Crusader OP in Europe - Pictures?

[Timotheus]

Does anyone know of any pictures of the Crusader OP taken in Europe? Preferably on-line so I can view them myself, but if you know of pictures in a book, please let me know. I’ve read about them in the Crusader entry for Wikipedia (yes, I know, but generally a good source for basic information, I’ve found) and in the Tank Encylopedia; apparently a fixed turret with a dummy gun, much like the Cromwell command take (of which I’ve found one photo on line).

I’ve found a photo in a book that is definitely a Crusader, but could be one of the AA vehicles as well. It’s covered by a tarp.

Thanks very much in advance, I’ve also posted this question on The Wargames Website.

[Alanmccoubrey]

I have never heard of a Crusader OP tank being taken to North West Europe, there are certainly none in the RAC Tank returns meaning that the armoured regiments didn't take any. This would leave only the artillery regiments who had plenty of Shermans, Cromwells and RAM (for the Canadians) to go around. Crusaders were used in NW Europe as AA tanks and tows for the 17 pounders in Corps level AT Regiments of course but there is no way to mistake one of those for a Crusader even if the turret of the former is covered by a tarp, the size is entirely different in all dimensions. Could you show us the photograph that you think might be a Crusader ?
Perhaps some unit took some to Italy ?

[NTM]

I believe they were used by troop commanders of SP anti tank units. There is an exert of a unit diary confirming this in Tim Saunders Hill 112 book iirc. Don't recall ever seeing a picture of one though. I've also read of AA tanks being sent to anti tank units as chargers once they were surplus to requirements in the armoured regiments.

[Alanmccoubrey]

I believe they were used by troop commanders of SP anti tank units. There is an exert of a unit diary confirming this in Tim Saunders Hill 112 book iirc. Don't recall ever seeing a picture of one though. I've also read of AA tanks being sent to anti tank units as chargers once they were surplus to requirements in the armoured regiments.

I think that you'll find that the Troop Commanders used either the Crusader AA when they were dumped by the Armoured Regiments. Later the Troop Commanders of Archer equipped Regiments used the Valentine gun tank as a "charger".

[Timotheus]

Hi Alan, the book is By Tank into Normandy which I finished a month or two ago but was looking at the photos a few days ago. One, indicated as from the author, Stuart Hills, shows he and some of his crew "...in Weeze, Holland, Februrary 1945". Directly in the background is unmistakably a Crusader chassis. It's not unusual for modern day FOOs to harbour with the unit to which they were attached, so that was my first thought. It definitely doesn't seem to have superstructure silhouette I'd associate with the Crusader prime mover, there does seem to be a turret or some superstructure.

I've taken a pic of it, I should probably remove it from Imgur after a while as I have no permission to do so:



I'd be interested in your, NTM's or anyone else's thoughts. It's not often I'm totally stumped for WWII vehicle ID!

[Timotheus]

I believe they were used by troop commanders of SP anti tank units. There is an exert of a unit diary confirming this in Tim Saunders Hill 112 book iirc. Don't recall ever seeing a picture of one though. I've also read of AA tanks being sent to anti tank units as chargers once they were surplus to requirements in the armoured regiments.

Thanks NTM, but I'm not sure what you mean by a charger?

[NotbingOld]

Hi. I also have the Stuart Hills book on seeing that picture i did some digging and found that his unit had at one time an AA troop of crusader AA tanks so i suspect that's whats buried under all that stowage. Although most armored units AA troops were disbanded in Normandy odd vehicles turn up in photos well into 1945 and if you've got days to spare watching pathe news clips of the period you occasionally turn them there too. Sorry can't be a bit more specific but at work at the moment.
Stewart

[dadlamassu]

Thanks NTM, but I'm not sure what you mean by a charger?

The term dates back to days of yore when the cavalry were made up of the gentry and their retainers. The knight would probably have a more than one horse - a courser. a rouncy and, of course his charger (warhorse) that he rode into battle. So warhorse = charger = battle vehicle. In this case the OP party has a choise of the issued vehicle (Universal Carrier?) or its "acquired" mount - its charger - tp take into battle.

In armoured car regiments it was not uncommon for the CO to acquire a damaged armoured car from the recovery group and have it modified to suit his taste e.g. removing the turret and fitting extra radios, map boards etc. These modified vehicles were also called "chargers". Caution: as with anything in the British Army there will be other origins of the term and use of chargers.

[Alanmccoubrey]

Hi Alan, the book is By Tank into Normandy which I finished a month or two ago but was looking at the photos a few days ago. One, indicated as from the author, Stuart Hills, shows he and some of his crew "...in Weeze, Holland, Februrary 1945". Directly in the background is unmistakably a Crusader chassis. It's not unusual for modern day FOOs to harbour with the unit to which they were attached, so that was my first thought. It definitely doesn't seem to have superstructure silhouette I'd associate with the Crusader prime mover, there does seem to be a turret or some superstructure.

I've taken a pic of it, I should probably remove it from Imgur after a while as I have no permission to do so:



I'd be interested in your, NTM's or anyone else's thoughts. It's not often I'm totally stumped for WWII vehicle ID!

That load of stowage covered by the tarp is too far back on the tank to be concealing a Crusader turret, the high "turret" in front of it might be some more stuff on top of an AA Turret. If this was a gun tank then we'd definitely be able to see the sides of the distinctive Crusader turret and we can't.

[NTM]

Here's the extract I referred to previously.



A search of the WD number found this thread on Missing Lynx which concludes that in all likelihood it was an AA Tank.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/th ... ecce+1944-

[Timotheus]

Alan, late reply from me. Thanks for your comments on the picture I posted. Yes, you’re right, the lack of angular turret side clinched this as not being a gun tank or the OP version. AA is most likely. I appreciate your help.

[Timotheus]

Hi. I also have the Stuart Hills book on seeing that picture i did some digging and found that his unit had at one time an AA troop of crusader AA tanks so i suspect that's whats buried under all that stowage. Although most armored units AA troops were disbanded in Normandy odd vehicles turn up in photos well into 1945 and if you've got days to spare watching pathe news clips of the period you occasionally turn them there too. Sorry can't be a bit more specific but at work at the moment.
Stewart

Thanks for the digging, Stewart, you don’t need to be any more specific, marvellous help in AFV identification, thank you.

[Timotheus]

(Snip) ...as with anything in the British Army there will be other origins of the term and use of chargers.

Perfect, thanks for the explanation!

[Alanmccoubrey]

(Snip) ...as with anything in the British Army there will be other origins of the term and use of chargers.

Perfect, thanks for the explanation!

It goes back to the days of horses when officers in otherwise "foot" units, such as the artillery were allowed to have their own horse, what an old knight might have called his "charger".

[Timotheus]

(Snip) ...as with anything in the British Army there will be other origins of the term and use of chargers.

Perfect, thanks for the explanation!

It goes back to the days of horses when officers in otherwise "foot" units, such as the artillery were allowed to have their own horse, what an old knight might have called his "charger".

Cool stuff, thanks. I love learning, even if it's not going to help in my job hunt!

Establishment now, but I know our infantry company commanders have a soft skin vehicle for whizzing around apart from their APC/IFV. Vaguely similar, I think.

All the best.

[Timotheus]

Here's the extract I referred to previously.



A search of the WD number found this thread on Missing Lynx which concludes that in all likelihood it was an AA Tank.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47208/th ... ecce+1944-

Thanks again NTM - that pic is from the Tim Saunders book, then?

Jeez everyone, I should really have put all these into one or two posts. Apologies.

[NTM]

Yes it's in Battleground Europe Hill 112

[Ryan]

I've also read here and there that the Crusader AA tanks, being part of regimental HQ, were absorbed into the recce platoon of Stewarts. The twin 20mm guns were considered useful against ground targets and really beefed up the fire power. So a "Recce Crusader', if I had to guess, would be referring to an AA tank. To the troops, the tanks likely would have been identified more as recce tanks than AA tanks if it was more common to see them used in that role. Even though the AA units were disbanded, I know at least some divisions and brigades, like the 4th Canadian, kept their Crusaders until 1945.

[Alanmccoubrey]

The numbers given on the RAC return for December 1944 show that the following formations had Crusader AA on strength;
Gds AD 2
8 AB 1
1 Inf D 4
8 Corps 9
12 Corps 9
30 Corps 5
4 Can AD 10
2 Can AD 1
Polish AD 5

So looking at that we might feel justified in saying that by then they were really only being used by AT Regiments otherwise we'd have a job saying just why an Infantry Division or Corps HQs had any.

[Alanmccoubrey]

At 44 seconds on this You Tube film you'll see quite clearly a Crusader AA with 2 on its AOS, this being a Corps At Regt. I can't tell which Corps it is because I don't recognise the sign. There is a whole collection of Pathé News films, search "Invasion Scenes" with such wonders as a Jeep towing a Bofors with three crew on it !