Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks

[davebender]

A bit off topic but...
The Afrika Korps was starved of supplies most of the time. IMO the Battle of North Africa was mostly won by the RN.

 

[Shortround6]

The British really had to make do with regard to engines. It is an attractive proposal also because it uses a better foreign produced engine (the Wright R-975 Whirlwind ) that was powerful, reliable, and available in virtually unlimited numbers

It may have been powerful (only 50-150hp less than the kestrel), it was certainly compact (short), reliable was relative, hurried development of installation/s led to poor maintenance access (sound familiar?), less than the best cooling lead to high oil consumption and "virtually unlimited numbers" led to the Chrysler multi-bank engine, the GMC twin diesel and a smattering of Guiberson radial diesel engines in the M3 medium tanks in 1942.

The Kestrel may have been a typical Rolls-Royce product. Cost and man hours of production may have taken back seats. While the basic engine needed little development, the Kestrel X was rated at 635hp at 2900rpm and 560hp at 2375 rpm for take off, unsupercharged with a 7:1 compression ratio, it might have taken a bit of work to productionize it using more fully interchangeable parts than the usual R-R hand final fit.
Adjust the HP as you see fit but it was 78.5% the size of the Merlin and 33% bigger than the Whirlwind (and revved higher).
British treasury may have choked at the idea of using an expensive aircraft engine in a tank during peace time.

As far as quantity over quality goes, your "Quality" tank needs to really be quality. A big gun and thick armor are of little good if the engine and transmission lead to numerous breakdowns before battle is joined (or while retreating) while tank that is too cheap simply can't do the job and provides little more than live target practice for the enemy. Anybody want another 500-1000 MK VI light tanks in the dessert in 1942?
A happy medium must be found and unfortunately for the British troops the numbers people hung onto some of the tanks in production (and the 2pdr) a bit too long.
Don't get me wrong, I think the British A 13 tank was perhaps the best tank in France in 1940. But how much further had the British got by 1942?
Hoping the enemy doesn't progress much beyond the summer of 1940 by the summer of 1942 is being a little too hopeful.

 

[parsifal]

The difficulties for the DAK, and the italians were certainly made worse by the RN, however there were also extended periods in the campaign where the RN could do virtually nothing to impede the flow of reinforcements and supplies. Most of the time the axis forces were receiving ample supplies.....the difficulty was that was receiving these supplies a long way from the front, and there was a wastage getting those supplies to where they were needed. This is where the germans defeated themselves. they never gave logistics a high priority, and their organizational arrangements were commensurately poor as a result. And of course the interdiction efforts by the RAF ought not be under-estimated either

The German failure to appreciate the importance of malta as the base from which the interdiction camapign was occuring is also a major factor in their defeat. If the island had been captured early....say in April 1941, instead of invading the more difficult and less important crete, the outcome of the entire campaign may have been totally different.

 

[tomo pauk]

When we talk about quality, developing a 30 ton tank in 1940 (for use in late 1942) was hardly too expensive for 4 major combatants (tough luck for Germans passing on this).
USA was producing by then M3, switching to M4, Soviets have had the T-34, Brits were deploying 40-ton Churchill. Even the Matilda II, produced from 1939 on, was already at 25 tons.
The 30 ton tanks were produced in 100 000+ copies in WW2 - proof they were nothing fancy, but right choice for the era.

BTW, do we have the cost for (not only) Brittish tanks of WW2 online?

 

[parsifal]

It may have been powerful (only 50-150hp less than the kestrel), it was certainly compact (short), reliable was relative, hurried development of installation/s led to poor maintenance access (sound familiar?), less than the best cooling lead to high oil consumption and "virtually unlimited numbers" led to the Chrysler multi-bank engine, the GMC twin diesel and a smattering of Guiberson radial diesel engines in the M3 medium tanks in 1942.

err, you do know that the Ram used the M-3 chassis and hull, with a redesigned and flattedned turret and widened turret ring to accommodate the 6pdr gun. Whilst it had some amintenance issues, i think you are overstating the problems. All tanks have issues of one form or anaother. the Ram was no different, and as a generalization i would say its reliability and its maintainability were at least equal to most tanks of the period


The australian AC-1 to 4 tanks utilized 3 x V-8 chev truck motors that were pretty ingeniously coupled. though they were never used in combat, there was nothing wrong with this arrangement

The Kestrel may have been a typical Rolls-Royce product. Cost and man hours of production may have taken back seats. While the basic engine needed little development, the Kestrel X was rated at 635hp at 2900rpm and 560hp at 2375 rpm for take off, unsupercharged with a 7:1 compression ratio, it might have taken a bit of work to productionize it using more fully interchangeable parts than the usual R-R hand final fit.
Adjust the HP as you see fit but it was 78.5% the size of the Merlin and 33% bigger than the Whirlwind (and revved higher).
British treasury may have choked at the idea of using an expensive aircraft engine in a tank during peace time.

Kestrel sounds like a good possibility, though I suspect you are right about the cost


As far as quantity over quality goes, your "Quality" tank needs to really be quality. A big gun and thick armor are of little good if the engine and transmission lead to numerous breakdowns before battle is joined (or while retreating) while tank that is too cheap simply can't do the job and provides little more than live target practice for the enemy. Anybody want another 500-1000 MK VI light tanks in the dessert in 1942?

Mk VIs were on a par with german MkIs (except that the design was ten years older) and were responsible in large measure for the early victories. There was never even the slightest chance of them becoming the main operational type in 1942, as these had been overtaken by newer designs well before that time. slagging matches about the mk VI need to keep their design dates in perspective. they were designed in 1925-30, and were dirt cheap to build, easy to maintain and reliable. they were from the outset designated Light tanks, and fulfilled this task pretty well actually. Powered by 60hp Meadows engine, i am not aware of any significant reliability issues for this type. How do mk Vi tanks compare to the US contemporaries of the period...they dont, because there are no US tanks contemparaneous to the mkVI.

Over its life span the mk Vi underwent a modest process of gradual improvement, including improved hull shape , improved suspension , some with rolls royce engines. major redesign with the intention of increasing engine power and reliability (reverting yet again to the RR engine) improved armouring fully synchro gearbox and simplified production was undertaken by Vickers in 1933. at this time the crew was increased from two to three men, with a redesigned two man turret. At about this time engine power was increased to 88hp, and though top speed decreased, power to weight and cross country mobility was enhanced with this subtype. Importantly, from 1933 radios were fitted , and a superior radio fitted from 1937. Of the 1300 AFVs on strength in the RTC in 1939, over 1000 were the mk vI.

Why was the mk VI so numerous if they were such duds as everyone assumes. To quote grove "as far as the RTC was concerned, these light tanks were relaible, and were better than nothing" A ringing endorsement of the Quantity over quality argument if ever there was one. And pre-occupation with having numbers on the ground did pay some dividends, it at least gave the RTC the opportunity to train its crews that in turn gave them the ability to win their stunning victories against the italians in 1940-41.


your comments about reliability are overstating the issue. whilst the covenanter had problems, due mainly to a dodgy cooling system, there was nothing inherently wrong with british tank reliability, or with the engines they used. Once again we have this issue about numbers versus quality. there were breakdowns and failures, and these breakdowns and failures were more numerous than those expereinced by the germans, but such failures were not really decisive. what was decisive was that the numbers were on hand to defeat the germans. For the brits with their hurreied development and limited budgets, that meant cutting corners and accepting certain shortcomings in their tank development. I still think they made the right choices here. if they had deferred production until all the kinks were eliminated, or poured more resources into the product to make it better, they would have suffered a crisi in numbers, which was worse than having a somewhat dodgy engine..... ,

A happy medium must be found and unfortunately for the British troops the numbers people hung onto some of the tanks in production (and the 2pdr) a bit too long.
Don't get me wrong, I think the British A 13 tank was perhaps the best tank in France in 1940. But how much further had the British got by 1942?
Hoping the enemy doesn't progress much beyond the summer of 1940 by the summer of 1942 is being a little too hopeful.

Sorry, but I fail to see your point here, and some of the comments are just downright wrong. I agree that a happy medium between quality and quantity needs to be found. I dont agree that the brits hung onto production of certain types too long or that the two pounder was kept in production too long. British tanks, in the main, remained on apar to their german counterparts throughout 1942. there was nothing wrong with the AT capability of the 2 pdr.; The drubbing the RTC got had nothing to do with its equipment. it had everything to do with poor TO&E and doctrine. As I pointed out in an earlier post, do you think the result would have been any different if the brits had been using german tanks in place of their own....not a chance. with regard to the 2pounder its problems stem from its ammunition, not the gun type. why a proper HE round was never developed, is beyond me. The Australians developed a 25pdr ATG for the AC-1, and fitted the 17 pdr to the AC-4 in 1943.

your last comment is just plain wrong. it assumes the brits were not progressing in their tank development at all after 1940. In so many ways this is just flat out wrong. there was significant development occurring and major advances in firepower, protection even in transmissions. The ultimate faltering of the british tank effort was due to the faltering british economy in the latter part of the war, not so mujch due to the failure of its tanks. it was cheaper and easier to use the Sherman, not necessarily better 9except in terms of standardisation and the old numbers game once again

 

[davebender]

Why are your blaming Germany?

Italy was responsible for the Med and Malta was within spitting distance of Sicily. It was Italy that screwed up by failing to seize Malta during June 1940.

 

[Freebird]

Mk VIs were on a par with german MkIs (except that the design was ten years older) and were responsible in large measure for the early victories. There was never even the slightest chance of them becoming the main operational type in 1942, as these had been overtaken by newer designs well before that time. slagging matches about the mk VI need to keep their design dates in perspective. they were designed in 1925-30, and were dirt cheap to build, easy to maintain and reliable. they were from the outset designated Light tanks, and fulfilled this task pretty well actually. Powered by 60hp Meadows engine, i am not aware of any significant reliability issues for this type. How do mk Vi tanks compare to the US contemporaries of the period...they dont, because there are no US tanks contemparaneous to the mkVI.

Are we talking about the same thing here?
I think that Shourtround is talking about the he Cruiser mark VI Crusader, not the Light tank mk VI.
The Crusader was a "Cruiser" but was in 1942 effectively a "light tank" at about 18 tons.

I'm in agreement with Shortround here, there is little point in sending more Crusaders by the spring of '42.
IF IT DID have HE ammo, it might have helped, although the 40mm shell is way too small to be really effective.

Shortround = A happy medium must be found and unfortunately for the British troops the numbers people hung onto some of the tanks in production (and the 2pdr) a bit too long.
Don't get me wrong, I think the British A 13 tank was perhaps the best tank in France in 1940. But how much further had the British got by 1942?
Hoping the enemy doesn't progress much beyond the summer of 1940 by the summer of 1942 is being a little too hopeful.
Parsifal = Sorry, but I fail to see your point here, and some of the comments are just downright wrong. I agree that a happy medium between quality and quantity needs to be found. I dont agree that the brits hung onto production of certain types too long or that the two pounder was kept in production too long. British tanks, in the main, remained on apar to their german counterparts throughout 1942. there was nothing wrong with the AT capability of the 2 pdr.;

Absolutely the 2 pdr was produced too long. The 6 pdr should have been produced in some plants from the fall of 1940. In July '41 there was no reason to delay the switchover in the UK, as there would no longer danger from invasion.

 

[Shortround6]

err, you do know that the Ram used the M-3 chassis and hull, with a redesigned and flattedned turret and widened turret ring to accommodate the 6pdr gun. Whilst it had some amintenance issues, i think you are overstating the problems. All tanks have issues of one form or anaother. the Ram was no different, and as a generalization i would say its reliability and its maintainability were at least equal to most tanks of the period

I am well aware of what the Ram was, since those were the issues in both the M3 and M4 tanks I don't see why the Ram should have been much different. Compared to some British and German tanks it would have been way ahead in reliability but let's not claim the Wright/Continental was trouble free.

The australian AC-1 to 4 tanks utilized 3 x V-8 chev truck motors that were pretty ingeniously coupled. though they were never used in combat, there was nothing wrong with this arrangement

Most sources say Cadillac car engines but the point wan't that the Wright/Continental had such problems that it needed replacement but that the radial was NOT available in nearly unlimited quantities. Availability was limited to the point of 3 different substitutes being used (not counting the Australian one) 2 of which required the hull to be lengthened by about a foot in order to fit them in (bogie attachments had to be re-spaced also)

Mk VIs were on a par with german MkIs (except that the design was ten years older) and were responsible in large measure for the early victories.......the 1300 AFVs on strength in the RTC in 1939, over 1000 were the mk vI.

Please don't get your knickers in a twist. I agree that the MK VI was a much better combat vehicle than the German MK I and even exceeded the MK II in some respects. I don't recall saying anything about the MK VI being a bad vehicle in 193-40 or even 41.

Why was the mk VI so numerous if they were such duds as everyone assumes. To quote grove "as far as the RTC was concerned, these light tanks were relaible, and were better than nothing" A ringing endorsement of the Quantity over quality argument if ever there was one.

A ringing endorsement of stupidity is more like it. There was nothing wrong with 300 or 400 or 500MK VI tanks in the late 30s. But as soon as your probable opponents went to 15mm armor or better which the 12.7mm could not penetrate and they went to guns larger than 8mm which could penetrate areas of the MK VI tank, making hundreds more because they were cheap and reliable is false economy, paid for in blood by the troops that had to use them in combat.
If used as recce vehicles they still had merit but using them to fill out cruiser squadron establishments is asking too much.

your comments about reliability are overstating the issue.

I don't believe so. I was actually referring to the German Tiger and Panther here, sorry for the confusion, but it also applies to early T-34s and the KV series as well as some British tanks. You can have great paper specifications (big gun, thick armor) but if the tank design/construction is such that significant numbers of the tank either don't arrive at the start line of an attack or have to be left behind in a retreat then the design may not be as effective as a tank with a smaller gun and thinner armor.
An argument for a middle of the road quality vs quantity.
The British should have take a little bit of time to Iron a few kinks. Having to transport more tanks to a far away theater of operations and support larger workshops/recovery/transport organisations than would otherwise have been necessary to keep a similar front line strength is another false economy. Much like the Germans using three 18 ton wreckers to tow a single Tiger. Those three wreckers aren't doing anything else, like recovereing three MK IVs at the same time.
The Liberty had a pretty spotty reputation as an airplane engine and it's form of construction (cylinders were actually separate cylinders with individual welded sheet metal water jackets)
File:Liberty L-12-1.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The thing was a coolant leak waiting to happen in addition to other problems. This somewhat dodgy engine (which was dodgy and known to be so 20 years earlier) was kept in production when the Meadows engine which was supposed to replace it came up a crapper. Not enough power? or more problems than fitting a radiator at the rear of the longer Crusader hull could fix?

Sorry, but I fail to see your point here, and some of the comments are just downright wrong. I agree that a happy medium between quality and quantity needs to be found. I dont agree that the brits hung onto production of certain types too long or that the two pounder was kept in production too long. British tanks, in the main, remained on apar to their german counterparts throughout 1942. there was nothing wrong with the AT capability of the 2 pdr.; The drubbing the RTC got had nothing to do with its equipment. it had everything to do with poor TO&E and doctrine. As I pointed out in an earlier post, do you think the result would have been any different if the brits had been using german tanks in place of their own....not a chance. with regard to the 2pounder its problems stem from its ammunition, not the gun type. why a proper HE round was never developed, is beyond me. The Australians developed a 25pdr ATG for the AC-1, and fitted the 17 pdr to the AC-4 in 1943.

your last comment is just plain wrong. it assumes the brits were not progressing in their tank development at all after 1940. In so many ways this is just flat out wrong. there was significant development occurring and major advances in firepower, protection even in transmissions. The ultimate faltering of the british tank effort was due to the faltering british economy in the latter part of the war, not so mujch due to the failure of its tanks. it was cheaper and easier to use the Sherman, not necessarily better 9except in terms of standardisation and the old numbers game once again

Well, lets look at the record. A-13, in production 1938-39? arguably one of the best tanks in the world at the time, that dodgy liberty engine and the world class 2pdr gun ( I am not being sarcastic, in 1938-39 it was leading the world in AP capability) and 30 mm armor, at least on the front. spaced armor on the turret sides. radio in turret and a 3 man turret with a cupola for the commander. Replaced ( but never in combat by Covenanter) New engine (already covered) and transmission but same armament/protection in a slightly lower form. 1700 built by the end of 1942, when do you pull the plug on a loser? Lost the cupola.
Next entry is the A15 Crusader, back to (or parallel?) the dodgy engine in a bad (cramped) installation Armor gets up to 40mm on the front with same fire power until the MK III version. 2000 or so 2pdr versions built,1400 of them in 1942, now things are looking a bit iffy. The 6pdr MK III does come on line but cuts the turret crew to 2 and still no cupola for the commander.
since it takes time to implement front line knowledge there may be some excuse here but the Cavalier shows intertia at work or belt and suspenders when you have only one seamstress. Same dodgy engine, armor is now 64mm on the hull front. nice requirement in 1941 but rather behind the curve in 1943, when did the German MK III get 60mm on the hull? a less than 10% increase in turret ring diameter? Yep, another "we can't up grade because the turret ring is too small" design. Then come the Centaur and Cromwell. Not bad but just a little late and no room to upgrade which means time and effort spent on Avengers, Challengers and Comets.

If the 2pdr had been seen as a fine gun in 1939-40 but in need of replacement in 1941-42 (it was seen as such actually) then designs put forth in 1940 should have been able to mount it or been upgraded beyond it more easily. the Germans were using the long 50mm in tanks from the Spring of 1942 and while the 6pdr wan't much later it was usually in 2 man turrets. The Germans also began fielding the long 75mm guns in the MK IV in the spring/summer and they didn't spring up over night. Circumstance helped the Germans put them in the MK IV but design work on the guns (or the towed version) started back in 1940.
The British tank production may have faltered due to the economy in the later part of the war but British tank design actually hit it's stride with the Comet and Centurion. Somebody had finally leaned the lessons.

 

[pinsog]

I think the best, and easiest thing the Brits could have done after the start of the dessert war would have been to immediately copy the German 88 trailer chassis and mount their 17 pounder on it. Then they could have used their crappy underarmed/underarmored tanks as prime movers to drag the thing around. Wouldn't be the best for attack, but it would have kept their positions from being overun when they were on the defense.

 

[davebender]

8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/37/41 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you are referring to the 8.8cm FlaK36, that weapon was less then ideal in the anti tank role. Somewhat expensive (33,600 RM) and an easy target as it sat so high off the ground.

7.5 cm Pak 40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The smaller and dirt cheap (12,000 RM) 7.5cm PaK40 was close to perfect for a WWII era anti tank gun. IMO that's the one Britain should copy. Also an excellent WWII era tank main gun.

 

[Shortround6]

A bit of overkill and the British gunners would have cursed you until their 50th reunion if not longer. The 6pdr was more than enough to take-out any German tank short of a Tiger at any practical range and was much easier to dig-in and camouflage.
Besides, the 17pdr didn't exist at the start of the dessert war

 

[parsifal]

So, to get to the nub of tis alleged poor reliability and vulnerability issue, what would have happened if the Brits were equipped with German, or italian, or french, or US equipment. What evidence is there of catastrophic reliability failures in British tanks, and how does that compare with say the germans. If you really want to assess or compare the reliability of German tanks in say 1941, we should really look at the number of running tanks they could keep running during a major campaign. the best information I have available is what happened to them during Barbarossa. I dont have the figures in front of me right now but its not a good report card. Despite several pauses in the campaign, and a more leisurely rate of advance compared to what was happening in North Africa, the number of runners was down to about 10-30% by the end of the 4 month campaign. Most of the so-called german tank casualties during the 1941 camapign were not casualties, they were simply break downs mostly in engines followed by transmissions. This was not in the harsh conditions of winter, it was in the mild warm days of summer across flat terrain. I cannot recall even a single battle or camapign where the british suffered nearly such a catastrophic equipment failure.

If you want to compare with italians, that will be fine as well, only worse. The majority of the the tanks of the Gruppo Malletti, the italiantank force that resisted 7th armoured in 1940' could manage about 20 miles of movement before suffering a cooked engine. I would happily put the reliability of the Mk VI (Vickers) up against that record.

Then we have the US effort. We will never know th reliability of the contemporary of the Cruiser tanks, as it was never tested in combat. But I am willing to bet the reliability of the m-2, which the Americans were planning to build in quantity in 1940, before the M-3 was designed at british request, would have been diabolical. Compared to this the early marks of cruisers, even the mkVI, were light years ahead.

We could look at tactical mobility, such as power to weight and fording or climbing ability of british tanks. They are not likley to be superior to German equipment in this area, but they are known to be adequate, for the purposes they were put to. In terms of strategic mobility, I would say the british tanks were actually superior, because theey just kept going over such long distances, without proper maintence support. Dont believe me, look at the performace of 7armoured from September 1940 to March 1941 and see how many tanks remained running despite severe shortages in maintence and spare parts support. Its impressive, I can assure you.

Now, looking at the AT capabilities of british tanks, they were actually superior to their contemporary German counterparts. Th 2 pounder out performed the German 37mm and the shorter 50mm guns by quite amargin. Only with the arrival of the german MkIV specials and the Pz IIIJ was the 40mm gun outclassed. Not obsolete, just outclassed. And this happened when, and in what numbers???? Moreover, the answer presented by the brits to the MkIV (F-2) and Mk II (J) menace was entirely adequate, not outstanding, but adequate. They produced the Crusader Mk III with 6 Pounder gun. Sure this arrangement had some drawbacks, but not fatally so, as their success at various battles attests (will dig them out tonite)

In point of fact the crusader III remained a competive tank, and in battle went reasonably well, though not outstanding. What defeated british tanks was not german tanks at all, in fact these desperate lunges they made in the desert were designed to entice the german armour into a head to head clash with the british armour. Why, because the brits knew they could win that sought of engagement. What the RTC could not win was the battle against stupid ideas. The british tanks were mostly lost to dug in ATGs which they could not engage effectively, and because they lacked proper support, could not deal with by any other means other than suicidal charges. If german tanks had been working under the same conditions as the british tanks the result would have been the same, even though they possessed the short barrelled 75mm. The 88mm could take out a Mk IV (German) at over 3miles over open sights. The germans avoided this type of massacre by having a balanced all arms team working together, not by the superiority of its tanks.

With regard to your comments about the Mk VI, all I can say is thank the lord you werent in charge of the british army in 1938. Those so-called stupid tanks, defeated a vastly more numerous enemy, pushed them back over 700 miles, then faced an enemy qualitatively far superior, doing a credible job. Why and how, when their AT capabilities were so obviously poor. The reason is because AT capability in tanks is about the least important issue for a tank. Tanks are mobile assault weapons, designed to exploit breakthroughs. The little Mk VI could do that just as well as any other tank of the time. And because they were there, and reliable, and ready, and properly trained, that made them an absolutely critical item in the british inventory at the time. Moreover, Light tanks continued to play a role in all armies until the end of the war, as something heavier and better than an armoured car, they made eminent sense. The updated versions of the Mk VI, the Mk VII and the Harry Hopkins were up to standard for light tanks.

 

[parsifal]

Why are your blaming Germany?

Italy was responsible for the Med and Malta was within spitting distance of Sicily. It was Italy that screwed up by failing to seize Malta during June 1940.

I blame the Axis, not germany. But by 1940, the germans were supposed to be the leader of the Axis alliance. They failed to excercise effective leadeship or support. The Italaians in 1940 lacked any means whatsover to contemplate an effective amphibious assault. They tried to amphibiously assault Corfu in roughly regimental strength, attacking less than a bn of irregular reservists, and lost. There was not the slightest chance of them getting control of malta in June, despite the weakness of the defences. Mines, airpower, the ground defences, and the RN stood between them and achiving that objective. It required something more from the Axis, and the only people who could deliver that were the germans. There were member of the german command who advocated a Med strategy, but they were ignored. Funny about that

 

[Freebird]

The smaller and dirt cheap (12,000 RM) 7.5cm PaK40 was close to perfect for a WWII era anti tank gun. IMO that's the one Britain should copy. Also an excellent WWII era tank main gun.

Too late in the game.
The Pak 40 entered production in Nov 1941, at which time they already had the 17 pdr design, it went into production in the fall of 1942. By the time the Pak 40 could be shipped to the Desert, and by the time that the British could capture one copy it it would be much later than the 17pdr which was a better AT gun anyways.

 

[Shortround6]

A few points if I may.

I don't believe I have said much, if anything, about the reliability of the MK VI light tank.

I don't want this to turn into a "my country is better than yours" argument.

"But I am willing to bet the reliability of the m-2, which the Americans were planning to build in quantity in 1940, before the M-3 was designed at british request, would have been diabolical."

If you are referring to the M-2 medium tank you do realize that it used the same engine/transmission as the M-3 medium and Ram tanks and used, if not the same parts, the same design suspension? Why should it have been less reliable seeing as how it was a lighter tank?

"Compared to this the early marks of cruisers, even the mkVI, were light years ahead."

Really?.........Then I guess your Idea of using the Ram tank doesn't hold water.
Now the armament layout/tactical concept left a lot to be desired, being firmly rooted in 1918 but then that is not what we are taking about.

Trying to get back on subject, yes the 2pdr had better penetration than than the German short 50. the large margin is debatable. yes 15-25% (depending on who you believe) can be considered a large margin, on the other hand we are sometimes talking about the difference between 50mm and 42 mm or less at even longer ranges. While the 2pdr worked in the infantry tanks with their heavy armor it didn't work so good in the Cruiser tanks. Some of the German tanks having thicker armor in places than the cruisers may mean that the practical firing distance for each side was almost the same.

I will cheerfully concede that the Germans used much better combined arms tactics but will reserve judgment on the MK IVs with the short 75. It did give the Germans capabilities the British did not possess.
As far as integrating towed AT guns with tank units like the Germans did rather successfully, there wasn't much point for the British. A 2pdr towed gun (which just as hard, if not harder to dig-in than the German 50mm) gives no more range or punch to the unit that the guns already mounted in the tanks. Maybe if the towed 6pdrs had showed a bit earlier something could have been worked out?
Better artillery co-ordination would have been a big plus for the British, but in one famous case the battery tasked with supporting one attack got bogged down while shifting fire positions and reached it's second fire site late. It then proceeded to fire it's schedule of missions in order but delayed instead of skipping the 1st mission after the bogging incident and keeping up with the flow of the battle. If a significant number of the tanks had 75mm shell firing guns they might have been able to silence the German AT guns on their own or at least screened themselves with smoke shells and withdrawn.

As for
"With regard to your comments about the Mk VI, all I can say is thank the lord you werent in charge of the british army in 1938. Those so-called stupid tanks, defeated a vastly more numerous enemy, pushed them back over 700 miles, then faced an enemy qualitatively far superior, doing a credible job."

I don't believe I called the tanks "stupid". The decision to build 1000 of them while building 300 cruiser and infantry tanks was stupid.

Just which "enemy qualitatively far superior" was this?

If was the Italian Army in 1940 then I think we can see just how "qualitatively far superior" they were. The only army to put even more emphasis on numbers vs actual combat capability. 2500-3000 L3/33 tankettes?
Armor vulnerable to the 12.7mm in the MK VI light but for the most part it's own guns won't penetrate the British tank? 72 11/39 tanks on strength in 1940 in the desert. How many were runners? when do the 13/40s show up in any numbers? If the Italians had built another 100 11/39s instead of 300 of those tankettes things might have gone better for them. Of course they might need a lot better leadership on the tactical level too.

"Moreover, Light tanks continued to play a role in all armies until the end of the war, as something heavier and better than an armoured car, they made eminent sense. The updated versions of the Mk VI, the Mk VII and the Harry Hopkins were up to standard for light tanks."

Not really, the British themselves ditched the their own light tanks in favor of armored cars. While the 7.92 Besa was an improvement on the .303 Vickers gun for tank use the 15mm Besa was not an unqualified success. It took up more room in the turret and was harder to aim and fire. The MK VII and the Harry Hopkins offered no more firepower than the Daimler armoured car and the only the Harry Hopkins offered better protection. The Humber armoured cars offered firepower and protection on a level with the MK VI tanks (until the MK IV with it's 37mm gun) and Staghound and AEC cars were certainly a match for most light tanks if perhaps a bit lacking in cross country ability in bad going.
The Americans persisted with light tanks from the M-3 series and M-5s (although at 16 tons the M-5 is pushing things) until they hit on the M-24 (and at 20 tons it is only light in comparison to 30ton+ tanks).
Most other late war light tanks were simply left overs or attempts to find mobility in really bad terrain/conditions that even 6 and 8 wheel all wheel drive cars could over come. they had no advantage in either fire power or protection over the later armoured cars.

 

[davebender]

So did the Germans. They developed the Panzer II Ausf L (Luchs) for use by recon battalions but cancelled production after only 104 vehicles.

 

[Freebird]

Trying to get back on subject, yes the 2pdr had better penetration than than the German short 50. the large margin is debatable. yes 15-25% (depending on who you believe) can be considered a large margin, on the other hand we are sometimes talking about the difference between 50mm and 42 mm or less at even longer ranges. While the 2pdr worked in the infantry tanks with their heavy armor it didn't work so good in the Cruiser tanks. Some of the German tanks having thicker armor in places than the cruisers may mean that the practical firing distance for each side was almost the same.

Shortround, do you know when the Germans introduced the HE for the 50mm? (Sprgr.Patr.38 )

 

[Shortround6]

I am guessing it was from the start of use of the gun, either 50mm.

Maybe my sources are bad but it seems that German designations like Sprgr.Patr.39-1 didn't always indicate the year of adoption. You get things like Pzgr 39 for AP rounds for the converted russian 76mm guns? Good planning on the part of the Germans? Or it was the standard Pzgr 39 design adapted to the 76mm gun?
You have Pzgr 39 projectiles (or rounds?) for the short 50, the long 50 (same projectile?), the 7.5cm/43, the 7.5cm/L46, the 7.5cm/L48, the 7.62cm/L51, the 8.8cm/L56 and Pzgr39/42s for the 7.5cm/L70 and Pzgr 39-41 for the 8.8cm/L71. Those engineers must have been real busy in 1939

 

[Juha]

On Pz IV
in fact British had same kind system as Germans, each sqn had 2 CS (Close Support) tanks armed with 3.7in, later with 3in and lastly with 95mm howitzer in order to have in hand smoke and HE support to gun tanks. Differences to Germans were that in German formations the ratio of support tanks was higher and Pz IIIs had also HE rounds and short barrel Pz IVs had also anti-tank rounds (AP and later also HEAT). British had either only AP or only smoke and HE except late war 95mm armed CS tanks which carried also few HEAT rounds.

Juha

 

[tomo pauk]

I am guessing it was from the start of use of the gun, either 50mm.

Maybe my sources are bad but it seems that German designations like Sprgr.Patr.39-1 didn't always indicate the year of adoption. You get things like Pzgr 39 for AP rounds for the converted russian 76mm guns? Good planning on the part of the Germans? Or it was the standard Pzgr 39 design adapted to the 76mm gun?
You have Pzgr 39 projectiles (or rounds?) for the short 50, the long 50 (same projectile?), the 7.5cm/43, the 7.5cm/L46, the 7.5cm/L48, the 7.62cm/L51, the 8.8cm/L56 and Pzgr39/42s for the 7.5cm/L70 and Pzgr 39-41 for the 8.8cm/L71. Those engineers must have been real busy in 1939

My uderstanding is that 'PzGr 39' indicates that projectile was of AP/APCBC (armour-piercing, ballistic cap) type, while 'PzGr 40' indicates APCR ( sub-caliber, approx. 2/3rds of weight of APCBC for better MV, rumor says Germans copied the concept from captured Polish AT rifle ammo; US nomenclature would've been HVAP?).
The 'PzGr 39-41' indicates improved version of APCBC; applicable to some guns, not all.
All those names are regardless to the gun.