Hi, I learned recently that in the modern British army the loader is the second in command in a tank. Was the same true in WW2? If the commander was injured or not present, was the loader in charge? (I recognize that he probably had a more flexible position than the gunner or driver)
Mostly technically true for nowadays (and when I served). If the gunner had done his gunner mech course, he was capable of commanding the tank (in respect of fire orders etc etc). So you would see occasionally the loader stay on that side and the gunner move up (literally) into the commanders seat. That would also be the case if you’re the crew of say, the CO or Brigade commander where they would often be off the vehicle. But for the most part the loader would jump at the chance to take the command (especially if they were a L/Cpl hoping to catch the eye of the SSM)!
I recall, recently, looking to see if I could track down a diagram that specifically referenced the radio operator for the Sherman and was continuously seeing "loader" The "2nd in command" role nevertheless... 1940s Tank Crews: Who Did What? - The History Vault Seems to arrise often in fiction when a commander gets incapacitated etc. second in command of a tank - Google Search
I was thinking in terms of whether RAC training stipulated who would take charge. In the RA self propelled anti tank manuals I've looked at, it actually states that the number 3(?), the loader, takes over. Which kind of makes sense as it means the gunner doesn't have to leave his position. I was wondering if the same was true in the RAC.
Well, it makes more sense if the gunner moves up, that’s 1 person moving. If the loader moves across and the gunner becomes the loader it’s two moving! So you could have the loader being the higher rank and officially being in command, but works better if the gunner moves up. It was the case when I was in that the ambulance commander was the spare tank commander, so if a commander was killed the Amb commander took over. This happened for real when Steve TC Roberts was killed in Iraq in 03, Ian “Rolls’ James took over. (2 RTR).
I wasn't thinking of the gunner becoming the loader, but the loader acting as both loader and commander. That would be in line with the duties in some earlier tanks, for instance when the Crusader had a 6-pounder gun, the turret crew was reduced to two: gunner and commander, who also had to load. But I'll grant that may have been a lot harder in any of the tanks used by the RAC in the later war, based on whether the ammunition was positioned. I guess you're saying it would be necessary to keep one man at the loader's position because there would be no other way to actually pick up the ammunition, which makes sense.
There might be testimonies of crew members that took command of their tanks. For example : The SRY's John Cropper moved from being a crew member of his tank, to being its commander, and there are other specific examples of a 2nd in command being needed when the commander could no longer command. In the case of fiction I suspect that the "fight would go on", but in a lot of real situations the tank would simply withdraw and a new tank commander be supplied. In the instances I could think of the tank tended to be withdrawn if the Commander was incapacitated, hence the role of a second in command was not one of fighting on, but perhaps being the one who would aprise the chain of command of the situation and get further orders etc. i.e. to ask whether they'd be given the order etc. to "withdraw", or be moved to command the tank as long as the Battle went on. A big factor, I guess could be how damaged the tank might be, and where in the tank Troop and Squadron hierarchy, that tank might be, whether formerly commanded by an Officer, a Sergeant or a Corporal. If the Commander were shot by a sniper - for example - and either killed or incapacitated, I think that the tank tended to be removed from the fight, and a new tank commander supplied as soon as feasible. There are plenty of instances of tank commanders being wounded whilst not in the heat of action and the commander being replaced by someone not "of the crew". In the heat of a battle, expediency might entail that the tank fight on. There ought to be actual examples though, I guess. I think that in the majority of instances the "book" / manual would say that the tank should have an actual trained tank commander and the aim of the Regiment to be to replace the tank commander as soon as possible with a trained tank commander, rather than a crew member being defacto "next" to step up.
