Wavell couldn't possibly be thinking O'Conner might channel his inner Guderian, could he?
They were reading the Black code between Sept 41 and July 42reading the US embassy report from Cairo didn't hurt him either.
And of course the 25pdr was a fairly decent anti tank gun throughout the desert campaign.Yes but never on anything like the same scale.
The problem with using AA guns as AT guns is that they are really not designed for it. Plus Britain had a lot of very important places to protect with it's AA guns. The 3.7" AA gun was also set up with automatic fuse setters and other things that meant it was a very capable AA gun but got in the way a lot if the gun was going to be shooting tanks. Another problem is it is hard to hit tanks when the AA gun is covering Suez say.
Finally AA guns are big and heavy and difficult to move around and conceal. Compare that to the 6pdr which is small, pretty light and easy to conceal and effective right to the end of the war as an AT gun or the 17pdr which is big heavy but still able to be concealed pretty well and can take out pretty much any tank with APDS. The need was not there for the British, even the 2pdr was doing a good job into 1942. The Germans on the other hand lacked a decent AT gun so had to use artillery and AA guns instead.
i believe Rodney proved to be the ultimate anti-tank gun. 😲And of course the 25pdr was a fairly decent anti tank gun throughout the desert campaign.
In Gordon Corrigan's rather scathing book on British WW2 operations Blood, Sweat and Arrogance: The Myths of Churchill's War he asks the same question noting that on several occasions at Trobruk the 3.7 AAA guns made short work of German and Italian tanks. He notes that having asked this question of Royal Artillery officers "Why was the gun not used more often in the AT role like the 88 was?", they answer him using lots of long words, technical explanations, graphs and slide rules "and still I wonder" he writes in the 'margin'Did the British ever used their AA guns as anti-tank guns like the Germans used their 88's?
I'm just thinking that after having their Matilda II's get hammered by 88's in France, I would certainly be looking to mimic that capability in my forces as quickly as possible.
Matilda II got the name because the Vickers A11's code name was Matilda. So the Vulcan A12 was to be a bigger "Matilda".
The back behind the lines protecting areas of strategic importance is probably the main one. Kinda hard to take out a Panzer near Tobruk if the gun is parked next to Suez. Also all the accouterments then 3.7" came with such as automated fuse setters and fire control gubbins meant that there was an awful lot more gun and weight to lug around to try and fight tanks.In Gordon Corrigan's rather scathing book on British WW2 operations Blood, Sweat and Arrogance: The Myths of Churchill's War he asks the same question noting that on several occasions at Trobruk the 3.7 AAA guns made short work of German and Italian tanks. He notes that having asked this question of Royal Artillery officers "Why was the gun not used more often in the AT role like the 88 was?", they answer him using lots of long words, technical explanations, graphs and slide rules "and still I wonder" he writes in the 'margin'
I think it had something to do with the gun not intended to be fired at a low angle, optimised for high angle work and early war they were fairly low in number and usually held back behind the lines - so rarely found themselves pressed into the role of poking holes in tanks.
They were also a lot heavier than the 88 so would have been slower getting into position to engage any tanks
By the time their numbers had risen (mid 1942) sufficient numbers of 6 pounders and later on 17 pounders made it very unlikely that the AAA units would have to be pressed into service as AT guns.
And before this the 2 pounder was sufficient verses most German and Italian AFVs
The '88' conversely was often pressed into service as the early principle AT gun in the Heer the 37mm was found wanting against some of the better armoured tanks in the French, British and Russian armies and only the 88 and heavier artillery guns could reliably stop those tanks.
Well you do have 30 A11s nearly up for retirement, so that's the possibility of a few being available. Still, it'd be a lot of work for very few vehicles.Turning out to be a busy day! Still looking for those minions @Astrodragon . The pompoms are currently all being grabbed by the Royal Navy. I don't see anymore tanks armed with them, unfortunately, but see below.
Why bother? The German armour isn't nearly as impenetrable to the 2-pounder as the British armour is to the German guns. And yes, the Germans are moving to face-hardened armour, but the British have guessed that, and so by the time the Germans are prepared, will hopefully be ready for it.Did the British ever used their AA guns as anti-tank guns like the Germans used their 88's?
I'm just thinking that after having their Matilda II's get hammered by 88's in France, I would certainly be looking to mimic that capability in my forces as quickly as possible.
Matilda was a duck (I think Scrooge McDuck's niece), the Master General of Ordnance of the time thought the small A11 looked and waddled like a duck and that's where the name came from.
Not quite as martial as Churchill or Cromwell
The A11's are being sent to Crete, they are going to save Crete, then they get nicknamed Valkyries and are sent to help guard Singapore. The last act of the glorious A11 shall be leading the counterattack that prevents the fall of Singapore whilst gramophones are strapped to the side of them blaring Ride of the ValkyriesWell you do have 30 A11s nearly up for retirement, so that's the possibility of a few being available. Still, it'd be a lot of work for very few vehicles.
The Little Tank That Could. Coming soon to a Commando or Battle Comic near you.Yes the A11 is my favourite tank in this timeline.
COW gun on a tank we'll call the "Vulva"...checks both the "V" name box and the male/female version distinction...I like itThe Matilda II may not have the Pom Pom, but after the success of the Matilda I with that gun they will have HE shells and even with a standard 2 pdr you can get a decent rate of fire in short bursts if you have the right type of ammunition to hand. That said I can see there being calls for an Auto Cannon armed version (probably the C.O.W. gun or Vickers S), as it's use against other tanks becomes less viable.
As an ole COMINT guy, it does my heart good to read a post like yours...They were reading the Black code between Sept 41 and July 42
In his defence Col. Bonner Fellers did tell his 'masters' in Washington that he suspected that the code was no longer secure in Feb 42 but they told him it was still secure.
Also his doom and gloom reports convinced Rommel that the British would break hence is all or nothing assault at 1st El Alemain despite his force clearly lacking the logistics and strength for such an attack.
But yes it did really hurt the British forces in North Africa and many of the Med operations.
And Rommels 621st Radio Intercept unit was so good and British Op Sec so poor during 41 and early 42 that there was times during some battles that Rommel had a better real time understanding of the fortes and foibles of the British forces than the British commanders did.
As I have said before it takes 3 years to create a continental army that is competent at modern warfare and so it proved with the British army and their Op Sec was getting better throughout 42 as more and more of the officers and men became fully trained and competent at their jobs and by early 42 codewords were changed more frequently and sometimes units swapped radiomen and call signs to further confuse the Germans (who even back then could tell the difference between individual RTOs attached to certain units) - and the icing on the cake came when the Radio Intercepts forward deployed units were overrun on the night of the 10th July 1942 with their CO Maj Seebohm KIA and the units highly experienced radio intercept specialists decimated. Vitally the units data and logs which were captured made it very clear where the 8th Army was leaking data and within weeks the 8th Army had gone from reasonable Op Sec to arguably the worlds best.
So in the space of a few weeks during July 42 Rommel was rendered blind - robbed of both the 'good source' and his Elite Radio Intercept unit while British Op Sec took the art to a new level.
Rommel seemed to stop winning battles after that!
I do wonder if his chastening experience at Arras ITTL will have a salutatory effect on him?Does not help that for all his talents Rommel was bad at logistics and he did his best work when he could manoeuvre and stupid opposing tanks fell for feigned retreats. Outnumbered troops on the defence with flanks that are secure by obstacles are not opponents he excels at dislodging.
This is a very good assessment, but you already knew that.If the Allied forces fight dug in and don't leave their positions ie feints to draw the tanks onto AT guns fail then the Axis forces are probably held long enough for the reserves to join up and then Rommel loses as he will not have stockpiled enough for a long fight. He has the same problem the British have, the 500 miles between Tripoli and the Front line don't have a decent port/railway so his supply lines cannot keep up with his forces in combat. Just like the British its stockpile , attack , rest unless he can break them and pursue. If they have time to prepare a stand he cannot flank he ends up having to pull back. It was his big mistake after 1st El Alamein, not to just screen and pull back to a position he could be properly supplied in.
Actually that is one of the things that didn't happen at TTL Arras. I've been wondering about what will happen if and when they do.Did the British ever used their AA guns as anti-tank guns like the Germans used their 88's?
I'm just thinking that after having their Matilda II's get hammered by 88's in France, I would certainly be looking to mimic that capability in my forces as quickly as possible.
Actually end of March before the main battle at Mersa Brega. So nearer 8 or 9 weeks. Oh yes, just about the same time as Wavell has penciled in for the next phase of the operation to clear the Italians out of North Africa. Hmmm...I wonder what the consequences of that might be.Going by when Rommel attacked OTL the British have got a month to six weeks to dig in, refit and sort out the supply line. Even if the axis break through at El Agheila they're unlikely to be in any condition to exploit that success to anything like the same degree as OTL, and if Benghazi pulls a Tobruk then they'll have to withdraw due to lack of supplies.
I was just reading that the first Panzer IIIs sent to Tripoli mostly weren't up-armoured, though they did have the 50mm gun. So the 2-pdr is still effective, and the Valiant's armour against the 50mm? Be interesting.Also going off the fact that the Commonwealth has better armour that can match the Germans in particular the Valiants it will give them a good beating.
The 3.7-inch gun as @Cryhavoc101 mentions were used, and did have the sights etc to do it, but as you mentioned, there weren't enough of them and none of them should have been quite so close to the front line.Yes but never on anything like the same scale.
Little old wine drinker me.Dragon minions work for coffee.
How's your coffee supply?
I do wonder, seriously, about the difference in your TL about the way the British are going to be much more confident about their tanks. Guderian and his cronies, especially after Poland, thought of themselves as The Elite. So he had a swagger about what he could do. O'Connor, didn't rate Creagh's tankers much at all. The fact the Italians kept withdrawing during the night while the Hussars had supper, drove him up the wall a couple of times. He makes the exception of 11th Hussars in their armoured cars, those he rated, but not the two armoured brigades as much. The Matilda IIs were probably his best tank unit, as Sidi Barrani, Bardia and Tobruk proved. So I'm not sure O'Connor would channel his inner Panzer Commander. It was his modern Infantry Divisions with their integral transport, plus the RASC that really won Operation Compass. The tanks of 7th Armoured Division played a lesser role. That's my reading of it anyway.Wavell couldn't possibly be thinking O'Conner might channel his inner Guderian, could he?
One of the things that I am terribly conscious of is the way in which it is too easy to improve British competence at the stroke of keyboard (easier to say pen?). For example, I was just writing the update about the arrival of the Matilda IIs in Sudan. OTL when they unloaded the 15 tons of spares they'd brought along, they were all for Mark VI light tanks! It beggars belief sometimes that the British managed to hang on at all during the war. Muddling through and making up as they went along, scrounging whatever they could. It kind of seems the feats of British arms is more good luck than happenstance.As I have said before it takes 3 years to create a continental army that is competent at modern warfare and so it proved with the British army and their Op Sec was getting better throughout 42 as more and more of the officers and men became fully trained and competent at their jobs ...
Rommel seemed to stop winning battles after that!
True, must remember that.And of course the 25pdr was a fairly decent anti tank gun throughout the desert campaign.
Thanks, now I have another book to read! My Christmas Amazon vouchers are well and truly spent!In Gordon Corrigan's rather scathing book on British WW2 operations Blood, Sweat and Arrogance: The Myths of Churchill's War
Wee bit of a myth that one. In Carden's original drawing, (photo of page from David Fletcher's Meachanised Force) he had Matilda written on it as its company code name. Good story but, unfortunately not the case. Don't get me started on why the Valentine was called the Valentine!Matilda was a duck (I think Scrooge McDuck's niece), the Master General of Ordnance of the time thought the small A11 looked and waddled like a duck and that's where the name came from.
Not quite as martial as Churchill or Cromwell
Not sure if everybody would agree with that assessment.The 88mm was a versatile weapon but lacking as a specialised one. The 3.7" on the other hand was an excellent AA gun and far better than the 88mm but that meant it lacked versatility.
No, thank you. Still trying to think of a way of getting Ship Shape a prize. I'd probably need to rewrite it as a Self-Insert, which is the way ASB seems to be going now. Or is that just bitchy?Allan
Congratulations on the Turtledove. Thoroughly deserved and not bad for the first go outside ASB.
Looking forward to lots, lots more.
Thank you
Hopefully..And yes, the Germans are moving to face-hardened armour, but the British have guessed that, and so by the time the Germans are prepared, will hopefully be ready for it.
Every day is a school day.I don't know Empress Matilda fought a long and bloody civil war against the usurper King Stephan for the throne of England. Arguably she ultimately won as her son Henry II inherited the crown on Stephan's death.
Oi! Who's writing this?Don't you dare suggest any other outcome is possible.
Was raised on Commando books, Warlord was another favourite. But now I am aging myself.The Little Tank That Could. Coming soon to a Commando or Battle Comic near you.
That name would last for however long it takes Queen Elizabeth or Queen Mary to get Churchill on the phone after they find out about it.COW gun on a tank we'll call the "Vulva"...checks both the "V" name box and the male/female version distinction...I like it