Force Ratios (the old 3-to-1 rule)

**William F. Owen** · 10-17-2010

Originally Posted by Fuchs

Wilf,
it was hardly Liddell-Hart's fault that the British Army was too dumb to issue 40mm HE shells for the 2pounder, .....

Liddell-Hart never really said much about AFV per se. The guilty party is Fuller. Liddell-Hart was more imprecise about his ideas, and really majored on his supposed "Indirect Approach."

Dumb was not the problem. It wasn't ignorance. It was well-sold ideas put forth by supposedly smart men.

The division into infantry and cruiser tanks wasn't a major mistake either, as proved by the StuG III later on. Guderian was actually wrong on this one early on.

I beg to differ. If you mean the StuG III/IV were excellent at infantry support, I would agree. The creation of "Cruiser/Cavalry" tanks was a disaster. Correct me if I am wrong, but were not StuGs manned by the artillery and attached to the infantry?

The British tank development mess of 1930s till 1943 looks to me rather like an engineering and procurement bureaucracy failure.

Their were engineering and bureaucracy problems, and all was made far worse by the "Tank Avant Garde" who really screwed it up. Had they know what they had wanted, - and been right, they rest would have followed.

**Fuchs** · 10-17-2010

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I beg to differ. If you mean the StuG III/IV were excellent at infantry support, I would agree. The creation of "Cruiser/Cavalry" tanks was a disaster. Correct me if I am wrong, but were not StuGs manned by the artillery and attached to the infantry?

That's correct, but the key here is that a division between infantry-supporting tanks for solving tactical problems of infantry-centric forces (infantry divisions) were necessary next to more mobile tanks in motorized forces (armour/mech. infantry divisions or brigades) for solving operational problems.
History showed that the former had the potential of being more cost-efficient tank destroyers as well.

The British infantry tank/cruiser tank and especially the French dispersion of tanks has been bashed in military history and doctrine-related writings a lot, but unfairly. Guderian was wrong in the 30's on this, the British, French, Russians and Manstein were right: At that time the armies needed both infantry and cruiser tanks.
The exact designs (infantry tank with small gun in turret or assault gun with casemate gun with decent HE effect) was only a(n important) detail.

http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....nd-future.html