A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
Post Reply
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#61

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Jan 2011, 18:26

sadly the British workforce made sure that they contributed as well. The practice of Quality Control seems to have been an alien concept, never really comphrended.

General Auchinleck writing to Churchill in December 1941 on the two Churchill tanks sent for trials wrote:
These vehicles were stowed on the forward well-deck, unsheeted and unlocked, exposed to sea water. When received these tanks had water on floors and showed rust markings nine inches up the walls; considerable damage to electrical and wireless gear, requiring fourteen days work before the tanks can run. Method of stowing and despatch most unsatisfactory. All American tanks are dispatched with all crevices and doors pasted up with masking tape
That's not an issue with quality control at the factory - that's a result of how they were transported.
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...

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#62

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 17 Jan 2011, 20:41

phylo_roadking wrote:
sadly the British workforce made sure that they contributed as well. The practice of Quality Control seems to have been an alien concept, never really comphrended.

General Auchinleck writing to Churchill in December 1941 on the two Churchill tanks sent for trials wrote:
These vehicles were stowed on the forward well-deck, unsheeted and unlocked, exposed to sea water. When received these tanks had water on floors and showed rust markings nine inches up the walls; considerable damage to electrical and wireless gear, requiring fourteen days work before the tanks can run. Method of stowing and despatch most unsatisfactory. All American tanks are dispatched with all crevices and doors pasted up with masking tape
That's not an issue with quality control at the factory - that's a result of how they were transported.
Obviously those British sailors were more worried about "Rum and Sodomy", than doing their job, i.e. tyingdown /securing cargo effectively/winning the war :roll: .Sorry to paraphase Churchill from pre-WWI- "The Traditions of the Royal Navy are Rum , Sodomy, and the Lash".

All this is meant as no anti-british thing, as it is I think the only possible reason. However, there is NO LEGITMATE EXCUSE AT ALL , for not weatherproofing vital cargo on a ship, other than simply all persons involved were incompetent or didn't care. A capital offense , in times of war, AFAIAC.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#63

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Jan 2011, 21:18

Might be worth finding out - as Tom noted above - what ELSE might have been carried on the ship that brought the Churchills to the Middle East; it might not have been possible to get them into the hold!

Then again - would stevedores necessarily be TOLD where particular ships in military convoys were heading, or how long the voyage would take? :wink:
However, there is NO LEGITMATE EXCUSE AT ALL , for not weatherproofing vital cargo on a ship, other than simply all persons involved were incompetent or didn't care.
Might also be worth finding out how deck cargo was normally carried - this may not have been as exceptional as you think...
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...

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8249
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#64

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 Jan 2011, 21:30

ChristopherPerrien wrote:to paraphase Churchill from pre-WWI- "The Traditions of the Royal Navy are Rum , Sodomy, and the Lash".
I think he said it better as 'Rum, bum and the lash!'

Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#65

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 17 Jan 2011, 21:46

And of course a cargo ship would not have been loaded or manned by the RN - sigh!! :P

Back on topic - perhaps I might suggest that when the UK Government decided that it was time to overturn the "10 year rule" the priority was very much given to RAF, then RN, with army very much at the bottom of the list (and then the priority was given to AA defence). That's why the first Cruiser tank A9 only came off the production line in Jan 1939. The role given to the British Army did not require armoured divisions until the continental commitment was agreed in Feb/Mar 39.

I think those dates are about right, but you get my drift hopefully.

Regards
Tom

Sunbury
Member
Posts: 157
Joined: 30 Oct 2010, 06:02

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#66

Post by Sunbury » 18 Jan 2011, 09:52

Ok, I have to disagree with Tim and panic mode when talking of Tank production
I guess it took some while for British industry to get itself out of 'Panic Mode' and start treating quality as important again - probably it took until 1943
There is the truck debacle of August 1944, showing clearly that Quality Control was not in place in the automative sections of Industry.

The shipping of those two Churchill Tanks? the factory should have waterproofed them prior to being shipped (exception of driver's hatch if they were driven any distance). The Merchant Navy should have been instructed to cover them with tarps. Just little bits of not following through that snow ball down to the men at the sharp end..

Michael
How does that fit in your 'Germans rule' universe
This thread is about British Tanks not about German rules, whatever that means. It is about British viewpoints looking at why so many young men died in second rate death traps. The Churchill tanks at Dieppe? The German reaction was they were obsolete tanks that could be left behind. Problem of course was they were Britian's latest tank. That's the thread in a nutshell.

I do agree with Tom, that being at the bottom of the funding pecking order in the 1930's would have been a major consideration, but what money that was got was largely wasted. British Doctrine was torn between the "Hussar" mentality and Infantry support role. The Hussar "fox hunting mentality" pitted British tanks against German anti tank guns time after time in the Western Desert. The ability to learn seems tragically missing, all that inbreeding probably. A Western Desert joke of the era was that Hitler phoned Churchill and said he would remove Rommel if Churchill left the British Generals alone.

The Crusader prototype in 1937 was found to 47 seperate mechanical flaws; the engine dated back to one designed in 1915, the gearbox gave out after 70 miles, the brakes after 130 miles, the carburrettor and distribtor had to be redesigned, fresh tracks and stronger componets had to be introduced. All of this prewar peacetime design, not in "panic" mode. Basic engineering flaws that should have been realised in the planning stage, not in production tests. All that can be said is that 1937 design set the bench mark for the war years to come.

Frustrating things like the Churchill was uparmoured but the engine was never altered, so it just got slower. A to small turret yet again, that made fitting a larger gun a major redesign. The slow move from rivetted to welding yet again. Compare again the German workhorse the Mark 1V fitted with a long barrel high velocity 75mm in 1942.

PS I was wrong about the Meteor engine, it was the modified Merlin, my apologies.
Who discovered we could get milk from a cow? and come to think of it what did they think they were doing at the time? Billy Connolly

dcmatkins
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Sep 2004, 22:41
Location: cleveland england

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#67

Post by dcmatkins » 18 Jan 2011, 11:03

One word "apathy" towards manufacturing a quality tank.

Years later after the war, werent the BS series of standards originally used in the military for quality standards.

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#68

Post by David W » 18 Jan 2011, 13:25

I've only just stumbled across this topic so forgive me if I backtrack a little.

One of the main reasons for the British tank inferiority of the early war years is often cited as the 2pdr gun. When in fact this was avery good gun, but saddled with poor ammunition. It suffered acutely from the well documented lack of H.E. And also an A.P round that was not truly A.P, but merely solid shot, in essense nothing more than a "pointy" cannon ball!

Alongside the lack of oil filters in Cruiser tanks mentioned earlier, is the fact that they were also driven around the docks in both the UK & Egypt with no water in the cooling system which caused a measure of permament damage.

Tanks were also shipped out from the UK to N.A without being adequately sealed against the corrosive force of sea water.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#69

Post by Tim Smith » 18 Jan 2011, 14:05

Sunbury wrote:Ok, I have to disagree with Tim and panic mode when talking of Tank production

There is the truck debacle of August 1944, showing clearly that Quality Control was not in place in the automative sections of Industry.

The shipping of those two Churchill Tanks? the factory should have waterproofed them prior to being shipped (exception of driver's hatch if they were driven any distance). The Merchant Navy should have been instructed to cover them with tarps. Just little bits of not following through that snow ball down to the men at the sharp end..

Michael
How does that fit in your 'Germans rule' universe
This thread is about British Tanks not about German rules, whatever that means. It is about British viewpoints looking at why so many young men died in second rate death traps. The Churchill tanks at Dieppe? The German reaction was they were obsolete tanks that could be left behind. Problem of course was they were Britian's latest tank. That's the thread in a nutshell.

I do agree with Tom, that being at the bottom of the funding pecking order in the 1930's would have been a major consideration, but what money that was got was largely wasted. British Doctrine was torn between the "Hussar" mentality and Infantry support role. The Hussar "fox hunting mentality" pitted British tanks against German anti tank guns time after time in the Western Desert. The ability to learn seems tragically missing, all that inbreeding probably. A Western Desert joke of the era was that Hitler phoned Churchill and said he would remove Rommel if Churchill left the British Generals alone.

The Crusader prototype in 1937 was found to 47 seperate mechanical flaws; the engine dated back to one designed in 1915, the gearbox gave out after 70 miles, the brakes after 130 miles, the carburrettor and distribtor had to be redesigned, fresh tracks and stronger componets had to be introduced. All of this prewar peacetime design, not in "panic" mode. Basic engineering flaws that should have been realised in the planning stage, not in production tests. All that can be said is that 1937 design set the bench mark for the war years to come.

Frustrating things like the Churchill was uparmoured but the engine was never altered, so it just got slower. A to small turret yet again, that made fitting a larger gun a major redesign. The slow move from rivetted to welding yet again. Compare again the German workhorse the Mark 1V fitted with a long barrel high velocity 75mm in 1942.

PS I was wrong about the Meteor engine, it was the modified Merlin, my apologies.
I'm not aware of any 'Truck debacle' in 1944 - any further details? AFAIK, British military trucks were a lot better than German ones...

Regarding factory waterproofing of 2 Churchill tanks - maybe the factory wasn't told that they would be shipped as deck cargo instead of placed in a waterproof hold? Understandable.

The Crusader prototype wasn't delivered until April 1940, not 1937. The prototype delivered in 1937 was that of the Cruiser Mark III (A13 Mk.I). Maybe the faults you describe are of the Cruiser Mark III prototype, and not the Crusader?

The 'decapitation of the driver when turret rotated' is a training issue. The turret should not be rotated unless the driver is buttoned down, at 'combat stations'. The driver should only have his head poking out when the tank is in 'transport mode' (behind the front lines, combat not imminently expected), at which time there is no need for the turret to be rotated.

Many tanks in WW2 were up-armoured without receiving a more powerful engine - among them the Panzer Mk IV, the T-34 and the KV-1. So the Churchill is in good company there....besides, speed was not a priority for the Churchill, being an infantry support tank. The small turret ring was an issue though, as it was for the earlier Matilda.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#70

Post by Delta Tank » 18 Jan 2011, 15:52

Tim,

The 1400 unserviceable trucks with defective engines is discussed here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=163849

Also here: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=122517

Mike

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#71

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Jan 2011, 18:56

There is the truck debacle of August 1944, showing clearly that Quality Control was not in place in the automative sections of Industry.
....and in that thread seems now to come firmly down on the change of octane at the pumps not being accompanied by suitable alteration in the engine timing...leading to accelerated valve wear, piston damge etc. that we now can see was documented quite well. It doesn't come down to faulty valves/pistons/rings - these were/are today symptomatic of ignition timing/octane rating issues.
The shipping of those two Churchill Tanks? the factory should have waterproofed them prior to being shipped (exception of driver's hatch if they were driven any distance).
The last time I looked - which is every month in CMV, it deals with issues like this qute regularly - prototype testing apart from are they actually running well when they come off the production line I.E. the mechanicals...isn't the responsibility of the factory, they are handed over to the Army for performance testing/proving.
Ok, I have to disagree with Tim and panic mode when talking of Tank production
I do too - but NOT for the reasons YOU may! This matter is discussed in detail in Postan's British War Production - in the six months after Dunkirk priority was NOT given to tank development....it was given to artillery and aircraft production (renewed for a second six-month period in the case of aircraft); development of British types slowed down during that "Emergency" period in favour of production of proven designs for which the majority of development was done and there were already production lines running. The exception was the Churchill.
Alongside the lack of oil filters in Cruiser tanks mentioned earlier, is the fact that they were also driven around the docks in both the UK & Egypt with no water in the cooling system which caused a measure of permament damage
David, thanks for that; as you can see back up the thread I DID wonder about how they moved them about sans cooling fans etc.!
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...

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#72

Post by Delta Tank » 18 Jan 2011, 19:43

David and Pylo-Roadking,
Alongside the lack of oil filters in Cruiser tanks mentioned earlier, is the fact that they were also driven around the docks in both the UK & Egypt with no water in the cooling system which caused a measure of permament damage
David, thanks for that; as you can see back up the thread I DID wonder about how they moved them about sans cooling fans etc.!
Did they know that the tanks were missing coolant and cooling fans? If they did, I just don't understand why anyone would do this.

Mike

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#73

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Jan 2011, 19:48

Mike - as we know, there were boxes full of the required bits sent out WITH the tanks; bad enough that they didn't seem to fit what they could while at sea...but unless the boxes happened to come with no manifest documents or contents stencilled on the outside - it's doubly negligent...

Then again - they have to got got to somewhere; either that or you've got a slightly crowded quay! 8O
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...

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#74

Post by David W » 18 Jan 2011, 20:22

I was under the impression that the dock workers were unaware that the tanks had dry coolent systems. So a breakdown in communication perhaps.
It beggers the question as to who authorised the draining of the systems in the first place.

Delta Tank
Member
Posts: 2512
Joined: 16 Aug 2004, 02:51
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: A view on why Britsh tanks were so inferior.

#75

Post by Delta Tank » 18 Jan 2011, 20:23

phylo_roadking wrote:Mike - as we know, there were boxes full of the required bits sent out WITH the tanks; bad enough that they didn't seem to fit what they could while at sea...but unless the boxes happened to come with no manifest documents or contents stencilled on the outside - it's doubly negligent...

Then again - they have to got got to somewhere; either that or you've got a slightly crowded quay! 8O
Yes, but it is doubly worse when you have a tank sitting there with a blown engine!! I find it incredible that a vehicle would be shipped that needed coolant and cooling fans and then driven off the quay without anyone putting at least some water in the cooling system! These vehicles were shipped to the desert?? Even if shipped and unloaded in the arctic eventually it will need coolant and a cooling fan! Was this common? Systematic?? Corrective action taken?And I am sure that somewhere, someone, can find an incredibly stupid thing that was done by the Americans, the Canadians, the Germans, the Russians, the Japanese, etc. so I am not picking on the Brits! When you are trying to run a war on a very large scale, stupid shit happens, but would not someone, even a private/a merchant seamen, take the initiative and do the right thing and correct a known deficiency before destroying an engine that took many, many man hours to produce, fit into the vehicle and take up valuable shipping space!!

Mike

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”