Allied Tanks at El Alamein 1942 Osprey NV 321 Hiestand 2023
Uploaded by
JD NealAllied Tanks at El Alamein 1942 Osprey NV 321 Hiestand 2023
Uploaded by
JD NealOne Star (*)
Allied Tanks At El Alamein 1942 Osprey NV 321 Hiestand 2023
The problem is that the author is a "historian" and the problem with "historians" is that they tend to repeat
what everyone else has said, using the same secondary sources, and as such mixing and matching
details everyone else has put forth. Thus: there is little new or novel or even analytically intelligent in this
book. I prefer, for example, my own library of in-depth references let alone books like Robert Forczyk’s
“Desert Armour” series, which cost perhaps two or three times as much but also provide about ten times
the material. Not that Forczyk’s also doesn’t occasionally quote the same-ole-same-ole everyone else is
saying. [358 pages /48]
Telling is how recent books tend to print pictures that originate from the Imperial War Museum (which
charges a fee) and instead credit them to “Getty Images” or “Author’s personal Collection”.
There is a modicum of technical details, but like most “historians” Hiestand is not interested in digging into
the guts of the technology and explaining the real background. For example: which entity in the British
Army opposed issuing high explosive shells for the tank and antitank guns? (Answer: see P.M. Knight’s
works especially “A34 Comet a Technical History”). Every other army issued a high explosive shell even
for small calibers, and even though the smaller calibers were not a “big-exploders” they were better than
nothing and had their uses. There was a neurosis involved.
This book is light fluff like most Osprey books, intended to sell to people with limited interest in anything
not already said, anything that might be uncomfortable. Consider how “The 75mm’s initial armour-piercing
(AP) round tended to break up on German Armour, but later a much more effective round was available
when the British captured large numbers of German AP caps and matched them to the US Charge.” All
uncapped rounds tended to break up against face hardened armor, which was an issue with the 2-
pounder and 6-pounder as well, until the British issued capped ammo for them which began in late 1942
and early 1943. The U.S. capped M61 was tested alongside the composite German-US rounds and
penetrated just as well. Adapting German shells for use was a very bright idea, but was NOT THE ONLY
AMMUNITION available. Of the 17,000 rounds converted, 6,000 were recaptured by the Germans later
on, which was a telling anecdote of the British experience in the Desert.
The issues with the Crusader’s reliability involved a subtlety rarely explained by historians (what do they
know). “[The Crusader]… became the Allied tank most popularly associated with the desert war.” is
pandering to the simple side of the crowd, especially the British buyers of books. I associate the Crusader
with the major issues of the British army in the desert war: the wrong tank for the wrong job. Which
continued to plague the British army through the war.
When anyone quotes the idea that the hulls of the British tanks were too narrow “due to railway
restrictions” (or some such excuse) to allow a larger turret to be mounted, they are proving their absolute
lack of knowledge on the subject. The “Sherman” tank (let alone “Grant”) was no wider than the
“Crusader”, “Cromwell”, “Churchill”, “Valentine” or “Matilda”, while some British tanks were even wider.
There was a design ethos involved - a failure of practicality.
If fluff you enjoy, fluff you will get from this book.
1 833980605.docx
