Best possible tank for UK Commonwealth, 1940

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Brits started with a faulty concept on Tank roles....the so-called infantry Tanks and Cruiser tank concepts. What they needed was a blend of both.
Click to expand...

Yep - that's the reason I'm trying to propose a '1940 Cromwell', that historically was tank with no major flaws, but it was some 2 years too late. The gun issue is highlighted here, as well, a decent HE shell is a must for a tank.

All tanks of 1940 were having some real issues, from Matilda II (ill suited to attack non-tank targets, inability to take the advantage of the existing roads to encircle the enemy due to low road speed, low speed all together), Pz-III/IV (needed to operate as pair when faced with mixed defences, armor vulnerable to ATGs from 37mm up, sometimes even to 25mm) to BT-7 (thin armor, rare radios). Only the German tanks had 3 man turrets, enabling them to fight as real units.

The best tank in service in 1941 would be the KV-1
 
Pz-III (in 1940) was equipped with 37mm main gun, making the attack vs. well emplaced AT guns infantry not so efficient, while the short cannon of the Pz-IV would have trouble to hit a moving target (tank). Soviets were issuing the 'artillery tanks' (BT-5A, BT-7A) for their units, despite the 45mm having far heavier HE shell than 37mm.
 
if i remember right the tactic of Heer for light guns tank v/s AT gun expectsed the use of AP(HE) ammo targeting the shield. Sure the 37mm HE shell has little explosive effect but only few tanks had better
 
The British actually had a rather good start with the A-13 Cruiser tank. They then dropped the ball with the Covenanter tank and then kicked the dropped ball into the thorn bushes with the Crusader.

The A 13 had the proper layout, 3 man turret with a cupola for the commander, driver in the hull without a space wasting bow gunner, rear drive.
Stretch it to Crusader size but keep the bow turret on the drawing board, change the engine to a Kestrel if possible ( throw the plans for the Meadows in nearest sewer) keep basic turret layout of the A 13 but go for biggest turret ring you can fit even if sponsons have to overhang the tracks. Give the Commander even better vision. Either use 40mm Bofors shells in the 2pdr from day one or go for a 47mm or 57mm gun right away.

A better turret shape and heavier armor along with a 47-57mm gun would keep up with the Germans until the long barreled MK IVs show up. With a new transmission and a Kestrel that could putout 450-500hp a 30-35 ton tank is certainly not out of the question still based of the same basic design (Comet?) just slope the front armor ( a lot easier if the bow gunner is left out)
 
Vincenzo said:
if i remember right the tactic of Heer for light guns tank v/s AT gun expectsed the use of AP(HE) ammo targeting the shield. Sure the 37mm HE shell has little explosive effect but only few tanks had better
Click to expand...

French tanks were on par or better (Somua 35, Char 1), Soviet 45mm HE was twice as heavy, British had nothing to compare. Sure enough, a gunner capable to hit the shield of 25-45 mm ATG was one hell of a shooter
 


I would prefer to express it as all tanks are compromise between three competing priorities....armament, armour/protection, and mobility. The building blocks are your gun, the hull size, and the engine. of the three, engine is the most important. Germans had an enormous heasd start in this regard and never lost it

The best tank in service in 1941 would be the KV-1
Click to expand...

In theory, yes, in practice no, too many relaiability issues and drive train issues to claim the title of best tank in 1941. Maybe 1942 after most of these problems had been solved, but not in 1941 IMO
 
I can see you logic. Since the Matilda had the engine of the least power vs. the competition, why would we rate the tanks as the best?

If you can point me to a source that can confirm that reliability issues were the real problem of the KV-1 in 1941, and not something caused by operating it by inexperienced crew (driver), that would be cool.
In 1941 we have T-34, and the M3 medium is also in production from July 1941. Germans have the Pz-III with 5cm in use.
 
Last edited:
I still have to plump for the Valentine. Proposed in 1938, using existing reliable parts, able to knock out any tank even with the 2pdr until well into 1941 and could have been introduced before 1940 with a 6pdr if the impetus was there. By 1944 power from 130bhp to 210bhp, thicker welded and cast armour and APDS shot to penetrate axis armour as well as HE to cope with anti tank guns and support infantry. From 13mph on the road to 20mph and track life from 500miles to 3,000miles. It would have been a doable one model tank army throughout the war. Yes if I had to go to war in 1939 I would prefer to be in a Centurion but that was not an option. Valentines could have been there in numbers when needed. No Sherman or Cromwell could cope with a long 75mm or 88mm hit either but the Valentine was a low tiny target. If the Matilda II could be fitted with a 3 man 6pdr turret (and it was done) then so could the Valentine. You can still do the 17pdr Archer and the 25 pdr Bishop, bridgelayers, flails and DD. The Sherman is a giant by comparison. Over 8,000 were made while other tanks were also produced. If production were pure Valentine we are looking at at least 3 times as many.
 

The KV used the same engine and transmission as the the T-34, good for spare parts, not so good for a heavy tank if it is causing problems in a lighter tank. See problems the Germans had trying to use the same engine in the tigers as in the Panthers. The Soviet transmission was also rather crude. Transmission often includes the steering gear in a tank. The Soviet transmission was a 4 speed (5 on later models) without synchromesh on any of the gears. it was so difficult to shift that a mallet was included in the drivers kit, early T-34s carried spare transmissions into battle on occasion cabled down on th engine deck which prevent full rotate of the turret. If transmissions were not lasting on a 30 ton tank their life in a 40 ton tank must certainly be suspect. It was not uncommon for KV tanks to be driven using only the lower gears ( with a non synchromesh transmission a missed shift is going to require bringing the vehicle to a halt and starting over again in first gear.) meaning that their proving ground top speed was rarely reached in operation.

Better training helps but the crude design, whihle simple to make, called for a higher degree of skill to operate.
 
I love Valentine, too. It was offering whatever the Matilda II was, but with far better power-to-weight ratio* and a tad smaller profile (it was later in the fray, too). With HE shell available from day one, it's would be a fine all-rounder tank prior 1942. The problem with having only the infantry tanks is that one still need Cruiser tanks for enveloping maneuver, exploitation etc.

Valentine did not featured sponsons (rigid hull parts overhanging the tracks), so my take is that a 3 man turret with decent gun would be hard pressed to fit there. We need sponsoons (or wider hull), bigger turret and a powerpack of greater power size (so we can ditch the need for Cruiser tanks). The tank is now maybe around 25 tons?

Sherman could be ill presented as a compact tank. It featured, like most of the German tanks, a 'distributed' powerpack layout: engine in one part of the tank, transmission on another, with shaft connecting those. All claiming plenty of internal volume (easy to confirm by looking at Stuart/Sherman/Lee/Grant/Pz-III/IV etc cross section drawings), far more than 'all back' layout of the British Soviet tanks. M4 also featured the tall radial engine. So the British tank I'm proposing would be far more compact than the M4.

*speed was not benefiting from this
 
The Valantine suspension worked fine at the speeds the Valintine operated at but it would have been found wanting at the higher speeds of a cruiser tank.

Please look up the Vickers Valiant tank (A-38) of WW II. Sometimes it is better to start fresh than adapt an existing design.
 
Yep, there is only so much gain to be achieved by a modification of an existing design. Valentine was not any faster than Matilda II, despite having 2-3 times better power-to-weight ratio. Here we need maybe Christie suspension, or Horstman type (beefed up for the weight, with 10-15% allowance for growth). Maybe some type of voulte suspension, if not the torsion bar kind already.
 
God, I was hoping no one would mention the Valiant. As far as high speed tanks for exploitation remember tanks without infantry and artillery are called targets. The speed you can exploit is that at which you can move combined services as a whole. Non gun Valentines were known to run at a reliable 20 mph but in combat the rough ground speed is what counts. Thus Churchills could approach Cromwell speed and Conquerors that of Centurions once they left the road. We know the Valentine suspension worked. We know the engines used worked. We know the 6 pounder worked. We know the gearbox worked (hard work for the driver though.) We know the armour protected from anything other than the best anti tank guns (and what could at the time?) Essentially we have a whole package that works. To quote the americanism 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Leave it to a 1944 replacement to improve on the design. With less time pressure on the designers a quasi Comet or Cenrurion could have been introduced in 1944. Incidentally, building good dedicated tank transported would remove the rail loading limits that set the maximum width (and therefore length) of British tanks.
 
Brits were about the only ones with fully motorised infantry artillery prior ww2. Being truck-borne, they could use the roads to the advantage. They needed tanks that would be fast at the road (while having decent performance off road) - Cruiser tanks. The Infantry tank is ill suited for such movements, and no matter how I love the 'I' tanks, that cannot be put aside. Or in other words, 'C' tanks had capabilities for off-road tasks, 'I' tanks didn't have the capabilities to exploit roads, to bolster their maneuver.
6 pdr worked, but that meant the turret crew goes down to 2, and we know that is not as efficient as 3 crew members. The 3 crew turret + 6 pdr is out of question for Valentine, since the hull is too narrow for that, and it has no sponsoons. Since the Valentine was compact, it could be well protected without becoming to heavy. All good, but if we want a 3 man turret + 6 pdr, it's a non starter.
Many things were 'not broken', that does not mean a better thing would not be a better chioce. All manualy-loaded rifles, infantry guns, 2 pdr 37mm ATG, biplane fighers - all worked. Yet people moved on better stuff as soon as it was produced.
The quasi Comet/Centurion was feasible for 1943/44, so it was the tank transporter, I agree with that. But for 1940, Brits have had many other options better than Matilda/Valentine/Cruiser A9/A-13. BTW, wouldn't the Matilda II with 3 man turret and 6 pdr be a better choice (it existed as a prototype)?
You can note that late war British tanks were happy recipients of the powerful engines (being 'C' types), while far less designs remained faithful to the 'I' concept.
 
Another thing that makes Valentine and Matilda less than perfect platforms for 6pdr was the amount of rounds carried. Valentine was carrying only 53 pcs of 6pdr ammo, barely 55-60% of what Pz-IIIJ/L/M had; if we try to shove in a 3rd turret crew member in, that cannon ammo count would be maybe half of that? It was also carrying half of the coax MG ammo vs. the 2 pdr variants.
The 6pdr round was requiring 3-4 times as much volume as the 2pdr shell, and Matilda II was carrying up to 90 pcs of 2pdr rounds.

So, Valentine was an very good blend of a small cannon it's small ammo, small engine transmission, tailored for small speed, only one crew member in hull - kind of a Nakajima Oscar between tanks (Oscar excelled in one field - maneuverability, Valentine in another - it was featuring armor of reasonable thickness)? The very time it started receiving upgrades, it's compactness was acting against those, mandating the trade-outs. Was it the 6 pdr, 25 pdr, or 17 pdr they tried it with.
 
Last edited:

With regard to the reliability, ive read it was the gearbox that was the major weakness. I understand that as originally designed it was a "crash box" in every sense. Whatever happened, reliability did improve, markedly. I believe a new gearboxwas designed and fitted from april 42, but will stand corrected
 
According to one story Vickers was invited to join in production of the Maltida II in late 1937, early 1938 but offered the option of designing their own tank to meet the same general specification. They were already making the A9 cruiser and A 10 Infantry/heavy cruiser. The Valentine used the same suspension, engine, transmission and steering gear in a smaller more heavily armored hull and turret. The engine was from a bus.
It was reliable, in part due to the low speed, and due to it being sort of a 2nd or 3rd version of a mechanical system that had been started in 1934.

Some of the later versions with the big guns were more self propelled guns rather than tanks. Some of the 6pdr versions had NO co-ax machine gun let alone one with half the ammo of the 2pdr versions. Vision for the commander was lousy at best when closed down.

Here is a picture of the 2pdr Valentine turret with 2 men. I don't think it needs much further description or imagination to figure out what it would be like with a 6pdr or 75mm even if enlarged a bit.



here is a picture of the first 3 infantry tanks that matter.



While it is a picture of model it does show a nice angle on the A13 cruiser.



I don't think there was anything that would have prevented a sloped upper hull front from being fitted. Stretch the hull slightly and cram the road wheels together to ft a 5th set like the Crusader. Sponson the hull a bit where the tool boxes are and try to get rid of the Liberty engine. It looks like a good start to me. The Covenanter was a step backward, too much space was sacrificed in the turret for the low silhouette and the loss of the cupola. Less said about the engine the better.
 
You simply know when what kind of pictures to pull out

What kind of armor protection for your proposal?
 
One thing I would argue. in tanks vs tank engagement, the 2pounder armed brit tanks were equal or superior to the equivalent early war Axis AFVs.

Where the Brit tanks fell down badly was in HE capability. This enabled many tanks to be knocked out by long range AT fire (both 50mm and 88mm) with relative ease.

Which makes me think that even if the brits had disrupted their production lines, and opted for a revised tank with saay a 6pdr gun, it would have made not a great deal of difference, except that fewer brit tanks would have been available. I have the strong suspicion that we would be lamenting the shortage of numbers in this alternative scenario, and how a few more tanks of simpler easier design might have made the difference. in other words, be careful what you wish for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
23K
Reluctant Poster
R
A
Rolls Royce Tank Engines
Replies
2
Views
656
Reluctant Poster
R
P
Which tank is this ?
Replies
2
Views
752
programa
P
C
looking for information on some servicemen.
Replies
0
Views
289
coffman
C
T
The Tank Museum Wins!
Replies
4
Views
1K
WATU
W
Menu
Log in
Register