Stopping the Panzers

[Roger Lucy]

I found it a convincing book and his use of Allied archival material is very good. On the German side it's weaker, and based on secondary source English language accounts. I think he overestimates the strength of 21Pz a lot of whose armour was French or obsolescent German kit. I can't imagine even a Canadian anti-tank gunner (who on occasion were known to mistake Staghounds for Panthers) could confuse a 9 tonne Lorraine Schlepper with a PaK40 for a 50 tonne Tiger. There is no such thing as an SP 10cm Czech howitzer nor a German 1.8mm mortar (talk about "Neede guns")

Originally Posted by Jon Skagfeld

I wondered why the Canadians landed with American SP Priests, while the Americans landed with Canadian built Sextons?
.

You will find the answer to that on page 111 of Canada's Pride, the Ram Tank and its Variants" Service Publications, 2014.
The Sexton would indeed have performed marvelously in this role as landing trials in 1943 showed its superiority to the Priest. However
" As part of the invasion force the field regiments of 3rd Canadian Infantry Division were to be equipped with SPs, but had to start training by 1 October 1943. The CAOS could only expect to have 46 Sextons on hand by then, while the WO could provide 96 M7s 105mm SPs immediately. On 2 August 1943, First Canadian Army decided to accept the M7 as a “reasonably good substitute” for the Ram SP. "
I found it interesting to learn therefore that one British Field Regiment did land with Sextons, but in November 1943 with the dispatch of 5 CAD to Italy and reequipping 19 Field Rgt RCA with Priests, all surplus Canadian Sextons were handed over to the Brits and it was agreed that Future Canadian Sexton support and requirements would be met from the British stocks.

[Ed Storey]

Roger, glad to see that you have added to the post. I have been waiting to see who would write in with an answer to the Sexton/Priest question as I knew this was documented in 'Canada's Pride'; but apparently only the two of us own a copy of the book.

I read 'Stopping the Panzers' over the holiday season and I thought it was a good read. What I have noticed from this book is that as mainstream Canadian historians break out of the mould of writing about large scale military actions and delve more deeply into smaller unit actions; just how unfamiliar they are with the technology and materiel culture of the period. It is easy to dismiss technology or materiel culture as topics for the ‘enthusiast’ or ‘buff’; but this thread has pointed out the very valid question of asking why the British were using the Ram and the Canadians the Priest, yet this was not addressed at all in the book. I think any author familiar with either weapons system would have at least footnoted the answer in the book.

I looked through the selected bibliography and noted that not one technical manual or commercial publication was listed. Now perhaps these books were omitted as the list was too lengthy, but again for a book that relies quite a bit on technology and materiel culture I was disappointed that nothing was provided. Given the fact that throughout the book every German SP is called a `Wespe`, that the German Pz Kpfw IIIs and IVs are called Mk III and Mk IV and the No.4 Mk I* Lee Enfield is called a Mk IV Rifle, I think that perhaps more of the `enthusiast` or `buff`` publications should have been consulted.

I also kind of feel sorry for any reader who picks up this book but is not familiar with the technology. Again, mainstream historians do not seem to realize that if you mention a weapons system or a piece of equipment, that a brief note about the item and a photograph would be a great help to those less familiar with the item in understanding what exactly it is. From what I read in the newspaper, many Canadians have a difficult time identifying or naming our first Prime Minister; how many know what a Sherman tank or a Porpoise is?

I enjoyed the book and the thesis that it was based on, I just thought that more attention to the details was required.