Was the covenanter the worst tank of the war?

[daveh]

I know that c 1365 Covenanter tanks were built, production ceasing in January 1943. Were any used operationally? I believe no not as gun tanks at least.

Why was this tank kept in production once its defects were known and when other designs were available?

Was the Covenanter a waste of resources?

was it indeed the worst tank of the war?

[Andy H]

Are you not involving Italian Tanks as surely some of there efforts would have to be near the top in any list

Andy

[daveh]

I am not including the Italian tankettes. The M13/40 had a fair gun for its time, comparable with the 2 pdr, were more reliable than the covenanter though its armour was of poorer quality but similar thickness. The M13/40 were used and achieved some success while the Covenantor never was. Is this sufficient to make them better than the Covenantor?. In terms of effective resource use the M13/40 was better.

If a tank was deemed so unreliable as to be kept from the battle front is not that a reason to say it was a poorer tank than one that was used a gained some success? Is the use of fire power, armour and mobility a sufficient basis to judge a tank that was never used, especially when tanks were needed at the front?

[Maple 01]

If a tank was deemed so unreliable as to be kept from the battle front is not that a reason to say it was a poorer tank than one that was used a gained some success?

No, it just means that the side that fielded the poor tank had no other option.

Regards

-nick

[Tim Smith]

No, just one of the worst British tanks of the war. The Japanese and Italians fielded worse tanks than this.

It was engine cooling problems that caused the Covenanter tank's chronic unreliability. But what occurs to me is, would the tank perform better in a cold climate, e.g. the Russian front?

Also, Russian engineers were pretty damn good at keeping engines working. If I had been Churchill, I would have shipped the Covenanters to the Russians and let them sort it out.

I know that c 1365 Covenanter tanks were built, production ceasing in January 1943. Were any used operationally? I believe no not as gun tanks at least.

Why was this tank kept in production once its defects were known and when other designs were available?

Was the Covenanter a waste of resources?

was it indeed the worst tank of the war?

[Andy H]

Hi

4 Convenanter's were sent out to North Africa for experimental puposes, arriving by the end of July'42.
It seems that they were used by REME within the rear area once there unsuitability for front-line service was
identified.

Regards

Andy H

[Clive Mortimore]

At the same time as the LMS was turning out Covenaters, Nuffields were making Cursaders and Vickers were constructing Valentines. Most Nations would have only one design of tank in production. The Crusader was slightly better than the Covenanter so was chosen as the tank where the fighting was taking place. The Covenanter was used for training in the UK.

It is a little unfair to compare a tank that did not see action with those that did. It might have proved to be a good fighting machine or not, we don't know. If the Crusader was not produced then would the need for a more reliable tank have concentrated the efforts of the tank engineers in improving the Covenanter? Remember they were struggling to improve the Churchill, the Crusader , The TOG and a host of other projects at the same time.

I think most armoured divisions would have liked a faster Valentine.

[sunbury2]

No one has actually said why the Covenanter was so poor, embarrassment probably. It's raditators to cool the rear mounted engine were mounted on the front of the tank. The one place enemy fire was certain to hit. As a design flaw for a combat tank its pretty major.

The real question is with limited industrial resources and the Battle of the Atlantic raging, why did Britain produce 1700 of these lemons, enough to equip to 7 Armoured Divisions. The training argument doesn't hold water, they never trained 7 Divisions at once. I haven't seen any decent answer ever on that question.



Edited to add a picture. Note the front radiators.

I agree there were worse tanks produced by other countries but this thread is on the Covenanter.

[Andy H]

The real question is with limited industrial resources and the Battle of the Atlantic raging, why did Britain produce 1700 of these lemons, enough to equip to 7 Armoured Divisions. The training argument doesn't hold water, they never trained 7 Divisions at once. I haven't seen any decent answer ever on that question.

Hi Sunbury2

I agree with your broad premise regarding training, however during the war there were numerous directives/order/proposal/papers about Armoured requirements. In late'42 a directive was issued that talked of forming (to full establishment) 7-8 Armoured Divisions, 18 Motorised Infantry Divisions-off which 7 will inc a Tank Bde-plus 3 Bde Groups with armoured element and 2-4 Armoured/Tank Bde's. In all a force of some 22+ Armoured/Tank Bde's exc those already serving abroad and the proposed Indian Armoured Division & 2 Indian Tk Bde's.

So maybe amonst the ever changing armoured basis or requirements, the Covenanter was kept to met these needs! Maybe they could have seen action with the Indian Army out East or on secondary fronts/duties!

Regards

Andy H

[Dunserving]

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... antor+tank

A recent thread on a slightly different topic, but the Covenantor and its problems are done to death within its 70 pages.

[phylo_roadking]

To be fair - there were several front-engined tank designs used in the war around the globe, not to mention front-transmission'd types....that were every bit as vulnerable - if not MORE so!

It's raditators to cool the rear mounted engine were mounted on the front of the tank. The one place enemy fire was certain to hit. As a design flaw for a combat tank its pretty major.

To be fair - there were several front-engined tank designs used in the war around the globe, not to mention front-transmission'd types....that were every bit as vulnerable - if not MORE so!

I can see some merit to an argument favouring putting something vital to the running of the engine under the front glacis - arguably the best-armoured location on the tank!

No one has actually said why the Covenanter was so poor, embarrassment probably.

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=174002&start=585&hilit=covenantor+tank

A recent thread on a slightly different topic, but the Covenantor and its problems are done to death within its 70 pages.

Indeed! Parboiled...roasted...baked in their skins...and barbecqued to a crisp!

[verdenpark]

The overheating problems could have been fixed if they really wanted to. I believe the red tape involved in changing the specifications would have been the show stopper, not the engineering side of it.

On another point. How does one determine if a tank is not of front line quality? To my mind this can only be found out by sending it into battle. It must have been good enough on trials at home, otherwise they would not have sent four of them out to the desert.

[Dunserving]

The overheating problems could have been fixed if they really wanted to. I believe the red tape involved in changing the specifications would have been the show stopper, not the engineering side of it.

Care to suggest how that might have been done?

Bear in mind that an engine was specially designed for this vehicle, a remarkably low profile design.
It left no room in the engine compartment to put radiators, hence they had to go elsewhere and the front of the hull was really the only place to go.

I've not seen inside the engine compartment of a Covenantor, but I'm inclined to think that no other engine would have fitted in the confined space and that a completely new engine design would have been needed.

Given that a clever design was already outclassed by the opposition hardly worth the effort!

[phylo_roadking]

It must have been good enough on trials at home, otherwise they would not have sent four of them out to the desert

I've managed to track down TWO of them - two Covenanters issued to the NZ 19th "Armoured Regiment" as it was busy converting from the remaining 171 men of the equivalent infantry battalion in 4th Brigade at the Armour School at Abbasia, Cario. They and one Crusader were the very first tanks issued to the unit - and REMAINED the only tanks issued for some months! The NZ OH notes that seven months later, when the whole unit converted to Shermans...the remaining two of the three had been totally worn out by all the months of constant training!

One of these two Covenanters is almost certainly the one in the famous pic of a covey of tanks including a Covenanter being worked on at Abbasia in March 1943.

Where were the OTHER two of the four?

[Hoist40]

Care to suggest how that might have been done?

!

Why not just put the radiator on top of the engine?

The rear of the tank fairly low so if you put the radiator horizontally on top it should fit. Looking at pictures some of the stuff on the rear deck appear to be storage boxes so they can be moved. It would ruin the low angled look of the rear of the vehicle but plenty of tanks today have a raised rear deck.

http://arcaneafvs.com/a13iii.html