Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks

[tomo pauk]

...
There are a few things that I think should be clarified on this thread:

1.) "Ready for El Alamein" is not even possible, (unless the British have a crystal ball)
The British have no idea that when or where battle will occur in the future (El Alamein), so can't prepare tanks for this purpose. (And Tomo hasn't specified WHICH battle of El Alamein, 1st or 2nd?)
A better wording would be "Best British tank in production by the summer of 1942". British tanks will need to be produced by June of 1942, to allow time to ship them to Egypt (July August), then at least a month for training desert modifications (September) which would be ready for operations in the late Autumn (October/November).

The "Best British tank in production by the summer of 1942" would be indeed a better wording. The "Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks" wording, however, rings much better. And yes, indeed, that should be 'Monty's Alamein' ie. the second battle.

2.) It seems that there has been a tendancy here to assume that a new tank design can be slapped together in a few months, when in reality issues such as cooling problems, delays in gun production etc often caused unforseen delays in tank production. Typical tank development from proposal, through design, to production was about 2 years, although the Cavalier was shortened to about 18 months by developing the design from an existing tank, the Crusader. (But the end product was rejected)

Well put.

3.) Personally, I don't see how an "Ideal British tank" and "In production before summer 1942" is even possible, given only what was known at the time.
They could develop the "ideal tank" or have a tank ready for summer 1942 production - but not both!

It was known well before 1942 that heavy armor can shrug off AP shots, that some suspension types are better for higher speeds rough terrain than others, that bigger gun can defeat armor more easily, or at greater distances etc. British know that Matilda's 2 pdr cannot pierce the other Matilda (nor that towed 2pdr can), they also know that tanks under 15-18 tons are likely to be put out of action by German 3,7 or British 2pdr, while the 20+ ton tanks would defeat that threat. They can realistically assume that Germans would introduce better tanks and AT guns as they possibly can. They know that neither solid shot, nor MG is useful thing to overcome any decent field fortification, nor a well placed AT gun.

4.)The thread starting in the second half of 1940 pre-supposes that the British could have or should have done something differently, so I'd really like someone to point out what was the bit of information that was ignored?

All posted just above?

Just to review, in the summer of 1940, (and taking into account the events of the Battle of France), Vauxhall are about to start production of the Churchill, and Nuffield will start production of the Crusader in early 1941.
The Tank board discusses follow on tank production, and decides that to expidite development, the new tank should be based on an existing design, so they ask for proposals from both Nuffield Vauxhall for a new cruiser.
It should be capable of at least 25 mph, have better armour, and use the 6 pdr gun. (Despite the 2 pdr performing well in France against German tanks)

Their request sounds so right - there are other targets in the battlefield, not just tanks (= 2pdr is seen as useless vs. those), they were expecting that Germans would move on with their tanks AT guns, they were demanding the maneuverability so the future tanks could be able to envelope and cut off the enemy.

So my questions: What other specifications were missed? What other lessons were ignored?

The British did not fielded a tank, filling the Tank Board specification ("capable of at least 25 mph, have better armour, and use the 6 pdr gun"), until D-day, ie. in mid 1944, with Cromwell. They were 1.5-2 years too late, and the Germans have, by that time, moved up the bar. They ignored the lesson about weapon system being good only if the timing is good.

In the beginning of 1941 (when it was decided to go forward with the Nuffield proposal) the British didn't know that any American tanks at all would be available, that Lend-Lease would be enacted, or that the resulting tanks (Grant/Sherman) would even be acceptable.
They didn't know that the Crusader would be inadequate against the Pz II or Pz III, as the only battles in the desert so far, the Matildas Cruiser Mk III Mk IV had performed admirably against Italian forces in Compass.
They also didn't know that the upgraded Crusader project (ie Cavalier) would turn out to be a dissapointment.

They do know that main enemy is Germany, not Italy. They also know what the main enemy is capable for. Tailoring the next-gen tanks by the performance of the current-gen tanks vs. Italian forces would've been as short-sighted as possible.

The crux of it is this, if they had a crystal ball and could have known all these things, maybe they could have taken the slower route and developed a whole new design, but at the time, given the urgency of the situation, the Nuffield proposal was the best option for a tank that could be put into production quickly, with reduced time expected for design changes, production problems training.

There was no crystal ball when Supermarine was designing the Spitfire, yet that one turn out pretty well. There was not also the crystal ball when the Matilda II was designed; turned out pretty well, too.
By Nuffield proposal, you mean Crusader?

 

[vinnye]

I think one major design influence that was missed was the T34.

 

[yulzari]

3.) Personally, I don't see how an "Ideal British tank" and "In production before summer 1942" is even possible, given only what was known at the time.
They could develop the "ideal tank" or have a tank ready for summer 1942 production - but not both!

4.)The thread starting in the second half of 1940 pre-supposes that the British could have or should have done something differently, so I'd really like someone to point out what was the bit of information that was ignored?


Just to review, in the summer of 1940, (and taking into account the events of the Battle of France), Vauxhall are about to start production of the Churchill, and Nuffield will start production of the Crusader in early 1941.
The Tank board discusses follow on tank production, and decides that to expidite development, the new tank should be based on an existing design, so they ask for proposals from both Nuffield Vauxhall for a new cruiser.
It should be capable of at least 25 mph, have better armour, and use the 6 pdr gun. (Despite the 2 pdr performing well in France against German tanks)

I could add that they asked Vickers for a high velocity 75mm to follow on from the 6 pounder but that never fitted the turrets being designed.

The whole essence of my championing the Valentine is simply that the thing worked. Yes a new design could be better but this one actually existed in production and could do the job adequately if not well. Do not let the best drive out the good. I have previously mentioned a Soviet tank commander who still preferred it to the T34 in 1945.

Making it the sole production tank allows far greater numbers of useable tanks to be made available in the period up to 1943 and lets a truly new design be properly designed and tested and be put into quantity production before the end of 1943. Make your own choice of what that replacement design might be. I would go for a quasi Comet with the Vickers HV 75mm and a sloped glacis plate. This is the tank that would serve 1944/5.

As mentioned, nobody knew large quantities of US tanks would be available so that could not form part of the planning. The UK bankrupted itself buying arms from the USA by early 1941.

 

[vinnye]

I agree with Yulzari, the Valentine may not have been the best tank in the world at the time (1941/2) but it worked - it was reliable, quite well armoured and available. Yes it would have been even better if it had been designed from the get go as a 3 man 6pdr turret version, but look at what other tanks were in service, the Matilda II = an Infantry tank, slow, well armoured, hard and expensive to produce. The Churchill was not that reliable when first produced but was a decent tank by British standards at the time. The Crusader - very pretty, but horribly unreliable at first. So, my vote is the Valentine.

 

[Shortround6]

The main attributes of the Valentine were that it was cheap ( a reoccurring theme in British armament in the 30s and early 40s) and it was more reliable than other British tanks.

If you try to design a "3 man 6pdr turret version" with a PROPER turret and not a sardine can that will allow a gun and 3 men who are very friendly with each other, you need a bigger turret ring and fighting compartment, which means either a bigger hull or one that overhangs the tracks, in either case a large volume under armor which means, if you keep the same protection, a heavier tank. With the same engine mobility goes down. Reliability may go down, cost goes up.

Please note that the first Valentine with a 6pdr lost not only a crewman, but the co-axial MG which effectively turned it into a SP AT gun and not a tank.

 

[Freebird]

I am very aware that the Russians wouldn't give us the T34 but it was an allied tank that would have been very pretty much ideal. Don't quite understand your comments on the Sherman, as they did fight at El Alamein.

Indeed, it did, but it wasn't supposed to. It was only after the debacle at Gazala that FDR gave us the Shermans that were intended for the US army.
The British need to be planning to use something else, as the Sherman wouldn't be available to the UK until the end of 1942 (barring a total disaster)

The problem the UK had was the lack of a decent engine. The US had a similar problem, used their initiative and used small aero engines, the UK didn't. They had a prototype engine ready in early 1942 which was too late.

The US was also in a vastly better position, they didn't really need a front-line tank until the end of 1942, wheras the British do not have the luxury of a normal development time

The assult gun version of the Crusader I hadn't heard of before but despite all the evidence they didn't take up what was obviously a very good idea.

The only way that this really works is if the British had asked Canada to provide quantities of RAM tanks in 1942, thus allowing some extra Crusader production to be completed as assalt guns. Otherwise the British still are producing large quantities of Crusaders into 1943

I could add that they asked Vickers for a high velocity 75mm to follow on from the 6 pounder but that never fitted the turrets being designed.

The whole essence of my championing the Valentine is simply that the thing worked. Yes a new design could be better but this one actually existed in production and could do the job adequately if not well. Do not let the best drive out the good. I have previously mentioned a Soviet tank commander who still preferred it to the T34 in 1945.

Making it the sole production tank allows far greater numbers of useable tanks to be made available in the period up to 1943 and lets a truly new design be properly designed and tested and be put into quantity production before the end of 1943. Make your own choice of what that replacement design might be.

Well no, it doesn't really help anything to do that, nor can you produce a greater number of tanks. There were already large numbers of Valentines produced, and as Shortround mentioned, it's a flawed tank with the 6 pdr stuffed in.
The Nuffield lines are already geared up to produce the Crusader, so to have the lines shut down for months while they re-tool to produce a dead-end design like the Valentine is pointless, nor do I see why the Nuffield lines would produce any more Valentines than Crusaders. The Crusader serves well enough in 1941, and the British are expecting it to be superceded in early 1942 by the Cavalier.

So you are committing to having only Valentines at El Alamein, where it is hopelessly outclassed by the Germans?

The main attributes of the Valentine were that it was cheap ( a reoccurring theme in British armament in the 30s and early 40s) and it was more reliable than other British tanks.

If you try to design a "3 man 6pdr turret version" with a PROPER turret and not a sardine can that will allow a gun and 3 men who are very friendly with each other, you need a bigger turret ring and fighting compartment, which means either a bigger hull or one that overhangs the tracks, in either case a large volume under armor which means, if you keep the same protection, a heavier tank. With the same engine mobility goes down. Reliability may go down, cost goes up.

Please note that the first Valentine with a 6pdr lost not only a crewman, but the co-axial MG which effectively turned it into a SP AT gun and not a tank.

 

[Freebird]

It was known well before 1942 that heavy armor can shrug off AP shots, that some suspension types are better for higher speeds rough terrain than others, that bigger gun can defeat armor more easily, or at greater distances etc. British know that Matilda's 2 pdr cannot pierce the other Matilda (nor that towed 2pdr can), they also know that tanks under 15-18 tons are likely to be put out of action by German 3,7 or British 2pdr, while the 20+ ton tanks would defeat that threat. They can realistically assume that Germans would introduce better tanks and AT guns as they possibly can. They know that neither solid shot, nor MG is useful thing to overcome any decent field fortification, nor a well placed AT gun.

Indeed, and the Cavalier project was designed to deal with all of those factors.

The British did not fielded a tank, filling the Tank Board specification ("capable of at least 25 mph, have better armour, and use the 6 pdr gun"), until D-day, ie. in mid 1944, with Cromwell. They were 1.5-2 years too late, and the Germans have, by that time, moved up the bar. They ignored the lesson about weapon system being good only if the timing is good.

Actually no.
The Cavalier filled all of those specifications ("capable of at least 25 mph, have better armour, and use the 6 pdr gun") by the spring of 1942, however the problems with cooling systems meant that it wasn't sent to the desert, but several hundred were built anyways and used for training and equipping UK based divisions. The Cromwell also fulfilled those specifications ("capable of at least 25 mph, have better armour, and use the 6 pdr gun"), , and production began in November 1942, although delays in producing the Meteor meant that it wasn't ready until Jan 1943.

So by taking the quicker course of design (Nuffield's) it could be enter production in early 1942, although running the risk of not being fit for hot climates (as turned out to be the case)
The slower course of development (Aero engine) made for a much better tank, but delayed availability until 1943.

They do know that main enemy is Germany, not Italy. They also know what the main enemy is capable for. Tailoring the next-gen tanks by the performance of the current-gen tanks vs. Italian forces would've been as short-sighted as possible.

Yes, and the 2 pdr was more than capable of dealing with any existing German tank, yet they forsaw development of heavier tanks, and specified the 6 pdr for the Cavalier/Cromwell project for early to mid 1942, and expected the HV 75mm to be ready for the next tank design to come out a year or so after the Cavalier/Cromwell.

There was no crystal ball when Supermarine was designing the Spitfire, yet that one turn out pretty well. There was not also the crystal ball when the Matilda II was designed; turned out pretty well, too.

What if the Spitfire had been a total failure, did they have a better design ready to go? (They didn't)
What I mean is that they didn't know that they would need an alternate design to the Nuffield Cavalier until it failed its tests in early 1942, and then they scrambled to find some other option

By Nuffield proposal, you mean Crusader?

No, the follow on development, which became the Cavalier

 

[yulzari]

The main attributes of the Valentine were that it was cheap ( a reoccurring theme in British armament in the 30s and early 40s) and it was more reliable than other British tanks.

If you try to design a "3 man 6pdr turret version" with a PROPER turret and not a sardine can that will allow a gun and 3 men who are very friendly with each other, you need a bigger turret ring and fighting compartment, which means either a bigger hull or one that overhangs the tracks, in either case a large volume under armor which means, if you keep the same protection, a heavier tank. With the same engine mobility goes down. Reliability may go down, cost goes up.

Please note that the first Valentine with a 6pdr lost not only a crewman, but the co-axial MG which effectively turned it into a SP AT gun and not a tank.

Shortround6, I think we have been over this ground already so must agree to disagree. I will only say that the Valentine was designed around the 2 pounder 3 man turret because that was all that there was when it was designed pre war. If you design a 3 man 6 pounder Valentine you are making a new tank and the whole raison d'etre of my championing of the Valentine as the sole 1939/43 tank is that it is an existing design. The 3 man AP/HE 75mm turreted tank is the successor tank. A 3 man turret is certainly better not only for combat but also to allow an extra man to help maintain the vehicle, stand guard etc. However having many 2 man turreted 6 pounder/75mm ROF Valentines is better than not yet getting a new reliable 3 man turreted tank. Later 6 pounder Valentines show the co ax mg need not have been deleted.

Cheap meant easy production with less resources. Cheap is often bad but that is not necessarily the case.

Incidentally I have had it suggested that replacing the Valentine late 1943 onwards would leave many chassis for other uses and the Pzkw 38T was quoted as a similar situation. However tanks in combat use quickly wear out and become a maintenance problem. There would certainly be enough to make many Archers but the Hetzer relied on continuing new production Pzkw 38T type chassis not rebuilding old ones. The Valentine would be out of production by late 1943.

 

[Milosh]

Why wouldn't the Soviets give the T-34 to the British when they did offer it to the the Americans?

 

[Shortround6]

I will only say that the Valentine was designed around the 2 pounder 3 man turret because that was all that there was when it was designed pre war.

No, it was designed around the 2 pounder 2 man turret. The 3 man turret came later. British cruisers had 3 man turrets as did the Matilda II. SO they knew the Valentine was substandard in that area when they ordered it.

Later 6 pounder Valentines show the co ax mg need not have been deleted.

And that brings you back to the small size of the Valentine yet again. Once they got the machine gun into the co-axial mount they lost 9 rounds of 6pdr ammo in order to store 1575 rounds of MG ammo (7 belts/boxes) 44 rounds of main gun ammo.
the Crusader with 6pdr carried 73 rounds of main gun ammo and 4950 rounds of MG ammo.

How many MORE Valentines do you need for the same combat effect before they have to pull out of combat to reload?

Cheap meant easy production with less resources. Cheap is often bad but that is not necessarily the case..

A large part of a tanks cost is the armor, a 17 ton tank is going to be a lot cheaper than a 26.5 ton tank. Of course you have to figure in what the 17 ton is leaving out, like combat ability.

Unfortunately for the British they went TOO cheap on a number of weapons. Cheap 3in mortars meant short range for the first part of the war, cheap 2pdr shot meant a less effect gun than better shot, cheap light tanks (over 900 built) meant not enough cruisers or infantry tanks, cheap 25pdr shells meant a less effective artillery. A lot of this cheapness was paid for in blood.

 

[Glider]

First of all thanks for the comments, most of which I agree with, however there are a couple of differences

The US was also in a vastly better position, they didn't really need a front-line tank until the end of 1942, wheras the British do not have the luxury of a normal development time

True but the point I was trying to make was that both the US and the UK didn't have a suitable engine. The British went away, designed a new engine (in a rush) and ended up with delays to the engines, resulting in delayed new tanks and a lot of lost lives. The USA basically said, what engines have we got, identified some small aircraft engines, designed the tank around that, resulting in Shermans being available for the battle.

The only way that this really works is if the British had asked Canada to provide quantities of RAM tanks in 1942, thus allowing some extra Crusader production to be completed as assalt guns. Otherwise the British still are producing large quantities of Crusaders into 1943

Asking Canada for RAMs would be a good start but converting a proportion of the Crusader production to the assult gun version would have been cheap, have limited impact on production and given the 'normal' Crusaders the support of an effective gun tank.

 

[tomo pauk]

Indeed, and the Cavalier project was designed to deal with all of those factors.
...
The Cavalier filled all of those specifications ("capable of at least 25 mph, have better armour, and use the 6 pdr gun") by the springof 1942, however the problems with cooling systems meant that it wasn't sent to the desert, but several hundred were built anyways and used for training and equipping UK based divisions.

Since the tank was not combat worthy for the main battlefield the British were fighting, some two years already, we might assume that Cavalier did not filled the specifications.

The Cromwell also fulfilled those specifications ("capable of at least 25 mph, have better armour, and use the 6 pdr gun"), , and production began in November 1942, although delays in producing the Meteor meant that it wasn't ready until Jan 1943.

Talking about the production of a tank before it has the engine to run would be somewhat misleading? The 1st Cromwells should've been available to the units when, summer of 1943? It debuted in combat in 1944 (we should not 'blame' the tank design for that, realities of the war were such). So even if we take 1943 as a year the specification from 1940 was filled, that would mean a design one year too late - the Germans have upped the bar maybe 3 times, counting from Battle of France.

So by taking the quicker course of design (Nuffield's) it could be enter production in early 1942, although running the risk of not being fit for hot climates (as turned out to be the case)
The slower course of development (Aero engine) made for a much better tank, but delayed availability until 1943.

Whenever name 'Nuffield' and/or 'Liberty tank engine' is mentioned, one can bes sure that he is soon about to read the words 'problems', 'issues', 'not fit for Africa' etc. In a more positive way, would the Bedford engine (from Churchill) provide good reliable service in a cruiser tank?

Yes, and the 2 pdr was more than capable of dealing with any existing German tank, yet they forsaw development of heavier tanks, and specified the 6 pdr for the Cavalier/Cromwell project for early to mid 1942, and expected the HV 75mm to be ready for the next tank design to come out a year or so after the Cavalier/Cromwell.

Okay.

What if the Spitfire had been a total failure, did they have a better design ready to go? (They didn't)
What I mean is that they didn't know that they would need an alternate design to the Nuffield Cavalier until it failed its tests in early 1942, and then they scrambled to find some other option

Maybe they shoudl've specified that 1st thing expected from the tank is to be reliable in certain temperature envelope? Maybe the good thing would've been to have more than one aero engine (ie. the tank derivation of it) to choose from, rather than only the derivation of the Liberty? Maybe it was not a good thing to have a producer of one engine that would try to nix any other engine to be installed in 'his' tank? Expecting from an engine, that developed issues in a tank weighting only 2/3rds as a future tank, to perform well in combat areas in 3/3rds heavy tank also seem like a good sales pitch, not like a result of good planing.

 

[Freebird]

Why wouldn't the Soviets give the T-34 to the British when they did offer it to the the Americans?

The point is that they didn't offer it to the British before they entered the war, nor for some time afterwards. Had they even given a T-34 blueprints to Britiain as soon as the Nazis attacked them, it still wouldn't give enough time to reverse engineer a tank to fight in the desert. (Normandy - maybe)

First of all thanks for the comments, most of which I agree with, however there are a couple of differences
True but the point I was trying to make was that both the US and the UK didn't have a suitable engine. The British went away, designed a new engine (in a rush) and ended up with delays to the engines, resulting in delayed new tanks and a lot of lost lives. The USA basically said, what engines have we got, identified some small aircraft engines, designed the tank around that, resulting in Shermans being available for the battle.

Asking Canada for RAMs would be a good start but converting a proportion of the Crusader production to the assult gun version would have been cheap, have limited impact on production and given the 'normal' Crusaders the support of an effective gun tank.

I would agree with that.
The unfortunate fact is that the British spent most of the war designing in a rush and ordering things "off the drawing board"

 

[razor1uk]

Britain has generally been better at desiging stuff/prototypes then 'fettling' it to spec than we have been at mass producing lots of stuff to spec..
Thats not to say what we do design is always great or the worst either, we still try and do what we can when were able..

 

[Glider]

The bit that always frustrates me is that the UK had the designers. When they were given a free hand they could produce remarkable equipment, often the specs were too conservative and limited their scope.

Tank design went from the Comet and Churchill both of which had serious limitations to the Centurion a classic tank design if ever there was one. In Naval aircraft they went from the Firefly/Seafire to the Sea Fury

 

[Freebird]

Since the tank was not combat worthy for the main battlefield the British were fighting, some two years already, we might assume that Cavalier did not filled the specifications.

Well..... Maybe not.

In early 1942 the US made the Grant tank available, these were sent to the desert, and Shermans arrived in time for El alamein. However if there had been no alternative, they might have had to send the Cavaliers anyways and deal with the consequences. (who knows?)

And the British were not considering Africa as the primary combat theater, as the UK and Europe (Greece etc) were more important.
The fact that the British still placed an order for 500 Cavalier tanks means that the tank was still "combat worthy", just not ideal for North Africa.

Whenever name 'Nuffield' and/or 'Liberty tank engine' is mentioned, one can bes sure that he is soon about to read the words 'problems', 'issues', 'not fit for Africa' etc.

The Nuffield Liberty was used in the Crusader, and it performed well enough on trials in early 1941 (in the UK). The engine certainly had problems in it's first year in North Africa, but this was mainly the result of poor preparation during transport, lack of parts and lack of tank transports. The reliability of the Crusader from mid 1942 was much improved, still with the Liberty engine.

Having Churchill meddle with the tank procurment policies also caused problems in the North Africa.

Maybe they shoudl've specified that 1st thing expected from the tank is to be reliable in certain temperature envelope? Maybe the good thing would've been to have more than one aero engine (ie. the tank derivation of it) to choose from, rather than only the derivation of the Liberty? Maybe it was not a good thing to have a producer of one engine that would try to nix any other engine to be installed in 'his' tank? Expecting from an engine, that developed issues in a tank weighting only 2/3rds as a future tank, to perform well in combat areas in 3/3rds heavy tank also seem like a good sales pitch, not like a result of good planing.

OK, the Aero engine was not derived from the Liberty. And the tank manufacturers could not "nix" other proposals.
And remember at the time that we are discussing (Autumn 1940 - Spring 1941) the British are not fighting the Germans in Africa, there is no urgent need for new tanks, as the Italians have just had a crushing defeat at the hands of the British, and the Matilda II outclasses the Axis (ie Italian) tanks. They have a new design (Crusader) ready to enter production, and expect the next generation (Cromwell/Cavalier) in about 18 months, or about the same time as the Germans would be expected to introduce a new tank.

 

[stug3]

A Crusader Mk.I passes a burning German Panzer IV.

 

[tomo pauk]

Well..... Maybe not.

In early 1942 the US made the Grant tank available, these were sent to the desert, and Shermans arrived in time for El alamein. However if there had been no alternative, they might have had to send the Cavaliers anyways and deal with the consequences. (who knows?)

Without US tanks, UK can send less tanks to the Soviets, and more to Africa. Canada can also provide Valentines and, possibly, Rams there.
Cavalier was found to be unfit for UK already, so the chances for it to be sent there are close to zero IMO. From Wikipedia (looking forward for better data, of course):
The schedule had already slipped due to work on other projects and work to fit the 6 pounder to the Crusader tank and the first tank [Cavailer] began trials in March 1942. The tank was judged unsatisfactory; the Nuffield order was reduced to 500 tanks and the BRC&W design was looked at again.

And the British were not considering Africa as the primary combat theater, as the UK and Europe (Greece etc) were more important.

By the time 1st Cavaliers rolled off the production line, there were was no ground fighting in W. Europe (bar partisan/anti-partisan activities); Greece was ancient history by then. British are pushed by Rommel-led Axis force towards Nile Suez - seems to me as a primary war theater for the UK, along with Burma.

The fact that the British still placed an order for 500 Cavalier tanks means that the tank was still "combat worthy", just not ideal for North Africa.

Lets not bend the truth - the order was reduced to 500 tanks. Again, it was already judged as not combat worthy for the UK, let alone for the NA.

The Nuffield Liberty was used in the Crusader, and it performed well enough on trials in early 1941 (in the UK). The engine certainly had problems in it's first year in North Africa, but this was mainly the result of poor preparation during transport, lack of parts and lack of tank transports. The reliability of the Crusader from mid 1942 was much improved, still with the Liberty engine.

Seems like all other UK US tanks performed without any major hiccups delays once scheduled went for Africa. As for the Liberty in Cavalier: someone thought that the 340 BHP engine in 20 to tank can make a good show when up-rated to 410 BHP, and installed in a 27 ton tank. Poor planing, or poor job? Or it was the 'our product can do it, other's cannot' thinking? British army falling to the Nuffield's sales pitch?

Having Churchill meddle with the tank procurment policies also caused problems in the North Africa.

Maybe the stuff for another thread?

OK, the Aero engine was not derived from the Liberty.

I was under impression that Nuffield Liberty shared the same genes with Liberty ww1 aircraft engine. Care to share so me info?

And the tank manufacturers could not "nix" other proposals.

Thought so. Were any other engines (so, except Liberty and Meteor) proposed for Cavalier/next-gen tank?

And remember at the time that we are discussing (Autumn 1940 - Spring 1941) the British are not fighting the Germans in Africa, there is no urgent need for new tanks, as the Italians have just had a crushing defeat at the hands of the British, and the Matilda II outclasses the Axis (ie Italian) tanks. They have a new design (Crusader) ready to enter production, and expect the next generation (Cromwell/Cavalier) in about 18 months, or about the same time as the Germans would be expected to introduce a new tank.

This thread covers the time between mid-1940 to mid/late-1942.

 

[tomo pauk]

Something for yulzari - Matilda with Soviet 76,2mm gun :

One might wonder how big a cannon would the Churchill wield with external mount...

 

[vinnye]

Wow, that Matilda looks awesome!
Good find, thanks for sharing.