Infantry tank
| Infantry tank | |
|---|---|
.jpg) Churchill tanks during the 2nd Battle of El Alamein | |
| Type | Tank |
| Place of origin | France and the United Kingdom |
| Service history | |
| In service | 1938–1945 |
| Used by | French and British armies |
| Wars | Second World War |
The infantry tank was a tank concept developed by the United Kingdom and France in the years leading up to World War II. Infantry tanks were designed to support infantrymen in an attack. To achieve this, the vehicles were generally heavily armoured to allow them to operate in close concert with infantry even under heavy fire. The extra armour came at the expense of speed, which was not an issue when supporting relatively slow-moving foot soldiers.
Once an attack supported by infantry tanks had broken through heavily defended areas in the enemy lines, faster tanks such as cruiser or light tanks were expected to use their higher speed and longer range to operate far behind the front and cut lines of supply and communications.
The infantry tank was superseded by the "Universal Tank" concept which could adequately perform the roles of both infantry and cruiser tank, as represented by the
Background
The experimental armoured formations of the British army were mostly equipped with the
In May 1934, Lieutenant-General Hugh Elles was appointed Master-General of the Ordnance and Brigadier Percy Hobart, the Inspector, Royal Tank Corps, asked Vickers to design a tank for infantry co-operation, that could survive all existing anti-tank weapons and be cheap enough for mass production in peacetime. The next year, Vickers had a two-man tank design, with a machine-gun and powered by a civilian Ford V8 engine of 70 hp (52 kW). The prototype of October 1936 weighted 10 long tons (10 t) had a maximum speed of only 8 mph (13 km/h) but carried 60–65 mm (2.4–2.6 in) of armour and was mechanically reliable. The A11, Infantry Tank Mk I, was the first Infantry tank (I tank) and the first practical expression of the decision to split design into I tanks and cruiser tanks, with different functions and tactics, supplied to separate units and formations.[2][4]
The 1935 edition of the War Office publication, Field Service Regulations (FSR), containing the principles by which the army was to act to achieve objectives, was written by Major-General Archibald Wavell, made breakthrough the responsibility of infantry divisions with the support of Army Tank Battalions, equipped with specialised vehicles for infantry-artillery co-operation, the slow and heavy Infantry tanks. Once a breakthrough had been created, a Mobile Division containing a tank brigade with light and cruiser tanks, would advance through the gap and use the speed and range of its tanks to surprise the defender and attack flanks, headquarters and non-combatant units. By 1939, further amendments to FSR added counter-attacks on an enemy armoured breakthrough. (The codification of the difference between Infantry and cruiser tanks and their functions in FSR 1935, accidentally created an obstacle to all-arms co-operation that lasted long into the Second World War.) Defence against tanks could be achieved by troops finding physical obstacles and by controlling their own anti-tank guns. The obstacles could be woods and rivers or minefields as long as they were covered by fire from other weapons. In places lacking convenient terrain features, lines-of-communication troops would also need anti-tank guns and be trained to set up localities suitable for all-round defence[5]
The need for economy in the design and production of the A11, which was too small for a radio, led to work on a successor, the
Other tank types
Using later terminology, the infantry tank has been compared to a heavy tank, while the cruisers were compared to mediums, lights, or even armoured cars. This comparison can be misleading; late Second World War heavy tanks were intended to have superior anti-tank capabilities, which wasn't a focus of the traditional infantry tank.
The infantry tank was different from either the "heavy tank" or "breakthrough tank" concepts, although some pre-war multi-turreted heavy machines such as the Soviet T-35 and the German Neubaufahrzeug (both taking some of their inspiration from the 1926 Vickers A1E1 Independent – an idea which was abandoned by the War Office in the late 1920s for lack of funding), which were similar, and with similar doctrines for their use. The Neubaufahrzeug was considered too slow for Blitzkrieg tactics and fell from favour. German, and to some extent Soviet, wartime doctrine shifted towards faster medium and heavy tanks fighting large multi-tank battles, with the role of the infantry tank in the assault taken by simpler Sturmgeschütz assault guns.
An important difference, however, was that heavy tanks were generally very well armed, while infantry tanks were not necessarily better armed than other types. For example, the Soviet 45-ton KV-1 heavy tank and 25-ton British Matilda II infantry tank were deployed at about the same time in 1940. These two models had similar levels of armour protection and mobility, but the KV's 76.2 mm main gun was much larger than the Matilda's 2-pounder (40 mm).
In British practice, the main armament of the infantry tank went in three phases. The
History
Britain and France
| Year | Light | I tank/ Cruiser |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct–Dec 1938 |
169 | 29 | 198 |
| 1939 | 734 | 235 | 969 |
| Jan–Jun 1940 |
140 | 418 | 558 |
| Total | 1,043 | 682 | 1,725 |
Since infantry tanks were to work at the pace of infantry units which would be attacking on foot, high speed was not a requirement and they were able to carry heavier armour. The first two purpose-designed infantry tanks, the A.11 Matilda Mark I armed with a heavy machine-gun and A.12 Matilda Mark II with a heavy machine gun and 2-pounder anti-tank gun. The Mark I had been ordered in 1938, but it had become clear that a better-armed tank would be needed and the Mark II, was already under design and would be ordered in mid-1938.
The two saw action in the Battle of France where in the Battle of Arras they caused a shock to the German panzer units. Losses of the Mark I in France were not replaced but the Mark II Matilda remained in production.
Infantry and cruiser tanks were expected to engage enemy tanks, hence the use of both the 2-pounder and then 6-pounder on both.[10]
They were followed into service by the Infantry tank Mk III Valentine tank and A.22 Infantry Tank Mk IV Churchill designs. The Valentine proved to be difficult to develop further but the Churchill went through successive variants and served up to the end of the war.
As British cruiser tank designs developed into larger vehicles with more powerful engines, they could carry bigger guns and more armour and yet still achieve high speeds. At the end of the war the cruiser tank lineage led to the "universal tank" in the form of the
In practice the British did not operate only infantry and cruiser tanks. Lack of production capacity meant the large scale adoption of US medium tanks.
During the inter-war years, the French Army adopted three light tanks in the infantry tank role. These were the Hotchkiss H35, the Renault R35 and the FCM 36. All three had two–man crews and were similar to the Matilda I in terms of size, weight and armour. However, they were better armed, having 37mm guns as well as co-axial machine guns.
In practice, although able to resist hits from other tanks and anti-tank guns, and designed for good, albeit slow, cross-country performance, the separation of tank functions into specialised areas such as infantry and cruiser types was not effective. Invariably the cruisers ended up meeting enemy tanks in combat, while the infantry tanks were the only ones present when a breakthrough was accomplished. The infantry tank idea faded as tank design progressed during the war. It was eventually replaced outright with the general acceptance of the 'universal tank' idea.
See also
Notes
- ^ a few Churchills were fitted with the guns in reverse positions - 3 inch howitzer in turret and 2 pdr in hull
- ^ The turret ring bearing must carry the recoil force of the main gun, reduced by the mounting's buffer as well containing the gun breech and associated recoil distance of the gun. The turret and bearing diameter controls the bearing capacity, thus the limit of armament capacity.
Footnotes
- ^ Harris 1995, p. 238.
- ^ a b French 2001, p. 97.
- ^ Harris 1995, p. 237.
- ^ Harris 1995, pp. 240–241.
- ^ French 2001, pp. 33–34.
- ^ French 2001, pp. 97–98.
- ^ Harris 1995, pp. 209–301, 303, 305.
- ^ Plant 2014, p. 78.
- ^ Postan 1952, p. 103.
- ^ Fletcher 1993.
- ^ Fletcher 1993a, p. 122.
References
 | This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (December 2009) |
- Chamberlain, Peter; Ellis, Chris (1969). British and American Tanks of World War II: The Complete Illustrated History of British, American and Commonwealth Tanks, Gun Motor Carriages and Special Purpose Vehicles, 1939–1945. New York, NY: Arco. ISBN 978-0-668-01867-8.
- ISBN 978-0-11-290534-9.
- Fletcher, D. (1993). The Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War. part 2. London: ISBN 978-0-11-290534-9.
- Fletcher, D. (1994). Matilda Infantry Tank 1938–1945. New Vanguard. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 978-1-85532-396-4.
- French, David (2001) [2000]. Raising Churchill's Army: The British Army and the War Against Germany 1919–1945. Oxford: ISBN 978-0-19-924630-4.
- Harris, J. P. (1995). Men, Ideas and Tanks: British Military Thought and Armoured Forces, 1903–1939. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-4814-2.
- Plant, J. (2014). Infantry Tank Warfare (rev. enl. ed.). London: New Generation. ISBN 978-1-78507-158-4.
- Postan, M. M. (1952). British War Production. History of the Second World War: United Kingdom Civil Series. London: OCLC 459583161.
Further reading
Books
- ISBN 978-0-415-40773-1.
- ISBN 978-0-521-63760-2.
- Ness, L. (2002). Jane's World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles: The Complete Guide. London: HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-00-711228-9.
- Place, T. H. (2000). Military Training in the British Army, 1940–1944: From Dunkirk to D-Day. Cass Military History and Policy (pbk. ed.). London: Frank Cass. ISBN 978-0-7146-8091-0.
- ISBN 978-0-11630-089-8.
- Tucker, Spencer (2004). Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact. Weapons and Warfare. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio Information Services. ISBN 978-1-57607-995-9.
Theses
- Armstrong, G. P. (1976). The Controversy over Tanks in the British Army 1919 to 1933 (PhD). King's College London (University of London).
- Coombs, B. (2011). British Tank Production, 1934–1945 (PhD). University of Kent. )
- Forrester, C. J. (2010). Montgomery and his Legions: A Study of Operational Development, Innovation and Command in 21st Army Group, North-West Europe, 1944–45 (PhD). University of Leeds.
- Salmon, Roger Edward (2013). The Management of Change: Mechanizing the British Regular and Household Cavalry Regiments 1918–1942 (PhD). University of Wolverhampton. EThOS uk.bl.ethos.596061.
