Incidentally, here is a relevant thread over at Axis: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=114&t=220187
The only german machine that fly and could transport a tank in may 1941 was the Messerschmitt Me 321 Gigant, but they never had a proper 4 engined bomber for towing the beast, much less with 15 to 20 tons of tank inside. The tug He-111Z entered in service in late 1941.
I did a quick Google search on the Gigant, which I hadn’t heard of before. Looks like it needed specialised equipment to move it around on the airfield, so that would have to be flown in too, creating a bigger logistical drain on German aviation resources.
Even if there was a suitable tug for it during Crete:
- Was there a launching airfield under German control within range of Crete?
- Was the airfield at Maleme, or other open ground on Crete, suitable to land the Gigant with a panzer on board? Obviously, there’s no “go around” power for a second approach on a glider, and the British experience with gliders at Arnhem demonstrates that glider landings tended to have high crash rates compared with powered aircraft.
- Could the airfield at Maleme launch the Gigant and its tug for a return trip?
My suspicion is that, even if the Germans had a suitable tug for the Gigant, the logistical effort and problems in getting a few panzers onto Crete by air would have been better directed to landing more troops and artillery, although the Germans won with what they actually had anyway.
The answer came in last nights reading - I think Beevor is referring to Italian tanks and tankettes that were delivered via an unopposed landing at Sitia performed Il Duce style (after an enemy was already essentially defeated by his ally Germany). I don’t have the source handy, but Beevor mentions how German mountain officer wrote a scathing journal entry regarding the Italian tankers lack-of-will to fight, but warns that such entries needed to be taken with a grain of salt. The heer linked up with some Italian armor and used them for infantry support towards the end of the battle…
The Italians were nowhere near the easybeats that British wartime propaganda made them out to be. Their army in Africa was the wrong shape: the lean, mean Brits took advantage of this - fought the right type of war for their resources. The Italian colonial troops - as expected - folded like paper. The professionals manning the artillery were a different proposition, and gave the Commonwealth forces a hard fight. Little could be said for their poorly-equipped armoured forces. Italian tanks just sucked - that’s right, they sucked-in British 2pdr projectiles like they couldn’t get enough. In that environment, the Matilda II came into its own - invincible against the then-current threat, but outmatched by German 88mm guns later in the campaign.
Cheers,
Cliff
I agree. Rick Atkinson gives numerous examples of Italian troops putting up spirited, even bitter resistance to U.S. troops in Italy. He recounts instances in the mountains where the Allied advantage in mobility and firepower were mitigated by terrain and in these circumtances, the Italian soldier often fought hard. In one passage, Italian and American soldiers were reduced to throwing rocks at one another in the mountains…
The italian tank issue en 1939-41 was particulary awful, they probably should bought the license and tools to produce the panzer III and its arc welding technology.
RS
- Was there a launching airfield under German control within range of Crete?
Yes, they controlled mainland Greece.
Was the airfield at Maleme, or other open ground on Crete, suitable to land the Gigant with a panzer on board? Obviously, there’s no “go around” power for a second approach on a glider, and the British experience with gliders at Arnhem demonstrates that glider landings tended to have high crash rates compared with powered aircraft.
It could be done,the exercise was feasible.
- Could the airfield at Maleme launch the Gigant and its tug for a return trip?
No, they need a very long take off with heavy loads.
I reread Beevor’s Crete and it seems the German 5th Panzer Div. was able to land a small number of tanks apparently but he only briefly mentions it and doesn’t specify which tanks the German Luftwaffe and Heer used to finally secure Crete…
Incidentally some Matilda and “Whippet” tanks were in operation until nearly the end of the battle and were somewhat successful deployed in desperate, spirited counterattacks (until they mostly broke down) holding up the German advance and allowing a larger number of evacuees to get to Egypt. About 15,000 Commonwealth troops were withdrawn…
Does anybody have the data for British World War 2 tank engines, especially the Matilda II?
It seems that the overall dimensions of British tank engines are still top secret. Of the many books I’ve read and websites visited, none gives the dimensions. I recently bought an AEC book, but it doesn’t give any details as to the size of its engines.
Irritatingly, books about WW2 tanks just seem to recycle the same old stuff, such as the Meadows Flat 12 was low in height, but very wide, then go on about how radiators had to be relocated and so on. Frankly, it makes for boring reading when the actual length, width and height are never cited. It is a bit easier to find data about American tank engines of the period.
I’ve found the same thing concerning turret rings too and very often when given, different numbers are given, depending on the source. As engine size appeared to be crucial to the development of useless British tanks such as the Covenanter, it would not be unreasonable to assume that readers would be interested in the actual dimensions, but alas, this isn’t the case.
So if anyone knows of a good reference book or website with British tank engine data, please let me know.
So