Jump to content

Inside The Chieftain's Hatch - Ac I Sentinel


Nikolas93TS

Recommended Posts

It just wasn't worth it, better things were being provided which required less resources and complication.

 

 

Debatable. By the time the program was cancelled almost all the production capacity had been set up and very little further input was required. The marginal cost of an Australian cruiser was around 15,000 pounds, the estimated cost to Australia for an M4 was 35,000. Ultimately as a result of American pressure for Australia to use a type of tank which would use parts common to US tanks in the Pacific theatre, Australia used Matildas until the end of the war. At least the ACs could have used the same tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

At least the Sentinel was able to serve as part of Rommel's forces at the siege of Tobruk. Well, at least in the movie version....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-U02sgYv1c&feature=youtu.be&t=8m35s

Edited by Walter_Sobchak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What is interesting is that the 17 pounder Sentinel was thought up in Australia, and Japan never had a tank that would have necessitated this cannon.

A lot of the design of the Australian cruisers dates from 1941, when Australia was fighting Italians and Germans in North Africa. The Japanese were more of an impediment to the production of Australian tanks rather than the cause of it.

Ah, yes. That makes sense that the long ranges and the first sightings of Tigers might have influenced the decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Asia kindof got ahead of things. Not their fault, they just did what the Russians told them. I held off because the Sentinel was time-sensitive, and I knew both M47 parts wouldn't be out before Sentinel started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Asia kindof got ahead of things. Not their fault, they just did what the Russians told them. I held off because the Sentinel was time-sensitive, and I knew both M47 parts wouldn't be out before Sentinel started.

Haven't watched the M47 video yet. Did you elaborate on the exploits of the 1/Kitsap County Milita (expeditionary) during their secondment to the ARVN? ^_^

Edited by Panzermann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: On the one hand I get accused of not responding to posts that are claimed to show I talk shit, on the other when I did here noone has the guts to respond. This forum has declined into a little comfortable club which is great at pretending it's agenda is safe and real but when challenged has nothing other than personal keyboard warrior abuse. Pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is interesting is that the 17 pounder Sentinel was thought up in Australia, and Japan never had a tank that would have necessitated this cannon.

 

A lot of the design of the Australian cruisers dates from 1941, when Australia was fighting Italians and Germans in North Africa. The Japanese were more of an impediment to the production of Australian tanks rather than the cause of it.

 

That's right. An armoured division was formed specifically as a result of NA experience, at the time it was thought that it could be used as part of a corps to fight the Germans. Really the Japanese were a nuisance although not viewed as such at the time, due to their proximity their threat was real but it soon was shown to be a bit of a paper tiger. There is no doubt that the Australian army would have preferred to fight the Germans as they had found them to be worthy but beatable opponents.

 

Which resulted in the continued development of the Sentinel and particularly it's constant upgunning until the US effectively put a stop to that. The Sherman as a result of tests was never accepted which probably was the problem as far as the US was concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What is interesting is that the 17 pounder Sentinel was thought up in Australia, and Japan never had a tank that would have necessitated this cannon.

 

A lot of the design of the Australian cruisers dates from 1941, when Australia was fighting Italians and Germans in North Africa. The Japanese were more of an impediment to the production of Australian tanks rather than the cause of it.

 

That's right. An armoured division was formed specifically as a result of NA experience, at the time it was thought that it could be used as part of a corps to fight the Germans. Really the Japanese were a nuisance although not viewed as such at the time, due to their proximity their threat was real but it soon was shown to be a bit of a paper tiger. There is no doubt that the Australian army would have preferred to fight the Germans as they had found them to be worthy but beatable opponents. Which resulted in the continued development of the Sentinel and particularly it's constant upgunning until the US effectively put a stop to that. The Sherman as a result of tests was never accepted which probably was the problem as far as the US was concerned.

 

As far as fighting the Germans goes, reading about Clive Killer Caldwell who really enjoyed fighting the Germans in NA, aces and all, much more than the Japanese. Nothing better than knocking off a Me109 or two :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Which resulted in the continued development of the Sentinel and particularly it's constant upgunning until the US effectively put a stop to that. The Sherman as a result of tests was never accepted which probably was the problem as far as the US was concerned.

 

 

Mmm.. As I understand it, AC's development was stopped in July '43, with the first Sherman only arriving in Australia about at that time. The Sherman remained under consideration until the comparative trials against Churchill in New Guinea in mid 1944. I've no doubt that the US was trying to get their allies in Australia to be more efficient and pushing for the cancellation of the project, but I would think that the similar pressures were coming from internal Australian corners as well. The argument of whether it was sensible to continue spending resources on a new and unique tank type when tanks from other sources was available is just as valid whether it's an American making the argument or an Austalian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I'd never seen any of the Chieftan's Hatch videos until you posted the Sentinel pt 1. I've now watched the vast majority, and aside from missing the Pt II to both the M47 and this one, I'm noticing he references other tanks he's done videos for but said videos aren't up yet. Is there a better way of finding these, outside of Youtube's kinda crappy setup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Most are on my channel, Thechieftainwot. Which ones are you looking for?

Well now that was unexpected as all can be. I didn't put two-and-two together. As I've actually got the chance, I just want to say I rather do appreciate all the extra technical stuff you get into the videos, even the track-tensioning.

 

That said, you've referred to the M4 on occasion, and I think I even saw a snapshot of you possibly with an M3 Lee/Grant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've no doubt that the US was trying to get their allies in Australia to be more efficient and pushing for the cancellation of the project, but I would think that the similar pressures were coming from internal Australian corners as well. The argument of whether it was sensible to continue spending resources on a new and unique tank type when tanks from other sources was available is just as valid whether it's an American making the argument or an Austalian.

 

 

No.

 

As Australia had just learned, guarantees of protection from great and powerful friends were "subject to change", and a greater degree of self reliance and self sufficiency is by no means a bad thing. It is not too hard today to find Americans bemoaning their layabout free-rider "allies". The only Australian corner critical of the project was the Army, that however had more to do with wanting absolute control over it rather than wanting it axed. The Sentinel took about half the man hours, and could be built at about half the cost of an M4, the Thunderbolt's cost is most likely about the same as the Sentinel's. By any sensible definition of cost the ACs were a more efficient tank to make. Comparing the fighting abilities is probably impossible, bearing in mind that it is the AC3 that was cancelled, the Sentinel was completed, an AC3 against a 75mm armed M4 I'd say on paper there's not too much between them.

 

Ultimately I should think that a decision that cancelled production of tanks armed with 25 pounders that were already on the assembly line, and resulted instead in Australian troops digging Japanese out of bunkers using 2 pounders for the rest of the war, was obviously wrong. It did result in the fitting of an ASW mortar to a tank though, that's mad enough to be cool.

 

The idea that Australian units could get spare parts and ammunition from US supply? Bunk. The US strangely didn't have a supply of Matilda parts on hand, nor ammunition.

 

Just as a side note this sort of thing will happen to Australia again in 1950 when the UK will divert Centurions built to fill an Australian order to its own forces for use in Korea. So no RAAC tanks were sent to support Australian or UN troops. Relying on others has consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who spent the entire video wondering if Manic was wearing a Polandball lapel pin or not?

 

Edit to add - thanks for the videos as always. :)

Edited by Mr King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I've no doubt that the US was trying to get their allies in Australia to be more efficient and pushing for the cancellation of the project, but I would think that the similar pressures were coming from internal Australian corners as well. The argument of whether it was sensible to continue spending resources on a new and unique tank type when tanks from other sources was available is just as valid whether it's an American making the argument or an Austalian.

 

 

No.

 

As Australia had just learned, guarantees of protection from great and powerful friends were "subject to change", and a greater degree of self reliance and self sufficiency is by no means a bad thing. It is not too hard today to find Americans bemoaning their layabout free-rider "allies". The only Australian corner critical of the project was the Army, that however had more to do with wanting absolute control over it rather than wanting it axed. The Sentinel took about half the man hours, and could be built at about half the cost of an M4, the Thunderbolt's cost is most likely about the same as the Sentinel's. By any sensible definition of cost the ACs were a more efficient tank to make. Comparing the fighting abilities is probably impossible, bearing in mind that it is the AC3 that was cancelled, the Sentinel was completed, an AC3 against a 75mm armed M4 I'd say on paper there's not too much between them.

 

Ultimately I should think that a decision that cancelled production of tanks armed with 25 pounders that were already on the assembly line, and resulted instead in Australian troops digging Japanese out of bunkers using 2 pounders for the rest of the war, was obviously wrong. It did result in the fitting of an ASW mortar to a tank though, that's mad enough to be cool.

 

The idea that Australian units could get spare parts and ammunition from US supply? Bunk. The US strangely didn't have a supply of Matilda parts on hand, nor ammunition.

 

Just as a side note this sort of thing will happen to Australia again in 1950 when the UK will divert Centurions built to fill an Australian order to its own forces for use in Korea. So no RAAC tanks were sent to support Australian or UN troops. Relying on others has consequences.

 

 

It may have been only half the man-hours, and maybe half the resources etc to build a Sherman (This is assuming that the tank actually was as good as a Sherman, I'm not sure that's the case) but even half-a-sherman's worth of labor and assets is a half-Sherman's worth that the Australians were not able to devote to other activities. I don't think you'll find many people saying that there wasn't a bit of a strain on Austalia's resources in the 1943 period.

 

Further, there seemed to be little risk of the Americans bailing on the promise to deliver. It wasn't that the Australians cancelled AC on the basis of as-yet-to-be-proven promises that the US would deliver tanks. They had delivered over 750 mediums by the end of 1942, as well as a couple hundred M3 lights which, by that stage, was a pretty good track record. Even if the ACs went into full production, was it expected that they could create anywhere near that number of vehicles? External sources were going to be required regardless.

 

It is probably difficult to separate the actual deployment of vehicles from the general background. Yes, M3 Mediums were not deployed, given that the initial attempt to deploy the things to New Guinea was foundered due to lack of 30-ton-capable shipping. Then there was the desire to equip three armoured divisions for what I presume to be the intended roles as viewed in North Africa against the European axis with the M3s used as cruisers, just what Sentinel was designed to do. The Matildas would not have been suitable for those, and thus were available for the, oddly, infantry support role against the Japanese. Then they decided to disband armored divisions, leaving the Aussies with quite a few cruisers just sitting around in storage, why should Australia add to this cruiser inventory with a domestic tank?

 

While not discounting the advantages of having a home-grown capability and level of self reliance, the bottom line is still going to be someone asking the question 'is this self-reliance really worth the downsides'? Given the totality of the situation, it is not unreasonable for the answer to be "no"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It may have been only half the man-hours, and maybe half the resources etc to build a Sherman (This is assuming that the tank actually was as good as a Sherman, I'm not sure that's the case) but even half-a-sherman's worth of labor and assets is a half-Sherman's worth that the Australians were not able to devote to other activities. I don't think you'll find many people saying that there wasn't a bit of a strain on Austalia's resources in the 1943 period.

 

 

A most persuasive and very common argument, and not one that seems to be held in Australia at the time. But setting that aside, what should all this saved manpower be spent on?

 

 

Further, there seemed to be little risk of the Americans bailing on the promise to deliver. It wasn't that the Australians cancelled AC on the basis of as-yet-to-be-proven promises that the US would deliver tanks. They had delivered over 750 mediums by the end of 1942, as well as a couple hundred M3 lights which, by that stage, was a pretty good track record. Even if the ACs went into full production, was it expected that they could create anywhere near that number of vehicles? External sources were going to be required regardless.

 

It is probably difficult to separate the actual deployment of vehicles from the general background. Yes, M3 Mediums were not deployed, given that the initial attempt to deploy the things to New Guinea was foundered due to lack of 30-ton-capable shipping. Then there was the desire to equip three armoured divisions for what I presume to be the intended roles as viewed in North Africa against the European axis with the M3s used as cruisers, just what Sentinel was designed to do. The Matildas would not have been suitable for those, and thus were available for the, oddly, infantry support role against the Japanese. Then they decided to disband armored divisions, leaving the Aussies with quite a few cruisers just sitting around in storage, why should Australia add to this cruiser inventory with a domestic tank?

 

 

Before Coral Sea and Midway supply of tanks to Australia might not have been up to the US, and Australia never got any M4s*.

 

Yes 750 M3 medium tanks, a obsolete type the US did not use itself in the Pacific. Quite a few were reportedly delivered in an incomplete state that had the appearance of being cleared off the production line, not finished. A type for which the Australian Army had a list of 19 (I think) deficiencies that needed to be corrected before it was regarded as combat ready. The Matildas that were used are probably more indicative of the actual quantity of tanks required, numbered 400ish, once again an obsolete type many of which were cannibalised to keep others running, 33 tanks were bought from New Zealand for parts. So actual requirements are lower still, how much I have no idea, but we aren't talking about massed armour battles here. With the Victorian production line going the 200 AC3s planned would take somewhere around 6 months to build.

 

Why should Australia add it own domestic tanks to inventory? I thought that was obvious: 25 pounder, 360 degree traverse. Greater weight of fire than the Matilda or M4, greater traverse than the M3, all the parts you can fill your boots with.

 

 

 

While not discounting the advantages of having a home-grown capability and level of self reliance, the bottom line is still going to be someone asking the question 'is this self-reliance really worth the downsides'? Given the totality of the situation, it is not unreasonable for the answer to be "no"

 

 

In 10 years Australia was caught twice without an acceptable type or quantity of tanks limiting its ability to act it its own nation interest. In the intervening time it built the capability to make tanks of its own which was disassembled at the behest of the United States of America.

 

Given the reality of the situation, I think "no" is an entirely unreasonable answer.

 

*Yes, I know except for those three. Think spirit not letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

A most persuasive and very common argument, and not one that seems to be held in Australia at the time. But setting that aside, what should all this saved manpower be spent on?

 

Would that not be a question for the Directorate of Manpower? If the situation is dire enough that the government has to set up a department with the authority to forcibly re-assign civilians in employment and even conduct raids to make sure that the workforce is being most efficiently utilised, I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that there was a concern over manpower. Given that Chullora produced things other than tanks (Such as Beaufighters), and NSW Railways manpower was being used to produce anything else from radar antennae through ammunition, in addition to their normal job of maintaining an abnormally used railway network, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think that there were other things that the folks in question could be doing.

 

 

 

Before Coral Sea and Midway supply of tanks to Australia might not have been up to the US, and Australia never got any M4s*.

 

Did Australia ask for any? I don't disagree with your point about supply prior to those battles, but the decision to can the ACs wasn't taken prior to them. The US had a demonstrated a capability and willingness to supply hundreds of cruisers and light tanks by the time the decision to cease was taken. Note, I have never said that starting the AC program was a bad idea. We agree that it made sense at the time. But where we differ is solely over the question of if cancelling it was a bad idea, after the situation had changed from what it had been over two years prior.

 

 

 

Yes 750 M3 medium tanks, a obsolete type the US did not use itself in the Pacific

 

Yet one which the British, who I would assume the Australians would ordinarily feel a greater affinity for, did use in the Pacific, through to mid 1944 (Officially) and 1945 (unofficially)

 

 

 

 

The Matildas that were used are probably more indicative of the actual quantity of tanks required, numbered 400ish, once again an obsolete type many of which were cannibalised to keep others running, 33 tanks were bought from New Zealand for parts. So actual requirements are lower still, how much I have no idea, but we aren't talking about massed armour battles here. With the Victorian production line going the 200 AC3s planned would take somewhere around 6 months to build.

 

Figures we know now with the benefit of hindsight, but the list of requirements that the Australian government was getting from the Army had numbers as high as 2,000 tanks at times. That we knew in 1945 that the figure of 400 was about right, or in 1950 that Centurions would be detoured cannot be really taken into account when evaluating a decision made in 1943 on the basis of the information available to them at the time. Further, given that even though the Australians were left hanging in 1950, I will note that it doesn't seem to have been an impetus to start local tank production, and the on-time delivery of Churchill, Leopard, and Abrams also indicates the norm. Real-world does have a vote, sure. The Kuwaitis would note that they had ordered replacement of their Chieftains, but the M84s took time to build. There's always going to be some 'gap' of time where things go wrong. The trick is to have a capability in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

A most persuasive and very common argument, and not one that seems to be held in Australia at the time. But setting that aside, what should all this saved manpower be spent on?

 

Would that not be a question for the Directorate of Manpower? If the situation is dire enough that the government has to set up a department with the authority to forcibly re-assign civilians in employment and even conduct raids to make sure that the workforce is being most efficiently utilised, I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that there was a concern over manpower. Given that Chullora produced things other than tanks (Such as Beaufighters), and NSW Railways manpower was being used to produce anything else from radar antennae through ammunition, in addition to their normal job of maintaining an abnormally used railway network, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to think that there were other things that the folks in question could be doing.

 

 

 

Before Coral Sea and Midway supply of tanks to Australia might not have been up to the US, and Australia never got any M4s*.

 

Did Australia ask for any? I don't disagree with your point about supply prior to those battles, but the decision to can the ACs wasn't taken prior to them. The US had a demonstrated a capability and willingness to supply hundreds of cruisers and light tanks by the time the decision to cease was taken. Note, I have never said that starting the AC program was a bad idea. We agree that it made sense at the time. But where we differ is solely over the question of if cancelling it was a bad idea, after the situation had changed from what it had been over two years prior.

 

 

 

 

Yes 750 M3 medium tanks, a obsolete type the US did not use itself in the Pacific

 

Yet one which the British, who I would assume the Australians would ordinarily feel a greater affinity for, did use in the Pacific, through to mid 1944 (Officially) and 1945 (unofficially)

 

 

 

 

The Matildas that were used are probably more indicative of the actual quantity of tanks required, numbered 400ish, once again an obsolete type many of which were cannibalised to keep others running, 33 tanks were bought from New Zealand for parts. So actual requirements are lower still, how much I have no idea, but we aren't talking about massed armour battles here. With the Victorian production line going the 200 AC3s planned would take somewhere around 6 months to build.

 

Figures we know now with the benefit of hindsight, but the list of requirements that the Australian government was getting from the Army had numbers as high as 2,000 tanks at times. That we knew in 1945 that the figure of 400 was about right, or in 1950 that Centurions would be detoured cannot be really taken into account when evaluating a decision made in 1943 on the basis of the information available to them at the time. Further, given that even though the Australians were left hanging in 1950, I will note that it doesn't seem to have been an impetus to start local tank production, and the on-time delivery of Churchill, Leopard, and Abrams also indicates the norm. Real-world does have a vote, sure. The Kuwaitis would note that they had ordered replacement of their Chieftains, but the M84s took time to build. There's always going to be some 'gap' of time where things go wrong. The trick is to have a capability in the meantime.

 

 

It is indeed not too much of a stretch to think that there were other things that the folks in question could be doing, and that's the problem with that argument. What things? And there is never an exact answer. You took a position, I wanted to know if you could defend it. Happily most of these ideas were raised at the time and the answers are almost all "this is not a problem", "this is not the case", the railways weren't inconvenienced by tank production for example as it was only NSWGR that was involved, and this is hardly surprising as Chullora was just the assembly point for the tanks the components were built elsewhere. Employed about 300 people from memory out of about 2500 on the project.

 

There were presumably discussions relating to the acquisition of M4 type tanks, they were budgeted at about 11 million pounds for 310. The preferred type was an up-armoured version that was no longer in production, the Jumbo presumably. I have a recollection of it being mentioned that they would have to come out of the British allocation, suggesting that there weren't enough to go around. I don't know if an order was formally submitted or not, it's entirely possible is wasn't. My point was the AC3 had characteristics superior to any other tank Australia possessed at the time.

 

Lend Lease didn't give a rats about Australia's ability to interoperate with the British forces in the area, only American.

 

That 2000 figure has always struck me as suspiciously round, and in any case by the time they were butchering steel the figure was only 775. The infantry support requirements at this time were also quite low, as demonstrated by the Matilda numbers, and do seem to have been within Australia's capability. I don't know about the Churchill delivery schedule, but the Leopard and the Abrams were peacetime acquisitions and not really comparable. I only brought up the Centurion as you see the same thing happening yet again where wartime requirements prevent supply, this wouldn't happen with domestic production, not that I expected it to result in an Australian MBT programme. Once bitten twice shy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...