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

[bojan]

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.

 

It could, but at higher angle early steel APFSDS rounds had about 50% rickoshet chance. So one round might penetrate, next one might not.

 

 

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.

 

 

First part was true, but 100mm APDS came 8 years later (1968). APFSDS was also cheaper and 115mm HEAT had about 30% more performances, which was actually one of the crucial points why was it introduced. It was also cheaper to produce (no need for anti-spin rings etc). 115mm gun was also easier and cheaper to make.

As for failed tank, I would not call any tank made in such quantities failed. Panic reaction (due the 100mm AP failure vs newer western tanks)/substitute (due the Obj.430/432 being delayed eternally) that became obsolete relatively quickly would be a better definition.

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.

Chieftain would be tough hull down, from frontal ~30deg, but so would be M60A1.

Edited September 10, 2014 by bojan

[bojan]

....

So was Matilda. And its pretty well related that armour wise, for all its flaws, Matilda II had relatively little to complain about. Even the gun on it was pretty good for antitank work for its era.

Hence my comment regarding good ideas ruined by execution and burdened by stuff everyone else gave up as unneeded (free elevating guns, internal gun mantles, finely balanced guns etc).

Why not develop new I tank from enlarged Matilda instead of going for highly anachronistic Churchill? Larger Matilda with sloped Glacis, widened top hull (so bigger turret ring could be fitted), front could probably support about 65-70mm armor @ ~50deg which would give quite decent shell resistance. Put external mantle, enlarge turret, and you have upgrade potential.

Instead of that we get what? TOG (OK, brits were not only one smocking crack, Soviets had similar silly ideas also)? Churchill?

 

 

Lets be fair, the Panzer IV was designed as a fire support tank, and it was clearly more upgradeable than Matilda. Im not rubbishing German armour therefore, but clearly the superiority of German armour is overstated, and mainly based on the WAY they were used, than their actual utility. I mean, we had what, 14 Matilda II in the Arras attack. And the Germans nearly broke and ran. If we had similar numbers in a division comparable to a German one, and operated it similarly, it would be much easier to evaluate. But seldom were there matchups like that in the real world. Not before 1944 anyway.

 

I agree that German armor is horribly overrated, and British underrated in some aspects, but ignoring real problems of both is not good for any kind of discussion. Pz-IV was good for a fact it could just fir in long 75mm (which was quite uncomfortable fit, I am really looking at Nick playing in Pz-IV)...

Pz-IV did not have a single inovative part in it's development. Now, comparing it with Cromwell tells us exactly what about concept of Cromwell (except automotive part where Cromwell was clearly better)?

 

Cromwell was clearly delayed, no good reason for that but we had Sherman on stream so perhaps they didnt see the need to hurry. I think we only had one division fully equipped with them in any case which rather points to lend lease making development of our own tanks something of a moot point. At it is, one veterans account points to the vehicle having cross country mobility that is hardly hinted at now in publications. One of the reasons why it was so popular in recce battalions I suppose.

As I noted Cromwell was good and there is no real reason for it's development not to be pushed forward. Well, other then institutional "we don't know what we want but we want it... some day".

OTOH, one thing that was good about Cromwell was a final adoption of articulated gun sight, which just as Soviet TSh-15/16 was copied from German Pz-IV gunsight.

 

Point taken on T34. Im not knocking Soviet armour, we know they had a general lead at the end of the war when you compare the Allied and Soviet Armour on the big parade through Berlin. I guess the point im making is, the hype about British Armour lagging behind has gotten out of hand. Yes, we were behind. But by the end of the war I think we had done one hell of a good job to catch up. If you compare Centurion II and T44/54, I have a job seeing much in it. And its not as if the former wasnt considerably more upgradeable as we have seen down the years.

As for T-34 even before war Soviets realized it was a dead end (due the Christie suspension primary), trying to replace it both before and during war. Tells you a lot that upgrade of such "dead end" gets compared to late 1944 tank (Comet). And a fact someone designed brand new tank in 1944 with Christie suspension is mind blowing... Yes, I know it started as "only Cromwell upgrade" but in the end was totally new tank. With Christie suspension. In 1944.

As for upgrade ability look at Romanian TR-85M2 and tell me with straight face it is less upgraded then SA Olifant. Or T-55AM vs Israeli Cents, etc. Both tanks were quite good, ironically suffering from same mayor problem (lack of any kind of FCS). Cent had better gun, T-55 was more mobile, both had about same armor. Sure, T-55 was worse tank to be in, but it did not prevent some of it's users (Israel, India) from using it well. In a big picture take whatever battle where those met and swap tanks I am pretty sure final outcome would not be changed much. Discussing which one was "better" is splitting hairs.

M48 (especially later versions) was OTOH highly underrated.

 

 

Yes there was big flaws in british armour development (still are). But lets not get out of hand and claim they were decades behind everyone else which seems to be the general trend every time one of these threads starts. I mean we did design the transmission on Tiger I, we must have been good for something.

Brits were hardly decades behind but in WW2 two years was enough to move tank from good to almost hopelessly obsolete (at least for tank vs tank combat, in infantry support almost every relic could work). Case in point, T-34 in summer 1941 and same tank in 1943. Or 75mm Sherman in late 1942 vs late 1944.

Edited September 11, 2014 by bojan

[Colin]

The brits have always had flashes of brilliance, followed by inept production of the idea. I know that sufficient capital always plagued British production, but I also blame a senior management culture that was rotten to the core.

[rmgill]

Actually, im not entirely convinced it was production management whom were at fault.

It's arguable that some of the production management would depend on who was making the parts or vehicle and what their attention to detail was. Counting it as uniform across the British Tank manufacturing establishment is probably unwise.

 

Automotively speaking something made by Daimler seems to be head and shoulders above something made by Bedford. I would think the same thing could possibly be said when you compare Vickers and Vauxhall to and other companies designs or their executions. Something can be designed well but be poorly built with sloppy assembly or machining or casting imperfections.

Edited September 11, 2014 by rmgill

[Colin]

The British were good at clever ideas, such as the hovercraft and anything designed by Wallis, that was clearly their strength. What they needed was the US production mindset to turn them into good equipment. I fully agree with the thought that UK companies always struggled with capital investment and that constantly living with that reality imposes a mindset that limits being able to break out and change things. Immediately post war, things were quite bleak with steel being rationed to companies that could export 70% of their product, hence the landrover turning to aluminum and the first Rover Post WWII cars being made out of Fabric for the bodies.

 

Interwar the Brits had the technological edge on tanks up till about the mid 30's, at which point the Soviet leap ahead.

[Colin]

The US strength was simplifying items for production while retaining positive features, I think this is where the US influence would have helped. Some of the cruiser tanks were sent to the desert had exposed moving parts (tappets and valves), that was acceptable in a British design, I don't think the US would have done so. I also recall a thread here a few years ago, about how the british prepping of tanks for delivery by sea voyage caused all sort of problems and new tanks arriving in Egypt from the UK being unfit for service, without a major overhaul. Where as the US tanks were far better prepared at the factory for ocean travel.

[rmgill]

Exposed tappets and valves are fine for a shop space. Anything going around outside? That's asking for major problems.

Good air cleaners are also important.

[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.

 

It could, but at higher angle early steel APFSDS rounds had about 50% rickoshet chance. So one round might penetrate, next one might not.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

First part was true, but 100mm APDS came 8 years later (1968). APFSDS was also cheaper and 115mm HEAT had about 30% more performances, which was actually one of the crucial points why was it introduced. It was also cheaper to produce (no need for anti-spin rings etc). 115mm gun was also easier and cheaper to make.

As for failed tank, I would not call any tank made in such quantities failed. Panic reaction (due the 100mm AP failure vs newer western tanks)/substitute (due the Obj.430/432 being delayed eternally) that became obsolete relatively quickly would be a better definition.

 

 

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.

Chieftain would be tough hull down, from frontal ~30deg, but so would be M60A1.

 

 

I tend to assume that everything Blacktail says is nonsense. 100mm HEAT was a rather late arrival too, I thought? Zaloga's book also said that there wasn't much APDS in a typical T-55 loadout (probably due to cost issue; tungsten use and all that). So the idea that T-55 could do everything T-62 could just as easily is nonsense.

 

T-62 seems like a fine design for the era, actually. It's quite small, it has fairly good protection, and it has a very powerful gun.

[Colin]

This is the frustrating thing about brit stuff, it's the attention to details like this they miss. You know I love the 1500cwt trucks and FATs, but they are a bitch to drive compared to the Studebaker 6x6.

 

The Brits could have built far better tanks in the late interwar and early war, as mentioned they failed to. I agree they started to break out of that box with the Churchill, Cromwell, then Comet, the main fault with the Centurion was the dismal range and that should have been properly dealt with in the prototype stage.

 

The British logistical support was another failing. The fuel tin led to a spillage rate of around 20% that dropped to 5% with the advent of the jerry can and the collapsible funnel. The fact that the brits never built proper fuel bowsers until long after everyone else boggles the mind.

 

They also seemed to have lacked any armoured recovery vehicles until the advent of the modified Grants.

[bojan]

...100mm HEAT was a rather late arrival too, I thought?

We got it in 1961. with first T-54A. It was introduced in late 1960 or early 1961. Arabs had some small quantity in 1967. By 1973 it was predominant anti-armor round in loadout (16 HE, 15 HEAT and 12 AP were standard load here). Vs any tank of era it was more then enough.

 

 

Zaloga's book also said that there wasn't much APDS in a typical T-55 loadout (probably due to cost issue; tungsten use and all that). So the idea that T-55 could do everything T-62 could just as easily is nonsense.

It was not rare in USSR and WP had it also. IIRC Finns also had it. Arabs got it late (about mid-late '70s, by which time WP had 100mm APFSDS). Goes a way to explain why T-62 was big hit for Arabs but less so for WP.

[rmgill]

The lack of fuel trucks IS odd. They certainly had water supply trucks in the 15cwt size.



But they got other things right.

Wireless set's down to the Company.
Good and Fast artillery direction and control methods.
Good AT guns.
Mulberry
PLUTO
That Bailey Crap

As far as tank recovery, they DID have good recovery systems, just not armoured. I guess they could have built an armoured cab for a Scammell. Given the thing can pull a Churchill sideways with the proper tackle...!

[Colin]

don't get me wrong I admire a lot of the things they did, hey I have owned landrovers since I could drive and worked on a SRN6, but I do curse Lucas still. Brit arty fire control was way ahead and Pluto is an amazing feat. As for the bowsers, I think it was some bizarre tactical thinking got in the way. The Brits and the Germans both thought the same way in regards to recovery up till the later stages of the war. The US was an early adopter of armoured recovery. Not sure how the Russian did it. (think I will start a new thread)

Edited September 11, 2014 by Colin

[rmgill]

If they'd made an armored recovery vehicle based on an extant hull, what would it be based off of? What would have reserve power to actually function in the role?

[Colin]

I doubt any of the brit tanks other than the later Churchill's had enough

[swerve]

I dont think thats entirely fair. I mean look at how many combat aircraft we built in WW2. I forget how many Spitfires it was, 40 thousand maybe? Then factor in how many lancasters got build, and suddenly the British industrial effort in WW2 looks a lot more creditable. And for the most part that was aircraft that stayed generally on par, or even ahead, of what the Germans were building.

20000+ Spitfires, out of 131500 aircraft built 1939-45. We built 11500 more aircraft than Germany, & a bigger proportion of four-engined aircraft, so numbers probably understate our relative production by weight & cost.

 

Third to the USA & USSR, but the USSR built a higher proportion of single-engined aircraft than Germany, IIRC. We probably matched, or even surpassed, the USSR in weight & cost.

[rmgill]

 

 

re Fuel trucks, did the Army never adopt the bowser version of matator? I would think that would have been nearly idea.

 

There were RAF fuel bowsers. Leyland Hippo and AEC Matador versions iirc.

 

I wonder if the problem was the storage of the fuel outside of the trucks. Fuel bladders weren't available yet. You'd have to build bulk storage tanks which are pretty obvious from the air.

[rmgill]

Re the M3 as an Armoured Recovery Vehicle, the engine access is to the rear so kit or hardware placed or anchored over the engine bay doesn't impinge upon access to the engine for daily maintenance. How would that work on a Valentine where engine access is via the hinged covers to the above and rear of the tank?

[Panzermann]

Turret could be removed to keep the engine accessible?

[rmgill]

The lower angled decks give you access to the final drives which are in the rear. You gotta get to the oil levels on those. There are radiators over those as well AND fans.

From my crawling around on the back of the VMMV Valentine, I'm pretty certain that hindering access to the engine would be a poor idea for daily parade and long halt servicing of the engine and final drives. I think Manic Moran's video shows the same area (or am I thinking of the Matilda II video?).

As to fuel bowsers and such, they'd have to work out methods of moving the fuel and then decanting it to something for forward area handoff. With break-bulk, that's easy if labor intensive. Pumping out from one truck to other trucks WOULD work but that means larger, longer haul fuel trucks and smaller distribution trucks to move the fuel around. Conversely, with POL cans, you can hand fuel off to a GS truck or group of GS trucks and fuel several vehicles at once. 10 Tonners to move the fuel forwards and 15cwt trucks to distribute to the units? Mix in GS trucks with Jerry Cans for smaller distribution tasks?

The major issue with the flimsies was that they were meant to be disposable so they were lightly built, which is where their failings came. The seams were poorly soldered sometimes or were just too likely to be damaged and leak. The Jerry Cans weren't really disposable were they?

How did the US army handle fuel at the time? Break Bulk or Bulk transfer from PLUTO to final units?

[Harold Jones]

 

I doubt any of the brit tanks other than the later Churchill's had enough

Well, we built a bridgelayer based on Valentine if I remember rightly. But yes, I somehow doubt there would have been anything other than maybe the late Churchills or possibly Comet that would have been well suited for recovery work.

 

Challenger? It couldnt have been any worse as an ARV than as a tank....

 

IMG_4766 by haroldj_us, on Flickr

Edited September 12, 2014 by Harold Jones

[Max H]

I doubt any of the brit tanks other than the later Churchill's had enough

 

Cromwell ought to manage, at least for cromwell-sized things

[istvan47]

One of the things that you apparently understimate is the ability of the british to make 'funnies'.

 

Just like the Skorpions, the bridgelayers, crocodiles, sappers (290 mm mortars 'petard') and ARVs. Not forget the AA SPG, too (even with 40 mm Bofors).

 

Think about it.

 

The british tanks were mediocres, but the 'special versions' were really 'originals' and effectives. Look to the CHURCHILL ARV, as example. It lasted until the '60s!

 

Those 'special veichles' were of paramount importance for an armoured force. And i think nobody else developed so many 'funnies' like the British in WWII. Actually they traced the way for future developements in the post WWII/modern time.

 

***

Apart this, it is worth noting how british had BOTH the technology and the ideas to make 'advanced things'.

 

Just think about the radar or the Mustang. The US industry was, for many aspect, behind all this. When british ideas and tech met the US industry, they did the better products (see Mustang-Merlin).

 

For what we care, the British coupled their 17 Pdr with the US AFVs, such Achilles and Firefly. And they worked: wiki says that one Firefly killed 5 Panther with around 5 shots. An M1 Abrams could not have not do it better

Edited September 12, 2014 by istvan47

[istvan47]

I like the Crusader, fast and 'african tank' like nobody else. It was elegant.

 

You know, italians did not cared much about Matilda (that defeat them soundly in 1940-41!), but they liked a lot the Crusader. They even tried to clone it with the 'Sahariano' 13 t fast tank.

 

Ironically, as Ariete defeated Crusaders in their operational debut (Op Crusader). Evidently the aggressive, fast and elegant tank was neverthless, quite respected, after all.

 

Too bad the 57 mm version came too late, when Shermans were already there.

 

 

***

 

About the Cromwell, it was a tank really SMALL (even if not elegant like the Crusader was), i saw a picture with a Sherman nearby (it looked like a house!), small and fast in any sense. I've even read that it was capable to hit 2 times more than the P.IV, when faced one each other (and both capable to defeat each other, too).

 

 

***

 

About the Churchill. It was a real 'battle tank', even if slow. At EL ALAMEIN the Churchill was a real war machine, and the King Force was here.

 

http://www.northirishhorse.net/articles/7.html

 

I do not buy the weakness of Churchill armour either. Some of those tanks received up to 50 shells and did not were destroyed. Try with another tank (except KV and Tiger) in 1942!

 

Too bad that Churchill debut was at Dieppe. Had British sent 40 Churchill at El Alamein, instead of 6-7, it would have been much better!

 

Other positive points:

 

-Churchill had a very good cross-country capability: it could pass around 1 meter vertical and 3 m trenches, even go inside the trench and exit (like a WWI machine, but more swift).

 

-It was also a 'mountain goat'. It was slow, but just see what it did in Tunisia, and Italy. Really impressing as climbers, despite being so slow and underpowered. Nothing of that could have been done with a Tiger, or even much lighter AFVs.

 

-was quite upgradable and excellent for 'special versions'.

 

-had a very good survival rate for its crews, even when hit (side exit included!)

 

- entered in action quite early (mid 1942) so it was not a 'late war tank' as many others (KT, Pershing, Stalin).

 

-Churchill entered in production and was made, despite the weight, by thousands (around 7,000, second just to Valentine in british tanks).

 

Basically, slowness, mechanical defects and too small gun apart, it was a sound machine, even if cleary obsolescent even for its days.

[rmgill]

Istvan, I think everyone here is quite aware of the funnies based upon the Churchill. I know I am.

The question was one of ARVs based on something concurrent with or prior to the M3 Grants/Lees. Those had some versions that DID have ARVs based upon them. There were numerous other conversions of later tanks. Including some of the Valentines and the like. BUT I'm not aware of any ARV's based upon those.

In the case of the bridge layers, they gained some weight back with the disposal of the turret. The bridge is probably not as much weight as a full on damaged tank towed behind. And the mechanical gear for the bridge and it's supports don't hinder access to the engine compartment. That's the rub with the ARV conversions. Spare horse power to tow another dead tank behind the ARV.

[istvan47]

Istvan, I think everyone here is quite aware of the funnies based upon the Churchill. I know I am.

 

The question was one of ARVs based on something concurrent with or prior to the M3 Grants/Lees. Those had some versions that DID have ARVs based upon them. There were numerous other conversions of later tanks. Including some of the Valentines and the like. BUT I'm not aware of any ARV's based upon those.

 

In the case of the bridge layers, they gained some weight back with the disposal of the turret. The bridge is probably not as much weight as a full on damaged tank towed behind. And the mechanical gear for the bridge and it's supports don't hinder access to the engine compartment. That's the rub with the ARV conversions. Spare horse power to tow another dead tank behind the ARV.

 

Yes, i know that you know.

 

But still, in this very interesting discussion, this particular aspect has not been yet discussed.

 

I mean, just look to the Churchill ARK:

''A turretless Churchill with ramps at either end and along the body to form a mobile bridge. The Mark 1 had trackways over the tracks for vehicles to drive along. The Mark 2 was an improvised version and crossing vehicles drove directly on the Churchill's tracks. the Link Ark (or "Twin Ark") was two ARKs used side-by-side to give a wide crossing. The ramps on these were folding types giving a longer - 65 ft (20 m) - crossing.^[25] This was used for the post war Conqueror heavy tank.''

 

Just see this picture, i wonder if any other tank could do this!