Armoured or Tank; what's in a name? A short thread.

The answer is that there is quite a lot in a name and the distinction between the two isn't taxonomical pedantry.

1/

The 1930s were full of ideas, often conflicting, sometimes evangelic, on how the Army should organise/equip. At the core of the debate were the roles of armoured and mechanised vehs. To keep the story short I won’t describe all the experiments & iterations of the new fmns. 2/

The results of the experiments & arguments, & the inability of tank technology to produce anything approaching an MBT, led to the creation of 2 very different AFV equipped organisations; Army Tank Brigades and Armoured Divisions/Armd Bdes (the latter in both Hvy and Lt forms). 3/

By May 1940 Armd Divs had 2 Armd Bdes each of 3 Armd Regts of cruiser tanks & a Sp Gp. The other organisation was the Army Tank Bde which had 3 Tank Regts equipped with infantry tanks. 4/

In simple terms cruisers were light and fast with thin armour. The A10 and the Cruiser Mk III pictured equipped Cavalry Regts and some Bns of RTR (which were both RTR Battalions and Armoured Regiments at the same time). 5/

Infantry tanks were slow & heavy (well, the Matilda II was) and had thick armour. Infantry tanks were purely the preserve of the RTR who in 1940 still formed them into Companies and Battalions. 6/

So the Regular Army RTR Battalions had a foot in both camps:

- 2, 3, & 5 RTRs were in 3rd Armd Bde in 1st Armd Div
- 1 & 6 RTR were in 7th Armd Div in Egypt
- 4, 7, & 8 RTRs were in 1st Army Tank Brigade

7/7