A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

[Paul_G_Baker]

BTW I've lost track of which book we are all meant to be reading!

Hi Tom,

"Audit of War" (Correlli Barnet), but one that I'm definitely not going to be interested in reading anytime soon!

I don't think that his hypothesis comes up to proof!

Regards,

[Attrition]

Barnett's made a living out of the declinist myth. No wonder he resents David Edgerton.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Attrition,

Does he resent him? I get the feeling there is a review I've missed somewhere.

Regards

Tom

[Attrition]

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v18/n05/david-edgerton/declinism see the letters....

[Tom from Cornwall]

Attrition,

Ahh, I see what you mean - nothing more entertaining than a couple of historians slinging mud at eachother. I must admit I read "Lost Victory" with disbelief back when it came out. Will have to revisit the book with a more cricital eye. I did enjoy "The Audit of War" as it brought out some of the reality behind the Churchillian myth. Much more interesting to see some different sources from the usual guff.

Regards

Tom

[phylo_roadking]

Wow! That puts me in mind of Python's mincing squaddies...

"Ohhhh get her! I'll scratch your eyes out!!!"

[Attrition]

Scrap! Scrap!. Apropos, I watched Jazz Boat (1960) last night.

[PMN1]

From David Fletcher's 'Mechanised Force'

Regarding what became the Matilta II

'Inevitably the question of a suitable power unit arose, and one suggestion involved a Napier-built version of the Junkers Jumo engine, although this was rejected in favour of an AEC unit'.

Any idea what Jumo engine was in mind with this suggestion?

[phylo_roadking]

At what point in the Matilda's production history was this suggestion made? Does he mean BEFORE the 170-bhp AEC Diesel (actually A.E.C. 6.7 litre bus engines) was spec'd?

At a guess, however....the Jumo 205? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205

The Junkers Jumo 205 aircraft engine was the most famous of a series of Diesel engines that were the first, and for more than half a century, the only successful aircraft Diesel engines.

Aha!

The Jumo 204 and 205 were licensed to Napier & Son, who built a small number as the Napier Culverin just prior to the war. After the war, they mounted three Culverins in a triangle layout to produce the Napier Deltic, which was for some time one of the most powerful and compact diesel engines in the world. Work on this engine started in 1947 and engines were running by 1950.

So....the Napier Culverin??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Culverin

(There was also some talk of using a Napier Lion in cruiser tanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Lion ...but that doesn't fit the description of a Napier-produced Jumo...)

[phylo_roadking]

I've just had a look in David Fletcher's Osprey book on the Matildas; it looks from that that there was three months of stumbling/arguing over the engine fitment...amongst other issues...in the three months after the new tank was proposed in September 1936 - but by the time the prototype and first contract was issued to the Vulcan Foundry, engine fitment had indeed been settled on. So this discussion on a Napier-built Jumo variant must date to the September-December 1937 period.

[Hoist40]

But would putting a more powerful engine in the Matilda II help much?

I don’t think the suspension which has a very short travel could handle much more speed.

[PMN1]

At what point in the Matilda's production history was this suggestion made? Does he mean BEFORE the 170-bhp AEC Diesel (actually A.E.C. 6.7 litre bus engines) was spec'd?

Quite early on in the process by the looks of it, just after the prototype A11 had appeared, its effectiveness was being questioned and a faster gun armed 3 crew 14 ton version was considered which gradually morphed into the A12.

[phylo_roadking]

But would putting a more powerful engine in the Matilda II help much?

Fletcher added that one unexpected but obvious result of the two AEC bus engines geared together was that by declutching one in the driving compartment if it broke or was damaged (it was never supposedly THAT reliable...)....the other, on its own, acted as a "get me home" like a twin-engined aircraft on one working engine!

I don’t think the suspension which has a very short travel could handle much more speed.

Travel was "improved on" slightly for the MkIIA version and after, after the lessons learned in France; not by actually improving it...but by raising/cutting away the bottom of the sidings/skirts everso slightly! I.E. making the suspension's ground clearance better

But then again - it WAS an "Infantry" tank, there wasn't much apparent need at the time for a tank that would outstrip its accompanying infantry on foot!

Quite early on in the process by the looks of it, just after the prototype A11 had appeared, its effectiveness was being questioned and a faster gun armed 3 crew 14 ton version was considered which gradually morphed into the A12

That would match with the three months of wrangling that Fletcher notes.

[phylo_roadking]

The Jumo 204 and 205 were licensed to Napier & Son, who built a small number as the Napier Culverin just prior to the war. After the war, they mounted three Culverins in a triangle layout to produce the Napier Deltic, which was for some time one of the most powerful and compact diesel engines in the world. Work on this engine started in 1947 and engines were running by 1950.

Just a wholly unrelated ( ?) factlet...Vulcan Foundry, the designer/builder of the Matilda, later both on its own and as part of English Electric after a buy-out...in the late '50s was a major builder of Napier Deltic-powered locomotives for the British railway network!

Funny how some historical trends and development paths run congruently....

[PMN1]

My first thought was as you say, the aero engines but they seem massively overpowered compared to what was used and for some time later unless some serious derating was planned.