"Use of "I" Tanks?" Topic

Some of you have worked the Western Desert in more detail than I ever shall. Would you normally expect to see (in history, not on the wargame table) entire regiments of Matildas or Valentines operating as such, or were they usually dispersed as squadrons supporting infantry battalions?

They were used both as complete regiments and separated out into squadrons. Depended on the operational and tactical situation. On odd occasions they were even used as ad hoc armoured brigades. It was a lot less cut and dried than say, NWE. Operationally they were usually assigned to infantry formations (Corps, Divisions) but the tactical employment varied a lot.

You might find "Valentine in north Africa" interesting. Some nice sketch maps amongst the battle descriptions. Maybe one to borrow off a library rather than buy.

The British designed their armor as "Infantry Tanks" and "Cruiser Tanks". The Matilda supported infantry as it was slow and heavily armored. The Valentine was similar. The "A" series cruiser tanks did not fare well= lightly armored and their guns outclassed/ obsolete by the time they were committed yet were classified as cruiser and were supposed to be faster and more suitable for exploitation. In reality, in many instances, it was a "tank" and used both offensive and defensively. The correct answer to your question Robert is "Yes". To fully understand, read about some battles where "squadrons" were multi tasked for defense. The US sending Lees, Grants gave them greater capabilities due to the 75 with HE capability and the M-3 "Honeys" for speed. In all cases, the US Lend Lease tanks were better mechanically and reliable to what the British had at the time. The two you asked about I would class at the best the UK had at the time and used however and whenever needed.

The "A" series cruiser tanks did not fare well= lightly armored and their guns outclassed/ obsolete by the time they were committed yet were classified as cruiser and were supposed to be faster and more suitable for exploitation.

Technically all the Cruisers were A series. The Crusader was the A15 for example. The earlier ones were not bad given the time they were built. The A13 MkII had 30mm of armour and the 2pdr had equivalent AP performance to the 50mm L42. That is not bad for a tank built in 1940. Main problem was the lack of HE rounds.

Hmm. Not often someone manages to overestimate my ignorance. Yes, I understand the distinction between infantry and cruiser tanks, thank you. And I'm familiar with Lend-lease and even with mixed regiments of cruisers, and that many non-doctrinal things happen under combat conditions.

But wargame rules and figure basing are--at least when I'm doing them--less complicated than actual warfare, and try to nail the norms rather than the exceptions. I'm working on a set of rules in which support elements will be based on smaller stands than primary maneuver units. In the 1944 ETO version, for instance, US tank destroyers will be support elements, because they were usually companies in support of battalions or platoons in support of companies.

Let me try again. If the commander of a regiment of I tanks arrived at an infantry brigade headquarters, and was told to send each squadron to support a different infantry battalion in the upcoming attack, would he regard this as doctrinal? Normal? A shocking example of an infantry commander who doesn't understand the use of tanks? I can base both ways if that really is the answer, but it's inconvenient and if there was a norm, I'd rather follow it than try to cover all the exceptions.

Thanks.

Yes, an I tank commander would be entirely familiar with splitting up the regiment to support individual battalions. Just as the Motor Battalions assigned to support armoured brigades were generally split up so one company supported each Armoured Regiment.

For I Tanks, typically a squadron would support a battalion, and typically one troop would assigned to support each company, although that was more common in Europe. In the more open desert, the tank squadron tended to stay together.

Let me try again. If the commander of a regiment of I tanks arrived at an infantry brigade headquarters, and was told to send each squadron to support a different infantry battalion in the upcoming attack, would he regard this as doctrinal? Normal?

I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but I presume that could be considered rather usual deployment for infantry tanks.

Thank you all.

I would also throw in that the instructions and training manuals stressed that the smallest unit to be deployed in support of infantry was a Squadron, ideally to an Infantry Battalion. The Squadron may have to be split over two 'echelons', an example being given of three Troops with the first and two with the second.

There was also some consternation on the part of the RAC in infantry units asking for 'just a tank' to overcome opposition. It was underlined that a Troop was the smallest subunit that should be deployed, as it required at least two tanks to mutually support one another.

Gary

Thomas Jentz (in Tank Combat in North Africa, page 68) references the UK "Military Training Pamphlet Number 34, Royal Armored Corps Weapon Training, Part 4: FireTactics for Tank Commanders and Troop leaders" dated 1940. Regarding "I" tanks and sets out the priority of targets. Since their main purpose is to support infantry, it suggests that the Infantry would point out enemy strongpoints to their attention in offense and the infantry leadership directing in defense. Since the situational understanding of the infantry leadership (and Armored squadron leadership) can vary upon who the leaders are and the perceived or known tactical situation is, acting as a team is paramount. It cannot be predetermined how the command structure could be since the armor is to support the infantry but still very dependent on what their the armor unit's orders from their next HQ are. Indeed, the "I" tanks may be subject to consolidate to blunt an enemy armored attack which could see the infantry stripped of their armor support.

Short answer is guidelines were issued but local- on scene commanders employed them as they saw fit in local situations.

Thanks, Starfury, Dye. This whole project may yet crash and burn, but I have hopes.

Not 'I' tanks, but James Holland's 'Brothers in Arms' about the Sherwood Yeomanry 1944-5 is very good on infantry/armour cooperation. The regiment served in 8th Armoured Brigade and were pretty much always operating as Martin described.