Why did the British airforce adopted highly similar Hurricane and Spitfire at the same time? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Hmmm ok well this an interesting discussion, but it is expanding faster than the shockwave of a 500 kilo semi- armor piercing bomb smashing into a concrete gun barbette at 300 mph. Not to mention diverging from the OP faster than a Leander class light cruiser swinging to starboard after the crew lookout reported a torpedo dropped into the water by a roaring SM.79!

I think we should at this point make a fresh "What If" thread for the ostensible Axis capture and occupation of Malta, and I'll do just that a bit later today. It looks like we can have a pretty in-depth conversation about that.

Before I do that (hopefully later this afternoon or tonight) I just want to make a few points so it won't be bothering me while I'm trying to finish some other work.

1) The British were planning their defenses on Malta for 125 years

Yes, and prior to the British arrival Malta was already a very well fortified redoubt which resisted some powerful attempts to overcome it, notably in the extremely epic "Great Siege" by the Ottomans in the 16th Century. But unfortunately for the British, their first century of preparation on the Island were all done prior to the advent of flying aircraft that drop bombs. So like most coastal defenses built prior to the 1930s (which is to say, most of them), they were already largely obsolete. The next 20 years of that 125 year preparation, while during the era of aircraft, were still done before the advent of extremely dangerous WW2 type strike aircraft, and I don't believe the British were rushing the most modern air defenses to the island or reorganizing the shore batteries with an eye toward contending with waves of Stukas and Ju 88s... (or even flying artillery / naval gun spotters)

This is pretty much the same as at Corregidor in 1942, in my opinion, and in that sense the island defenders are in fact, doomed.

2) But why would they be doomed, there were a lot of them?

I'd love to know exactly how many in 1940, 41, 42, but a reinforced division isn't 25,000 troops. Closer to half that especially if they aren't all at full strength. And we know that Crete was taken in 13 days exclusively with paratroopers (vs 40,000 defenders). An attack on Malta could use both paratroopers and amphibious attacks, maybe starting on Gozo rather than the main island (we can discuss this in a new Malta thread). Because the shore guns can be easily bombed, especially as most are not placed or dug in to defend against heavy air attack (i.e. accurately placed 250kg - 500kg + bombs) and most of the bigger ones anyway are in well known positions that aren't exactly unknown to the Italians and Germans. And I'm also not at all convinced that Malta is more difficult terrain than Crete.

Also, starvation is bad. Running out of ammunition is really bad. If the convoys are stopped and the Axis aircraft are wrecking the place, resupply is going to be a bitch, probably mostly by submarine at night and there won't be enough of anything.

3) But they had a dozen Matildas

Matildas were nice tanks for very early WW2, but look how long they lasted in the major battles in North Africa

4) Was air power a major or even decisive factor in the stalemate and then victory in the two battles of El Alamein?
This almost certainly deserves it's own thread as well. What were the key factors in the improved Allied outcomes: The arrival of Montgomery, the reorganization of the Desert Air Force, or the improvements in kit both in the air and on the ground? Was air power key to victory?

I say yes indeed it was. The Germans won a series of overwhelming tactical victories in every Theater where they were operating in 1940-41, heavily relying on their Stukas and later Ju 88s to blow holes in enemy lines, especially during offensive operations. This was key to their success as their early tanks while pretty good in many important respects (three man turrets, great optics, two machine guns, radios), on the rather critical level of guns and armor were not vastly superior to most enemy tanks they faced and were inferior in many respects to some (especially for example in France). Their lopsided victories, especially on the attack, came down largely to air power. (This is why they were so overly focused on dive bombing with regard to design planning in this era IMO, because they knew how key the Stuka had been to their early so-called "Blitzkrieg" victories ... which I know is a misnomer so don't go correcting me). In North Africa in 1941 or early 42, the Germans had better strike aircraft, and better coordination between ground and air power than the Allies did. Once JG 27 arrived in April 1941, they also had better fighters.

This advantage was still felt in the early months of 1942, but the odds began to shift. The Allies already had some elements which could help them turn the tables, just like the French had some formidable tank types in 1940. But as with the French kit in 1940, there were flaws to be ironed out, tactics to be improved, and a lot of fine tuning to be done to kit and training before they'd have an effective fighting force. And the British had many of the same problems, but the luxury of some time to work everything out. And they did. All of this started to come together specifically in mid 1942. Allied fighter bombers, improved bomber types, better air superiority fighters and fighter tactics.

We can discuss this in the spinoff thread, but I believe the German commanders themselves commented on the problems they were starting to face due to the Desert Air Force and from this battle onward there was increasing acrimony between the Afrika Korps and the Luftwaffe over it.

5) Did the US built medium and light tanks make a big difference compared to the British Cruiser or infantry tanks?

Yes. Yes they did.

6) Can't tanks shoot smoke or use machine guns or back away, or call in artillery?

Yes they can. If they have smoke mortars. If their machine gun is working and can hit the target (if they can see the target). If they can back away faster than the enemy tank or anti-tank gun can sight in and shoot them. Yes if the artillery can hit precisely where the enemy AT guns are before they can aim and shoot their gun.

So let's talk about tanks in the Western Desert for a minute.

The problem is that the AT gun can shoot pretty fast. A Pak 38 (50mm) shoots an average of one round every 5 seconds with a well trained crew. That isn't even long enough for a smoke cannister to obscure anything. It damn sure isn't long enough for a Crusader tank to back away out of range (let alone the turtle-like Matilda). The dreaded Flak 18 (88mm) had an even faster rate of fire, maybe every 3 or 4 seconds, as it was designed as an AA gun originally.

1672957943483.png
1672958162491.png


And here is the other problem. The British tanks typically only had one machine gun inside the armor, usually a .303 Besa or a Vickers. As you noted, for various reasons the effective range wasn't that far, maybe 800 meters, maybe 1,000 or to be generous, 1,200. The effective range for a Pak 40 (75mm) AT gun was 1,800 meters, the Pak 38 (50mm) about 1,500 meters . The effective range for a Flak 18 (88mm AA /AT gun) was a rather sobering 8,000 meters (or more). Quite telling in the open desert.

1672958259034.png
1672958308898.png

The KwK 40 (75mm) gun on the newest (and pretty rare!) Pz IV F2, in the earlier L43 version, had a range of about 1,000 - 1,500 meters, with a penetration of 70mm at max range. The much more common Kwk 38 (50mm) on the later mark Pz III (basically same as the Pak 38) was about 1,500 meters. Kwk 38 could penetrate about 45mm of armor at 1,000 meters, 30mm at 1,500 meters. Keeping in mind AT guns often attack at least partly from the flank.

The Ordinance QF 2 pounder (40mm) had an effective range of about 1,500 meters, with penetration similar to the Pak 38 or maybe a bit better.
The newer Ordinance QF 6 pounder (57mm) available had an effective range of about 1,600 meters with penetration similar to the KwK 40.

but there was a fatal flaw with the British guns. There is no HE round for either of these! Which means that British tanks are relying exclusively on either their one badly outranged machine gun (if it hasn't jammed or run out of ammunition), or on very quickly arriving, very precise artillery to take out enemy AT guns. Or air strikes before or during the fighting. Aside from the Matilda, most of the British tanks had very thin armor -the Crusader Mk 1 had from about 14mm to about 40mm at it's thickest parts. The Matilda II had a much more impressive 20 to 78mm armor, making it somewhat immune to smaller German AT guns (to their consternation) but it was still hamstrung by the lack of HE shells for it's 2 pounder gun, one machine gun, and a top speed of 15 mph (and that is going forward)

1672958380754.png
1672958456395.png

This is where the American tanks were very helpful. The American medium tanks fired a comparatively large (75mm) shell which had an effective HE round and a range of about 1,600 meters. The M3 lee also had another 37mm gun with a 1,400 meter range that had both HE and cannister shells. Both M3 and M4 had two machine guns (a bow gun as well as the coaxial) plus outside the hatch, the M4 had a third heavy machine gun with an effective range of about 2,000 meters (I think the M3 Grant had another .30 cal). They also had gyrostabilizers though few crew knew how to effectively operate them in 1942. The M3 had 38-51mm partly sloped (30 to 53 degrees) armor, while the M4 had 38-60mm partly sloped (later 75mm) armor. it wasn't all good though of course - both M3 and M4 had very high silhouette compared to other tanks (which you can see in that pic of the M3 above, making them easier to spot and hit, and the early M4 had poor ammunition storage plus a weak spot the Germans quickly identified, and often blew up when the armor was penetrated. But so did a Crusader when hit by a KwK 38.

The US M3 light tank was similar to the British "Cruiser" tanks in terms of armor and speed, but it's pretty good 37mm gun (comparable to 2 pounder in AT mode) had HE and cannister ammunition (cannister was for close -250m range, but HE was out to the max range) plus two machine guns rather than one machine gun of most of the British tanks.

All this meant that in aggregate, they had a better chance to hit enemy AT guns before they were destroyed. In practice, when sighted by an enemy AT gun they very likely would be destroyed, but it was a question of how many were lost before the AT gun was knocked out or the tanks were able to cover themselves with smoke and / or back away beyond range. The German 50mm AT guns also had trouble knocking out M3 and M4 medium tanks at range, except with side shots. 75mm guns less so, but the M3 and M4 at least had a realistic chance of knocking them out before dying, unlike anything armed with a 2 pounder and a single Besa.

Over 80% of all tank shells fired during WW2 were either HE or smoke. The reason is a tank crew was far more likely to face enemy infantry or crew served guns than enemy tanks, and when they did find the former, it took more shells to have an effect. If they could see an enemy tank the fight would be over one way or the other much quicker.

Results of a Russian test shooting the American M2 75mm at various tanks from 1,000 meters

1672956152727.png


If you could hit that close (1-2 meters) to an AT gun with a 75mm HE round, probably you knocked it out.

The problem with British tank charges ... OR slower, cautious combined arms tank plus infantry advances ala Montgomery, is that the Germans had a severe uneven advantage defensively and could take out the British tanks before they could really hit back. Once the M3 Grant tanks arrived, they had a chance to get the (light or medium) AT gun first or second. Maybe they lose 1 or 2 before they get it but they probably won't lose the whole platoon any more. The M4 improved these odds a bit more and was close to immune to the 50mm guns if it was facing the Germans and at longer range.

If they did encounter say a dug in trench with a half dozen 50mm or 75mm AT guns at long range, they had a chance of stopping and holding on long enough to (maybe) call in an artillery strike. That is where 105mm HE is also helpful compared to 88mm 25 pounder HE shell.

Against the 88 though, they were still all pretty well screwed, which was why it was so much more important to hit those with air strikes if possible. They made a special effort to get them at 2nd El Alamein I think with some success.
 
Last edited:
I think we should at this point make a fresh "What If" thread for the ostensible Axis capture and occupation of Malta, and I'll do just that a bit later today. It looks like we can have a pretty in-depth conversation about that.
There is a Malta invasion thread:

 
The US M3 light tank was similar to the British "Cruiser" tanks in terms of armor and speed, but it's pretty good 37mm gun (comparable to 2 pounder in AT mode) had HE and cannister ammunition (cannister was for close -250m range, but HE was out to the max range) plus two machine guns rather than one machine gun of most of the British tanks.

Most bow guns were only good for a few hundred yds. The turret gun usually had a better sight and it was bolted to the turret and didn't vibrate when fired (some US tanks had no sight for the bow gun, Gunner was supposed to use the periscope several feet higher than gun and observer the tracers).
37mm Canister may not have been issued to the British or even to the US tankers in NA.
The US 37mm wasn't quite as good as the 2pdr. The 2pr was a victim of the British "CHEAP AMMO" policy. British 2pd with decent ammo was closer to the German short 50mm tank gun than it was to most 37mm guns.
25pdr was another victim of "CHEAP AMMO" policy. The shell bodies were made of cheaper steel and had less room inside to hold HE or smoke compound than German or American Shells. even allowing for caliber.
British 25pdr HE shell (87.5mm) held 1lb 2oz of HE (60/40 Amatol)
German 88mm HE shell (20.78lbs) held 1.92lbs (1lb 14.7oz) of HE (TNT or Amatol).
British started work on a 21lb long range shell using 24-ton steel. in 1943 that held 3lbs of HE but work was not completed by the end of the war.
 
Most bow guns were only good for a few hundred yds. The turret gun usually had a better sight and it was bolted to the turret and didn't vibrate when fired (some US tanks had no sight for the bow gun, Gunner was supposed to use the periscope several feet higher than gun and observer the tracers).

I'd like to see some hard evidence for that, and I'll say flat out I don't think it's true for the M4 anyway. I can say from personal experience at the range, in open terrain like the Tunisian desert, shooting a .30 caliber machine gun by 'observing the tracers' is surprisingly effective. The guns themselves have effective ranges of 1,500 yards according to the manual. We could hit 55 gallon drums at 1,000 meters with an M60 in a matter of seconds, without using the sights (just the tracers).

1,500 yards might be a stretch but you can put tracers on a puff of smoke from an enemy AT gun, IMO, probably pretty close to that.

37mm Canister may not have been issued to the British or even to the US tankers in NA.

That I don't know...

The US 37mm wasn't quite as good as the 2pdr. The 2pr was a victim of the British "CHEAP AMMO" policy. British 2pd with decent ammo was closer to the German short 50mm tank gun than it was to most 37mm guns.

Test shows that the US 37mm with standard APC ammo could penetrate 46mm at 1,000 yards, 40mm of armor at 1,500 yards, 35mm at 2,000 yards. That's about as good as the Pak 38.
M3 Stuarts could kill Pz Mk IIIs and even Mk IV in some incidents.

25pdr was another victim of "CHEAP AMMO" policy. The shell bodies were made of cheaper steel and had less room inside to hold HE or smoke compound than German or American Shells. even allowing for caliber.
British 25pdr HE shell (87.5mm) held 1lb 2oz of HE (60/40 Amatol)
German 88mm HE shell (20.78lbs) held 1.92lbs (1lb 14.7oz) of HE (TNT or Amatol).
British started work on a 21lb long range shell using 24-ton steel. in 1943 that held 3lbs of HE but work was not completed by the end of the war.

M101 105mm howitzer (US) Wikipedia says 5 lb / 2.18 kg of TNT or 50/50 Amatol.
 
I'll put it this way - all the German tanks had both bow guns and coax, so did the Americans. Almost all tanks today have two guns.
 
I'll put it this way - all the German tanks had both bow guns and coax, so did the Americans. Almost all tanks today have two guns.
No modern tanks use bow guns, they use the co-ax and a gun on the turret that can be used by the commander (mostly) or loader( less often) and the commander or loader(sometimes) can use the gun while closed down and aim it independently of the turret.

Bow gunner had lousy vision if closed down and was dealing with gun smoke fumes. Ability to see when using a gun outside is often different (and sometimes aided by other men, WW I machine gunners had a gun captain with binoculars who was supposed to direct the fire from several feet to the side. Didn't last long in combat.

The British tanks often had as much ammo or more for the one co-ax gun than the Germans had for both.

The US ammo is called APC but it was actually APCBC but since the US didn't use ABC in anything they just left the BC off.
The 2pdr didn't get equivalent ammo until 1943. It preformed much the same as the US 37mm.
US 37mm AP M74 was pretty dismal stuff.

German 50mm shot was either plain or capped without the streamline ballistic cap. It's ability to penetrate fell off with distance.
The Arrow head shot was with distance.
However the likelihood of hitting things at 1500 to 200 yds with small guns is not good.
 
What can I say, the main difference is obviously the HE ammunition, especially for the 75.

But you are very unlikely to convince me that one machine gun is better than two machine guns. First, two guns have a better chance of hitting a target than one, second machine guns tend to break a lot, so it's real good to have a backup. I can't quantify precisely how much a second machine gun helps, but it obviously does that's why the Germans, Russians, Americans, Italians, Japanese and many others who did build tanks put two guns in them. I don't know why the British omitted the bow gun but I think it was a mistake.

Tanks really need the machine guns to protect against infantry, but it's also better than nothing against an AT gun. Maybe you can hit, maybe you can't, but your chances are fairly good of suppressing the crew if they start hearing bullets whizzing over their heads and hitting things around them.

I don't know if the British used the 12.7mm HMG which were used with US M4 tanks, but if they did have them that is another big help, because those definitely do have the range and some extra intimidation factor, though the gun is on the outside.
 
I'd love to know exactly how many in 1940, 41, 42, but a reinforced division isn't 25,000 troops. Closer to half that especially if they aren't all at full strength.

Bill, I always love reading your posts, but this here's a bridge too far. How can a division that is "reinforced" be not at full strength?

Divisional strengths differed between different armies, but most rated a division as being between ten and twelve thousand men. Reinforced could mean a bit more, which would depend on the size of the reinforcing elements -- an arty battalion here, a recon btn there, armor company, engr btn, etc They will be under the same command and control, hence "reinforced" rather than "fighting alongside"

The other thing you're ignoring here is that although there were a lot of troops on Crete when the assault hit, the fact is -- and it's a fact -- they were not a coherent force, but rather stragglers and remnants chased together. That is a very different critter than a battle fought and lost by an undefeated, coherent unit. You're not fighting stragglers when you're invading Malta in 1942. These guys have worked the island over, emplaced and sited barrels, distributed ammo, and so on.

So there's a couple of flaws in your comparison.
 
First, two guns have a better chance of hitting a target than one, second machine guns tend to break a lot, so it's real good to have a backup. I can't quantify precisely how much a second machine gun helps, but it obviously does that's why the Germans, Russians, Americans, Italians, Japanese and many others who did build tanks put two guns in them. I don't know why the British omitted the bow gun but I think it was a mistake.
Assuming you can get both guns aimed at the same target.
Assuming the tank isn't hull down, blocking the hull gunners field of fire.
Extra machine guns were a WW I hold over.
is8sxhinpr761.jpg

US thought this thing was a good idea and had 1000 on order before changing the contract to the M3, (same engine, transmission and suspension)
Notice the two guns in the front plate.
main-qimg-48c8fb27d65f8056a5c3b365873de9c5-lq.jpg

Very early Sherman, two fixed guns in bow (or aimed by turnbuckles?)
Hull flexible gun aimed by opening view ports or the periscope in the hatch visible in the open position.
Later Sherman's had the vision port deleted.
The .50cal on the Sherman was much beloved by "Timmy the power gamer" war gamers.
In actual fact the Sherman, depending on model/version carried 300-600 rounds for the .50 compared to around 6,000 rounds of .30 cal ammo (even for the tanks that only had two .30 cal guns). .50 cal barrels didn't last long. Rather strict instructions on how long first and subsequent bursts should be with long cool off times. In combat you do what you have to do but the .50 wasn't the gun of choice by doctrine.
The co-ax gun was aimed with main telescope, used the power traverse and a geared elevating wheel. Chances of hitting things at long range much improved.
British had figured out real early that the hull gunner wasn't worth the space he took up.
British put the radios in the turret.
Americans and Germans put the radios down in the hull, if you were going to keep the radio operator next to the driver then give him a machine gun to play with. It may keep him happy.
Other countries had other problems.
Russians used 60 round pan magazines.
Italians used 24 round box magazines (a reason they used paired mgs in many of their vehicles. )
Japanese used 30 round boxes (?).

find why some countries did what they did.
And don't assume that more is better.
Russian heavy tanks had a machine gun sticking out the rear of the turret. Really slow turret traverse? Which gun does the commander position the turret for?
And who is firing the rear machine gun? I would want the commander fighting the tank, not playing machine gunner. If there is 76mm HE left I want the loader loading the gun, not playing machine gunner.
 
You're still ignoring the fact that after Crete Hitler had an aversion to airborne assaults. You'll need to convince him first.

Part of the problem at Crete was that it was an almost exclusively airborne assault. At that time (May-June 1941) the British Navy was still quite a threat in the Mediterranean, and Crete was fairly far from the mainland, so no real amphibious landing was undertaken, just some smaller ones after the initial Airborne assault, mainly using traditional skiffs.

Obviously, in the real historical world, nobody convinced Hitler to invade Malta. Thank God. This is therefore a speculative scenario, a what if. I'll cover some of the other reasons to do it in a new thread, but I'm not going to get into what it takes to convince a delusional psychopath to make the decision.
 
Last edited:
SR. Sorry to drag you back a few pages. I have a question about the evacuation of Crete. My great uncle was in the Australian 2/7th. His battalion was one of many that did the Benghazi handicap, then got sent to Greece and wound up in Crete. Most of his battalion was left behind on Crete. He was only 16/17 at the time - and he was able to get to Jerusalem. There is no way he did this solo - do you know how a bunch of Allied soldiers made it from Crete to Jerusalem after Crete had been captured?
My grandfather was in Tobruk at the time (9th Div HQ), and somehow convinced someone to let him take one of the scrap iron flotilla to Jerusalem. Somewhere we have a photo of the two of them in Jerusalem.
 
Bill, I always love reading your posts, but this here's a bridge too far. How can a division that is "reinforced" be not at full strength?

Divisional strengths differed between different armies, but most rated a division as being between ten and twelve thousand men. Reinforced could mean a bit more, which would depend on the size of the reinforcing elements -- an arty battalion here, a recon btn there, armor company, engr btn, etc They will be under the same command and control, hence "reinforced" rather than "fighting alongside"

Well my friend, please allow me to explain my position, because I think you misunderstand it. The garrison at Malta was not actually a division, but rather the rough equivalent of a division, plus some more. As I understand the matter, it was four British infantry brigades, nominally at 3500-4000 men each, (and each made up of 3-4 regiments or battalion sized units) and these four were in turn supported by another 3-4 anti-aircraft and administrative battalions. It is typically not always the case in war time (or in peace) that every given unit of battalion or brigade (or division) size is at full strength, so that is what I'm referring to.

I am also being told in this thread that there were 25,000 British troops on Malta, based on the number of units (?), but I don't see how four infantry brigades and 3 or 4 extra battalions (or the equivalent of a reinforced division) ads up to 25,000 troops. Maybe I'm missing something.

The other thing you're ignoring here is that although there were a lot of troops on Crete when the assault hit, the fact is -- and it's a fact -- they were not a coherent force, but rather stragglers and remnants chased together. That is a very different critter than a battle fought and lost by an undefeated, coherent unit. You're not fighting stragglers when you're invading Malta in 1942. These guys have worked the island over, emplaced and sited barrels, distributed ammo, and so on.

So there's a couple of flaws in your comparison.

Ok well here's maybe something you weren't aware of. The Crete defenders consisted of two groups. There was a British garrison of 14,000 troops (here is the 'reinforced division' again), in addition to which another 26,000 British, Australian, New Zealand and Greek troops who had fled from Greece. So some of the locals were at least in theory prepared to fight. They apparently didn't have arms for all of the evacuees so they re-evacuated about 6,000 or 7,000 troops before the battle. Meanwhile, also before the Germans arrived, another English combat battalion, 2nd Bn of the Leicester Regiment, arrived, and 700 men from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were also brought to Crete by the Royal Navy.
 
Last edited:
Assuming you can get both guns aimed at the same target.
Assuming the tank isn't hull down, blocking the hull gunners field of fire.

You have a point that sometimes tanks would be in a hull-down position, although this would more typically be during defense. I was careful in my choice of words because it's an important distinction - I was referring specifically to Allied attacks, which as noted upthread, often consisted of tank 'charges' which were slaughtered by German defenders. These were in turn largely composed of AT guns and dug in (likely hull down) German tanks.

AT guns are what the 75mm gun helped with, as did the 37mm with HE shells, and are what the extra bow machine gun helps with, as well as any possible AA MG.

Extra machine guns were a WW I hold over.

US thought this thing was a good idea and had 1000 on order before changing the contract to the M3, (same engine, transmission and suspension)
Notice the two guns in the front plate.
View attachment 701300
Very early Sherman, two fixed guns in bow (or aimed by turnbuckles?)
Hull flexible gun aimed by opening view ports or the periscope in the hatch visible in the open position.
Later Sherman's had the vision port deleted.

You are (one might say rather slyly? But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) conflating two things here. One are pre-war and very early war fixed machine guns and tiny machine gun turrets which were indeed ineffective and impractical, and were quickly deleted. The other is the ubiquitous bow gun used right up to the end of the war on the following tanks (just to name a few): Pz III (up to three machine guns), Pz IV, Pz V (Panther), Pz VI and IVB (Tiger I and Tiger II), T-34, KV-1, M3 Medium (Grant / Lee), M4 Medium (Sherman), M3 / M5 Light (Stuart / Honey), M-26 Heavy (Pershing), M13/40 (Italian Medium tank). Basically the best tanks in the war.

Against this we have the earlier British tanks like the Crusader and the Matilda, basically*. But some British tanks had them too, the Cromwell had a bow machine gun, as did some marks of the Churchill (others had flamethrowers instead, or other things). So perhaps combat experience taught the British that a bow machine gun wasn't a bad idea after all?

But you are right they seem to have disappeared from post-war tanks. I was wrong about that.

The .50cal on the Sherman was much beloved by "Timmy the power gamer" war gamers.

Aw I guess you are implying that's me? I do like wargames.

I also served in the US military and have shot the M2 "Ma Deuce" at the range along with a variety of NATO and some Warsaw Pact .30 cal light and medium machine guns. Like a lot of Veterans, I know the difference in range and intimidation value of a .30 cal vs. a .50 cal machine gun, and it made a strong impression on me.

Where the relevance of the M2 heavy machine gun comes into play is that in the Desert, specifically in North Africa where the battlefields were often very large wide open spaces where the ground could be flat for miles, not only does it add yet another machine gun, it has greater effective range than the M1919 type used on most US tanks. Thus it gives you a better chance to suppress enemy AT guns, other crew served weapons, spotters, machine guns and etc. The M2 can also destroy or disable light armored vehicles like halftracks, armored cars and light tanks, and as I alluded, .

In fact later on in 1944, quite a few US tanks operating on Western Europe had their .30 cal machine guns removed and replaced with M2 heavys, which I can imagine must have caused a lot of problems (noise inside the tank for one thing). But an HMG can for example dismantle buildings in a way that a .30 cal cannot. Some crews wanted that.

In actual fact the Sherman, depending on model/version carried 300-600 rounds for the .50 compared to around 6,000 rounds of .30 cal ammo (even for the tanks that only had two .30 cal guns). .50 cal barrels didn't last long. Rather strict instructions on how long first and subsequent bursts should be with long cool off times. In combat you do what you have to do but the .50 wasn't the gun of choice by doctrine.

No machine gun barrels last long, unless they are water cooled. Do you think .30 caliber machine guns can shoot all day? Have you ever shot one? All of them are supposed to be used with short bursts. M2 by the way tend to be used with shorter bursts because most versions shoot slow, and each bullet has a lot more impact. But I'll tell you another thing you experience in the military. I was never in any kind of war, but I was involved in very large military exercises like REFORGER. One of the things they do in those is bring up more ammunition and spare parts.

Tanks or any other military unit are not expected to operate on it's own. Sometimes they may have to for anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours, but normally supplies will be brought up. That would include change barrels and ammunition. By the way most tanks carried extra barrels for their machine guns when I was in, we even carried them for our M60 "light" machine guns in Deuce & half trucks.

The co-ax gun was aimed with main telescope, used the power traverse and a geared elevating wheel. Chances of hitting things at long range much improved.
British had figured out real early that the hull gunner wasn't worth the space he took up.

Right but somehow the Germans, Russians and Americans were too stupid to grasp this genius idea. Could it possibly have been because the British did not have unlimited supplies and expected to need to do more with less?

British put the radios in the turret.
Americans and Germans put the radios down in the hull, if you were going to keep the radio operator next to the driver then give him a machine gun to play with. It may keep him happy.

And yet, the British had a very hard time in tank vs tank battles vs. German tanks. Things got a little better when they switched over to American tanks. I guess they got used to the radios in the hull?

Other countries had other problems.
Russians used 60 round pan magazines.
Italians used 24 round box magazines (a reason they used paired mgs in many of their vehicles. )
Japanese used 30 round boxes (?).

No machine guns can shoot forever, or (again, except for water-cooled) even for more than a few minutes, without a cool off and / or a barrel change (you'll still have to let it cool off eventually regardless). Perpetual shooting only exists in video games or on TV.

find why some countries did what they did.
And don't assume that more is better.
Russian heavy tanks had a machine gun sticking out the rear of the turret. Really slow turret traverse? Which gun does the commander position the turret for?

The KV-1 had a tank on the rear because it was expected to be used as a breakthrough tank, and the tank was very slow. At the time the KV-1 was first used (Mid 1941), the Germans did not have the ubiquitous highly effective AT weapons they would have later in the war. So the way they had to destroy these was sometimes to climb up on the hull and jam grenades or mines under the turret etc.


* a lot of Russian assault guns were severely lacking in machine guns, which I consider a flaw
 
Last edited:
SR. Sorry to drag you back a few pages. I have a question about the evacuation of Crete. My great uncle was in the Australian 2/7th. His battalion was one of many that did the Benghazi handicap, then got sent to Greece and wound up in Crete. Most of his battalion was left behind on Crete. He was only 16/17 at the time - and he was able to get to Jerusalem. There is no way he did this solo - do you know how a bunch of Allied soldiers made it from Crete to Jerusalem after Crete had been captured?
My grandfather was in Tobruk at the time (9th Div HQ), and somehow convinced someone to let him take one of the scrap iron flotilla to Jerusalem. Somewhere we have a photo of the two of them in Jerusalem.

Apparently between 28 May and 1 June a bunch of Allied troops were evacuated from Crete, from the Wiki:

"From 28 May – 1 June, troops were embarked for Egypt, most being lifted from Sfakia on the south coast, where about 6,000 troops were rescued on the night of 29/30 May but the force was attacked by Luftwaffe dive bombers on the voyage back and suffered many losses. About 4,000 men were withdrawn from Heraklion on the night of 28/29 May, on the next night 1,500 soldiers were taken away by four destroyers and during the night of 31 May /1 June another 4,000 men were lifted. About 18,600 men of the 32,000 British troops on the island were evacuated; 12,000 British and Dominion troops and thousands of Greeks were still on Crete when the island came under German control on 1 June"

Seems it was somewhat the luck of the draw, your great uncle was perhaps one of the luckier ones, though I don't know what befell him in North Africa from that point on.
 
Ok two new threads:

Malta 1941-42

Was Air Power Decisive in the battles at El Alamein

The convolution was in comparing Allied with Axis aircraft development, and my comment that the Germans had some problems getting new designs into production, and ramping up the production of some good designs. Challenged on this, I pointed out that the more promising (faster) bomber designs languished while the Germans kept producing pre-war or very early war designs. And that they hadn't developed a viable long range fighter.

Then I suggested that if they had faster strike aircraft and a better longer ranged fighter than the Bf 110, they could have projected their air power better, could have relied on it for longer during the war, and might have been able to capture Malta and perhaps win, or at least delay defeat in North Africa. Every step of this was contested vigorously! Would the capture of Malta have improved the German supply situation. How could they distribute supplies down the coast. And so on. Hopefully we can discuss these interesting subjects in the new threads.
 
Well my friend, please allow me to explain my position, because I think you misunderstand it. The garrison at Malta was not actually a division, but rather the rough equivalent of a division, plus some more. As I understand the matter, it was four British infantry brigades, nominally at 3500-4000 men each, (and each made up of 3-4 regiments or battalion sized units) and these four were in turn supported by another 3-4 anti-aircraft and administrative battalions. It is typically not always the case in war time (or in peace) that every given unit of battalion or brigade (or division) size is at full strength, so that is what I'm referring to.

I am also being told in this thread that there were 25,000 British troops on Malta, based on the number of units (?), but I don't see how four infantry brigades and 3 or 4 extra battalions (or the equivalent of a reinforced division) ads up to 25,000 troops. Maybe I'm missing something.

So 18-20,000 rather than 25,000 troops. My point was that as apposed to Crete, they'd been under unified command for a while, and therefore we should expect more combat effectiveness from them. They'd trained together, lord knows they'd done AA together, and given their precarious situation it doesn't seem unreasonable that they knew what was expected.

So if the math is a little off, it doesn't change the equation that the troops on Crete, while more numerous, were 1) already defeated, with the psychology that entails 2) not as well-organized, given that they were thrown together by circumstances, and 3) had had to abandon much if not all heavy weaponry, and 4) were much more distant than was Malta itself for resupply.

It follows from this that their combat effectiveness, despite their numbers, should be derogated. Scratch forces rarely win battles -- but Malta's troops were not a scratch force.

Ok well here's maybe something you weren't aware of. The Crete defenders consisted of two groups. There was a British garrison of 14,000 troops (here is the 'reinforced division' again), in addition to which another 26,000 British, Australian, New Zealand and Greek troops. They apparently didn't have arms for everyone so they evacuated about 6,000 or 7,000 troops before the battle. Meanwhile another English combat battalion, 2nd Bn of the Leicester Regiment, arrived, and 700 men from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were also brought to Crete by the Royal Navy.

I'm aware of that. They've got thousands of troops retreating from the defeat on mainland Greece, some local militia, and a garrison brought up from Africa that has to absorb and indoctrinate these guys into a cohesive fighting force inside the space of what, three weeks? Freyberg gets thrown into the fray and told to organize it. What AA? What shore-batteries?

It really isn't comparable to Malta, where the focus of the RN was in CenMed, and also where Churchill was focused for much of the time according to his memoirs. Unlike Crete, Malta had been under the gun for two years by the time your alternate-history goes, and that makes a world of difference.

It really is apples and oranges. Crete: no airpower. Malta: so important that aircraft carriers were risked to resupply by fly-offs. Crete: 40,000 disorganized troops defending an island of 3,300 mi². Malta, about 25,000 by your numbers, defending 122 mi². Crete's got a lot more coastline for (admittedly ramshackle) landings than Malta. In short, Malta is going to be a smaller target, sure, but more concentrated. So I'm unsure the comparison is apt.

Regarding the comparison to Corregidor, you're ignoring the month of artillery pounding the island got from Bataan before the Japanese assault. You're not getting that warm-up at Malta. It's also much smaller, at 2.1 mi².

None of the three islands compare to each other in my opinion. They each require unique approaches, and using the others to argue that Malta was doable ignores big, big differences.
 
Part of the problem at Crete was that it was an almost exclusively airborne assault. At that time (May-June 1941) the British Navy was still quite a threat in the Mediterranean, and Crete was fairly far from the mainland, so no real amphibious landing was undertaken, just some smaller ones after the initial Airborne assault, mainly using traditional skiffs.

Obviously, in the real historical world, nobody convinced Hitler to invade Malta. Thank God. This is therefore a speculative scenario, a what if. I'll cover some of the other reasons to do it in a new thread, but I'm not going to get into what it takes to convince a delusional psychopath to make the decision.

The RN was still a threat to any hypothetical 1942 seizure of Malta. I don't they'd go gently into that good night.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back