Churchills and Canadian Tank Brigades

[TColvin]

A veteran of the North Irish Horse, who trained Canadians in Algeria, says that in spite of Dieppe Canadians liked the Churchill tank.

Why then, we must ask, did the Canadian tank brigades switch to Shermans and not stay with Churchills?

My provisional answer - and I would like the opinion of anyone else, and especially if it is backed up with facts and references- is that the Canadians switched from the Churchill to the Ram II tank in early 1943 and then to Shermans for Husky - see Item Number 132 in the list at http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dhh/history_arc...q_e.asp?cat=1.

This happened in April 1943. As it was in the throes of switching from Churchills into Rams, 1 Canadian Army Tank Brigade and 1 Canadian Infantry Division were chosen to replace 33 Tank Brigade and 3 British Infantry Division in Operation Husky.

33 TB and 3 BID had been in 3 Mixed Division together, and 33 TB had then been equipped with Churchills. It had only recently re-equipped with Shermans for Husky. This was because Monty insisted on his tanks having 75-mm, which of course was not fitted on either the Ram or on the Churchill (at that time, it was later).

So 1 CATB gave back its Rams and took over 33 TB's Shermans.

I guess that all the Canadian Tank Brigades switched from Churchills to Rams and then to Shermans because of the need for the 75-mm D-P gun. It is this last point that is speculation based on what is known to have happened to 1 CATB.

Any comments?

[John McGillivray]

Have you looked at CMHQ report # 113? Paras 52 to 57 deal with the Churchill.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/dhh/Downl...hq/cmhq113.pdf

[TColvin]

Yes, I have, thank you, and noticed that it re-stated but did not answer the problem. Let me explain.

Paragrapgh 52 reads; "The Churchill has been withdrawn from units of the Canadian Army, because, as an Infantry tank, it did not meet the needs of the Armoured Brigades. Army Tank Brigades have disappeared from the Canadian Army Overseas".

A Tank Brigade was equipped with the Churchill. An Armoured Brigade was equipped with the Ram/Sherman/Cromwell. Equip a Tank Brigade with a Ram/Sherman/Cromwell and it becomes an Armoured Brigade. This is what happened with 1 CATB for Husky.

It does not explain why the Churchills were replaced by Rams, thereby eliminating the Tank Brigades.

Tank Brigades were not eliminated in the British Army. Therefore the Canadian and British Armies in the same 21 Army Group were dissimilar, and that was not policy.

[Bill Alexander]

Hi, Could some clarification be added? The reference is made to Op Husky, in which the 1st Canadian Army Tank Battalion landed in Sicily. However it is my understanding that this did not spur the change in designation from Army Tank Brigade to Armoured Brigade. The "army tank brigade" was tasked for close infantry support and equiped with "infantry tanks", the Churchill. The armoured brigade was equiped with "cruiser" type tanks, the Sherman, and employed in a variety of tasks, both infantry support and armoured support. Montgomery had established a policy that armoured brigades be able to work with both infantry divisions and armoured divisions.
The actual change in designation for the Canadian army tank battalion in Italy took place effective August 26, 1944. This was well after the invasion of Sicily, essentially after hostilities on the island had ended. The 1st Cdn Army Tank Bn had been equiped with the Sherman upon landing in Sicily and as early as April 1943. The 2nd Army Tank Brigade had been redesignated 2nd Armoured Brigade in July of 1943.
Could you also clarify the comments about 21st Army Group? This fromation served in Northwest Europe, and 1st Armoured Bde served in Italy. 2nd Armoured Brigade served in NW Europe in the capacity of an armoured brigade, and thus was required to support either infantry or amoured divisions. The armoured regiments of the 2nd Armoured Brigade had to support infantry battalions in both the 2nd Cdn Inf and 3rd Cdn Inf Div and the 4th Cdn Armd Div. To be able to carry out this tasking, consistent with Montgomery's policy, the Canadian independent armoured brigades were all "armoured" and not "army tank battalions".

[John McGillivray]

In paragraph 55 of CMHQ report no.113, there is a quote from a telegram from Lt. A.G.L. McNaughton to the Vice Chief of the General Staff which reads in part:

“..1 Cdn Army Tank Bde – now equipped with Churchills on loan from the War Office as an interim arrangement pending supply of Ram tanks from Canada. It has been intended to retain Churchills until after 4 and 5 Cdn Armd Divs were equipped with Rams.”

This telegram was dated the 11th of Aug. 1942, and clearly shows that it was always the intention to replace the Churchill with Canadian Ram tanks. This replacement had nothing to do with the 75mm gun or with operation “Husky”.

The change over to Rams was completed in March 1943. According to Vol. II of the official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War “The Canadians in Italy 1943 – 1944” by Lt.-Col. G.W. L. Nicholson the Canadians only started to become involved in the planning for operation “Husky” on the 23rd of April 1943.

[ShermanGuy]

I believe the use of Ram tanks had more to do with economics than with which tank was better for which task - since the Ram was made in Canada, it was easier (read cheaper) for the Canadian army to use those rather than having to purchase Churchill tanks from the UK.

The switch to Shermans for Husky and later on was due to supply - Italy was mainly supplied from North Africa, which didn't have any Rams. Although the running gear/engine etc were the same as the Lee/Sherman, the rest of the vehicle required parts from the UK or Canada. Since the Canadian contingent in Husky and later in Italy was small in comparison to the US and UK/Commonwealth contingents, it didn't make sense to have separate supply requirements.

The Shermans were also economically better than the Churchills - some of the Sherman components were made in Canada, thuse reducing the overall cost of those vehicles to the Canadian government.

Chuck Rothman

[TColvin]

The British position is well-understood as being divided into two warring camps:
1. There was the Churchill-Alexander-Anderson school of thought that said you needed a slow Infantry tank with heavy armour to support the infantry in creating a breakthrough, and then the armoured divisions equipped with lightly armoured and fast cruiser tanks would pass through the gap and exploit. Therefore you had the Tank Brigades with Matilda II/Valentines/Churchills, and Armoured Brigades with Crusader/Sherman/Cromwell.
2. There was the God-Almighty Monty school of thought, that argued all you needed were Armoured Brigades equipped with a Universal Tank that would support the infantry in the breakthrough and provide exploitation. The Universal Tank in the indistinguishable Armoured Brigades required a 75-mm gun, automotive reliability and reasonable speed. Tank Brigades and the Churchill Tank could therefore be abolished, and Monty insisted he wanted neither.

Oftentimes Monty got his way; he took no Churchills to Sicily, and he kept trying to get rid of them in NW Europe. He had public arguments with Churchill about this in front of journalists - see the spat during the visit to Simonds in the Reichswald on March 4, 1945.

Until now it has been believed that the Canadians contributed nothing to this debate, but the information you are supplying raises possibilities. It has been assumed that the Ram was an early Sherman Cruiser, but it wasn't - the Sherman was probably a late Ram, and I believe the similar shape is no coincidence. By this I mean the Ram might have been conceived as a Universal Tank by McNaughton, who looks like he made no distinction between a Churchill and a Ram as early as August 1942. He would therefore have used Rams at Dieppe instead of Churchills. McNaughton obviously believed that there was no need for both Tank and Armoured Brigades with both Infantry and Cruiser tanks. Perhaps McNaughton, with his extraordinary reputation for brilliance, put this idea into Monty's head. The two met frequently before Monty went to Egypt, and Monty sucked up other's ideas such as those of Liddell-Hart.

What I believe needs explaining is why the Canadians fought in NW Europe without the Churchill Infantry Tank. In Italy they were sometimes supported by Churchills, and the NIH was given the right to wear the Maple leaf because of good support.

But in NW Europe the Canadians never asked for Churchills, and seemed quite content with their own Shermans. This cost them dearly in blood, especially in the Hochwald, but they never seemed to complain. Crerar and Simonds listened to Monty and Churchill arguing hammer and tongs about the Churchill Tank as if it had nothing to do with them. But perhaps they sincerely believed in Monty's side of the argument because Monty had got it from their McNaughton.

BTW, 1 CATB was switching to Rams per McNaughton's directives when it was ordered to Sicily. It then switched to Shermans because, I believe, the Ram lacked a 75-mm.
I would have to see evidence before believing cost had anything to do with Canadian preference for the Ram and Sherman over the Churchill. Did you know the Czech Independent Tank Brigade was equipped with Churchills, and Churchills entered Prague from the West as T 34s and IS-2s entered from the East? No. I think nations got what they asked for, providing the equipment wasn't in short supply. And for many months in 1944 Shermans were in short supply, and the Rams were operating as Kangaroos, and there was a surplus of Churchills. If the Canadians had wanted Churchills they would have taken them either for reconstituted Tank Brigades, or they would have asked for the Churchills of British Tank Brigades to support them.

[Colin Williams]

Tony,

You raise some important questions which are difficult to answer. I think some possible lines of investigation are the following.

1. What was Monty's thinking on the subject of 'I' tanks in general and the Churchill in particular before he left the UK for Egypt? Did he become converted to the idea of a universal tank upon witnessing the effectiveness of the Sherman at El Alamein or was he already biased against the Churchill? As I recall the British Army was considering relegating the Churchill to second-line status with the Covenanter until operations in Tunisia proved its value.

2. In the years leading up to WW2 Canadian doctrine tended to follow in the wake of British doctrine. Once the British adopted the 'I' tank concept, the Canadians followed suit. However, I wonder what certain senior officers, particularly Worthington, thought of the concept. As I understand it, Worthington played a major role in the design of the Ram, and I wonder if it represented his preference for the earlier light-medium-heavy tank concept vs. the light-cruiser-infantry tank concept. Certainly the Americans were wedded to the medium tank as the main weapon in their armored units.

3. What was Worthington's relationship with McNaughton?

4. Didn't Churchills support Canadian operations to clear the Channel ports?

5. I imagine the use of Canadian armored units in Sicily and Italy was predicated on the least possible disruption to the supply chain. Although Rams were very similar to Shermans, they weren't identical, and this could have caused problems with the supplying spare parts, replacement tanks, etc. Still, I agree with you that the main emphasis for British and Commonwealth armored units in the Italian campaign seemed to be (a) only using tanks with a 75mm dual purpose gun and (b) sticking with American equipment as much as possible (hence the late appearence of the Firefly and Archer, along with the complete absence of the Cromwell).

[Colin Williams]

Originally posted by TColvin
Did you know the Czech Independent Tank Brigade was equipped with Churchills, and Churchills entered Prague from the West as T 34s and IS-2s entered from the East?

If Churchill had been on top on the issue he should have ordered Monty to re-equip the Czech brigade with Shermans and then "loan" it to Patton with a wink and a nod some time in March. The Czechs wouldn't have stopped at Pilsen, and Patton would have been obliged to send the rest of 3rd Army into Prague to "rescue" them.

[t3488g]

i'm trying to find out if they used it here:
http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/sh...&threadid=1627

but i am getting very little luck

[Mark W. Tonner]

Originally posted by t3488g
i'm trying to find out if they used it here:
http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/sh...&threadid=1627

but i am getting very little luck

t3488g;

Your question was regarding the use by Canadian Armoured Corps units of the Churchill Crocodile - to answer your question - No Canadian Armoured Corps unit was equipped with or operated the Churchill Crocodile during the Second World War, in either Sicily/Italy or North-West Europe.

Cheers