British Tanks of WW2 were they any use?

perseus

Active member
I've just been watching Mark Urban's documentary of the personal experiences of members of 5th Tank regiment starting from the their initial baptism of fire in France 1940, through their North African exploits and Normandy landings, up to the final move into Hamburg in 1945. It is very much a mixed bag of experiences and exploits, some in sharp contrast to what I have read.

Urban claims. the British tanks weren't up to the standard of the Panzers in France, particularly the thickness of armour, here he is referring to the battle of France in 1940. Yet according to records the battle of Arras (which admittedly the regiment wasn't involved in) Rommel committed some of his armour to local counterattacks, only to find the guns of the Panzer II and Panzer 38(t) tanks could not penetrate the Matildas' armour.

Information from other sources suggest it was the way the armour was used, the logistics system for repair and refuelling, and the training and expectations of the crews which were the critical factors, not the thickness of armour or guns.

Later on in Normandy the armour complaint was used again. Whilst no allied tank was a match for the Tiger or Panther in a 'fire and survive' scenerio, there were so many more of them. The Cromwell tank came under particular criticism, one tankman complained at the design, have the designers not learned to produce a tank with sloping sides yet to deflect the ammunition? He was threatened with Court Marshall if he complained any more. The crews seemed to much prefer the Sherman. However were the Cromwells really any worse than the Sherman Firefly's? Not according to this.

In Patrick Delaforce's book Churchill's Desert Rats: From Normandy to Berlin with the 7th Armoured Division the 7th AD were at first very skeptical about the tank, but came to prefer the Cromwell due to its speed and agility and lower tendency to brew up.
 
Last edited:
The Matilda in France gave the Germans a scare as they could not knock it out, until they first used the 88 ack gun to do this. The problem with the early Matilda was that it was under gunned and had trouble knocking out its opponent.

The Churchill and Cromwell Tanks were well armoured and would not burn so readily as a Sherman when hit, but were still under gunned. Many of these were later upgraded to 17 pounders which made them very effective

The Comet which came in at the end of the war and did see service in Europe was well armoured and had the 17 pounder gun.

I agree that Britain did not make use of the sloping armour but nor did the Tiger Tank.
 
For those not in the UK, Youtube has it up as well...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgEubafzSL0"]Tankies: Tank Heroes of World War II - YouTube[/ame]

Well after 4 minutes I am not entirely impressed as it seems to perpetuate the same old myths that have plagued us since WW2.

Myth1: 3min 55sec They were defeated by "superior" German panzers.
What they met were in the main Panzer I and IIs neither could really be considered superior to anything the Allies rolled out and in many cases were inferior, what was "superior" was German armoured doctrine.
 
Their first encounter was on the Somme and they were heavily outnumbered so perhaps they may have come up against Panzer IIIs and IVs which surely were put in the front. Was the Panzer I still being used for front line battles?
 
The Mk1 Matilda was only armed with a Vickers Machine gun for troops support and this was the Main British Tank in France in 1940 and that went up against the German Panzers and with its heavy armour they could not knock it out till they went for its tracks, but there again a Vickers machine gun wiould only tickle a German tank. If any thing was a one sided fight then this was.
 
The Crusader tank was fitted with a 2 pounder (40mm) main gun and 1 or 2 Besa machine guns. Later Mk3 Crusaders were fitted with a 6 pounder (57mm) main gun.
 
The Mk1 Matilda was only armed with a Vickers Machine gun for troops support and this was the Main British Tank in France in 1940 and that went up against the German Panzers and with its heavy armour they could not knock it out till they went for its tracks, but there again a Vickers machine gun wiould only tickle a German tank. If any thing was a one sided fight then this was.

The regiment was landed at Cherbourg after the Dunkirk Evacuation, behind the Somme

According to the book 'Dunkirk' by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore, the British had around '50 light tanks' left , but they were not properly backed up by infantry and artillery.

According to this at least some must have been A10s MkIIs which must have had the 2 pounder.

The Cruiser Tank Mk II made its combat debut with the 1st Armoured Division in France in May 1940. One regiment was landed (and lost) at Calais, but the rest of the division landed at Cherbourg and took part in the fighting on the Somme. It was then forced to retreat back to Cherbourg to be evacuated. After the fighting the Cruiser Tank Mk II's engine was criticized for being underpowered and unreliable. The tracks were judged to be too narrow, have a poor grip, prone to come off the wheels and overly complex to replace.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_cruiser_tank_mk_II.html
 
Last edited:
Here is a site with some specs.

First lets compare the Cruiser MkII
Effective Armour - Maximum 32 (mm) - Minimum 7 (mm)
Ordnance Q.F. 2pdr with a muzzle velocity of 792m/sec which was capable of penetrating 47mm of armour at 800metres

against the PzIII Effective Armour - Maximum 33 (mm) - Minimum 12 (mm)
Muzzle Velocity
745 m/sec which was capable of penetrating 32mm at 800metres

large advantage in speed and reliability of the PzIII though.
 
Last edited:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJNEhoLq1Cw"]The british Matilda A1 light tank - YouTube[/ame]

The Mark 1 Matilda
 
I fully accept it would have been no contest with a Matilda I, but they weren't the only British tank in France. There was the Matilda II (which had the 2 pounder) and Cruiser MkII for example. The link in post 8 which is relevant to this film implies the cruisers were used at least in part and the specifications are given above.
 
Last edited:
On the video clip the chap that was there says that there were 58 of these at Arras while patting the Mk1 or do you think he meant the Mk 2.
 
The Armoured Brigade in Urban's programme had nothing to do with Arras. The armoured brigade was landed in Cherbourg, in June 1940. This was the defence of the second phase of the German invasion of France after Dunkirk. It was a thankless task I admit, and they were outnumbered, but the armour didn't seem to be co-ordinated or supported.

Incidentally it looks like they had a better armoured design on that Matilda than many later tanks! Shame it was useless in everything else.
 
Last edited:


The Conquerer Mk 1 which was strated in 1944 now it goes to prove that Britain was on the right lines for a decent tank but it took them a long time to get there. When the war finished so was this tank and about nine of them were made.
 
If we are just talking about WW2 then the Comet was an excellent tank. There were not very many of then in Normandy in the summer and fall of 1944. But the ones that were there were definitely Tiger killers.
 
Contray to the widely held view of "if it ain't German or Soviet - it sucks." Shermans could be very useful once up gunned to a 76mm or 17 pounder. And yes they could take on a panther or tiger. :cool:
 
Contray to the widely held view of "if it ain't German or Soviet - it sucks." Shermans could be very useful once up gunned to a 76mm or 17 pounder. And yes they could take on a panther or tiger. :cool:

At close range yes however both the Panther and the Tiger could take out a Sherman at around 2400 metres while the firefly initially could only respond at around 1000 metres, this was later improved to 1600 metres with improved ammunition.

Outside that British tanks were in general awful until the very end of the war when they finally started to figure it out but none of those designs made it to the front in any significant number to make a difference.
 
Last edited:
My uncle Charlie with the 8th Army in North Africa often said that it was disgusting how British tanks were always under gunned and under armoured. He reckoned the only good bit of kit was the 25 pounder gun.
 
Back
Top