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.
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: