"Were British "Close Support" tanks successful?" Topic

I see them in the early war, but not in the later. Why were they phased out?

I'm thinking there were too few early on. Later they weren't needed as most main battle tanks had sufficient HE capability.

I believe the fatal concept was that the support tanks only needed to move at the speed of the infantry they were supporting. (And they would only need anti-personnel weapons.)

There was some fuzzy thinking related to comparing tanks to naval vessels.

Yeah, in early war the main gun of most British tanks was a 2 pounder. Not much use for infantry support. A bigger weapon was needed, hence the CS tanks. Later, all the tanks were mounting bigger guns so the need for special CS tanks was less (although as I recall a few of the Churchill variants mounted big howitzers for CS).

I know why they were needed, but were they successful?

No

CS tanks essentially became redundant due to the development of good all-purpose guns such as the 75mm gun and later the 77mm, 20pdr and 105mm guns, which could effectively combine good AP performance with a reasonable HE punch.

CS tanks started to disappear when US-built tanks with 75mm guns such as Lee/Grant and Sherman appeared in large numbers. As the 75mm gun was superior in all respects to the previous 3.7-inch and 3-inch CS howitzers, this is perhaps unsurprising.

However, all-Stuart regiments in North Africa and Burma didn't get CS tanks for some reason. The British Army did evaluate M8 HMCs, but I've no idea why they weren't adopted to provide CS for Stuarts.

Despite the excellent HE performance of the standard 75mm gun, Commonwealth & Polish Sherman regiments in Italy started receiving Sherman Ib (M4 105mm) CS tanks during the summer of 1944 and by 1945 all Sherman squadrons in Italy had a pair of them (i.e. six per regiment). I don't know why, but this was not repeated in NW Europe. However, 1st & 5th Canadian Armoured Brigades took theirs with them when they transferred to NW Europe in 1945.

Churchill regiments in Italy beefed up their HE firepower by adapting Churchill Mk IVs to take spare Sherman 75mm guns, creating the Mk IV NA75. They eventualy received 95mm-armed Mk Vs in late 1944.

All Churchill and Cromwell-equipped regiments in NW Europe were supplied with 95mm CS tanks throughout 1944 & 1945 (two in each squadron) and even the Airborne Light Tank Squadron had Tetrarch CS variants.

When Comet appeared, two Cromwell Mk VIII 85mm CS tanks were present in each Comet Sqn. Spare Harry Hopkins light tank hulls were converted into Alecto 95mm SPGs and these were also allocated to Comet regiments just after the war. However, both the Cromwell CS and the Alecto disappeared from Comet regiments in the 1950s.

Were they successful? They certainly seem to have been when they received a weapon fit for purpose, such as the 95mm or 105mm. However, they became increasingly irrelevant and the appearance of the Centurion 'Universal Tank' finally killed them off.

"Churchill regiments in Italy beefed up their HE firepower by adapting Churchill Mk IVs to take spare Sherman 75mm guns, creating the Mk IV NA75. They eventualy received 95mm-armed Mk Vs in late 1944."

I remember mentioning the NA 75 a couple of years back,

"During World War II, some 3 weeks after the formation of REME, the British Eighth Army, reinforced with much U.S. equipment, fought its main battle at El Alamein in North Africa, halting the German drive to the Suez Canal. Success of that battle may not have been possible had it not been for REME's demonstrated ability to recover and repair equipment quickly. That ability brought great praise to the new Corps. The Corps went on to support Allied forces landing in Morocco and Algeria, contributing to the success of the North African campaign. [/size][size=2]It was during this time that the Corps discovered that British Churchill tanks could be fitted with guns from wrecked U.S. Sherman tanks. Since the guns of the Sherman tank could use a wider range of ammunition, substituting the Sherman gun extended the capability of the Churchill tank. The Corps outfitted two tank regiments with Sherman guns, and those regiments served in Italy."

link

NA 75
by: David Morrell

Major Percy Hulme Morrell MBE

Operation "WHITEHOT"

link

In the early war period they were mainly used to lay smoke..they had only a few HE rounds but their role was to lay ..smoke..in the later war period they were still around, Cromwells and Churchills were both armed with the 95mm Howitzer and refereed to as CS

The infantry tanks were equipped with 2lbers so as too protect their infantry chums from enemy tank attack..that was the logic..the CS tank was to provide cover with smoke..
cruisers were to adopt the cavalry role..and fan out using their speed etc..pity they didn't give the Germans to book to read..

They did give the Germans the book, but it was an earlier and more successful version.

Apparently very popular in the Pacific for bunker blasting, allegedly nearly all the available Matilda CS kits were sent out to Australia – they were a 'drop in' exchange for the 2pdr.

Here's my take on John's original question ….

In the 1940 campaign in France they lacked the opportunity in most battles to take their designed role (which was essentially in support of offensive operations). Used piecemeal or when forced on the defensive they were of limited use.

Ammo supply was always a problem for them too, as noted above, a lack of HE ammo for them significantly reduced their effectiveness. In a tank designed for 2pr ammo storage you couldn't get much 3.7" HE in the same space so they couldn't last long in action before needing to rearm.

I don't know how many went out to the Western desert but I have a feeling it wasn't many. While I seem to recall there being a few mentions of their use against static Italian positions they were out-ranged by artillery and so, again, of limited use. Better to have your own artillery available to do the job – which is what the British did with success.

As already noted. They were so few. Also, using one's own artillery was a better solution to the problem.
There was a successful support tank in WW2. But it wasn't British. The PzIV, at least the early models.

The pre-war doctrine for A9 & A10 CS tanks was that CS tanks were to be primarily used to lay smokescreens and thus 3.7-inch CS ammunition production was directed toward the manufature of smoke rounds. Only TWO rounds in the tank were to be HE and the CS tanks in France circa 1940 didn't even get those. That problem was corrected with the 3-inch CS howitzer, as fitted to Crusader, Matilda, Valentine, Tetrarch, Churchill Mk I, I CS & II CS and Staghound II, but the weapon still lcked sufficient HE punch. The 95mm was a far superior weapon and well-liked.

and the Australian Churchill crocodiles were all 95mm howitzer armed as well..a potent sort of combination, though we only had 8 of them..

Were they successful? A successful as other countries CS tanks (like the early Panzer IV) were I suppose. Eventually they were phased out as effective DP guns become widely available and the differnce between AT gun and CS gun armed tanks disappeared.

The ratios of CS to AT tanks were along the lines of those used in the interwar Mechanised Force. The Germans used similar numbers (ten per battalion) but concentrated in the medum tank companies. I can't recall the allocation of Soviet CS tanks, but there weren't many, only 145 BT-7A were built and a handful of BT-5A. The Soviets were a bit quicker of the mark with decent DP guns.

CH, I didn't know that. An interestting combination.

The reputation of CS tanks suffers greatly from the early part of the war and the ammunition supply problems for the 3.7-inch CS howitzer. Some of the comments above make it clear that many people are unaware that CS tanks evolved throughout the war and that they became very effective tools until such time as 'universal' tank guns appeared. There was nothing inherently wrong with 3-inch and 95mm CS tanks – the troop and squadron leaders could never get enough of them and their crews liked them.

perhaps airpower changed the brits need for infantry support tanks as the germans still felt the need for some.

OKay chaps you want 6 churchills or 2 Typhoons?

The discussion isn't about infantry support tanks. It's about Close Support tanks. I.e. tanks armed with howitzers that were to provide close support to other tanks with HE & smoke.

But to answer your question; Tiffies are overrated and can't take ground. Churchills every time, but preferably both.

Back to John's original question: Your premise is slightly flawed. They weren't phased out until after the war and the introduction of the Centurion. They disappeared for a time in US-equipped regiments because 75mm guns were viewed at the time to be sufficient to do both jobs. However, this view changed and 105mm-armed Shermans were then adopted as CS tanks for Sherman regiments (albeit not in NW Europe). CS tanks never disappeared in regiments equipped with British-built tanks such as Cromwell, Churchill, Comet, etc.

Apparently the US planners were somewhat impressed by the idea, considering that also the US Sherman companies featured one 105 mm armed tank per company. This despite the regular Shermans having a 75 mm gun for main armament.

There was also a 105mm "Assault Gun Platoon" at battalion HQ

I read a book called "Tank Tracks", about a British Churchill regiment in NW Europe. IIRC, the CS Churchills with the 95mm were the preferred weapons for taking out AT guns, as they could stand off and shell the nasty things instead of having to get close enough to engage in a shoot-out with them, as the regular Churchills would.

Peter Beale's 'Tank Tracks: 9 RTR At War' is one of the best published armoured regiment histories and it's available for free online at the RTR Association here:

link

Gerry Chester also discusses CS Churchills on his superb North Irish Horse site:

northirishhorse.net

Gerry actually served in the NIH through Tunisia and Italy and crewed various marks of Churchill, including the 95mm-armed Mk V, the Mk I CS (which swapped the positioning of the Mk I's armament, so the 3-inch howitzer was in the turret, while the 2pdr was in the hull) and the extremely rare Mk II CS (which was armed with two 3-inch howitzers – one in the turret and one in the hull). He used to be a regular on the FoW forum and did turn up here on TMP once or twice to discuss Churchills and CS tanks.

R Mark Davies wrote;

They weren't phased out until after the war and the introduction of the Centurion.

Even at that, Centurion Mk 4 was to have carried a 95mm howitzer. The Mk 4 was the only Centurion mark never to enter production -- someone finally realised that there was little point having specialised 95mm HE-chuckers when the sabre troops could all fire 83mm (20-pdr) HE.

Given that the much-maligned 75mm MV gun was, as RMD has correctly mentioned, an excellent HE weapon, and given that it could engage with HE up to 2000 yards using direct adjustment instead of bracketing drills, I donlt really understand why anyone would have bothered with the 95mm once the 75mm came in.

All the best,

John.

Tim, one day I'll get around to building a 1/35 version of that particular MkICS, which should give some rivet counters apoplexy. …

I've got a nice PzIII cupoula just for that, and just need to raise the funds to buy the resin kit itself.

The NIH site itself is a model as to just how good an 'amateur' site can be.

Cheers John. I had wondered why there was the jump from Cent Mk III to Mk V without the Mk IV in the middle. Now I know. :o)

Tim, yes, I did see someone do that conversion on the FoW site once upon a time.

The Matilda II was more powerful then any German tank it encounter, forcing Rommel to use the famous 88's (and other non AT arty guns) on them to throw back their advance. In many ways the Matilda II tank and the Brits it was supporting was key in holding the Germans off long enough for the Brits to evacuate at Dunkirk.

The Matilda had a pretty horrid gun, and, surprising for an infantry support tank, no HE rounds, but it did have armor that was to thick for German AT guns or tank guns to hurt.

Matilda II's would see use in Afrika where they were again countered by the 88, and also in Russia as lend-lease tanks. The Russians treated them sort of like KV-1's, but with weaker guns.

As the Germans got better AT weapons and better tanks, the Matilda II became quickly obsolete.

Das Sheep, sounds like you are thinking about British infantry tanks while the thread is actually about British close support tanks.

Close support tank was a British term for a tank armed with howitzer (3" or 3.7" or 95 mm) and primarily intended for firing HE and/or smoke munitions. Both infantry and cruiser tanks could have close support variants built, typical allocation being two close support tanks per tank company.

Cheers Griefy!

Sheepy is presumably one of my many stiflers… :o)

As Griefy says – Close Support tanks were not infantry support tanks. Quite the opposite: They were there to provide support to other tanks.

I think they must have been useful. For example, Lt Bill Cotton who was at Villers Bocage was commanding a Cromwell CS. If not so useful, I'd expect the less experienced crews and tank commanders to be assigned.

In game terms the 95mm usually comes in quite handy to lay smoke and fire the size of HE round that at least gets the enemy's attention.

"Quite the opposite: They were there to provide support to other tanks."

Indeed, whereas the early I tanks were there to provide a heavily armoured machinegun nest and mobile AT gun to support infantry attacks and protect them from enemy tank counteratacks. Later I tanks had DP guns of course.

I wonder how long this thread is going to go on for?

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Monty yet, I'm sure it was all his fault, although we don't seem to get so much of that these days.

OK, so who had post 34 in the sweepstake for Monty's name to come up? Indirect references still count Martin ;-)

Griefy, I forgot to add your earlier point about US CS tanks – they also introduced the M8 HMC to support Stuart/Cavalry units and also included M7 Priest HMCs in Sherman battalions before 105mm Shermans became available, so they must have believed that there was something in the concept.

RMD, that is why I never stifle anybody. Even the biggest knucklehead around probably knows at least one thing I dont, and you never know what it is or how usefull it may be. And stifleing those who like you really do know a lot sort of defeats one of the main resons for coming here.

Now if some on the Napoleonic board would stifle each other……Of coure some of them if they stifled everybody they disagreed with would only see thier own posts, but perhaps that is what they really want anyway.

owen

Me too…

Hey! What are you trying to say?! :o)

As Terry Wogan says, "Praised with faint damns."

Indeed, whereas the early I tanks were there to provide a heavily armoured machinegun nest and mobile AT gun to support infantry attacks and protect them from enemy tank counteratacks.

I am not sure that those who devised the pre-war doctrine for the British cruiser (and light) tanks would fully agree with that.