Especially when the US Army tests the tanks and agrees that they are indeed crap.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Des a Marmon-Herrington make the Original Timeline Covenanter look good by comparison for a tank of that era?
Covenanter's problems are mostly down to it being ordered without proper testing. They were trying to debug the thing while it was in service, and by the time they did it was already obsolescent. Still it did serve a useful purpose as a training tank (and not just for mechanics) despite its flaws. Other than having the radiator at the front of the tank the design was basically sound, but the pace of technological advances overtook it.
That's done in the first week of basic training, or on the terraces of your local football team.
'Other than having the radiators at the front'? Having a reliable power-pack is one of the most critical parts of designing a tank, so screwing that up is one of the worst things you can do. Further, for the Covenanter, not only was engine cooling screwed up, it made the vehicle nigh-unusable in many environments.
Problems that they had mostly solved with the Mk IV version of the tank. Specialised versions such as bridge layers did see active service after D Day being used in the siege of Dunkirk, and with the Australians in the Pacific.
From Wikipedia
The tank equipped various British armoured divisions for home defence and training. It never left the UK as poor engine cooling caused the Mk I to Mk III to be declared unfit for overseas service especially in hot climates. This was rectified in the Mk IV after many corrective actions were undertaken but, by February 1944, it was declared obsolete. More than 1,700 of the type were built. It was named after the Covenanters, a Scottish religious faction at the time of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.[citation needed]
Covenanter bridgelayers were used by the 1st Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade during the siege of Dunkirk from October 1944 to May 1945.[18] The bridgelayer version was also used by the 4th Armoured Brigade of the Australian Army at Bougainville and Balikpapan during the Pacific Campaign in 1945.[19]
Was it a good tank? No. Was it useless? Again no.
Last edited:
Useless? No, but it would have been better had the ministry pulled up its boots and forced them to abandon it in favour of more productive designs. 1,500 more Crusaders would have been more useful.
Last edited:
Agreed, though the Crusader wasn't exactly known for outstanding reliability either.
No, but it was at least reliable enough to serve outside of the British Isles.
Golden opportunity to post another finding on Covvie:
17.7% of Valentines broke down overall, 24% of Covvies, 43% of Matilda IIs and a whopping 94% of all Churchills.
The Marmon-Herrigton tanks should really be compared to the Failhills, not the Covvie which not only was the most reliable tank the British used by 1942 (including American LL), but had already solved overheating problems earlier, and was not really available regardless during the teething period due to a shortage of spare parts. Crusader was less reliable, but was deployable largely because it reused tooling and many parts from the previous Nuffield Cruisers and avoided the severe part shortages of 1941 for the Covvie.
That the Covvie quickly became more reliable than Crusader in spite of the company being less experienced and not relying on existing tooling and parts, and did way way better than Churchill even after the says a lot about LMS's efforts at fixing things, or Nuffield's lack thereof (Vauxhall at least aknowledged the problems in advance and was dealt a bad hand by being forced to rush a design even more quickly than the Cruisers). A Crusader built at LMS might have been better off, but mostly because the company may have done a better job than Nuffield in the same way BRCW and Leyland made better A27s than Nuffield's A24.
17.7% of Valentines broke down overall, 24% of Covvies, 43% of Matilda IIs and a whopping 94% of all Churchills.
The Marmon-Herrigton tanks should really be compared to the Failhills, not the Covvie which not only was the most reliable tank the British used by 1942 (including American LL), but had already solved overheating problems earlier, and was not really available regardless during the teething period due to a shortage of spare parts. Crusader was less reliable, but was deployable largely because it reused tooling and many parts from the previous Nuffield Cruisers and avoided the severe part shortages of 1941 for the Covvie.
That the Covvie quickly became more reliable than Crusader in spite of the company being less experienced and not relying on existing tooling and parts, and did way way better than Churchill even after the says a lot about LMS's efforts at fixing things, or Nuffield's lack thereof (Vauxhall at least aknowledged the problems in advance and was dealt a bad hand by being forced to rush a design even more quickly than the Cruisers). A Crusader built at LMS might have been better off, but mostly because the company may have done a better job than Nuffield in the same way BRCW and Leyland made better A27s than Nuffield's A24.
Last edited:
Golden opportunity to post another finding on Covvie:
17.7% of Valentines broke down overall, 24% of Covvies, 43% of Matilda IIs and a whopping 94% of all Churchills.
The Marmon-Herrigton tanks should really be compared to the Failhills, not the Covvie which not only was the most reliable tank the British used by 1942 (including American LL), but had already solved overheating problems earlier, and was not really available regardless during the teething period due to a shortage of spare parts. Crusader was less reliable, but was deployable largely because it reused tooling and many parts from the previous Nuffield Cruisers and avoided the severe part shortages of 1941 for the Covvie.
That the Covvie quickly became more reliable than Crusader in spite of the company being less experienced and not relying on existing tooling and parts, and did way way better than Churchill even after the says a lot about LMS's efforts at fixing things, or Nuffield's lack thereof (Vauxhall at least aknowledged the problems in advance and was dealt a bad hand by being forced to rush a design even more quickly than the Cruisers). A Crusader built at LMS might have been better off, but mostly because the company may have done a better job than Nuffield in the same way BRCW and Leyland made better A27s than Nuffield's A24.
Just to clarify "Casualties at zero hour" indicate vehicles that were intended to start the Bumper Exercise and at that start time they were unable to even get underway?
Seems so.Just to clarify "Casualties at zero hour" indicate vehicles that were intended to start the Bumper Exercise and at that start time they were unable to even get underway?
Wow!
That certainly provides context as to why the Sherman's were adopted so enthusiastically.
Thank you for that.... 🍻
Okay, pre-start casualties were ~74.1% for the Churchills, ~31.6% for the Matildas, ~13.5% for the Valentines, and ~17.8% for the Covenanters.
However, it must be remembered that this was just six months after the production of the first prototype Churchills, while the Covenanter had been in service a full year longer, and thus had had the time to have some of its most egregious bugs worked out. Further, these test were likely run in temperate climes, rather than tropical ones.
However, it must be remembered that this was just six months after the production of the first prototype Churchills, while the Covenanter had been in service a full year longer, and thus had had the time to have some of its most egregious bugs worked out. Further, these test were likely run in temperate climes, rather than tropical ones.
The cooling system was fixed and cleared for tropical conditions by then.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
The American M4 Sherman Tank, was an excellent example of a combination of American automotive engineering, and American manufacturing. Was it a brilliant tank in comparison to its contemporary designs, to which the answer in my opinion is no. Both the German Panther and the Soviet T34/85, were better designs, and on a one to one basis more than a match. However the Germans lacked the ability to produce the Panther in the numbers needed, ensure the outstanding reliability of the M4, or supply the required resources to ensure that it was able to fulfil its function. Those resources don’t just include numbers, but also the fuel, artillery, ammunition, air support, etc, that are required to make best advantage of your armoured forces. In the same way the Soviets, were reliant on the allies for a number of vital supplies to enable them to support their tanks in the field and make a poorly built weapon into a war winning weapon. It was British radios and American trucks, along with a very large number of other support, provided by Lend Lease, that enabled the Soviets to use their mass tank forces to such a devastating effect. Without those British radios the Soviets would have had a hard job coordinating their tanks during an attack. And again without those American trucks, they would not have been able to supply their tanks during an advance to such a devastating level. No American trucks and all of their advances would have run out of steam quickly, and enabling the Germans to better respond to any attack. The war on the Eastern Front would have become far more of a slogging match than it was, and it is doubtful the the Soviet forces would have reached Poland by 1944, as they did IOTL.
So let us look at the advantages and disadvantages of the M4 Sherman as built IOTL, not just the tank itself but also the system that the Americans and British built around it. As said the M4 was a superb example of the American automotive industry, built in numerous versions and fantastic numbers. And this was one of its principal strengths, along with the ability of the American military to ship it to all of the various conflict zones America and her allies were involved with around the world. This in combination with its ability to be used in various climatic conditions, from the arctic to the equator, made it highly successful. It was both mechanically simple and mechanically complex, for example the initial main armament fitted the 75mm gun M3 dates back to the French 1897 75 mm gun, which was adopted by the American army as a field artillery weapon and used during World War I. This gun much modified was by WWII, picked to be the replacement for the original 37 mm gun used in American tanks, it was in comparison to the British 6 pounder (57 mm) anti tank and tank gun or the German 7.5 cm KwK 40. A poor anti tank weapon, but a much better HE weapon, which experience had shown was a vital requirement for tank guns. And was eventually replaced in American service by a high power 76 mm M1, which was much more effective as an anti tank weapon. The British went one better by shoehorning their 17 pounder ( 77 mm ) into what became a very cramped Sherman turret.
The Sherman drive system was far better and more reliable than that of the German Panther, and unlike that of the Panther was very easy to work on. However the engines fitted to the Sherman other than the Ford V8, needed skilled men to work upon them, but given that both the Americans and British unlike the Germans, had large numbers of men who had the basic skills required, and could rapidly trained up to work on these engines, this wasn’t a major problem. To change the gearbox and final drive on a Sherman tank was easy and could be done in the field, were as to change the gearbox and final drive on a Panther was a long and complicated process best done in a workshop. In the case of the British and Soviet tanks, being rear engine and rear drive, the process of a gearbox and final drive system, though not as easy as on the Sherman, was still relatively simple and could be performed in the field. The armoured protection on the Sherman wasn’t as good as that of the Panther, T34, or Churchill, it was however more than adequate. And this once the ammunition storage and the provision of a separate hatch for the loader, had been sorted out, the Sherman became a tank with a very high serval rate for its crews. Even when the tank was hit and taken out of action. It’s suspension and track system wasn’t as good as that on ether the Panther or T34, in that it didn’t provide the quality of ride that the others did. But it was far more reliable and easy to repair, when subjected to damage, which meant that the repair and maintenance units were subjected to much less strain. All in all, given the various constraints that America was under at the start of WWII, the Sherman was an excellent vehicle, could the Americans have produced a much better tank in the time available, no. It wasn’t until they had absorbed all the lessons of WWII, and had the time to develop and subject to extensive testing that they were able to develop a much better tank. They were like the British forced by circumstance, to make do with what was available, and did so brilliantly. And like the British and Soviets were able to produce in the immediate post war period, three of the best tanks in the world, the British Centurion, the Soviet T54/55, and the American M46 to M60 series.
RR.
So let us look at the advantages and disadvantages of the M4 Sherman as built IOTL, not just the tank itself but also the system that the Americans and British built around it. As said the M4 was a superb example of the American automotive industry, built in numerous versions and fantastic numbers. And this was one of its principal strengths, along with the ability of the American military to ship it to all of the various conflict zones America and her allies were involved with around the world. This in combination with its ability to be used in various climatic conditions, from the arctic to the equator, made it highly successful. It was both mechanically simple and mechanically complex, for example the initial main armament fitted the 75mm gun M3 dates back to the French 1897 75 mm gun, which was adopted by the American army as a field artillery weapon and used during World War I. This gun much modified was by WWII, picked to be the replacement for the original 37 mm gun used in American tanks, it was in comparison to the British 6 pounder (57 mm) anti tank and tank gun or the German 7.5 cm KwK 40. A poor anti tank weapon, but a much better HE weapon, which experience had shown was a vital requirement for tank guns. And was eventually replaced in American service by a high power 76 mm M1, which was much more effective as an anti tank weapon. The British went one better by shoehorning their 17 pounder ( 77 mm ) into what became a very cramped Sherman turret.
The Sherman drive system was far better and more reliable than that of the German Panther, and unlike that of the Panther was very easy to work on. However the engines fitted to the Sherman other than the Ford V8, needed skilled men to work upon them, but given that both the Americans and British unlike the Germans, had large numbers of men who had the basic skills required, and could rapidly trained up to work on these engines, this wasn’t a major problem. To change the gearbox and final drive on a Sherman tank was easy and could be done in the field, were as to change the gearbox and final drive on a Panther was a long and complicated process best done in a workshop. In the case of the British and Soviet tanks, being rear engine and rear drive, the process of a gearbox and final drive system, though not as easy as on the Sherman, was still relatively simple and could be performed in the field. The armoured protection on the Sherman wasn’t as good as that of the Panther, T34, or Churchill, it was however more than adequate. And this once the ammunition storage and the provision of a separate hatch for the loader, had been sorted out, the Sherman became a tank with a very high serval rate for its crews. Even when the tank was hit and taken out of action. It’s suspension and track system wasn’t as good as that on ether the Panther or T34, in that it didn’t provide the quality of ride that the others did. But it was far more reliable and easy to repair, when subjected to damage, which meant that the repair and maintenance units were subjected to much less strain. All in all, given the various constraints that America was under at the start of WWII, the Sherman was an excellent vehicle, could the Americans have produced a much better tank in the time available, no. It wasn’t until they had absorbed all the lessons of WWII, and had the time to develop and subject to extensive testing that they were able to develop a much better tank. They were like the British forced by circumstance, to make do with what was available, and did so brilliantly. And like the British and Soviets were able to produce in the immediate post war period, three of the best tanks in the world, the British Centurion, the Soviet T54/55, and the American M46 to M60 series.
RR.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
The arrival of the various Marmon-Herrington tanks in Java is both an achievement and a disappointment for the Dutch and their allies. While the tanks themselves are to put it politely a crock of crap, as these tanks are among some of the very worst ever produced. The fact that despite the unfortunate grounding of the delivery ship, the Dutch authorities have managed to unload the majority of the tanks, without any interference from the Japanese, is a major win. I seriously doubt that other than a static pillbox, any of them will be used in action, they are just that bad. However the Dutch military has begun the difficult process of converting its troops from a basically non mechanical force into a basic mechanical force. And the fact that the British are in a position to provide some limited aid, in the form of experienced personnel, is also a bonus. The major difficulties that the Dutch will face in both trying to get these tanks to work, and keeping them running. Will pay dividends when the Dutch eventually get hold of some usable tanks from either the British or Americans, even if those tanks are not fit for service in Europe. Unless the Japanese can quickly invade Java, by the time that they eventually do, they are going to face a much better equipped and trained army. Things are not going well for the Japanese, and in my opinion are only going to get worse.
RR.
RR.