Good info, thanks. Yea, Crusader was a brutal battle. The M3 Stuart might have been a better tank for the terrain in Burma, or Malaya than the bigger Lee. The Lee had a 7-man crew, was twice the weight of the Stuart, and had a much higher profile. The Stuart was fast, and maneuverable, and had an automatic transmission. Their AP rounds were able to penetrate most Japanese tanks, and they fired an effective 37mm cannister round to deal with infantry and soft targets and it was a good scout vehicle. When German tanks were up armored the Stuart became outclassed and needed to be replaced, but it was still a good scout vehicle. Even in the Pacific eventually everyone wanted the M4 Sherman with its 75mm gun and better armored protection. But the Stuart was a Honey.
"Everyone" - really? The Australians didn't, find it maneuverable compared to the Churchill and the Matilda. The Armour of the Sherman was considered flimsy in comparison at the ranges that they encountered the Japanese in the South-West Pacific.
 
Last edited:
"Everyone" - really? The Australians didn't, find it maneuverable compared to the Churchill and the Matilda. The Armour of the Sherman was considered flimsy in comparison at the ranges that they encountered the Japanese in the South-West Pacific.
It depends on what you want a tank to do. Both the Churchill & Matilda had thick flat armor, while the Sherman had well slopped armor, and moved over soft ground better than the Sherman. The Matilda had a 40mm gun. The Sherman was 7 tons lighter than the Churchill VII, was faster on the move, had a faster turret traverse, a less cramped turret, and faster egress if the tank was penetrated. There was a reason the Sherman was considered the best overall tank for the Western Allies. Unfortunately, the Centurion came too late to fight in Europe, she would've been the best overall tank of WWII.
 
It depends on what you want a tank to do. Both the Churchill & Matilda had thick flat armor, while the Sherman had well slopped armor, and moved over soft ground better than the Sherman. The Matilda had a 40mm gun. The Sherman was 7 tons lighter than the Churchill VII, was faster on the move, had a faster turret traverse, a less cramped turret, and faster egress if the tank was penetrated. There was a reason the Sherman was considered the best overall tank for the Western Allies. Unfortunately, the Centurion came too late to fight in Europe, she would've been the best overall tank of WWII.
It was being judged on criteria set in Europe, rather than the SW Pacific. It was found that it used to slip and failed to climb hills, even the Marines found that it's armour was inadequate. The Tilly and the Churchill has more than enough armour to defeat Japan's AT weapons. The Sherman was an adequate tank for Western Europe, just as the Churchill was. The Churchill was adequate for the SW Pacific which the Sherman was not.

 
Last edited:
It was being judged on criteria set in Europe, rather than the SW Pacific. It was found that it used to slip and failed to climb hills, even the Marines found that it's armour was inadequate. The Tilly and the Churchill has more than enough armour to defeat Japan's AT weapons. The Sherman was an adequate tank for Western Europe, just as the Churchill was. The Churchill was adequate for the SW Pacific which the Sherman was not.

It seems this test was conducted in the middle of 1944 which is a little late in the war. Both tanks seemed to have advantages, and disadvantages. The Churchill seemed overall better in deep mud, and steep climbs.
 
It seems this test was conducted in the middle of 1944 which is a little late in the war. Both tanks seemed to have advantages, and disadvantages. The Churchill seemed overall better in deep mud, and steep climbs.
Horses for courses then. Both the Sherman and Churchill tanks had strengths and weaknesses. Trick would be to use them to their best advantage and not in situations where their weaknesses dominate.

For instance, could Goodwood have gone better had Churchill tanks rather than Shermans led the assault? With Shermans to exploit any gaps created.

Possibly not but...

ITTL maybe more Churchills could be shipped to the Far East Theatres?
 
Horses for courses then. Both the Sherman and Churchill tanks had strengths and weaknesses. Trick would be to use them to their best advantage and not in situations where their weaknesses dominate.
Something that seems to escape some posters here. They universally condemn the Churchill as, "too slow", "too underarmed", etc. without considering it's performance, it's ability to climb hills like a goat, it's mud coping ability and so on. They automatically believe that the Sherman was the better tank.
 
All tanks have their strengths and weaknesses in terms of maintenance the Sherman could be a son of a bitch. To say nothing of how bad the war build T-34 was it was a pretty terrible tank.

I could see the Churchill doing quite well out east since there is very little short of the heavy guns that the Japanese could do to mark it
 
Last edited:

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Tanks in the Far East,Pacific region of conflict during World War II. The question of which was the better tank for the Allied forces to use in this vast region, with its terrain, is often looked at from the wrong perspective. It should be remembered that other than a few exceptions, the worst Allied tanks were superior to the best Japanese tanks. That is why the British Matilda which by 1941 was effectively obsolete in the European theatre was still up until 1945 viable in the Far East. The problem with tanks in both OTL and TTL, is simply twofold, logistics and infrastructure, the ability to get your tanks to where you need them, and once there to supply them with all they require. It’s no good sending tanks to an area where you can not deploy them, or an area where you can not support them. IOTL there were very few tanks used in China, and virtually none by the Chinese, as once the Japanese had captured Burma, there effectively wasn’t any way for Anglo Americans to supply them. One only has to look at the problems the French had at Diane Dien Phu in trying with better aircraft than are presently available in trying to fly tanks in. However given that ITTL, the Burma Road remains open, while transporting tanks along it to China would be a nightmare. There is the possibility of moving armoured cars, such as TTL’s equivalent of the British Daimler and AEC, or the American M3A1 Scout Car, M8 Greyhound and the T17E1 Staghound, along the Burma Rd, under their own steam, and this could possibly make a significant difference to the conflict in China.

The use of tanks in the island hoping campaign in the Pacific faced a number of problems/challenges at first. Until the Anglo Americans had developed both the LCT and the LST, how do you deliver your tanks to the island. Without a deep water port, the best you can do is crane the tank from the hold of your ship onto a barge/raft, and then somehow transfer it onto land. Even once you have LCT’s, they are not capable of long oceanic voyages and require the transfer of the tanks from a deep water vessel, onto the landing craft, in a suitable secure near by location. It was only with the introduction of the LST that it became possible to easily deploy tanks in this theatre. And even then the terrain and infrastructure of the island could have significant impact on the usefulness of tanks. In both Burma and Malaya ITTL, while the lighter tanks will from day one be very useful, once you go above 30 tonnes GVW, you will start to hit problems, and the effort required to deploy and support these units, might outweigh their effectiveness. If you have to build the equivalent of a 60 foot long 40 ton capacity bridge for every 5 miles of progress, you just might be better using tanks that weigh no more than 20 tons all up. It should be noted that even a British or American light tank of 1941, in the 15 to 20 ton class is far superior to anything that the Japanese are able of providing to their forces. Unlike in Europe there are not going to be any battles involving hundreds of tanks, any battle that involves a hundred tanks between both sides will be among the largest fought.

RR.
 
Hi Aber, yes, this is very much my line of thinking. What the British will do, I think I can cover, but I have no idea how the Americans will act, the forces available for deployment in 1942 are pretty limited.
I'd assume the US contribution would include:
Equipment esp Stuart tanks
Air forces in Burma, both fighter and bomber groups
Eventually an Infantry Division or 2 in southern Burma for security

If the Japanese are less successful initially in Malaya, then the shuffling around of Australian, British and potentially US units might prevent the fall of Burma. An open Burma road will compete with the Persian route for US lend-lease supplies.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
I'd assume the US contribution would include:
Equipment esp Stuart tanks
Air forces in Burma, both fighter and bomber groups
Eventually an Infantry Division or 2 in southern Burma for security

If the Japanese are less successful initially in Malaya, then the shuffling around of Australian, British and potentially US units might prevent the fall of Burma. An open Burma road will compete with the Persian route for US lend-lease supplies.

Aber, I personally think that you are mistaken, if the British manage to retain control over Burma, and thus the Burma Road, for a number of reasons, other then supplies to be transported to China, America will contribute very little. First and foremost because the British will resist any American military presence in Burma, especially given that the Americans refuse to operate under foreign command, and there is no way that the British are going to allow an American to be the overall leader in a British Colony. When it comes to aircraft, any that the Americans have to spare will be sent to China to aid the Chinese efforts, ether flown by Chinese pilots or American. You are however right in that China will be competing with the Soviet Union for US lend-lease, but the supplies sent are in many cases very different. America didn’t send rifles, machine guns, pistols and mortars to the Soviets, nor will America be sending machine tools and heavy tanks to China.

RR.
 

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
Tanks, Tanks again!, who brought up the subject of those bloody tanks this time, come on own up, everyone knows you can't use tanks in the jungle. Ok right you, back to the class, sit there and be silent for the rest of the class, and no rocking on the back legs of your chair, you're a very naughty boy!
 

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
I'd assume the US contribution would include:
Equipment esp Stuart tanks
Air forces in Burma, both fighter and bomber groups
Eventually an Infantry Division or 2 in southern Burma for security

If the Japanese are less successful initially in Malaya, then the shuffling around of Australian, British and potentially US units might prevent the fall of Burma. An open Burma road will compete with the Persian route for US lend-lease supplies.
Hi Aber, thank you, a sensible posting, tanks kept to a minimum! Yes I agree that initially US contributions would be equipment, even at the cost of expanding American land forces not being equipped. We have the excellent example of that with the Sherman tanks being rushed to North Africa.

Not sure about American division/s in Burma, if it can be held, then maybe parts of the Dutch East Indies, but I'm not sure how quickly any significant land forces can be deployed. 1st US Marine Div in action late July 1942, not sure what could be sent earlier than that.
 

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
Aber, I personally think that you are mistaken, if the British manage to retain control over Burma, and thus the Burma Road, for a number of reasons, other then supplies to be transported to China, America will contribute very little. First and foremost because the British will resist any American military presence in Burma, especially given that the Americans refuse to operate under foreign command, and there is no way that the British are going to allow an American to be the overall leader in a British Colony. When it comes to aircraft, any that the Americans have to spare will be sent to China to aid the Chinese efforts, ether flown by Chinese pilots or American. You are however right in that China will be competing with the Soviet Union for US lend-lease, but the supplies sent are in many cases very different. America didn’t send rifles, machine guns, pistols and mortars to the Soviets, nor will America be sending machine tools and heavy tanks to China.

RR.
Hi Ramp-Rat, yes the issue of commanding both British and Commonwealth as well as American forces under a single command structure is going to raise its head. ABDA was probably the first attempt, and was offered to the British, who didn't think they could turn it down, but didn't want it. If the Dutch East Indies holds longer, making this work is going to be a much greater challenge, with American personalities like MacArthur and King likely to cause friction.
 
MWI 41100511 A Few More Aussies

Fatboy Coxy

Monthly Donor
1941, Sunday 05 October;

They had left Fremantle as part of convoy US 12B, a troop reinforcement convoy to the Middle East, along with Aquitania, 45,000 tons, carrying 3,296 New Zealand soldiers, Johan Van Oldenbarneveldt, 19,000 tons, carrying 2,146 Australian troops, and Marnix van St Aldegonde, 19,000 tons, carrying 2,409 Australian troops, escorted by the light cruiser HMAS Sydney. Sydney had, at the Sunda Straits, been replaced by a British cruiser, and then, closer to Singapore, our two troopships, Sibajak, and Boissevain, both Dutch ships, left the convoy, heading into port. The others continued on to Colombo, and then later on to the Suez.

Between them Sibajak and Boissevain carried just under 3,000 military personnel, first- and second-line replacements for the Australian 8th Division, along with newly promoted transfers taking up command positions, others returning from courses and training schools, and the usual small number of odds and sods. Also on board were some more air and ground crew for the expanding RAAF squadrons, and a small RAN draft.

To greet them dockside stood Lt Gen Percival, Maj Gen Rowell, CO of the 8th Australian, and Vivian Bowden, the Australian Government representative here in Singapore. The arrival of these troops would bring the entire 8th Division, along with both Commandos and the Medium Artillery Regiment, fully up to strength, along with reserves. All the Australian artillery units would now be fully manned, but equipment shortages would still remain, 3-inch mortars being the extreme replacement for the designated 25 pounder gun, while some batteries would remain in Malacca, not even being equipped with those.

Sydney Rowell’s arrival had seen a huge change in British-Australian relations, his personality and experience allowing him to seamlessly move into a close and trusted working relationships with all the authorities, and especially Percival. And it was very welcome, the secret operation Matador, the occupation of southern Thailand and part of the Kra Isthmus was fast developing into being the favoured option in defending Malaya. Problems with Thai neutrality and authorisation from London aside, the major military issue to resolve was what units would be involved. Unfortunately, almost all the Indian formations were still very much in need of training, at all levels, although the intensive training programs they were going through was beginning to bear fruit.

So, the only formation that could be given the task was the Australian 8th Division, in its entirety, along with some supporting units. And the Australians needed to be fully up to strength, given what they might be tasked with. So, while the newly arrived joined the tanned ranks, excited to be abroad in such exotic places as Singapore, Penang and Malacca, and discovered what life was like out here, so the planners wrote in ink pen, writing over the pencilled names of units, designated for particular roles.
 
Aber, I personally think that you are mistaken, if the British manage to retain control over Burma, and thus the Burma Road, for a number of reasons, other then supplies to be transported to China, America will contribute very little.
I agree it is complicated, and will depend in part on how the war unfolds.

However using Burma as a forward air force seems likely given the history of the AVG, 7th Bombardment wing, and the role US air forces played in the Middle East. If Burma holds then the 10th Air Force is more likely to be based there than India.

US ground forces are far more complicated. Initially US forces were sent to the ETO to free up British divisions for overseas service eg 5th and 34th divisions; these in theory could have been sent directly to the Far East but it seems unlikely.

More likely candidates are the divisions deployed to Australia eg 32nd and 41st. If Australia is under less direct threat, are these still sent and where do they end up?

If the Burma road holds and provides larger amounts of equipment into China, then I think Stillwell will be lobbying for US units to deploy into China if only to protect US supply dumps. The Japanese will want to take action to close Rangoon, and will Stillwell trust the British to protect his port?

The command arrangements are going to be different; it may split Burma/China and Malaysia/Sumatra/Sri Lanka?
 
Top