Stopping the Panzers

[John McGillivray]

There’s a new book out by Marc Milner dealing with the planning and the first few days of the Normandy invasion. I’ve gotten through the first hundred pages and so far its being a good read, with a lot of interesting information. He makes the case the Canadians real role in Normandy was to form two brigade fortress positions and defeat the expected counter attacks by the German Panzer Divisions in either side of the Mue river valley.

http://www.amazon.ca/Stopping-Panzer.../dp/0700620036

[John McGillivray]

Some interesting information from the book.

In late February the 3rd A/T Regiment send their 6pdr batteries to the ranges at Beachy Head to practice with the new APDS ammunition. The war diary reports that the shooting was good. The gunners found that there was no need to lead the target because with an m/v of 4050 F/S the tungsten shot would reach a target at 900 yards in about 1/8 of a second. No German armor could stop it. Also they could hit targets up to 2500 yards range.

The 29 Friefly crews (less the drivers) of 2CAB went to Warcop ranges in Westmprland on early April for a two day gun camp. On 6 April each gunner fired 5 HE rounds. The next day the whole crew took turns firing a total of 49 AP rounds. After every 20 rounds the crews had to stop and take 20 minutes to check every screw and bolt on the gun and do a general overhaul before resuming firing. Unfortunately these weren’t the tanks they would take into action in June. 2CAB only received their Firefly tanks in mid-May so were unable to test fire their 17pdrs.

[sapper740]

Originally Posted by John McGillivray

The gunners found that there was no need to lead the target because with an m/v of 4050 F/S the tungsten shot would reach a target at 900 yards in about 1/8 of a second.

Must be that New Math they're teaching these days!

[John McGillivray]

Originally Posted by sapper740

Must be that New Math they're teaching these days!

That was partly my error. The quote in the book is;
“ …it was deployed and used to engage targets at 900 yards or less – in fact, seldom more than 500 yards. At that distance the tungsten dart reached its target in about an eight of a second ;… ‘

500 yards at 4050f/s it should be about 3/8 of a second, and 900 yards in about 5/8 of a second.

[maple_leaf_eh]

I have been rereading the regimental history of the 27th Armoured Regiment which was one third of 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade. The fortress position in mentioned as a nighttime formation on the night of 6 June, and elsewhere.

The Fireflies were unfortunately bullet magnets. The immediate shakeout after the landings was that Troop Leaders had the Fireflies, and suffered badly. Of the twenty Lts who landed, six were killed and three more wounded in the first three days. Almost 50% casualties. Then they changed tanks and gave the Fireflies to Sergeants.

[cletrac (RIP)]

So the tank is crossing at 30 mph at 500 yards. That's 16.5 feet he travels in that 3/8 of a second. At 900 yards he's moved over 28 feet. I'd be hanging on a bit of lead I think. Those boys wouldn't have much luck shooting a running deer!

[John McGillivray]

Originally Posted by maple_leaf_eh

I have been rereading the regimental history of the 27th Armoured Regiment .

Where did you get the copy of their history. I have copies of the histories of 1st Hussars and Fort Garry Horse.

[John McGillivray]

Originally Posted by cletrac

So the tank is crossing at 30 mph at 500 yards. That's 16.5 feet he travels in that 3/8 of a second. At 900 yards he's moved over 28 feet. I'd be hanging on a bit of lead I think. Those boys wouldn't have much luck shooting a running deer!

WWII German tanks going 30 miles cross country? With tanks like the Panther you wouldn’t have to shoot them. You would just wait for the fools to destroy their suspension and final drives.

[Jon Skagfeld]

I've just finished reading the book.

Bottom line...the 3rd Cdn Div did its assigned invasion task...i.e. "Stopping the Panzers".

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

All in all, a good addition to my D Day library.

[John McGillivray]

Originally Posted by Jon Skagfeld

I've just finished reading the book.

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

Jon, it was the British on Gold Beach who landed with the Sextons and not the Americans. The original Sexton I was built to fill a British order.
The Americans tried to land with 105mm guns firing from DUKWs, but due to high seas all but two were swamped and sunk well short of the beach.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by John McGillivray

Where did you get the copy of their history. I have copies of the histories of 1st Hussars and Fort Garry Horse.

I have had this copy for decades. It was a private publication in 1958. I can copy sections for you, but the book stays with me!

[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.

[Jon Skagfeld]

Originally Posted by John McGillivray

Jon, it was the British on Gold Beach who landed with the Sextons and not the Americans. The original Sexton I was built to fill a British order.
The Americans tried to land with 105mm guns firing from DUKWs, but due to high seas all but two were swamped and sunk well short of the beach.

You are right...I was wrong. Senior's moment.

[Roger Lucy]

Originally Posted by John McGillivray

The original Sexton I was built to fill a British order..

Actually the Sexton was developed to meet a March 1942 request from McNaughton for an SP for Canadian armoured divisions. When it was demonstrated in the UK in early 1943, the Brits were so impressed by it, that they dropped their order for 300 US T51s (M7 Priests armed with a 25-pdr) and placed an order with MLW for the same number of Sextons. See Canada's Pride page 115.
Roger