British Afvs, What Good And Bad Things You Know About Them?

[rmgill]

I have to wonder if manufacturing and assembly issues may also enter into it. The more complex a shape, the more wastage you get with armor plate. Lots of weird angled plates means you're assembling a lot of armor segments that require cutting from rolled plate and that has it's own challenges. Some of those odd angle cut offs then become wasted parts. On something like a dingo or other armored cars, there are a number of smaller plates but you're dealing with thinner 9mm or 12mm plates and not 1"-3" plates. If you mostly use square angled plate, you make it far easier to assemble the vehicle and you have less bits that are just waste to go back to the steel mill to be re-melted and reforged into new plate.

I also have to wonder if the complex angles also make for tougher welds or more complex welding process. I'm just really getting my welding skills up, but I have to wonder at the heat treatment/expansion/pre-heating issues one will find with a complex angled shape vs a large box shape. I'm sure a lot of it was jigged up for some of the welds, but the expansion issues are still there I suspect.

[bojan]

That "higher mathematics" explanation... Was the person who wrote that an officier? Who considers trigonometry to be
"higher mathematics" OMG, did not kneo that officer quality of British army was so low...

 

Brits knew best, that is why everyone designed square hull front after ww2. Sure.

 

Theory 1: US, Soviets, Germans, French (and Brits at the end) were morons as all switched from "box" to sloped design.

Theory 2: British were giving explanations for their own failings (Grate Tank Scandal, it is named that way for a reason).

Now which was more likely?

 

There was also effectiveness of period ammo vs sloped armor:

Note Yugo armor tests, full bore AP and HVAP vs T-54 glacis (100mm@60deg) and turret (203mm) - 88/71, 100mm and 90mm (later one, not WW2 M3) penetrate turret (if at relatively short range), but they all fail vs glacis even @ 100m. So effectiveness of 60deg slope vs AP/HVAP is MORE then simple trigonometry tells you. So again, what is a reason for not having sloped hull front.

 

And no "cross country movement" or other bull will significantly reduce value of 50-60deg sloped glacis.

[bojan]

he more complex a shape, the more wastage you get with armor plate. Lots of weird angled plates...

What are "weird armor plates" on eg. Centurion or T-44 type hull?

[bojan]

Well the comments by the Colonel are somewhat useful, going by the overall results of the British tank designers in the interwar and early war period, their tank designs were poor as were the machinery components. So one has to ask as how much of the above is justification of a path already taken and no wish to deviate from it. Politics and interservice bickering has been around since the chariot at least.

 

+1000

[Loopycrank]

The Brits did get their act together on sloped armor. Chieftain is insanely well sloped... just as AP and APDS were on the way out.

[rmgill]

Bojan, instead of having case of the vapors, how about you twig to the fact that maybe I'm relating a bit of history as related by someone who, you know, isn something of an expert on the subject of British Tanks and their development. This is a discussion forum and not a Russian tank fan boy worshiping forum. Again, if you have a problem with the history, draft a few letters...

 

When did those Yugoslavian tests get performed?

[rmgill]

 

he more complex a shape, the more wastage you get with armor plate. Lots of weird angled plates...

 

What are "weird armor plates" on eg. Centurion or T-44 type hull?

Weird ANGLED plates. Ie non rectangular in shape, ie compound angles where multiple plates intersect in a complex non cubic fashion. Have you eve built anything out of panels? Perhaps not?

 

Btw, if you're going to quibble over higher math, at least figure out what the term angle in English means. :-)

[bojan]

This is a discussion forum and not a Russian tank fan boy worshiping forum...

Go get half a clue ignoramus.

Edited September 10, 2014 by bojan

[bojan]

 

Btw, if you're going to quibble over higher math, at least figure out what the term angle in English means. :-)

 

 

Trying to insult Ryan?

 

BTW, find how many hours took for Sherman or T-34 (or, hell, even Panther) to be welded and how many for Cromwell. You will be surprised.

Edited September 10, 2014 by bojan

[Gman]

 

 

Btw, if you're going to quibble over higher math, at least figure out what the term angle in English means. :-)

 

 

Trying to insult Ryan?

 

BTW, find how many hours took for Sherman or T-34 (or, hell, even Panther) to be welded and how many for Cromwell. You will be surprised.

 

Is this trick question ? Cromwell wasn't welded but rivetted.

[bojan]

Is this trick question ? Cromwell wasn't welded but rivetted.

 

That being a point.

All that talk about hard to weld odd angled plates when they decided not not to weld basic box shape... OFC, I am sure Ryan will find why British were genius for making tanks that way and that welding, just as sloped armor was just a fad, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "Russian tank fan boy" but never mind...

IOW, everyone else were morons only Brits in their infinite wisdom saw The Truth and made a lot of really good tanks. World beating ones. Unique in their own class.

[BLAH]

Comet has similar armor compared to the other 30 odd ton mediums. Enough so that with the larger AT guns it doesn't matter all that much; Both 88mm and the Panther's 75mm are going to get through all of them. I can't recall if it can, but I'm guessing the 75mm L/48 will get through all of the 30 odd ton mediums at least within 500 yards.

 

Its 77mm APDS round will punch a Panther IIRC.

 

Hence, there's not much in it, and the Comet was competitive with the other allied mediums fighting at the end of WW2.

[Colin]

If British tank building companies were anything like the automotive counterparts, I am surprised they managed to get anything right. I love my Landrover, but when you read the history of the design and company and the automotive industry as a whole you can't help but walk away shaking your head. UK management structure, the old boys network and Lucas impeded their ability to adapt and fix issues. coupled with the fact that UK was struggling in debt before, during and after the war it just compounded the problems. I suspect much of the issue is industrial capacity, poor management, a "this is the way we have always done it" attitude and as mentioned personality and interservice bickering by military and industrial leaders. Very much a "It's good enough" design philosophy. The same thinking that led to a car transmission lingering in the landrover till the late 70's.

[Przezdzieblo]

Nearly any medium WWII tank is going to be vulnerable to plugged HE fire by 105mm or greater...independent of nationality. Lots of examples or German suffering catastrophic failure in the same circumstance. Take a look at 152mm did on the eastern front to any German AFV it hit...

 

25-pounder is not 105 mm or greater. It was found by Briths not to be OK to get M-kill from single HE round hit of such calibre. Problem was solved during development of Mk 7 (early species on trials also were found vulnerable).

As for eastern 152 mm AFAIR it was mostly anti-concrete ammunition, with far more penetration capablity than standard artillery HE-Frags. But I agree, direct hit of 150 mm HE (and probably also smaller 105 mm) cannot be spoken as fair hit versus any tank of that time.

 

 

 

 

 

The Brits did get their act together on sloped armor. Chieftain is insanely well sloped... just as AP and APDS were on the way out.

Cannot disagree. Chieftain is the final argument on what Brits thought about sloping armour as a way to increase of ballistic protection. They just needed time (and, frankly, technology) to get it that way.

[bojan]

I cannot recall Conqueror being poorly sloped either. That was what, 1956?

 

I have a job being convinced that Centurion wasnt well sloped either. Has anyone seriously looked at its turret? There is hardly a straight line on it.

 

But Ryan tells it is square, ignoring mantle, overall turret geometry and just about everything else...

 

 

The real weak spot of British armour was automotive, both engine and gearbox. Fair comment. That said, these were exactly the same problems that Matilda and Churchill had, yet funnily enough all you hear about is the German tanks they were facing off against breaking down. There were issues there, but lets not pretend we were massively behind in the armour race, particularly as even Churchill Mk7 had hull armour just as thick as what you find on a King Tiger....

 

 

1. 1. The tank engine is very modern, of the car and tractor type. The engine uses a minimal amount of deficit metals and is suitable for mass production. However, the engine of the MkIV is an unfinished design, and its reliability is doubtful. The toughness of cylinder block heads is also in doubt, as they are relatively short compared to their width (the engine has valves on the side). If the toughness is insufficient, the head will warp, causing it to punch though the layer between the head and cylinder block. If not noticed in time, this will cause cylinders to break down prematurely. When using the MkIV tank, water levels in the engine must be observed carefully. If water levels start dropping, the cause must be found immediately.

   ****

Bolded being probably the most characteristic part of British WW2 tank design - take a good idea, drag it for years, don't finish developing it and then hop to other idea since first one became obsolete due the years spent on developing it at a snail pace.

Gun power, we lagged behind. IN AFVs. Im not sure artillery wise, particularly bearing in mind 3.7 inch we were behind at all, but the institutional bias towards the artillery being responsible for gun development is one reason for this lagging behind in AFV weapons.. That said, we had 17 pounder in service by D Day. Ive yet to be convinced by arguments presented that was not an excellent anttank weapon for its day. Even 2pounder was an excellent gun in its day.

 

Actually, it was not guns that were a problem, it was way to mount it in turret. Small turret rings and insistance on free elevation barrel with internal mantlets were probably a key problem. Once UK gave on both (Cent) problem about mounting bigger guns mysteriously vanished...

2pdr was however hampered by it's ammo, it penetrated less (according to UK tests vs various Pz-III and Pz-IV) in practice then us 37mm... That got solved, but by that point it was too late for 2pdr.

OTOH 17pdr was quite good gun, developing about same performances as Panther's 75/70 with less weight and space taken inside turret.

 

****Overall Soviets actually kinda liked Churchill actually:

Conclusions:

1. The English heavy tank MkIV "Churchill" has sufficient armament, protection, and maneuverability to be capable of fighting German tanks effectively.
2. Currently, the MkIV is an unfinished and unpolished design. When used in the army, the MkIV will require frequent repairs and replacement of parts and components.
3. Several elements of the tank (turning mechanism in the same assembly as the gearbox, etc) are original, and can be recommended for use in domestic vehicles."

http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/08/churchill-impressions-part-ii.html

[rmgill]

Which armor bits are we talking about? Because comparing the T-34 and Panther to the Centurion one notes that there's a LOT more examples of angled armor plate on the former two than the latter. Comparing the Centurion to the Comet, the Cent disposes of the front vertical in front of the driver and co-driver and improves the turret mantlet. The turret sides are still slab sided. The hull sides are still mostly slab sided (They sure ain't 30°). There's even that big cheek piece where the extra Besa/Polsten cannon was to go. The change in basic layout which is the loss of the front driver's aperture and the hull gunner makes for the better design of a larger mantlet.



And Bojan, in case it may have escaped you, whether you weld a plate or rivet a plate, you still have to cut the plate out. The compound angles STILL manifest. The waste of the corners cut off to get the various oddly shaped trapezoids still manifests. And we're talking about more than just the Cromwell I think? It's British AFV(s) but really the tanks. Which includes the Churchill, the Comet, the Challenger and other examples. Black Prince and Centurion too. Churchill made extensive use of composite welded bits (Cast plus plate) especially in the turrets of the later marks.

Looking around, where's the sloped armor on the Tiger? If sloped armor is the end all be all of the armor design envelope, why didn't the Tiger have it? Why did the Germans not make the Pz 6 just a larger Pz 5? Was the Tiger Design team a bunch of idiots?

The design for the Cromwell was laid down in '41. When was the Tiger I armor design finalized?




Remember, one of the constraints on the British designs was the railroad loading gauge. That would limit the expansiveness that angle plates galore would impinge upon.

Also, final designs have a lot of issues that relate to the design specifications, production methods available at the time of the design and other criteria set out as part of the specification that leads to the design.

PS, Bojan, if you want to have a discussion on British tank development, then fine, lets have a discussion. But if you're going to be a smarmy jack wagon I'm not going to bother.

Edited September 10, 2014 by rmgill

[bojan]

... And as pointed out, its is hardly dated compared to Panzer IV.

Pz-IV was 1937 (IIRC) design and saw service in 1939, Tiger 1940-41 and saw service in 1942 Cromwell was 1942-43 design and saw service in 1944. A day late, a pound short. Which is a pity as some ideas were quite sound, it just took a lot to develop those ideas into really useful tanks.

Comet, for all it's hype was judged by British by the time of Korea to be equal to T-34-85. Which is not great achievement considering it entered service about year later...

As a slab sided hull goes as soon as it was found out it is not possible to armor vs common threats sloped side armor was ditched (other then where it was used as structural strengthener and for better mine resistance as in M48/M60 hull). While it was possible to armor vs most common threats (T-34 vs 37mm and 45mm guns) it was a good thing to have.

Edited September 10, 2014 by bojan

[rmgill]

I think aside from substandard mechanization in some areas of the tank industry (Nuffield Mechanizations) and the spotty quality control/inspection process, the real issue was being tied to RailRoad loading gauge. That limits width of the tank, which limits length which impacts the size of the tank overall and the size of the turret ring. That then impacts the turret size and as we see with Black Prince you end up with some severe compromises. The discarding of the RR Loading gauge allowed centurion to grow to a proper size and have room to grow/advance armament without major design changes.

Examine Matilda and it's contraints. You have a nicely sloped/thick armor suite, even to the sides. But the overall width of the turret is constrained by the tumblehome of the hull sides and that limits what you can put on it for armament.

Powerplant was also a limiting factor. The Cruiser tanks were supposed to be fast. How tall would a Crusader be if the driver's area was under armor and not behind armor? Raise the height of the tank and you add additional weight (Slower). The advent of the Meteor expanded the power plant capacity and allowed larger/heavier tanks with more size to accommodate everything needed.

[Ken Estes]

 

PS, Bojan, if you want to have a discussion on British tank development, then fine, lets have a discussion. But if you're going to be a smarmy jack wagon I'm not going to bother.

 

Nice name calling, but it would be best to wish you a successful exiting, I suppose.

 

Noted for the future.

[Beitou]

What is a Jack wagon?

[Max H]

The Brits did get their act together on sloped armor. Chieftain is insanely well sloped... just as AP and APDS were on the way out.

 

In fairness, there are large parts of the front where even russian HEAT of the time would fail to fuse due to the slope

 

Looking around, where's the sloped armor on the Tiger? If sloped armor is the end all be all of the armor design envelope, why didn't the Tiger have it? Why did the Germans not make the Pz 6 just a larger Pz 5? Was the Tiger Design team a bunch of idiots?

 

I don't see anything to indicate that they weren't - although if I were feeling more charitable then I wouldn't disagree with calling them merely outdated

[Loopycrank]

I wonder if 115mm fin ammo has high enough L/D to normalize or whatever it is that gives long rods their magical anti-slope properties.

 

Mostly because Blacktail likes to harp on how 115mm fin wasn't any better than 100mm APDS and the T-62 was a failed tank.

 

Chieftain might not have had as thick of armor as the guide books say (it would be insanely heavy if it did), but that extreme sloping would have made it a tough SOB to kill with AP, APDS and early HEAT.

[rmgill]

What is a Jack wagon?

 

Not really a definition, but some context...

Edited September 10, 2014 by rmgill

[bojan]

Getting personal Ryan? Will moderator step up or will your poor behavior be tolerated the question is now...

Edited September 10, 2014 by bojan

[bojan]

...In fairness, there are large parts of the front where even russian HEAT of the time would fail to fuse due to the slope

 

Yep, everything over 65deg was problematic for Soviet 100mm BK-5M HEAT however 115/125mm was better, fusing up the 75deg.