A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
Oh, those old chestnuts.
However, in the real world:
However, in the real world:
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
Your unidentified report does not give any statistics to back up its claims.
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
When you bother to provide primary source documents to back up your posts, I'll start taking them seriously.EKB wrote:Your unidentified report does not give any statistics to back up its claims.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
Unfortunately your "primary source" document does not name any of its primary sources.Don Juan wrote:When you bother to provide primary source documents to back up your posts, I'll start taking them seriously.EKB wrote:Your unidentified report does not give any statistics to back up its claims.
It is obvious that the reporter either failed to, or refused to, identify specific individuals who supposedly endorsed the contents of the message.
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
The video indicates that General Everett stopped short of admitting that he discontinued production of the A30 Challenger.
Therefore I have doubts about his complicity.
Therefore I have doubts about his complicity.
Last edited by EKB on 01 Jul 2014, 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
He was too busy inventing shoulder guns.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
-
- Member
- Posts: 3238
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
- Location: UK
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
Hi guys,
Two questions if I may?
EKB, is the British major your reference quoted named or is there a reference to where the quote came from?
Don Juan, is there a reference number for the file from which your information came from.
Cheers
Tom
Two questions if I may?
EKB, is the British major your reference quoted named or is there a reference to where the quote came from?
Don Juan, is there a reference number for the file from which your information came from.
Cheers
Tom
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
Hi Tom,
IIRC, EKB's quote is from Major KM Ronald of the King's Dragoon Guards, after Exercise Dracula in August 1943. This was an exercise deliberately set up to test the reliability of the Centaur and Cromwell, which were both less reliable than the Sherman at this point in time. The Cromwell certainly improved, but the Centaur, as far as I can tell, didn't. The quote can be found in RAC Progress Report No.8 (WO 165/134)
My quote is from AVIA 11/30.
PM me if you would like to see the relevant documents.
IIRC, EKB's quote is from Major KM Ronald of the King's Dragoon Guards, after Exercise Dracula in August 1943. This was an exercise deliberately set up to test the reliability of the Centaur and Cromwell, which were both less reliable than the Sherman at this point in time. The Cromwell certainly improved, but the Centaur, as far as I can tell, didn't. The quote can be found in RAC Progress Report No.8 (WO 165/134)
My quote is from AVIA 11/30.
PM me if you would like to see the relevant documents.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
I'd take that report over the view of some major from a year before what he said was to become relevant, provided without any context and maybe even deliberately intended to mislead. Wilbeck's book is a pile of badly researched nonsense and statistically challenged disinformation even without this quote.EKB wrote:Unfortunately your "primary source" document does not name any of its primary sources.Don Juan wrote:When you bother to provide primary source documents to back up your posts, I'll start taking them seriously.EKB wrote:Your unidentified report does not give any statistics to back up its claims.
It is obvious that the reporter either failed to, or refused to, identify specific individuals who supposedly endorsed the contents of the message.
If you want to challenge people who actually go and dig in the archives, maybe do them the courtesy of not resting your argument on some US army junior officer's masters thesis turned into a book because its about Tigers.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
Hello,
I'm joining this discussion late and haven't been able to read the whole thread so please forgive me if this has already been brought up.
A lot has been mentioned on this thread and others about the small size of British turret rings and therefore limitation on the size of gun that could be fitted to the tanks, in order to get a bigger gun were turretless assault guns ever considered? I know the Archer was created but this was a self propelled gun but I have never heard of a British equivalent of a Jagd Panzer or SU85 etc.
Mark.
I'm joining this discussion late and haven't been able to read the whole thread so please forgive me if this has already been brought up.
A lot has been mentioned on this thread and others about the small size of British turret rings and therefore limitation on the size of gun that could be fitted to the tanks, in order to get a bigger gun were turretless assault guns ever considered? I know the Archer was created but this was a self propelled gun but I have never heard of a British equivalent of a Jagd Panzer or SU85 etc.
Mark.
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
The simple answer is - yes; but the numbers constructed and deployed were quite small - if deployed at all...A lot has been mentioned on this thread and others about the small size of British turret rings and therefore limitation on the size of gun that could be fitted to the tanks, in order to get a bigger gun were turretless assault guns ever considered? I know the Archer was created but this was a self propelled gun but I have never heard of a British equivalent of a Jagd Panzer or SU85 etc.
Churchill Gun Carrier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_ ... .28A22D.29 (of which quite a lot has been written over the years on this forum)
Archer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_(tank_destroyer)
Alecto - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alecto_(SPG)
Sexton - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexton_(artillery)
Bishop - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_(artillery)
As discussed elsewhere - including IIRC on this thread - there was a long "turf war" conducted in Whitehall regarding who "owned" such artillery, the tank regiments/brigades or the Royal Artillery; it certainly coloured and delayed the development of the Churchill Gun Carrier
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
The whole thing about turret rings is a debate that emerged post-war. There's very little discussion of the limiting factor of turret rings in the contemporary documentation. This is because the solution was always seen as the introduction of new designs. Even with SP guns, turreted versions were seen as the "proper" solution rather than fixed ones. The Valentine Archer was viewed as an interim vehicle until the introduction of the intended standard British SP gun, which was the A30 Avenger. If they'd been able to productionise the Avenger sooner, the Archer would have been cancelled, which it was on the cusp of being in early 1944.MarkF617 wrote:A lot has been mentioned on this thread and others about the small size of British turret rings and therefore limitation on the size of gun that could be fitted to the tanks, in order to get a bigger gun were turretless assault guns ever considered? I know the Archer was created but this was a self propelled gun but I have never heard of a British equivalent of a Jagd Panzer or SU85 etc.
The issue of up-gunning the Crusader and Valentine only emerged because of the delays in bringing the Cromwell into production, which was mainly due to the Ministry of Aircraft Production refusing to release components and tooling for the new Meteor engine, which was based on the Merlin. There's a persistent myth that there was resistance to the Meteor by Nuffields and Leyland, but this isn't true - they both bent over backwards to get the Meteor into production. Fortunately the shortfall in more powerful tanks could be made up with Shermans.
Other than that, the best method for making the existing British guns more effective was to produce more powerful and/or more appropriate ammunition. This is the one thing that could really have added more combat power to British tanks in the 1941-42 period, but for various reasons was not adopted.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
Also - as noted back up the thread, the issue of turret ring size seems to only be an "issue" in respect of what each company/conglomerate producing a given design could manufacture/machine. There are plenty of examples of "small" turret ring tanks still being built and in quite large quantities alongside larger ones by different companies/conglomerates if you sit down and match sizes with production dates...The whole thing about turret rings is a debate that emerged post-war. There's very little discussion of the limiting factor of turret rings in the contemporary documentation.
The real issue with production was getting numbers of tanks and getting them out there; as noted in the long discussion on Convenanters, what Britain suffered from at a given point mid-war was a chronic lack of cruiser tanks whatever their turret ring size. In a period in the Desert War when one Royal Tank Regiment was having to temporarily re-equip with captured Italian tanks with all their acknowledged issues, I doubt if the turret ring size of British Cruiser tanks would have been of much import to them...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.
Tom from Cornwall wrote:Hi guys,
Two questions if I may?
EKB, is the British major your reference quoted named or is there a reference to where the quote came from
“ … The next report in the packet was from a Major Ronald of the Westminster Dragoons, position un-stated. Excerpts follow:
Reliability: The outstanding lesson of this exercise has been to me the exceptional reliability of the American machines. All my ideas, based on 2 ½ years experience with an armoured regiment equipped with British machines have had to be revised, and though before the exercise started I was inclined to think that perhaps Sherman was somewhat overrated I am completely convinced of the superiority of this machine over anything that this country has produced up to date.
It is evident that the commander of a unit equipped with Shermans can be confident of taking 99% of his vehicles into battle, at any rate during the first 2,000 miles of their life. On the other hand, if he were equipped with Cromwells or Centaurs he would be in a continuous state of anxiety as to whether enough of his tanks would reach the battlefield to carry out the normal tasks expected of his unit …”
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-brow ... h_Dracula/
Urmel wrote: I'd take that report over the view of some major from a year before what he said was to become relevant, provided without any context and maybe even deliberately intended to mislead. Wilbeck's book is a pile of badly researched nonsense and statistically challenged disinformation even without this quote.
If you want to challenge people who actually go and dig in the archives, maybe do them the courtesy of not resting your argument on some US army junior officer's masters thesis turned into a book because its about Tigers.
If you want to lecture and pontificate about official papers then go ahead and post some relevant documents and statistics. Otherwise you are wasting time and bandwidth.