and no hearing for a while in the right ear.
 
I had a mate who was ex-SASR during Vietnam and the Indonesian Konfrontasi. He would often recount going on patrol with British SAS and one of them firing a 2in Mortar against a hut, time-on-target so that all five rounds used fell at the same time. He used to swear by them, in the right-hands, as an accurate weapon.
 

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
Sure. Note though that the "signal" shells depicted above were most effective at night, when the firework-like stars would be most visible. I'm doubtful that those signal shells would have been very readily spotted from a fast moving aircraft at some distance.

But smoke shells are a different story. Two colors available...titanium tetrachloride smoke is gray, white phosphorus smoke is white. In jungle, titanium tetrachloride smoke (which is relatively cool) would tend to hug the ground below the treeline. It might be a good choice in relatively open ground, i.e. a plantation or farmed field...but less so in jungle, where it might not be readily visible from the air at a distance. WP smoke OTOH is hot and rises, plus it's very white and would contrast with the green environment, so it likely would be readily spotted from the air in a jungle or dense-forest setting. But, WP smoke also dissipates quicker than TT, because it rises away from its aim point. So, there'd need to be good time-coordination between the ground troops marking the target and the pilots looking for the target.

Out to their practical range limit of a couple of hundred meters, marking rifle grenades might be a more convenient jungle option if the vegetation isn't too dense. They began emitting colored smoke shortly after being fired, so they produced an arcing smoke-path pointing to the target. Marking grenades were available in multiple colors. Yellowish-green wouldn't be very useful, but violet, white and red would be.

Obviously with any marking / masking / fragmentation ordnance, you need to be quite sure you don't fire it into overhead vegetation.

Yes, definitely. There was a special model of the 2 inch designed to mount directly to the mortar version of the UC. It also could be used dismounted, and had a mounting plate / baseplate different than the "normal" infantry carried version. I'd think if the mortars were intended to take the place of absent CS tanks, the tank commander would want the mortars to be vehicle mounted...so that when the tanks move out, the mortar UCs can follow right along.

The most important function of the CS tanks in the Western Desert was defensive. Advancing tank units would have their CS tanks in the front ranks or close behind. If the tank unit came under enemy fire...if they had driven into an enemy AT gun trap, for instance...the CS tanks would rapid-fire smoke shells in front of the unit's lead tanks so as to create a masking smokescreen to cover their retreat to safety. That's why the standard CS tank loadout in the Western Desert was about 3/4 smoke, and the rest HE.

As you note, the infantry will have their own 2 inch mortars close to the front, and 3 inch mortars in their support units. Those can be hauled as dismounts by the infantry's own UCs if available...or at least, their ammo, which is the greater part of their loadout weight, can be.
Hi JWilly48519, thank you for this, from your writings it seems unlikely that use of the 2-inch mortar would be of much use in marking targets for close support aircraft. I need to look deeper into what was done in North Africa, 1940-42, and then Burma 1942-45 as well as Italy and NW Europe 1943-45 to get a better understanding of how Close Air Support was conducted.
 

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
Operation Crusader is upon us, oh my goodness! I’m far from being a North African expert, and now I have to take on one of the most confusing battles of WW2. It’s not as well-known as El Alamein, and I’d only expect the British, South African, New Zealand, Indian, as well as the German and Italian readers among you to be aware of it. When you consider this was the British ‘A’ team fighting, you’d be surprised at how poor they were at somethings, as well as good at other things. It also didn’t help that they were fighting the German general Rommel, who, certainly among the British, attained an almost mythical identity, and who seemed to make even the good British generals look average.

The battle, or offensive, really, lasted for 43 days, and is far too complex and important for me to just post one story on it, although, in the main, my Crusader will follow the historical course, most changes will happen after its conclusion. That said, there’s already been one major change in its commanders, Godwin-Austen, who historically commanded XIII Corps in Crusader, is now with the Indian III Corps in Malaya, and the historical commander of that corps, Lt Gen Lewis Heath, commands in Crusader, a straight swap. However, Heaths orders will remain the same as Godwin-Austen’s were, I don’t see a major reason why they would need to change.

Now on this part about historical accuracy, I’m painting with a broad brush, so please forgive me for minor infractions, although I’m happy for you to point out any major faux pas. I don’t know enough to suggest a particular book, if you want to know more, but I do highly recommend the website “The Crusader Project”, see https://rommelsriposte.com/.

If you need something more visual to help you make sense of it all, there is the YouTube Video
, by TIKhistory,
which is very long and detailed, although his style is not to everyone’s taste. If, and where, I do deviate from the historical path, I will make you aware of it. Hopefully you’ll
enjoy the posts.
 
MWI 41111807 Operation Crusader

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
1941, Tuesday 18 November;

Tuesday 18th, this was it, the big offensive that Churchill was pushing so hard for, Operation Crusader! Take on Rommel’s Panzers, smash them, relieve Tobruk, and then push on to who knows what success lay ahead. They’d had two plans to consider, a daring strike across the desert, southwest to Jalo, before swinging north and intercepting the Via Balbia coastal road at Mersa el Brega, completely outflanking Rommel’s entire army and cutting it off from its supply, or the far less risky option, which they chose. It was simple really, although quite brutal, most of the British Armour, concentrated in Lt Gen Norrie’s XXX Corps would move forward, sweeping south round the fortified frontline outposts, before stopping at Gabr Salah. The movement of the British Armour circling around the fortified outposts, and threatening Tobruk would force Rommel to shift his Panzer Divisions south and confront the British amour, bringing about a dog-eat-dog battle of attrition, in which the British had a lot more tanks.

In the meantime, Lt Gen Heath’s XIII Infantry Corps would engage and surround the fortified frontline posts, reducing them as they could, while also following along the coastal road to join up with the Tobruk garrison, which was waiting for the right moment to break the siege. And to keep Rommel guessing, the Indian 29th Bde, with the 6th South African Armoured Car Regt attached would make the southern strike across the desert, following the plan of the first option, and take Jalo, acting as the advance guard of a supposedly main attack. In addition to this, an audacious plan to kill Rommel, by attacking his rear HQ at Beda Littoria, Operation Flipper, by Army Commandos, landed by submarines was authorised. They say any plan only lasts until contact with the enemy, but in this case, it was a lack of contact that broke the main battle plan!

The failure of Operation Battleaxe had brought about wholesale changes to the British command structure in North Africa. Wavell had gone, taking Auchinleck’s position as CinC India, while Auchinleck was now commanding the Middle East theatre. The Western Desert Force had been renamed the Eight Army, under the command of Alan Cunningham, a hero of the East African campaign. This now had two Corps, XXX Corps, Lt Gen Willoughby Norrie, with the 7th Armoured Division, comprising of the 7th and 22nd Armoured Bdes along with the 7th support Bde, as well as the attached 4th Armoured Bde, the two brigades of the South African 1st Division, its third brigade was acting as a LOC unit, and the independent 22nd Guards Brigade. And XIII Corps, Lt Gen Lewis Heath, with the 4th Indian Division, the 2nd New Zealand Division and the 1st Army Tank Brigade.

Also under Eighth Army command was the Tobruk garrison, commanded by Maj Gen Ronald Scobie, with the recently arrived British 70th Division, which had replaced the Australian 9th Division, although the Australian 20th Bde remained, the Polish Carpathian Bde, and the 32nd Army Tank Brigade. In reserve, the Eighth Army had the South African 2nd Division. In all they fielded 770 tanks, a mix of mainly Crusaders, Matilda’s and the new American Stuart tank, nicknamed Honey. Supporting them was the RAF’s Desert Air Force with about 550 aircraft in theatre, in addition other aircraft, including those based at Malta, were dedicated to the interdiction of Axis supplies, Rommel’s Achilles Heel.

Facing them was Panzergruppe Afrika, command by General Erwin Rommel, with the Afrika Korps, Lt Gen Ludwig Cruwell, made up of the 15th and 21st Panzer Divisions, the newly renamed 90th Light Africa Division and the attached Italian 55th Savona infantry division. The Italians also fielded the XX Motorised Corps, with the Ariete armoured, and Trieste motorised, divisions, and the XXI Corps, with the Trento motorised division and three infantry divisions, Pavia, Brescia and Bologna. These forces had under 200 Italian tanks, and nearly 250 German ones, including about 135 Mk III’s, and 30 Mk IV’s. The Axis air forces fielded about 120 German and 200 Italian aircraft, although more could be flown in from Italy and Greece.

Pre-dawn, Tuesday, without the fanfare of any artillery barrage, the three armoured brigades, the 22nd and the 7th of the 7th Armoured Division, and the attached 4th Armoured Brigade swept forward, meeting no resistance all day. Owing to heavy rains, no RAF raids on the Axis airfields was conducted, but this also prevented enemy air reconnaissance from spotting the advance. At about the same time as the offensive, Rommel returned to his headquarters from Italy, via Athens, having celebrated his 50th birthday with his wife in Rome, as well as convincing the Italian High Command to support his planned attack on Tobruk, scheduled for the 23rd November. He read the offensive as just a reconnaissance in force, and did little, the British had achieved complete operational surprise.

And now, given such an advantage, the British began to throw it all away. This was in part due to a developing armoured warfare doctrine, that was light years away from the Germans, and in part due to the ‘fog of war’ caused by poor reconnaissance and radio communications, providing the British generals with a very disjointed picture. What saved them from complete disaster would be the problems Rommel was having with his own lack of air reconnaissance, and a seriously over inflated estimate of his enemy’s losses in tanks, something the British also repeatedly struggled with. Having arrived at the chosen battleground, they found to their dismay, the Germans hadn’t arrived at the party, and showed no inclination to do so. Cunningham, influenced by Norrie, who was in turn influenced by Gott, committed the cardinal sin of dispersing his forces, the concentration of armour was split up, as each Bde went off on its own divergent course.

Wednesday, the following day, 22nd Armoured Bde stumbled into the well dug in Ariete division at Bir el Gubi, losing tanks, while later in the afternoon, 4th Armoured battled with tanks of the 21sts Panzer Division, at Gabr Seleh, both sides convincing themselves that they had dealt out punishing blows on their enemy. And all the while 7th Armoured, with 7th Support Bde following pushed on north towards Tobruk, capturing the airfield at Sidi Rezegh. Overnight, realising that 4th Bde needed help, 22nd Bde was ordered to disengage, and shift east to support, when the 1st South African Bde, which had been ordered to relieve it, arrived. At the same time, the only other brigade the South African’s had, the 5th was ordered onto Sidi Rezegh to reinforce the 7th Armoured. And with Sidi Rezegh captured, the Tobruk garrison was ordered to start their breakout on Friday 21st.

So, Thursday morning, all three armoured brigades are engaged, the 7th now under attack at the airfield from troops of the German Afrika Division, as well as Italians from the Bologna Infantry Division. The 22nd, unable to disengage, as the South African’s hadn’t arrived, and the 4th being pressed hard by the 21st Panzer Division. At this point, they should have been smashing the German Panzers, but their concentration of force was lost; the brigades unable to support each other. It wasn’t until nightfall that 22nd Bde linked up with Bde, while the Germans disengaged. And now Rommel is finally convinced that this isn’t just a mere probe, but the full British effort on relieving Tobruk, and he orders Cruwell to concentrate his Afrika Korps, and send it west to recapture Sidi Rezegh, and snuff out the British push towards Tobruk. These moves were noticed by the British Command, and they begin to react, the initiative beginning to slide away from them.

Friday 21st, and the Tobruk garrison, with a preliminary 100-gun barrage, made a dawn attack towards El Duda and the airfield of Sidi Rezegh beyond, while diversionary attacks held the rest of the Axis besieging forces in position. Initially they made good progress, but increasingly stiffening defences stalled the attack on a couple of Italian held strongpoints, and by the end of the day they had created a salient 3.5 miles deep, with over 1,000 Axis prisoners. 7th Division launched an attack towards El Duda, to link up, gaining the lip of the escarpment overlooking the Trig Capuzzo Road, but further advance was stopped by German 88mm guns, the British losing a number of Crusader tanks. At about the same time, the British became aware of the Africa Korps, which launched an attack in their rear, from the South-East. Most of the British Armour turned and faced this attack, and in a day long battle, successfully fought the Germans to a standstill, but at the cost of the loss of the airfield at Sidi Rezegh, and most of their tanks, less than 30 remaining. South of the Afrika Korps was the 22ndf and 4thd Armoured Bdes, which had tried to engage the Panzer Divisions, and hold them back, but had been unable to do so.

And I’ll stop there for now, with a very confused set of battle lines, much like a club sandwich, the Tobruk garrison in the north, the Italian Bologna and German Afrika Divisions south, the British 7th Armoured Division next, the Afrika Korps attacking, south of them, and the British 4th and 22nd Armoured Bdes trying to press the Panzers from the south. Confused? You ought to be!
 
It also didn’t help that they were fighting the German general Rommel, who, certainly among the British, attained an almost mythical identity, and who seemed to make even the good British generals look average.
Up to a point - he had a habit of swanning around at the front and so effectively not commanding his forces; his 'dash to the wire' was designed to panic the British, but looked a bit silly when they didn't react.

German advantages were mostly doctrinal - emphasis on combined arms, concentration of force and mission based orders leading to faster decision making. The story of Crusader is multiple British armoured brigade vs Panzer division engagements, plus British tanks vs anti-tank screens; but superior tank numbers, logistics and attrition forcing Rommel to withdraw. Good luck with trying to describe the battle.
 
Last edited:
My main reason, although I could have done it with the Infantry Bde, is to highlight the shortcomings of British doctrine, training and their equipment in the Far East environment.
No problem with that; with shortages of units, equipment and most importantly time for training, getting some infantry trained in operating with tanks is more important than the book. However the tankers in the Indian Army establishment observing will be aghast at the breaches of doctrine.
 
Last edited:
Lastly the Carrier is not an AFV its not really bullet proof even - it was used as such several times in WW2 particulalrly during the battle of France and usually only as an act of desperation to allow parent forces to escape / disengage
IIRC it was used on occasions, in Normandy and after, to launch small-scale surprise attacks getting infantry into the heart of German defensive positions before they could react.
 

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
IIRC it was used on occasions, in Normandy and after, to launch small-scale surprise attacks getting infantry into the heart of German defensive positions before they could react.
Hi Aber, my understanding of the use of the carriers re carry infantry was exactly that. Funny enough, the tactic is mentioned during the Crusader battle; morning of Nov 21, troops of the 1st Bn, Kings Royal Rifle Corps are brought forward, along with Crusader tanks of the 6th Royal Tank Regt, along with some Armoured cars to capture the escarpment overlooking the Trig Capuzzo road. On attaining the ridgeline, they encountered German/Italian infantry and AT guns dug in on the reverse slope , and a number of Crusader tanks and carriers were knocked out, the infantry dismounted, and joined the fight.

However the tankers in the Indian Army establishment observing will be aghast at the breaches of doctrine.
Which leads me onto British Tank Doctrine of 1941. OK, so I'm on decidedly dodgy ground here, but here's my take on it, and please correct me where I go wrong. While the Cruiser tanks (the breakout and exploit part of British Tank Warfare) would work without infantry, the Infantry tank, was meant to work with Infantry. Part of their requirements was heavy armour, for the time, at the expense of speed, which was needed as they crawled forward at the pace of the Infantry. This was the element that used a combined arms approach, with Artillery offering support. But I don't understand how the 2 pdr AT gun was to work with all of this. The doctrine is an evolving beast and how the 7th Armoured Bde worked in Burma in 1942, is probably my best idea, despite the M3 Stuart being considered a Cruiser tank by the British.
 
Last edited:
Hi Aber, my understanding of the use of the carriers re carry infantry was exactly that. Funny enough, the tactic is mentioned during the Crusader battle; morning of Nov 21, troops of the 1st Bn, Kings Royal Rifle Corps are brought forward, along with Crusader tanks of the 6th Royal Tank Regt, along with some Armoured cars to capture the escarpment overlooking the Trig Capuzzo road. On attaining the ridgeline, they encountered German/Italian infantry and AT guns dug in on the reverse slope , and a number of Crusader tanks and carriers were knocked out, the infantry dismounted, and joined the fight.


Which leads me onto British Tank Doctrine of 1941. OK, so I'm on decidedly dodgy ground here, but here's my take on it, and please correct me where I go wrong. While the Cruiser tanks (the breakout and exploit part of British Tank Warfare) would work without infantry, the Infantry tank, was meant to work with Infantry. Part of their requirements was heavy armour, for the time, at the expense of speed, which was needed as they crawled forward at the pace of the Infantry. This was the element that used a combined arms approach, with Artillery offering support. But I don't understand how the 2 pdr AT gun was to work with all of this. The doctrine is an evolving beast and how the 7th Armoured Bde worked in Burma in 1942, is probably my best idea, despite the M3 Stuart being considered a Cruiser tank by the British.
Its interesting that the jobs of the tanks got blurred - particulalrly the Valentine - simply because it was so reliable relative to the other designs and therefore remained available in large numbers ended up being used as a Cruiser tank to 'exploit' breakthroughs etc despite its slow speed relative to true cruisers.

Again the 2 pounder was intended to defeat other tanks (Infantry tanks were still primarily expected to defeat other tanks!)

This must have been a similar desire from all of the other nations as the tank designs of the main forces all seem to have used a gun in the 37mm to 45mm range and while some did issue HE rounds it was generally a hand grenade worth of explosives and due to the rapid expansion of the British war industry to support the equally rapid expansion of the army 2 pounder HE rounds were not produced until 1942 (US Production of 37mm HE shells for its M3 Stuarts and M3 Grants/Lees and towed AT gun also did not begin until Feb 42).

It seems to be real operational experience that gave the advantage to the Germans and not better weapons or any special Auftragstaktik sauce - it was the the then greater experience of the far larger German Army that was the major difference.

In May 1940 the Germans were a campaign and a half ahead of the British and French and had blown out the cobwebs discovered where their pre war doctrines failed or needed changing etc and had applied those changes across the Heer.

As was mentioned the biggest issue impacting the 8th Armys battle was none of the above but simply the huge and inexplicable error of dividing the main armoured force in such a way that invited defeat in detail - hardly a new concept and also Divisions not fighting as divisions but 'none mutually supporting' Brigades unfortunately each fighting an Axis Division.

This is simply down to an army that was not yet fully trained as a continental force - this process takes about 2.5 to 3 years before the field and staff officers are good enough to fight as Division and Corp forces within an Army framework.

It is no surprise to me that the Germans started losing from late 1942 as their opponents became peers but the British and other DUKE forces are not yet there in late 1941 (they were very good but still not quite peers of the German's).

There is however few ways that this required time can be accelerated.
 
Top