Brazen Chariots: British World War II armor in North Africa

British tanks were usually worse than their German equivalents, and on top of this, British doctrine was dangerously flawed. The British largely believed that tanks were a battlefield winner by themselves, and cooperation between infantry, tanks, artillery, and aircraft was much less advanced than in the German Army. British armored commanders still saw their mechanized units as cavalry formations. Some tank battalions still had “petting parades” where men were encouraged to “groom their chargers”. Worse than this was the idea to group British AFVs into “infantry tanks” — slow-moving, heavily armored tanks that would advance at infantry pace and faster “cruiser tanks” used for exploitation.

Following is a roundup of the key tanks employed by Britain in the campaign, from the early cruiser series to the introduction of the lend-leased medium American AFVs.

Cruiser tanks were designed to be lightly armored. Production costs were relatively low, and the idea was to put overwhelming numbers of tanks on the battlefield and then use speed and mobility to swarm more heavily armored opponents. The Russians had the equivalent BT program — their own fast-moving, lightly armored, reasonably armed tank.

However, the Cruiser concept was fundamentally flawed if production numbers were low. The British Army had been woefully underfunded in the interwar period and was constantly playing catch-up throughout the war to meet its battlefield requirements. This left the British in the first part of the North African Campaign with a lightly armored tank without the numbers necessary to make it effective.

The A9 was the first tank Cruiser tank to be born out of this way of thinking. 

From the outset, cost was the primary consideration in the design. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force had priority over the Army when it came to funding, and this was reflected in the A9. It had woefully thin armor, even for a pre-war tank, and suffered from mechanical reliability issues made worse by the unforgiving sands of North Africa. In the end, it proved to be not particularly fast, with a top speed comparable to the German and Italian medium tanks. Its one and only saving grace was its 2-pounder gun — easily one of the best anti-tank guns in the world at the start of the war.

Most of the Cruiser series also included CS (Close Support) versions. These had their 2-pounders stripped out and replaced with a 3.7-inch howitzer. The theory was that while the 2-pounder-mounted tanks dealt with enemy armor, the CS tanks would use high-explosive rounds on infantry and anti-tank gun targets. CS tanks were mixed in with the rest, ideally in a 1:4 ratio, but once they were knocked out, the British armored unit would lose their ability to effectively engage soft targets at long range.

Cruiser tanks worked well when taking on outdated Italian vehicles, but had serious trouble against German medium tanks such as the Panzer III and IV. During Barbarossa, the drawbacks of the Soviet BT system were also evident, albeit on a much wider scale. German armored units with better training, leadership, and doctrine used their medium tanks to cause catastrophic losses among Soviet armored formations. The British never suffered in this way due to the high level of training of their crews, but they were still thoroughly outmatched by German armor.

The A-10 and A-13 versions featured some improvements, but all of them came unstuck against Rommel’s panzers.

The Matilda program was Britain’s infantry tank concept in action. The Matilda I was a horribly botched piece of design. Heavily armored but with a top road speed of just 8 mph, it carried only a single machine gun. The tracks were fully exposed, and there were also reliability issues. The Army’s Matilda I’s were lost in France in 1940, and production was discontinued.

The Matilda II was a different proposition altogether. Still slow with a road speed of 16 mph, it was at least an improvement over the Matilda I. The Matilda II had the 2-pounder gun and a turret mounted machinegun. It was exceptionally well armored for the early war — most Italian and German anti-tank weapons were useless against its frontal armor.

In 1940, very often when a group of Matildas would break into Italian positions, the infantry would quickly surrender. However, when the Germans arrived in North Africa in early 1941, the situation changed. Comprised of highly motivated men with experience of armored warfare, the Afrika Korps also had at its disposal the terrifying 88mm Flak Gun. When used in an anti-tank role, its shells could rip through the thick frontal armor of the Matildas with ease.

However, the Matilda was well known for its ability to take punishment that would knock out less-protected tanks. For example, during one of the early clashes with the Germans in 1941, Capt Austin of 4 RTR (Royal Tank Regiment) had his Matilda set on fire by several enemy rounds. Austin was hit, and he and the operator dismounted. The internal fire burned fiercely, but Corporal Newman ordered the driver, Trooper Robertson, to carry on advancing slowly. Despite considerable pain from the burns he had sustained on his face, arms, and legs, Corporal Newman succeeded in extinguishing the fire and then commenced to load and fire the gun by himself. He continued firing until the tank was finally knocked out at close range.

Late in the war, the Australians developed a flamethrower version of the Matilda, known as the Frog, for use in the jungles of Borneo against the Japanese.

Another Cruiser series tank, the Crusader mercifully had better armor than its predecessors, giving it some survivability when facing the German Panzer IIIs and IVs.

Early Crusaders were officially designated the Cruiser Tanks Mark V and VI. As well as sporting the now outclassed 2-pounder main armament, they also carried an extra machine gun in a small hull-mounted turret. This position was intensely disliked by crews due to being cramped, poorly ventilated, and often difficult to bail out of if the tank got hit. Being mounted on the left side of the vehicle meant its field of fire was also restricted. Later models of the Crusader dropped the hull machine gun and featured a slight increase in armor thickness, especially around the turret. Again, a CS version was developed, mounting the 3.7-inch howitzer.

The Crusader was fast-tracked into production without sufficient testing, meaning it suffered with notorious reliability problems, made worse in desert conditions. Sand would get into key components, resulting in seized engines. 

Crusaders first saw action in the desert during Operation Battleaxe in June 1941 – an ultimately botched attempt to relieve the siege of Tobruk in which more Crusaders were lost to breakdowns than enemy action. One particularly notable incident came at Halfaya Pass during Battleaxe, in which Major Miles of 4th RTR made a cavalry-style charge against German 88s. Miles’ last transmission before he died was, “These bloody guns are tearing my tanks to pieces.”

However, the Crusader was fast enough to achieve results if no serious anti-tank guns opposed them. For example, during Operation Crusader in November 1941, Brigadier Davy, commanding 6 RTR, gave the order to “Gallop!” onto the Italian airfield at Sidi Rezegh. By driving at excessive speed, Davy and his tanks managed to capture 19 operational Italian aircraft on the ground.

The Americans built the M3 Stuart light tank starting in March 1941. Desperate for vehicles and recognizing the M3 was similar to their own cruiser tanks, the British requested shipments of the M3 be lend-leased from early 1941.

British units first issued M3s adored their speed, handling, and reliability, and quickly started calling them “Honeys”. The name stuck, and for the remainder of the war, all British crews referred to the M3 as the Honey.

Originally dubbed a “cavalry car”, battlefield requirements meant the M3 had to be pressed into a “cruiser” style role. In terms of armor and firepower, it had similar issues to the Crusader, but was at least more reliable, meaning more Honeys made it to the battlefield without breaking down.

However, there were some drawbacks. Sergeant Major Close of 3 RTR remembered: “Whoever designed the Honey seemed to have forgotten the seat for the commander. Our fitters had welded hooks inside the turret so you could perch on a strip of canvas strung between them, but after hours in the field, it left its mark on you.”

British crews made other modifications, such as removing the bow machine gun to increase stowage space and adding smoke dispensers. By the time large numbers of Honeys arrived in late 1941, they were outclassed by all the Panzer III and IVs, meaning their crews suffered during Operation Crusader and the Gazala battle.

Nevertheless, the Honey proved a decent stopgap measure before the arrival of new, heavier American tanks.

The next entry in the “Infantry” tank series, the Valentine, was very much a mixed bag compared to the Matilda. It was only marginally faster, despite not being as well armored. Though designed to move with the infantry, unfortunately for British tank units, the Valentine was also pressed into service in a cruiser role — something which it was not suited for. These tanks were in combat with the 8th Army from November 1941 and were used right up till the end of the Tunisian Campaign in 1943.

Early models still had the 2-pounder, which was woeful by 1942. Their thinner armor made them susceptible to German 50mm and 75mm main tank armaments without being able to effectively hit back. Again, the lack of high-explosive ammunition meant they also struggled against infantry targets.

One of the final versions of the Valentine finally carried the excellent 6-pounder gun. It was able to fire high-explosive and armor piercing rounds. However, this version was only in combat in the later stages of Tunisia. Fitting the large 6-pounder gun in the small ring turret meant the removal of one crewman, as well as the coaxial machinegun, leading to inefficient loading and firing. Nevertheless, the Valentine VIII could take on any German tank short of a Tiger.

Around half of all Valentines produced in British and Commonwealth factories were sent to the USSR as part of lend-lease where they performed with mixed results, mainly being used in support and rear area roles. The Soviets, of course, already had an excellent and much more adaptable medium tank in the T-34.

American lend-leased Grant and Sherman tanks would come to dominate the British order of battle from late 1942. They were, at that time, excellent vehicles, combining armor protection and firepower, as well as decent mobility. 

Initially, soldiers of 3rd RTR simply referred to Grants as “Heavies”. They were certainly a cut above what the tankers had previously had to work with. The turret contained the standard American 37mm, but the bow mounted a deadly 75mm gun, capable of firing high-explosive and armor-piercing shells. It could easily knock out Panzer IIIs and IVs, finally giving British crews an advantage over the Germans. 

However, Grants had drawbacks. Their high profile made them easy targets, especially in flat desert terrain, and the powerful 75mm had a limited field of fire. It was also rather difficult to use in combat.

Grants were useful at the Battle of Gazala in 1942, accounting for many Panzers, but it was British High Command’s failings (as well as Rommel’s usual aggressive tactics) that cost them the battle. Prime opportunities to decisively smash the Afrika Korps were squandered due to indecision. Corporal Kite of 3rd RTR, with perfect British understatement, said he “felt a bit despondent.”

Nevertheless, Kite’s Grant performed remarkably well, even in the face of fearful odds. Despite his 75mm gun being put out of action in the previous day’s fighting:

“The next day we were told we had to delay the advance of the enemy’s armor… Sure enough in the late afternoon about 50 enemy tanks appeared over a ridge 800 yards to our front and for about an hour the air was thick with shells. My own Grant was hit repeatedly but, though it shuddered and shook, nothing went through the armor and, what with the 25-pounders firing solid shots over open sights and us blazing away with our AP, we inflicted enough damage to make Jerry stop and think.”

After the engagement, Kite assessed the damage and found his Grant had been hit over 20 times, and the suspension was literally shot to pieces. Two of the five radial engines had seized, yet the Grant had still managed to limp away to a rear area when the order to pull back was finally given that evening.

By the autumn of 1942, Churchill had somehow persuaded Roosevelt to divert shipments of the excellent new Sherman medium tank away from U.S. forces and land them at Suez to be used by the British 8th Army. By the time of the Battle of El Alamein, the 8th Army had a new commander, Bernard Montgomery, and about 250 Shermans ready for immediate battlefield deployment.

Shermans had some problems. Like the Grant, they had a high, bulky silhouette that made them easily hittable from long range in desert terrain. The sloped front hull had several plates welded together that compromised ballistic protection, and they tended to catch fire when hit (British crews referred to this phenomenon as “brewing up”).

However, at El Alamein, they were clearly the best all-round tank on the battlefield. Good protection, mobility, reliability, and an effective 75mm gun meant Shermans were pivotal in securing the British victory and pushing the German and Italian divisions all the way back to Tunisia.

The immense manufacturing base of America produced almost 50,000 Shermans of all types, and from late 1942, it became the most important tank used by British forces.

Shermans proved their worth time and again. For example, at the Tebaga Gap near the formidable Mareth line in Tunisia, Shermans participated in what Sergeant Kite of 3rd RTR described as “a Balaclava charge” against a line of dug-in Italian and German anti-tank guns. With weakly armored British Crusader tanks, it might have ended in disaster, but the Shermans proved their worth, and the engagement came out better than he expected for the Allies.

Kite recalled that “a number of [enemy] guns opened up the moment we started to move forward but as we drew nearer quite a lot of Italians came out with their hands up… but the Germans kept on firing. When we got into the enemy trenches the New Zealander [infantry] got among them, bayoneting Jerries and using their rifles. Before long the Germans were giving up, too. You couldn’t blame them.”

British armor in North Africa was generally sub-standard until the introduction of American vehicles. This was due to having a poorly funded and underdeveloped tank program in the interwar years. While Britain had been on the cutting edge of armored warfare in 1918, it lagged significantly behind the Germans in 1939.

Ironically for a nation that produced generally inadequate tanks in the opening years of the war, it would be the British who developed what was possibly the finest MBT of the postwar period in the form of the exceptional Centurion. 

We know you love military history and vehicles, but do you collect anything else? Ever wonder about the baseball cards in a box in the basement or Grandma’s old coins in a jar?  Do you love old cars or spin vinyl? Head on over to Collect.com and see what you are missing. Collect.com is the who, what, when and where of the collecting world! https://www.collect.com/