Was the covenanter the worst tank of the war?

[Don Juan]

Because part of the hatch opens backwards.

Is it me, or do they look like they are performing some kind of magical ritual?

Perhaps the 3rd Degree of Aleister Crowley's "Banishment Of The Sun".

[Sheldrake]

No its a ritual to appease the gremlins that dwelt in British vehicles of a certain vintage....The great god Fugg must be appeased with libations of beer drunk around the customary RAC sacrificial bonfires.

I suspect the name of this mighty god will have been invoked frequently on a vehicle requiring an average of four hours a day maintenance for which top up the battery electrolyte took an hour!

[Don Juan]

Well, when you consider how clownishly incompetent the RAC were when they actually got into battle during this period, they would probably have been better served by a tank that required 24 hours maintenance per day.

[John Hilly]

But:

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

Because part of the hatch opens backwards.

???
I don't get this!

By the way. Is that Covenanter I?

With best,
J-P

[phylo_roadking]

I'll go with Scotland on this...



That to me looks like a MkI or II - given the "early" louvre covers, the wheel caps and no leftside breather bulge; and I seriously can't see any MkI or MkII being sent abroad....OR if they were so bad still being in front-line service in 1944...they'd be seriously worn out by '44.

ONE small chance might have been the Poles keeping any Covenanter CS tanks they had...but that does look like a 2-pdr all right.

[Don Juan]

John Hilly - the back half of the hatch opened backwards and upwards, so I think it probably (but I don't know definitely) hit the underside of the turret rear. And it is indeed a Mk.I.

Phylo - that the Mk.I was still being used in '44 tends to indicate that it was usable in temperate climes even with the problematic cooling. This one is also said to be taken in 1944, and it's leading a Crusader III, which indicates that it was taken in late '42 at least:

Anyway here's an old chestnut of a picture:

Note that the loader's vision periscope is missing on the lead tank, and possibly on the two tanks behind it as well. Here's the same tanks from another angle:

The tank on the left appears to be missing the turret rear viewing cover as well.

So there also appears to have been a shortage of viewing devices, as well as the other shortages we know of.

[phylo_roadking]

Phylo - that the Mk.I was still being used in '44 tends to indicate that it was usable in temperate climes even with the problematic cooling

....if you accept "Italy"...

John....THIS pic illustrates the issue with the driver's hatch - there have been quite a few pics reproduced in the thread now showing how the turret had to rotate left 5-10 degrees to allow the drivers' hatch to open fully -the gun mantlet stopped it opening fully! - his vision "buttoned up" otherwise being remarked on as "poor" But this is the best, showing several tanks doing this at once...

[Don Juan]

....if you accept "Italy"...

No, the top photo I posted is in Britain, and dated 1944. See here: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205196919

[phylo_roadking]

Yes, but I'm talking about the "snow" pics. Which are not "temperate" wherever taken...

As for the 1944 provenance of that particular pic - if the "Italy" ones are miscaptioned....! But to me, one or two Covenanters among a covey of Crusaders would hint that the Covenanters were going to the scrapyard one by one...

[Don Juan]

Well, the Mk.I's shouldn't really have existed at this point. Peter Brown seems to suggest that they were all converted to Mk.II.

But I suppose some must have slipped through the gaps, unless they were deliberately kept for a particular reason......

......perhaps that allegedly warmer interior had its advantages after all.

[Aber]

Just reading Martel's 'Our Armoured Forces' from 1945.

He identifies the problems as 'fan drive and water pump', and describes the Covenanter as having 'a new and under-powered engine and the system of engine cooling was unsound'

[Don Juan]

The fan on the Covenanter wasn't driven - it was directly mounted on the driveshaft with a hub that enclosed the clutch.

So errr..........

[Urmel]

Conclusion, in the convenanter the direct mounting system was unsound, in the CRUSADER the fan drive was a piece of crap.

[Don Juan]

It's not so much that the direct mounting was unsound in principle, it's that in order to enclose the clutch, the hub took up most of the fan's diameter, so that for a 24" fan, the actual fan blades ended up being only 3" or so long. The idea of there being a problem with the water pump sounds about right because of the longer than standard piping to the radiator - the water pump is an essential part of the cooling system after all. But again, on the Mk.III and later, were a lot of these problems ameliorated, given that veteran testimonies are rife with complaints about steering and braking failures, but are silent on the issue of cooling problems?

As for the Crusader, the original chain-drive for the fan was indeed pants, but at some point (I don't know when) it was replaced by a shaft drive which seemed to be OK. The biggest problem with the Crusader was poor workmanship and lack of factory inspections, rather than any innate failings of the Liberty engine. The REME's solution in North Africa was to subject every new Crusader to a 200 mile run-in, during which all the major problems would usually turn up, then re-work them in the workshops, and issue them to the front as "battleworthy".

[phylo_roadking]

Just reading Martel's 'Our Armoured Forces' from 1945.

He identifies the problems as 'fan drive and water pump', and describes the Covenanter as having 'a new and under-powered engine and the system of engine cooling was unsound'

As well as the comments above in reply to this - do we know if he's talking about "operational" marks of the Covenanter....or that first atrocious prototype that had to be reworked so extensively?

As for the Crusader, the original chain-drive for the fan was indeed pants, but at some point (I don't know when) it was replaced by a shaft drive which seemed to be OK

I had a thought a few days ago - I wonder how closely work beginning on this modification for the Crusader correlated with the design work and subsequent production of the shaft-driven air filters in the Covenanter???