Hi Bruce.
Named armoured vehicles makes a lot of sense for communication purposes and in the 1930’s leading into the start of World War Two, armour can be split into two groups; the tank regiments and the lighter recce regiments, but for the powers that be at that time, lets assume they just saw it all as ‘armour’, so they all got names.
Armour technology and anti armour technology were in a constant state of development in the interwar years. If anything lagged behind, it was probably the human thinking about just how to use armour on the battlefield.
So World War Two arrives and the combatants are then faced with actually having to figure out how to use armour effectively on the new battlefields of the day, using ideas that basically started and stopped between 1917 and 1918. The concept of good communications makes very much sense, so it is applied to all armour collectively.
Now, as you have noted, time marches along in World War Two and we notice that the lighter armoured recce regiments appear to be moving away from named vehicles. The tank regiments continue. Communication is still critical on the battlefield but the shift away from naming recce vehicles seems valid.
What would be different about the operation/deployment of tanks in action, compared to recce armour? Something of significant difference has to be at play here to make a change in policy between the two groups of vehicles happen.
My thought process still focuses on communication differences, I think. Is it a case of tanks in the thick of it are really not concerned about being individually or collectively identified since it could be argued they have lots of support close at hand in most situations? On the other hand a recce regiment could often be working some distance behind enemy lines with little or no immediate support. Being sneaky with their communications would be far more critical to them working where they did. The less information readily available to the enemy in their environment the better?
David
|