"Smoke doctrine for CS tanks?" Topic

Does anyone have British tank regiment manuals (or squadron, whatever) that give the doctrine for the use of smoke by the CS tanks? I'm really interested in early war (1941, really), but up through 1943 would still be useful.

I'm trying to figure out if doctrine was to lay down a screen before the quadrons began their advance, or to use smoke in an overwatch role in response to enemy guns and tanks revealing themselves by opening fire. If doctrine was to lay down smoke as a prepartory shoot, was it to screen the objective (directly ahead of the advance) or to screen the flanks of the advance?

Primarily to screen the most obvious defensive points – a squadron only had a pair of CS tanks, so even with an early war all-smoke load-out, comprehensive screens were beyond their capabilities, but doctrine was to hit the most likely defensive positions with smoke before the enemy opened up, although they'd doubtless switch to firing reactively as things progressed. A proper screen definitely needed the artillery, and when they couldn't deliver, there was frequently trouble….

I suspect that should be left to the mortar and artillery units, who can probably lay smoke a bit more effectively.

Might want to keep the guns loaded with AP, or HE, just in case……

Mako, smoke was primarily what they were there for. In 1940 it was literally all they were issued with – no HE, no AP, 100% smoke. Experience was indeed mixed, but smoke was pretty much their raison d'aitre – the CS tanks later became more HE oriented, but their original brief was simply to give armoured units some ability to self-screen.

Sorry -- need to question the obvious. Perhaps my morning coffee hasn't gotten quite high enough up the neck, yet.

But what is a CS Tank?

Smoke and its use has been a hot topic of debate for us, playing Chain of Command and wishing platoons had access to more of the stuff.

thx

CS = Close Support. In British terms a tank armed with 3-inch (or 3.7-inch) or 95-mm howitzer rather than a 2-pr/6-pr or 75-mm gun. "British and American tanks of WW2" by Chamberlain and Ellis states that the 3.7-in how could only fire smoke, which would pretty much cover the BEF era models.

The CS versions of the Crusader and Matilda had the 3-in how, and a 1942 era table shows ammunition loads as Crusader CS with 25 HE and 40 smoke, and the Matilda CS with 16 HE and 36 smoke. I've not seen anything for later war vehicles sadly (Cromwell, Churchill, etc).

I'm pretty sure THP Place's book come demolition job on British Army training devotes a few pages to the CS theory as practised until 1944 at least.

Gary

thank you for asking that thosmoss! I had no idea either.

Not tanks or CS tanks, but a look at smoke use by British recon -

YouTube link

I've not seen anything for later war vehicles sadly (Cromwell, Churchill, etc).

The Cromwell Mk VI and Centaur Mk IV (identical to the Cromwell except for the engine) were armed with 95mm (3.7") howitzers. So were the Churchill Mk V and Mk VIII.

LT

First I'd ever heard of them as being essentially mobile smoke projectors, so thanks for the education, Dom.

I'm very surprised they weren't more dedicated to taking out personnel, MGs, and A/T guns with HE and machine guns earlier in the war.

EMckinney will know this but in France 1940 the CS tanks didn't have ANY HE, only smoke.

Bizarre but typical British at the time.

The early war Cruisers were meant to have a mere two rounds of HE apiece. However, as has been discussed, they frequently didn't receive it (due to shortages rather than doctrine). The use of HE is recorded in Greece and N Africa.

It was the typical ammunition load/mixture I was referring to for late war, not weapon calibres.

Gary

It's my understanding the vast majority of the mid to late war load would be HE.
Smoke use is tricky to get right.
Blowing stuff up is simpler and has a much more direct appeal.

Centaurs engaged pill boxes and strong points on the Normandy beach and blew em up. They didn't do that with just 2 rounds of HE.
They also fired HE from craft on the way in to add to the fire support.
Accounts differ on exactly how much of that fire support they gave but they were definitely active and effective on the beaches. And beyond.

I said the EARLY Cruisers (i.e. A9 & A10) had two rounds of HE!

:)

The later CS tanks had ever-increasing quantities of HE, but as has been said, the exact loadout for 95mm tanks isn't clear. As you say, the majority ammo load was undoubtedly HE, though RMASG Centaurs weren't Armoured Regiment CS tanks – they were intended to be HE-equipped artillery from the outset. When the RMASG was disbanded about two weeks into the campaign, a few Centaurs were retained as SP artillery by the RA, then RCA until the end of the Normandy Campaign.

I have a tank tactical manual from 1941 somewhere but not even sure it references smoke. But as someone with a short stint of cold war Royal Armoured Corps experience (and remembering what we were told about the 2 smoke rounds in our standard load out), I would say any idea of a smoke 'screen' is the wrong concept. If you had a decent idea of where an anti-tank gun was concealed but not precise enough to hit it with HE, I would aim to get the smoke down right on or in front of it. It was also suggested to us that you could fire it right at/into bunkers and strong points.
EC

"Mechanised and Armoured Formations", 1929 (provisional) has some notes on CS tanks.

Essentially it says they are employed as close artillery support engaging target of opportunity, and mentions extensive use of smoke particularly for firing on the move, although suggested ammo loadout is 70% smoke and 30% HE. It also specifies that they are fitted with smoke emitters to cover manouvres.

Perhaps the key to the all smoke doctrine early in the war is the idea of tanks firing on the move? Far to inaccurate for HE fire (as iirc CS tanks didn't have free floating guns) but dropping smoke all over the enemy might be viable.

I could type out all the relevant chapters, but I really can't be bothered.

Also Martin that 1929 manual reeks of the doctrine of Fuller, Hobart et al, emphasising firing on the move. Once in action the crews decided pretty quickly that stationary was usually better…
EC