Was the covenanter the worst tank of the war?

[Marcus]

A discussion about tank markings was split off into a new thread at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=202811

/Marcus

[Urmel]

Thanks!

[Don Juan]

Thinking about it, doesn't the fact that the engine compartment of the Covenanter was partly cooled by airflow from the fighting compartment imply that the bulkhead between the compartments did not form a firewall?

And am I correct in believing that this would have been a very unusual omission even at this period of time?

I ask this question because if this was the case, then it indicates that the Covenanter was never designed for frontline use in the first place.

[phylo_roadking]

Thinking about it, doesn't the fact that the engine compartment of the Covenanter was partly cooled by airflow from the fighting compartment imply that the bulkhead between the compartments did not form a firewall?

And am I correct in believing that this would have been a very unusual omission even at this period of time?

I ask this question because if this was the case, then it indicates that the Covenanter was never designed for frontline use in the first place.

I think you'd need to find out more about how...I.E. via what path... this air was drawn from one to the other before you can say that Doesn't necessarily mean a gurt big hole like that behind the driver - it could have been piped, ducted...

[Don Juan]

My local library has a scanner, so here are the photos of the Crusaders and Covenanters that the IWM allege were in Italy in 1944:

2WAB.png (428.9 KiB) Viewed 4530 times

2WAB2.png (444.67 KiB) Viewed 4530 times

I personally would be fairly sure these are 1 Polish Armoured Division tanks based in Scotland in 1944......but you never know.

[Sheldrake]

I had a chat this evening to someone who was a senior manager at Bovington and they have one of their own. The RAC Centre verdict is that the Covenentor was indeed a spectacularly crap tank. The problem is that forming an opinion based ona static object supported by paperwork doesn't give any information about the unreliability or awkwardness in use.

[Don Juan]

For Phylo, here's a picture of the "other" desert Covenanter:

Either a late Mk.II or Mk.IV, but probably the latter.

[Tomg44]

Several posted photos show Covenanters with brackets at the rear.

Cov4.jpg (23.02 KiB) Viewed 4463 times

I thought they might be for fuel drums, such a were sometimes used on T34's by the Soviets.

Cov3.jpg (13.79 KiB) Viewed 4463 times

It seems unlikely that increasing the range of Covenanters would have been a high priority.
Has anyone any suggestions?

Regards,
Tomg44

[Don Juan]

Yes these brackets are for jettisonable fuel tanks.

[phylo_roadking]

Either a late Mk.II or Mk.IV, but probably the latter.

Well, its got the Crusader-style "doughnut" pre-filters...and the lack of wheelcovers on what would be a new vehice shipepd for the purpose would make me think MkIV; that's a detail hasn't been picked up on yet, this seems to have been part of the weight-saving process referreed to earlier...

If you shrink that pic on your original scan, does the T-number show up any better???

[Don Juan]

I make it T81963, which is a Mk.IV, and one of the very last batches.

Contrary to what Peter Brown suggests about production "exceeding expectations", it appears that Leyland was well behind schedule in Covenanter production, which perhaps goes some way to explain the existence of the Mk.IV - it was created to clear out material stocks as the Covenanter was still being produced long after it ought to have been.

What's confusing is there's no "T" there. It just states "81963" - it's not difficult to read if you realise that.

[Clive Mortimore]

To go back to the OP, I don't think so. The Harry Hopkins and the Cavalier must be contenders as well. At least the Convenanter reached armoured regiments. As mentioned in the Cavalier thread is there any photos of them with armoured regiments, and has anyone seen a photo of a Harry Hopkins with soldiers?

[Don Juan]

As far as I can tell the Cavalier didn't serve as a gun tank in any armoured regiments, and even the OP version probably had a very limited service life. The Cavalier's service is so obscure that even I can't be bothered to research it.

The Harry Hopkins was apparently a technically excellent vehicle that was built in small numbers (104) for the Soviets - I think the reason that it wasn't shipped to them was that light tanks became a sufficiently low priority for the Soviets that they simply couldn't justify the shipping space for them.

I've been researching the production history of the Covenanter, and initial deliveries were 8-10 months late (it should have come into service in July 1940) mainly because the production facilities at Leyland and English Electric were purpose-built for the Covenanter, and were completed well behind schedule. Most of the Covenanters built in 1941 suffered from missing components due to the priority of materials given to air defence. So the fully completed Covenanters that came into service in early 1942 were effectively 18 months late. This is yet another aspect of the Covenanter's history that the "experts" have neglected to tell us.

I would say the Cavalier was definitely the worst tank the British made. As far as I can tell, the Covenanter had a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial three-year service life, until a small number of post-war authors spotted an opportunity to make mischief with it.

[Don Juan]

This pic suggests that the driver was very likely trapped when the turret was in the reverse position:

Military 0413.jpg (93.43 KiB) Viewed 4327 times

[Tim Smith]

Why can't the driver get out of the turret hatch then?