British Tank design and philosophy

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Please take a casual look at Mackseys catalogue before we instantly dismiss him as a charlatan and bullshit peddlar.

Even really good authors make mistakes. Look at some of the Zaloga books on Soviet armor and total ignorance of what stamped T-34 turret was. For decades serious books about aviation repeated a myth that Bf-109K had 15mm MG-151 instead of 13mm MG-131, myths about "Ceramics in chobham armor" was repeated how many times, T-64 and T-72 armor was underestimated for decades, Chieftain armor was overestimated also for decades. Etc, etc.

No book is a gospel and all, even those researched in person (which he did not do, he mostly just copied Israeli accounts) have fair number of mistakes, because author always has to reconstruct what happened based on limited information*. So to do so he has to fall back on what he knows, hence interpretations like that, because they are easy and "logical"**. He probably did not know IS-3 traverse speed on electrical and manual traverse when he was writing it, so he can be (somewhat, he could have found it) excused, his readers today do not get that grace, because today that information is easy to find.

*Trust me, I am writing a book on Yugoslav small arms development.

** And authors do not put enough caveats to make difference between what happened and what they think that happened.

Quote

I cant lay my hands on the book now, it must lay in the depth of the archive. But I certainly can find Tanks of Tammuz on archive.org, and they seemingly point to JSIII being outflanked whilst being overly fixated to the front, and being unable to move quickly enough (and or or rotate the gun) to face the emerging threat to their flank and rear. That seemed to occur in several engagements in this campaign. You can either put it down to speed of the M48's, terrain masking, poor command and control of the Egyptians, poor fire control, or a little of all of them. Page 172.

https://archive.org/details/tanksoftammuz0000shab/page/172/mode/2up?q=joseph+stalin

Again, idea that at few hundred meters even on manual traverse IS-3 would be unable to track M48 because "it is too fast" (while M48 was not exactly fastest of the tanks) does not pass any sort of check, so sorry, your whole statement "What they dont mention is that the tracking rate on a JSIII was so low" is a bullshit.

Re: bolded - it is failure of tactics, not technology.

[alejandro_]

3 hours ago, futon said:

This book is by a former crew member of the Type 74. Reading it is a pleasure. 

https://www.amazon.co.jp/永遠の74式戦車-伊藤-学/dp/489063441X

 

Thanks, do you have it? I was wondering if I could put some questions about the tank development, as I cannot read it.

[futon]

5 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Thanks, do you have it? I was wondering if I could put some questions about the tank development, as I cannot read it.

Of course, It's been awhile since I read through it though. So a detail seeking question may not get an immediate answer. 

[Murph]

One of the best books I have is one suggested by our British continegent: Rude Mechanicals.  It details the flaws of British tank design and employment philosphy.  Highly suggested reading.  In fact I need to read it again.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

If you want a recommendation, try this if you like WW1 tanks. It's a little dry, but well worth the effort. Lord bless him he also gave the world Tog-2, so you can tell he was mad as a hatter, but brilliant.

https://archive.org/details/tankslogbookofpi00ster/page/n9/mode/2up

 

[alejandro_]

On 2/12/2025 at 10:39 PM, futon said:

Of course, It's been awhile since I read through it though. So a detail seeking question may not get an immediate answer. 

Thank you, I am not in a hurry or anything,  just 2 questions:

- When designing the Type-74. Were there other configurations/armament considered? The Centurion was also considered with a torsion bar suspension and welded turret but dropped for example.
- Any reference to Western/Soviet tanks?  Good or bad impressions, equipment that could be used in Type-74 (L7 gun) and so on.
 

[futon]

2 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

Thank you, I am not in a hurry or anything,  just 2 questions:

- When designing the Type-74. Were there other configurations/armament considered? The Centurion was also considered with a torsion bar suspension and welded turret but dropped for example.
- Any reference to Western/Soviet tanks?  Good or bad impressions, equipment that could be used in Type-74 (L7 gun) and so on.
 

Sure thing! I'll reply to the post again when I have some citations.

[RETAC21]

Because is the day:

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Rather nice video showing chieftains under construction in Leeds. Seems to be part of the Shah's order.

 

[futon]

On 2/14/2025 at 6:34 PM, alejandro_ said:

Thank you, I am not in a hurry or anything,  just 2 questions:

- When designing the Type-74. Were there other configurations/armament considered? The Centurion was also considered with a torsion bar suspension and welded turret but dropped for example.
- Any reference to Western/Soviet tanks?  Good or bad impressions, equipment that could be used in Type-74 (L7 gun) and so on.
 

Hello alejandro_

Here are a couple of citations from the book I mentioned before.

 

永遠の74式戦車
The Eternal Type 74 Tank

伊藤 学
Manabu Itoh

   戦車の技術・性能向上は日進月歩である。実際のところ、先代の61式戦車の開発途上の時点でソ連は100ミリ戦車砲を装備したT-54／55戦車を実用化しており、さらに61式戦車の完成と同時期に115ミリ戦車砲を装備したT-62戦車を実用化している。

   61式戦車は早い時期からすでに諸外国、特に脅威とされていたソ連が運用する戦車から性能的な面で大きくリードされていた。さらにアメリカ、イギリス、ドイツ、フランスといった州米各国の戦車も口径100ミリ超の戦車砲を装備し、さらに射撃統制装置をはじめ射撃関係装備の電子化なども進み、諸外国の戦車と比べて61式戦車の能力不足は配備直後から顕著になっていた。(page 15)

Tank technology and capabilities improve at a fast rate. As a matter of fact, the as the previous Type 61 tank was in development, the Soviet Union had already put into use the 100mm armed  T-54/55 tanks, and was putting into use the 115mm armed T-62 tank. 

Early on, from the perspective of capabilities, the Type 61 tank had already fallen behind those of other countries, particularly the threatening tanks operated by the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the tanks from the countries the US, the UK, Germany, and France were equipped with a gun over 100mm in caliber, and systems related to shooting, such as the fire control system, were becoming electrical. Compared to the tanks of these countries, the insufficient capabilities of the Type 61 was obvious immediately upon deployment. (page 15)

The next citation is coming after an explanation about the two phases of prototype vehicles. STB-1 and STB-2 were vehicles in the 1st phase. STB-3, STB-4, STB-5, and STB-6 were prototypes of the 2nd phase. The purpose of the 2nd phase was to reduce costs. 

変更点としては、砲塔上の12.7ミリ重機関銃をリモートコントロールの遠隔操作式から通常の手動操作・射撃式に変更。戦闘室内の補助装填装置を廃止し装填手による完全に手動装填、105ミリ戦車砲の閉鎖機を水平鎖栓式から垂直鎖栓式に変更。照準潜望鏡と戦車砲の連動機構を電子化から機械式に変更などである。第2次試作車は内部・外部ともに、より量産型に近い仕様、形状となった。(page 18)

The points that were changed include changing the 12.7mm heavy machine gun on the top of the tank from a remote controlled operated style to a usual hand operated style. The load assisting device inside the battle compartment was removed thus having the loading done entirely by hand. The breech of the 105mm gun was changed from a horizontal style to a vertical style. The interlocking mechanism for the aiming sight periscope and the main gun was changed from an electrical style to a mechanical style. The specifications and shape of the interior and exterior of the 2nd phase of prototype vehicles were closer to the production version. (page 18)
 

 

Here is one more citation from a different book. The author of this book was a crew member of the Type 61 tank. 

It's part of an explanation about the capability increase going to the Type 74 from the Type 61. 

機甲戦
用兵思想と系譜

Armored Warfare

Tactical Philosophy and Genealogy

葛原 和三
Kazumi Kuzuhara

この他、砲安定装置、潜水徒渉装置、CBR (化学・生物・放射能) 防護装置、暗視装置など、これまで達成できなかった技術的課題を克服し、日本戦車として念願の世界標準に到達したといえる。(page 307)
In addition to those, devices for tank gun stabilization, river fording, CBR (chemical, biological, radiation) protection, night vision, and so on, were all challenges that were overcome, and it could be said that as a Japanese tank, the desirable global standard had been reached. (page 307)

 

I'll directly add to fill in more for your questions, there was consideration to upgrade the Type 61 with the 105mm gun but it was not pursued. I haven't seen anything about a different main gun for the Type 74.  
 

 

 

[Murph]

On 2/15/2025 at 8:17 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Rather nice video showing chieftains under construction in Leeds. Seems to be part of the Shah's order.

 

Thank you for that one.

[alejandro_]

On 2/15/2025 at 2:17 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Very interesting, many thanks. In the later part of the video references are made to Shir 1 and 2. That factory used to be one of the largest of it's type in Western Europe, but was closed down in 1999. A housing state is being built there.

 

On 2/16/2025 at 11:28 PM, futon said:

Hello alejandro_

Here are a couple of citations from the book I mentioned before.

I'll directly add to fill in more for your questions, there was consideration to upgrade the Type 61 with the 105mm gun but it was not pursued. I haven't seen anything about a different main gun for the Type 74.  
 

Thank you, other tanks of that generation considered different guns, but by then the L7 was becoming available.

[JWB]

Historical question. What was the situation for British AFVs in 1938?

[Stuart Galbraith]

I cant speak for how many cruisers. But as far as infantry support tanks, we must have been somewhere in the middle of the 140 Matilda I build that was delivered, presumably most of them because they cut them when the prototype of Matilda II was delivered. Id guess we had something like 140 of those when war started too, but still building obviously.

There are so many cruiser variants I struggle to keep track, so Ill leave others to comment on those.

[Murph]

Was the Matilda 1 ever really used in combat, or was it just a training tank essentially?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, actually used at the Battle of Arras, 58 iirc and for all it's limitations, actually did quite well considering. There was also some 14 Matilda II.

The Battle had significance for 3 reasons. Firstly it may have been one of the reasons the German Panzer halted at Dunkirk. Secondly it was seemingly the first time they used the 88mm in the antitank role, thirdly they nearly killed 7th Panzer Divisions commander, one Erwin Rommel...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arras_(1940)

[Manic Moran]

I'm not at my books right now, but I'm not so sure that the 8.8 wasn't used in an AT role before Arras. Bear in mind a number of Panzerjager Abteilungs had heavy companies with (mainly towed) 8.8s and there was that one company running around somewhere with the SP 8.8. The idea of using the 8.8 in the AT role was already well cemented in German doctrine at the time.

I have a vague recollection that the first 8.8cm tank kills were actually in Spain during the Civil War, though more as an ersatz mode.

[sunday]

41 minutes ago, Manic Moran said:

I have a vague recollection that the first 8.8cm tank kills were actually in Spain during the Civil War, though more as an ersatz mode.

Pretty much: https://fdra.blogspot.com/2021/12/gce-la-lucha-antitanque-en-la-peninsula.html

Giggle translation of the relevant part:

Quote

The superiority of Soviet tanks was clearly demonstrated in the fighting around Madrid, where, by the end of November 1936, the Nationalists lost a total of 28 Panzer Is plus several Italian L3s, resulting in a stalemate. Here, the Spanish People's Army made the biggest mistake of not going on the offensive, but instead remaining in a defensive posture. It was here, around Madrid, that the Nationalist forces first employed in an anti-tank role, and with great success, their 88mm Flak 18 guns. Such was their effectiveness that the Germans later turned the "88", with some modifications made for ground-to-ground combat, into one of the most feared weapons of World War II. The "88" gun literally destroyed T-26 tanks in Spain with the first hit. Fortunately for the Republicans, 88mm guns were not supplied to the Nationalists in large numbers.

Not much is known about the early combat actions of Flak units in Spain, but unconfirmed reports indicate that 88mm guns saw combat in early 1937 during the fighting around Malaga, when a battery of Flak 18s was assigned to support an infantry column. Bad weather had grounded the main bomber force, but the assault was successful, mainly due to the concentrated and accurate fire of the supporting 88mm guns.

The Flak 18 guns were primarily deployed to protect airfields and bases used by the Condor Legion. However, the nature of the war in Spain, with its wildly fluctuating front lines and the presence of Russian tanks, forced the Germans to employ the Flak 18 guns in a direct-fire role against ground targets. Furthermore, the initial shortage of Nationalist Spanish artillery and the general low competence of their crews soon forced the use of the Flak 18 gun as a direct-fire infantry support weapon. The 88th Flak group fought in the Battle of Jarama in February 1937. The following month the unit moved north and took part in all the battles along the northern front, where its duties were divided between anti-aircraft duties and the employment of field artillery. The 18th anti-aircraft guns took part in the assault against the Bilbao line of fortifications, the so-called "Iron Belt" (Cinturón de Hierro), and after the Battle of Brunete, they headed north again to contribute to the Santander and Asturias campaign.

The 18th Flak batteries were also employed by the Nationalist Army in the Aragon Offensive and in the Battle of the Ebro in 1938, being used for direct fire against forts and indirect fire in the advance towards Barcelona during the final campaign in Catalonia. During the Battle of the Ebro, the 88th Flak batteries took up positions in the vicinity of the main bridgehead as direct support to the ground forces.

By the end of the war, 88mm guns had performed far more missions as an anti-tank artillery gun and direct fire than as an anti-aircraft gun. In total, German 88mm guns participated in 377 combat engagements, and only 31 were against enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the use of 88mm guns close to the enemy made them vulnerable to infantry fire. Casualties among the Legion's 88mm gun batteries in the Spanish Civil War were second only to those of bomber pilots and crews. According to two different sources, who provided information to Lieutenant Colonel Waite of the US Army, only the Germans manned their anti-aircraft guns. No one was allowed to come within a few hundred meters of them, especially Spanish soldiers. The French War Department verified that "great secrecy surrounded the operation of these weapons."

In May 1939 the Flak 88 unit returned to Germany, leaving virtually all of its equipment in Spain for the Nationalist Army. After the civil war, in 1943, further improved Flak models – almost 90 88/56mm Flak 36s – were sent to Spain and later that year they were manufactured under licence by the Spanish artillery factory at Trubia, near Oviedo, under the name FT 44. These remained in active service with the Spanish Army until the early 1980s.

 

Edited February 22, 2025 by sunday

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, Manic Moran said:

I'm not at my books right now, but I'm not so sure that the 8.8 wasn't used in an AT role before Arras. Bear in mind a number of Panzerjager Abteilungs had heavy companies with (mainly towed) 8.8s and there was that one company running around somewhere with the SP 8.8. The idea of using the 8.8 in the AT role was already well cemented in German doctrine at the time.

I have a vague recollection that the first 8.8cm tank kills were actually in Spain during the Civil War, though more as an ersatz mode.

Yeah, there has been a lot of argument about it. In fact, going back to the Richard Holmes books that covered the battle, im not even certain the Germans ever officially acknowledged using 88's here, though the British were sure of it. The guns supposedly belonged to the Luftwaffe (one story suggests Rommel got his pistol out to make hte battery commander lower his gun tubes to fight the tanks), which  may have complicated things.

Suffice to say this was certainly the first time the British faced them. But not the last obviously.

 

In a case of serendipity there was a Tank museum video released last night on the Matilda II, which features the Arras battle. I was trying to look for the Richard Holmes War Walks episode on the Arras battle, but unfortunately thats not online. A shame because he was showing off the Tank museums Matilda 1, and interviewing an RTR crewman that fought in the battle, well worth watching if anyone can find it.

 

Edited February 22, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[Murph]

On 2/21/2025 at 8:54 PM, Manic Moran said:

I'm not at my books right now, but I'm not so sure that the 8.8 wasn't used in an AT role before Arras. Bear in mind a number of Panzerjager Abteilungs had heavy companies with (mainly towed) 8.8s and there was that one company running around somewhere with the SP 8.8. The idea of using the 8.8 in the AT role was already well cemented in German doctrine at the time.

I have a vague recollection that the first 8.8cm tank kills were actually in Spain during the Civil War, though more as an ersatz mode.

Ok, that leads to an interesting question for me; Did they have an AP round originally intended for the 88mm or was it something rushed to service to deal the Char and Matilda tanks?  

[Murph]

The other question I have on the Matilda, is how in all that is holy do you change a track on that thing?  Are the side skirts removable?

[Holm]

On 2/22/2025 at 3:54 AM, Manic Moran said:

I'm not at my books right now, but I'm not so sure that the 8.8 wasn't used in an AT role before Arras. Bear in mind a number of Panzerjager Abteilungs had heavy companies with (mainly towed) 8.8s and there was that one company running around somewhere with the SP 8.8. The idea of using the 8.8 in the AT role was already well cemented in German doctrine at the time.

I have a vague recollection that the first 8.8cm tank kills were actually in Spain during the Civil War, though more as an ersatz mode.

Starting 1938 the Germans developed a self-propelled and a special towed version of the 8,8cm Flak for use as a bunker-busting gun. One would assume that it had an AP round for that kind of work. And most German artillery had AP-rounds from the start of the war, AFAIK.

The self-propelled guns were used extensively in Poland, in particulary as bunker-busting guns and again in Luxemburg an Belgium in 1940 shooting at stone buildings and such.

The standard 8,8 cm FLAK gun was used against tanks as early as May 17th 1940, supporting 2. Panzerdivision around Montcornet, engaging French tanks. Judging from the description, it was not an ad-hoc thing, but done deliberately by setting up a cordon of defense, engaging french tanks at 2000+ meters.

The above comes from Jentz booklet on the 8,8cm Flak in the anti-tank role.

[Rick]

Regarding the Matilda II in North Africa vs the Italian Army, from what I read this tank rode roughshod over and through the Italian Army. My question is did the Italian Artillery have any success in the direct fire role against the Matilda II? I have not read if this occurred.

Out of curiosity, would an Italian 75 mm H.E. round to the hull or turret front stop a Matilda II?

[Stuart Galbraith]

From the video, it was apparently shrugging off Italian 105mm HE. If that's true it probably wasn't much cop, but it's still interesting.

[Holm]

On 2/22/2025 at 8:55 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, there has been a lot of argument about it. In fact, going back to the Richard Holmes books that covered the battle, im not even certain the Germans ever officially acknowledged using 88's here, though the British were sure of it. The guns supposedly belonged to the Luftwaffe (one story suggests Rommel got his pistol out to make hte battery commander lower his gun tubes to fight the tanks), which  may have complicated things.

 

I dont think there is any doubt that 8,8cm Flak was present south of Arras on May 21st 1940.

7. Panzerdivision had Flak-Abteilung 86 with two batteries of 8,8cm Flak attached and they were positioned at Mercatel and south of Wailly as part of defensive line including the guns of Artillerie-Regiment 78, the artillery component of 7. Panzerdivision (according to Fleischer using German sources).

According the a German examination of the wrecks left behind by the British, British tanks were also hit by 8,8cm rounds, so the 8,8cm Flak played an active role. However, it may not have been quite as important as it has been made out to be.

Of the 43 tanks the Germans examined after the battle, 36 were infantry tanks, i.e. Matilda I or Matilda II. The remaining 7 were light tanks.

As it happened, the 8,8cm Flaks destroyed one infantry tank and 7 light tanks. The tanks of Panzerregiment 25 claimed 7 infantry tanks. But the bulk of the British tank losses on that day fell to the 10,5cm howitzers of Artillerie-Regiment 78 - 28 infantry tanks (info according NARA records via RichTO90 on Tanknet, December 2002).