Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

[allanpcameron]

22 May 1940. 14:30hrs. Calais, France.

Major George Sutton, commanding of B Company, 8th Bn RTR was among the first officers off the SS Maid of Orleans. Lt-Col Winberg, the Battalion Commander and the Adjutant went off in search for the Area HQ to find Colonel Rupert Holland who was supposed to be in charge of the Calais garrison. Sutton’s job was to get the men and unloaded as quickly as possible to get them off the quayside before any German air-raids caused them problems. Most of the Battalions tanks and other vehicles were aboard the SS City of Christchurch, which arrived after the first ship. When Sutton went aboard to start the unloading, the first problem he found, due to the hasty loading in Dover in the morning, was that 7000 gallons of petrol in tins had been stacked on the deck of the ship, and that all had to be moved before the tanks, stowed in the holds, could be swung out.

Knowing how long it had taken to get the Battalion loaded, Sutton had a fair notion that it would be the morning of 23 May before they would be fit for duty. At least they wouldn’t have to clear off the mineral jelly from the guns. Normal practice before loading tanks for transport overseas, would be to coat the guns to protect them from salt, but since the journey from Dover to Calais was only going to be just over an hour, the Battalion CO had ordered that this task could be dispensed with. Sutton and his fellow Company Commanders, and much more importantly, the senior NCOs, went about the task of getting the men and their equipment unloaded and ready for action, as soon as the Battalion had its orders.

Colonel Holland was glad to have the tanks under his command, and asked Winberg to get them disembarked as quickly as possible. There was a complete lack of clarity about what the Germans were up to. To make things worse, Lieutenant General Douglas Brownrigg, Adjutant-General of the BEF, had arrived from Boulogne. Brownrigg had been put in charge of getting all the ‘useless mouths’ of the rear element of the BEF out of France, using Boulogne, Calais and Dunkirk. According to Brownrigg the French garrison in Boulogne were all drunk and disorderly. A Battalion each of the Irish and Welsh Guards had arrived and Brownrigg had promised Brigadier Fox-Pitt, their commander, that he would send some of Holland’s men down the coast to reinforce them. Major-General Henry Loyd who was accompanying Brownrigg, suggested sending 8th Bn RTR and the Queen Victoria Rifles to Boulogne. Loyd had been relieved of his command of 2nd Infantry Division due to exhaustion.

Winberg and Holland were aghast. The orders Holland had, were to maintain contact with Dunkirk, and he needed the mobility of the tanks to be able to do that. Losing the tanks would put General Gort’s orders beyond his capacity. The Germans, according to Brownrigg, were already at the gates of Boulogne. There was no guarantee that by the time the tanks were off the ship, fuelled and armed, and ready to go, that the two Guards Battalions would still be able to hold the Germans off. It was clear that better reconnaissance was needed, so Winberg sent the Adjutant back to Major Sutton with orders to get a section of Mark VI Light Tanks off as a priority and send them off on a scouting mission to see what the lay of the land was. This was to be done before dark.

NB Text in italic differs from OTL. I also can't find the name of the commander of 8th Bn RTR, Winberg was at some point, but not sure when.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

British captured a Tiger in Tunisia. If you're going to field a weapon, expect them to get captured at some point.
Germans also got some Churchill at Dieppe.

Those were vehicles already in general service, not prototypes still undergoing trials.

 

[MarcH]

I think the one thing people are missing about the decision to send the Valiant's to France is the communication delay.

Yes on the 21st when the decision was communicated to the 8th we know what is happening but very few people on the ground or in power actually know. Think about the Battle of Arras, the information relayed to the troops was they are basically attacking forward elements and recon troops. The plan was more to salvage a deteriorating situation than save the BEF which is what it was more about in reality. Then as we saw in the post's detailing the attack the British suddenly realise that those are Panzer Divisions not some recce troops.
The biggest problem the allies had in France in 1940 was piss poor communications. This wouldn't have been so bad if the war was static like the trench combat of WW1 but the Panzers were far too mobile. The situation was changing before the reports were being sent let alone received. Now imagine the time delay back to London and you can start to imagine why suspect decisions are being made. If Gort is acting 1-2 days behind events London is possibly as many as 2-4 days behind. So think, When the decision to send the 8th was made some time on the 20th or early on the 21st the decision makers are looking at a fractured picture of events maybe as far back as the 16th or maybe even the 15th. They would be thinking more of sending the 8th to stabilise a sticky situation rather. if they knew the real picture it would never have left Britain and Evacuation plans would already be being put into action.

Basically This is the Picture the People Back in Britain are working with, Possibly a little worse but salvageable.

The reality is though the Germans had already reached the Coast by the 19th long before the decision to rush the 8th in was made.

 

[Rickshaw]

A tank which only got produced in double figures. And yes, they didn't have the industrial capacity do really build tanks on top of all their other requirements. Also, their population at the time was only around 7.1 million.


The manpower required for that and all the other stuff they're building kind of makes building a tank factory as well, kind of a stretch.

You really don't like the idea that someone other than the Americans might like building their own tanks, do you?

The Sentinel was a good first effort. It had a lot to commend it from the cast hull segments through to the larger turret ring. Its engine was an interesting effort. Whats more, it actually worked quite well.

I hardly think a difference of 900,000 people are going to make all that much difference. Australia wanted tanks and decided to have tanks and built a quite successful tank. QED.

 

[Glyndwr01]

You really don't like the idea that someone other than the Americans might like building their own tanks, do you?

The Sentinel was a good first effort. It had a lot to commend it from the cast hull segments through to the larger turret ring. Its engine was an interesting effort. Whats more, it actually worked quite well.

I hardly think a difference of 900,000 people are going to make all that much difference. Australia wanted tanks and decided to have tanks and built a quite successful tank. QED.

You'll upset the Hollywood script writers if the commonwealth have better tanks!

 

[Rickshaw]

You'll upset the Hollywood script writers if the commonwealth have better tanks!

Don't worry, they didn't use them in anger. They only appeared as German tanks in the film Tobruk...

 

[MattII]

You really don't like the idea that someone other than the Americans might like building their own tanks, do you?

The Sentinel was a good first effort. It had a lot to commend it from the cast hull segments through to the larger turret ring. Its engine was an interesting effort. Whats more, it actually worked quite well.

The problem was, by the time Australia had anything to shop for the effort, both Britain and the United States were pumping out tanks by the thousand.

I hardly think a difference of 900,000 people are going to make all that much difference. Australia wanted tanks and decided to have tanks and built a quite successful tank. QED.

900K is more than half the population of New Zealand at the time. The simple fact of the matter is that between all their other manufacturing, they didn't have the spare manpower to also run a full-size tank factory. Yes Canada got away with it, but their population was 2/3 as much again as Australia's, and they were closer to Britain, so could get a bit more support.

 

[Rickshaw]

The problem was, by the time Australia had anything to shop for the effort, both Britain and the United States were pumping out tanks by the thousand.

The problem was that the British and the US were both on the other side of the world and weren't at that stage willing to give Australia any excess production, requiring as per usual, all for their own war efforts. Australia was desperate for tanks and the only tanks available were the ones they were going to produce for themselves...

900K is more than half the population of New Zealand at the time. The simple fact of the matter is that between all their other manufacturing, they didn't have the spare manpower to also run a full-size tank factory. Yes Canada got away with it, but their population was 2/3 as much again as Australia's, and they were closer to Britain, so could get a bit more support.

Again, Australia is not New Zealand. Two completely different countries. Canada was a third completely different country. When you can figure out where Australia actually is on a map you might, just might, start to appreciate how isolated it is and what the problems are of shipping tanks all the way from the UK or the US to it.

 

[MattII]

The problem was that the British and the US were both on the other side of the world and weren't at that stage willing to give Australia any excess production, requiring as per usual, all for their own war efforts. Australia was desperate for tanks and the only tanks available were the ones they were going to produce for themselves...

And they managed to produce a trifling number of mediocre (on paper they looked brilliant, but had a number of flaws that would have hampered them in use) vehicles.

Again, Australia is not New Zealand. Two completely different countries. Canada was a third completely different country. When you can figure out where Australia actually is on a map you might, just might, start to appreciate how isolated it is and what the problems are of shipping tanks all the way from the UK or the US to it.

You're not getting it, are you? Then let me put it more simply: AUSTRALIA DID NOT HAVE THE MANPOWER TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES OF TANKS ON TOP OF ALL THE OTHER STUFF THEY WERE COMMITTED TO PRODUCING!

 

[marathag]

And they managed to produce a trifling number of mediocre (on paper they looked brilliant, but had a number of flaws that would have hampered them in use) vehicles.


You're not getting it, are you? Then let me put it more simply: AUSTRALIA DID NOT HAVE THE MANPOWER TO PRODUCE SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES OF TANKS ON TOP OF ALL THE OTHER STUFF THEY WERE COMMITTED TO PRODUCING!

rather than yelling, why not post stats showing employment rates 1940-1945 between US/UK/CA and OZ?
show the manpower(and woman power, too)
let facts make the case.

 

[MattII]

rather than yelling, why not post stats showing employment rates 1940-1945 between US/UK/CA and OZ?
show the manpower(and woman power, too)
let facts make the case.

Because it's pretty much immaterial. OTL the Australian government figured it out by 1943, and the situation here is decidedly better in the Empire camp.

 

[GrahamB]

I really hate to be That Guy but are we really restarting the whole Aussie Tank thing all over again?
I feel like the specter of Australian industrial capacity resurfaces every fifty pages and it's just the same arguing every time. Maybe we should let Allan get to 1942 and see what happens.

I'm really sorry to go on a rant like this but we've gone over this same tangent before and it's no more relevant to the thread's timeline than the first time.

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest.

 

[MattII]

I really hate to be That Guy but are we really restarting the whole Aussie Tank thing all over again?
I feel like the specter of Australian industrial capacity resurfaces every fifty pages and it's just the same arguing every time. Maybe we should let Allan get to 1942 and see what happens.

I'm really sorry to go on a rant like this but we've gone over this same tangent before and it's no more relevant to the thread's timeline than the first time.

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest.

Eh, it's fine. It shouldn't have come up really, but some people can't accept that there's limits on what is actually possible.

 

[Rickshaw]

Eh, it's fine. It shouldn't have come up really, but some people can't accept that there's limits on what is actually possible.

I accept what was possible. However, what you fail to realise is that they did design and build the Sentinel, despite what was possible and what wasn't. You keep harping on about Australia not being able to afford the Sentinel. The thing is, they knew that but they did it anyway. When you make silly statements I will continue to argue against them. The Sentinel wasn't the best and it worked as well, far better than you appear willing to grant. The Sentinel was only stopped because M3 Lee/Grant vehicles became suddenly available when they were replaced by M4 Shermans. It was simply more economic to get the tanks built overseas. The M3 Lee/Grant was a successful design. It wasn't the best but it worked.

 

[MattII]

I accept what was possible. However, what you fail to realise is that they did design and build the Sentinel, despite what was possible and what wasn't. You keep harping on about Australia not being able to afford the Sentinel. The thing is, they knew that but they did it anyway. When you make silly statements I will continue to argue against them. The Sentinel wasn't the best and it worked as well, far better than you appear willing to grant. The Sentinel was only stopped because M3 Lee/Grant vehicles became suddenly available when they were replaced by M4 Shermans. It was simply more economic to get the tanks built overseas. The M3 Lee/Grant was a successful design. It wasn't the best but it worked.

They produced 65 Sentinels in a year. That is not a viable rate of production. For all that the Sentinel was a wonderful display of ingenuity and engineering prowess, the project was simply not something that could be sustained by a country to size of Australia, on top of all their other commitments.

 

[lgkmas]

What we know now and what they were worried about in 1941 are two completely different things.
The 1940 battle of France showed that infantry Divisions needed armour support. The Australian Government decided to provide that support to the three divisions in the Middle East. USA was not supplying tanks at that stage to anyone. Nor was there any expectation they would. Pearl Harbor was still 18 months away and isolationist sentiment was strong in the USA.
UK had enough problems of its own to bother about shipping tanks out to the other side of the globe only for them to come back once the troops were trained.
Australia needed tanks. No-one was willing to supply tanks. Where do you get them? Build your own!
The ideal ratio in those days was an Armoured Division per three Inf Divisions. So the Australians raised the 1st Aust Armd Div. They got on with the job of providing it with tanks. Not thousands but perhaps 150 plus replacements. Hardly a big task needing a whole tank factory that can produce thousands a year. And the urgency of post pearl harbor was not there.
They started developing a design based on the wholly sensible idea that what was current would be obsolete in a few years so let's develop what we think will work in a few years. Naturally there were teething problems but they overcame those. Then, suddenly the USA was in the war, producing M4s that were replacing the M3s. So where to send these obsolescent tanks? Well, the Aussies need them to defend NW Australia. Send them there.
Fine, Aussie tank problem solved. But there were already contracts let for the production of x amount of Sentinels. And some of what they were doing was of interest to the tank establishment in the UK. So, let the contract be shortened, but let development continue to see what data can be provided.
Once the whole USA Tank stocks started becoming available, the Sentinel production line was allowed to run down.
Yes, it was a good tank for it's time, yes, it could have taken a 17pr, no, Australia could not have built thousands of them. Did we need thousands of them? no! The few hundred Stuarts and Matildas did the job. And for Jungle warfare, that was all we needed, a few hundred reliable mid war tanks that could easily deal with Japanese bunkers. The AO of the Aussies was not really tank country, as in armoured divisions sweeping across the steppes. It was close quarter, inf/tank bunker busting in the jungle where you found out there was a Japanese bunker when you either stumbled over it or it opened fire on you.

As an Aussie proud of what we were able to put together on our own, I like the Sentinel. But stating that Australia could produce thousands of then to supply the British Commonwealth forces does not make sense. I understand Industrial Mobilisation, the long lead times, the dispersal of productions facilities to prevent loss and the accompanying acceptance of loss of production due to dispersal. I understand the need to plan now for what you need in three or four years time. The Sentinel was a good tank but to introduce it into the mainstream tank production system would be disruptive and counter-productive. A few hundred produced for Australia's own use would be fine. End of story.

 

[MattII]

What we know now and what they were worried about in 1941 are two completely different things.
The 1940 battle of France showed that infantry Divisions needed armour support. The Australian Government decided to provide that support to the three divisions in the Middle East. USA was not supplying tanks at that stage to anyone. Nor was there any expectation they would. Pearl Harbor was still 18 months away and isolationist sentiment was strong in the USA.
UK had enough problems of its own to bother about shipping tanks out to the other side of the globe only for them to come back once the troops were trained.
Australia needed tanks. No-one was willing to supply tanks. Where do you get them? Build your own!
The ideal ratio in those days was an Armoured Division per three Inf Divisions. So the Australians raised the 1st Aust Armd Div. They got on with the job of providing it with tanks. Not thousands but perhaps 150 plus replacements. Hardly a big task needing a whole tank factory that can produce thousands a year. And the urgency of post pearl harbor was not there.
They started developing a design based on the wholly sensible idea that what was current would be obsolete in a few years so let's develop what we think will work in a few years. Naturally there were teething problems but they overcame those. Then, suddenly the USA was in the war, producing M4s that were replacing the M3s. So where to send these obsolescent tanks? Well, the Aussies need them to defend NW Australia. Send them there.
Fine, Aussie tank problem solved. But there were already contracts let for the production of x amount of Sentinels. And some of what they were doing was of interest to the tank establishment in the UK. So, let the contract be shortened, but let development continue to see what data can be provided.
Once the whole USA Tank stocks started becoming available, the Sentinel production line was allowed to run down.
Yes, it was a good tank for it's time, yes, it could have taken a 17pr, no, Australia could not have built thousands of them. Did we need thousands of them? no! The few hundred Stuarts and Matildas did the job. And for Jungle warfare, that was all we needed, a few hundred reliable mid war tanks that could easily deal with Japanese bunkers. The AO of the Aussies was not really tank country, as in armoured divisions sweeping across the steppes. It was close quarter, inf/tank bunker busting in the jungle where you found out there was a Japanese bunker when you either stumbled over it or it opened fire on you.

As an Aussie proud of what we were able to put together on our own, I like the Sentinel. But stating that Australia could produce thousands of then to supply the British Commonwealth forces does not make sense. I understand Industrial Mobilisation, the long lead times, the dispersal of productions facilities to prevent loss and the accompanying acceptance of loss of production due to dispersal. I understand the need to plan now for what you need in three or four years time. The Sentinel was a good tank but to introduce it into the mainstream tank production system would be disruptive and counter-productive. A few hundred produced for Australia's own use would be fine. End of story.

Indeed. The Sentinel was a technical marvel, a proper medium tank (on paper at least), which puts Australia ahead of a number of more populace and theoretically more capable European nations (probably about on par with Sweden, which is nothing to be sneezed at). Unfortunately, they didn't have the spare capacity to produce it in significant numbers, and without deployment (or even much testing), there was no way to correct its numerous flaws.

 

[lgkmas]

I might suggest a reference if that is appropriate.
Armed and ready , The industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945
Author Dr A T Ross
publisher Turton and Armstrong
ISBN 0 908031 63 7

pp 381-396

And , by the way, this has been a most enjoyable thread. Please keep up the good work.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

That's a different situation. It's one thing to send out vehicles already in service for a trial, but a completely different thing to send out what are essentially unknown as yet to the enemy prototypes on what's a forlorn hope. You may as well just hand the blueprints over to the enemy.

I was referring to "that point" that the issues of parts & training could be, and were, ignored when situations allowed such opportunities.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Canada seems like it has a few big advantages - both comparatively close to UK (for designs/desigers/kit etc) whilst also being effectively plugged into the northern US industrial/automotive economy. Presumably the Detroit/S Ontario automotive industries were effectively running together by this point (my cousin's uni friend wrote a book on this which I guess I could just read).

Australia on the other hand not really. I mean yes NZ is just over the Ditch but the latter didn't have much of an automotive industry (although there was a reasonable car assembly sector) and so even if you run the two like a unit it won't help a lot. It would be interesting to read a study on just how integrated they were at the time, but in some ways I suspect they're more integrated now than they have been since colonial times (when the various cities or provinces were often more linked to Melbourne and Sydney than their neighbours due to shipping/lack of rail).