For those interested in tanks and armoured fighting vehicles

[iL Dottore]

This has been a most interesting and erudite thread to read through. When I started reading the thread, I thought that - due to my interest in military history - I knew a little bit about armoured vehicles. I now realise, thanks to the learnéd postings of the contributors to this thread, that what I know can easily be written on the back of a postage stamp with space to spare.

 

Having said that, I do notice a few things emerging as common themes: firstly, the MOD is not exactly the Civil Service’s best department; secondly, no matter in which army you are serving, everyone else’s equipment is better!; Thirdly, if you really want to design a great fighting vehicle: talk to the fitters, the engineers and the crews. Never, ever, listen to the procurement bods at the MOD!

 

Now to a few odds and sods about AFVs: I’ve read numerous military histories that claim, one way or another, that the Russian T34 was designed to be operated by crews with almost no training and education and that in the early part of the war the crews were expendable but not the tanks. I wonder how true it is this is?

 

Another story I’ve read about, which seems sadly plausible, is that when the Cromwell tank was introduced in WW II, the regiments chosen to have their Shermans replaced by the Cromwells were absolutely horrified, finding in the Cromwell every one of all the bad design aspects found in the various British tanks of the Second World War, the final straw being flat instead of angled armour. Such was the dismay of the regiments getting these tanks and such was the vociferous complaining by senior regimental officers, that such officers were threatened with court-martial unless they shut up and used the Cromwells as ordered.
 

Is this true, or just another story fabricated from rumour and gossip?

 

Cheers

 

iD

Edited May 4, 2020 by iL Dottore

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

 

2 hours ago, iL Dottore said:

...Another story I’ve read about, which seems sadly plausible, is that when the Cromwell tank was introduced in WW II, the regiments chosen to have their Shermans replaced by the Cromwells were absolutely horrified, finding in the Cromwell every one of all the bad design aspects found in the various British tanks of the Second World War, the final straw being flat instead of angled armour...

Is this true, or just another story fabricated from rumour and gossip?...

The omission of sloped armour, by what was then understood by the tank regiments to be critical to the superior survivability  of both Axis and Allied tanks that had it, was indeed the cause of severe criticism. Had that directly from a British tank officer with the MC, who served in the European campaign. So I would take that as fact.

[exet1095]

18 hours ago, iL Dottore said:

Another story I’ve read about, which seems sadly plausible, is that when the Cromwell tank was introduced in WW II, the regiments chosen to have their Shermans replaced by the Cromwells were absolutely horrified, finding in the Cromwell every one of all the bad design aspects found in the various British tanks of the Second World War, the final straw being flat instead of angled armour. Such was the dismay of the regiments getting these tanks and such was the vociferous complaining by senior regimental officers, that such officers were threatened with court-martial unless they shut up and used the Cromwells as ordered.

I have not heard that, even though one of our antecedent regiments has a very hard time in their Cromwells at Villers Bocage. This is after many trips to Normandy over the last 28 years, sadly with an ever diminishing contingent of Old Comrades.

 

Different tanks for different jobs. With over 500HP of RR Meteor engine, the Cromwell had great speed, and thanks to its gearbox, was also very manoeuvrable too. Firepower was up there with a Sherman, with better accuracy on the move, and protection was roughly similar. The Cromwell was mainly there as a recce tank, but could engage the German Tigers and Panthers too, as was shown at Villers Bocage. What the Sherman has was reliability, with crew jobs taking roughly half as much time as on the Cromwells. Anyone who has spent what he had hoped would be his downtime track-bashing and vehicle servicing will appreciate this!
 

That its replacement was the Comet, which had an improved (the best in the world at that time) gun - the 17pdr, but without significant changes to the shape of the armour, indicates a lack of concern about the protection side of the triangular principles of armour. (Firepower, protection and mobility.)

Finally, the British Army rarely threatens disciplinary action. In over three decades of service I have never heard, “and that’s an order!”  You have the chance to argue your case. It is listened to, or isn’t, and then you get on and do your job. That was true in the Peninsular, and has been ever since. 

Edited May 5, 2020 by exet1095
typos

[Chris hndrsn]

On 05/05/2020 at 04:45, exet1095 said:

..."indicates a lack of concern about the protection side of the triangular principles of armour. (Firepower, protection and mobility.)" 

Hmm, though I agree with you on that every armoured vehicle design is based on those three factors, saying that there was "a lack of concern about protection" would be simply untrue. Every AFV is a balance of the three factors based on the role and need, you sacrifice mobility for armour protection, most commonly on assault focused tanks like the Churchill. You describe why the Cromwell wasn't armoured as well as the Churchill in your description of it being a reconnaissance tank, which needed speed and manoeuvrability, with firepower to get out of situations, rather than protection (armour) to fight it out. That is clearly not a lack of concern.

[Barry O]

Agreed .. which is why they were busy designing and developing Centurion.. the first UK Main Battle Tank. A decent balance of the Firepower, Protection and Mobility has been continued in more recent UK MBTs. Other countries haven't- example Leo 1 and 2 which have low/ not great protection levels hence low weight..higher speed the UK MBTs, Only the UK still test vehicles by firing their own main armament at them.. not sure about the Israelis.. but I know the Russians were less than impressed with M1 (blow out armour panels in bustle..yeh!)  Leo 2 - they knew more about those as per how to knock them out as demonstrated by the poor Turkish crews, fell about laughing at Leclerc but said the Merkeva was a well designed opponent.

 

From Comet we went onto all "bang" ammo stored under the turret ring, no hydraulics for turret drives etc..

 

Baz

[exet1095]

53 minutes ago, Chris hndrsn said:

Hmm, though I agree with you on that every armoured vehicle design is based on those three factors, saying that there was "a lack of concern about protection" would be simply untrue. Every AFV is a balance of the three factors based on the role and need, you sacrifice mobility for armour protection, most commonly on assault focused tanks like the Churchill. You describe why the Cromwell wasn't armoured as well as the Churchill in your description of it being a reconnaissance tank, which needed speed and manoeuvrability, with firepower to get out of situations, rather than protection (armour) to fight it out. That is clearly not a lack of concern.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. The protection was deemed sufficient for the job that it was meant to do, and also good enough for the Comet.
 

Barry O is right about the Cent - the best tank ever made (at its inception). It was designed to do its job, not to get someone an MBE.  I crewed (As loader/operator) a Danish one on exercise in 1992, and although it was basic, it went ok and did not break down once in ten days.

Edited June 23, 2020 by exet1095
Spelling!

[sir douglas]

there is a recent video of the strv 104, which is the mk 10 cent much modified and upgraded in swedish service. final upgrades in the 1980's and retirement in the 90's

 

(2 parts to this)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouMjZWu5Cx4

 

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/Sweden/strv-104.php/

[Clive Mortimore]

The discussion on angled armour plate and square armour is quite an interesting one. The British tank doctrine at the time of the Cromwell's introduction was square armour was easier to make and the advantages of sloped armour were not great enough to increase the cost of the tank and at the same time loss the interior room in doing so.

 

Let us look at 3 comparable tanks, The Cromwell, the Pz Kfw IV and the T34/76. About the same physical size, two used square armour and had a good distribution of crew duties and room for them to move, the other had sloped armour and was cramped.

 

Lets us look at 3 other comparable tanks, The Comet, the Panther and the T34/85. The Comet and T34 were about the same physical size, the T34/85 was still cramped despite the larger turret as it had a bigger gun and a third person. The Comet and the Panther had more room for the crews to work in. The Panther achieved this by being bigger owing to the adoption of sloped armour.

 

Somehow the Sherman, both the 75mm and the 76mm armed tanks managed to combine a spacious interior and sloped armour along with a reliability the other tank designers envied. What is even more remarkable it was designed around mass production not the needs of the army high command and arms firms.

 

The Sherman has a bad press as it was supposed to burn more easy than other tanks when hit. It might have had a slightly higher casualty rate on the battlefield. But look at this way, a Sherman unit arrives with all 20 tanks in working order, the opposing army gets there with only 10 in full working order. The Sherman unit takes 8 knocked out tanks. The other army has 7 knocked out or break down. Which commander is going to withdraw his remaining tanks first, the one with 12 left or the one with 3? Both the British and the Soviets used large numbers of Shermans, successfully. Post war when pitched against the T34, it normally came out on top.

 

I am sure the Centurion had it arrived in time to make an impact on WW2 would have been a good weapon. It didn't, it was too late.

[Barry O]

Clive

 

Shermans if knocked out would lose all 5 crew members (a Panther or Tiger could knock one out from over 1500m away long before the 76mm Sherman could cause either vehicle a problem. The UK Firefly had a far better chance of hitting the Tiger or Panther with a "tank kill" round.

 

But

 

Sherman, T34  cast turret shells  easy for their respective manufacturers to make. 

 

T34 in particular (and the JS1 heavy tank ) were/are tiny vehicles and more recent Soviet doctrine has kept vehicle sizes small - so you must have small crew members. ( and it didn't make then less easy to hit for the Israelis and then the UK in more recent actions

 

Pre Cent UK ..manufacturers found it far easier to rivet armour than to machine big castings.. that only really started to happen with Chieftain.

 

Chieftain, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 all big castings with add on armour (Still Brew , Chobham etc)  CR1 and CR2 have sloped frontal armour faces  and big lumps of armour plate for the rest to the turret .

 

Baz

[Clive Mortimore]

6 hours ago, Barry O said:

Clive

 

Shermans if knocked out would lose all 5 crew members (a Panther or Tiger could knock one out from over 1500m away long before the 76mm Sherman could cause either vehicle a problem. The UK Firefly had a far better chance of hitting the Tiger or Panther with a "tank kill" round.

 

But

 

Sherman, T34  cast turret shells  easy for their respective manufacturers to make. 

 

T34 in particular (and the JS1 heavy tank ) were/are tiny vehicles and more recent Soviet doctrine has kept vehicle sizes small - so you must have small crew members. ( and it didn't make then less easy to hit for the Israelis and then the UK in more recent actions

 

Pre Cent UK ..manufacturers found it far easier to rivet armour than to machine big castings.. that only really started to happen with Chieftain.

 

Chieftain, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2 all big castings with add on armour (Still Brew , Chobham etc)  CR1 and CR2 have sloped frontal armour faces  and big lumps of armour plate for the rest to the turret .

 

Baz

Hi Baz

 

That was theory, and myth in many cases. By the time the Germans were fielding Panthers and Tigers the crews had little training beyond the basics and many of their experienced officers had been killed or wounded. They might on paper been superior weapons but in the hands of their crews and their leadership they were not better than allied tanks.

 

I am now going to have Wittmann at Villers-Bocage quoted at me, he didn't do so well at Saint-Aignan-de-Cramesnil. Yes he was a good tank commander but after his death the 101 SS Heavy Panzer Battalion (or as it became 501st when reequipped with Tiger IIs) was not an effective unit.

 

The British were able to do big armoured castings, the Matilda hull was cast and that was bigger than a T34 turret, and we used cast 3 man turrets on Churchills as well as welded ones. The late production Cromwells and the the Comet were all welded armour.  The Canadian's  Ram and Grizzly tanks were cast, hulls and turrets.

 

The sloping side armour of the T34 made the tank very cramped compared to a Sherman, the Soviet crews liked the Sherman because there was room to do your job effectively. They were not allowed to say so until after 1991.  The JS1 was comparable size to a Panther, Challenger (A30, Cruiser Tank Mk VIII) or M26, so big for WW2 standards, and still cramped inside the hull.

 

Did you see the T34s and Su100s on today's 75th Victory Parade in Red Square?

 

 

[Ohmisterporter]

This article in National Interest is about a proposed French-German tank using the Leclerc turret on a Leopard chassis. With a 130mm gun it is theoretically a step up from current NATO tanks. Hope this is of interest.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/france-and-germany-are-working-together-build-new-super-tank-163464

[Barry O]

On 24/06/2020 at 23:15, Clive Mortimore said:

Hi Baz

 

That was theory, and myth in many cases. By the time the Germans were fielding Panthers and Tigers the crews had little training beyond the basics and many of their experienced officers had been killed or wounded. They might on paper been superior weapons but in the hands of their crews and their leadership they were not better than allied tanks.

 

I am now going to have Wittmann at Villers-Bocage quoted at me, he didn't do so well at Saint-Aignan-de-Cramesnil. Yes he was a good tank commander but after his death the 101 SS Heavy Panzer Battalion (or as it became 501st when reequipped with Tiger IIs) was not an effective unit.

 

The British were able to do big armoured castings, the Matilda hull was cast and that was bigger than a T34 turret, and we used cast 3 man turrets on Churchills as well as welded ones. The late production Cromwells and the the Comet were all welded armour.  The Canadian's  Ram and Grizzly tanks were cast, hulls and turrets.

 

The sloping side armour of the T34 made the tank very cramped compared to a Sherman, the Soviet crews liked the Sherman because there was room to do your job effectively. They were not allowed to say so until after 1991.  The JS1 was comparable size to a Panther, Challenger (A30, Cruiser Tank Mk VIII) or M26, so big for WW2 standards, and still cramped inside the hull.

 

Did you see the T34s and Su100s on today's 75th Victory Parade in Red Square?

 

 

Sorry Clive, i have cheched with an 1 RTR historian. Their records suggest that if ann hit your Sherman you had a limited chance of getting all crew members out with safety.

 

Why no  castings for some UK turrets? Our tanks were farmed out for design and build. Not enough castings for everyone so welded/rivetted bits were easier for some companies to make. Other problem was ...we couldn't get decent armour thickness  into our turrets as we didn't have decent engines until Cent hot the meteor..ie a land variant of the Merlin.

 

The soviets didn't  (and still don't) worry about crew facilities. I could fit into the T34 or t55 drivers compartments at all. The Soviets just used smaller crew members to fit (including women).

Baz

[Barry O]

21 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

This article in National Interest is about a proposed French-German tank using the Leclerc turret on a Leopard chassis. With a 130mm gun it is theoretically a step up from current NATO tanks. Hope this is of interest.

 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/france-and-germany-are-working-together-build-new-super-tank-163464

Not really a major advance. The 130mm gun has been looked at since before Challenger 2. Leclerc has an autoloader which you will need for that gun.

 

Anyone who reduces weight in a tank has either..reduced armour or thinned the plates or chucked things away. ( autoloader gets rid of a crew member but adds weight and complexity.

 

Armour of both vehicles is very suspect..even the latest Leos have concerns. To get weight out of the Leo 2 the hull is 10mm plate..i can say no more..but that when Maggie and her Challenger backed into the Leo 2 the Challenger continued to work, the Leo2 didn't

 

Baz

 

Baz

 

 

[Clive Mortimore]

On 26/06/2020 at 16:48, Barry O said:

Sorry Clive, i have cheched with an 1 RTR historian. Their records suggest that if ann hit your Sherman you had a limited chance of getting all crew members out with safety.

 

Why no  castings for some UK turrets? Our tanks were farmed out for design and build. Not enough castings for everyone so welded/rivetted bits were easier for some companies to make. Other problem was ...we couldn't get decent armour thickness  into our turrets as we didn't have decent engines until Cent hot the meteor..ie a land variant of the Merlin.

 

The soviets didn't  (and still don't) worry about crew facilities. I could fit into the T34 or t55 drivers compartments at all. The Soviets just used smaller crew members to fit (including women).

Baz

Hi Baz

 

Here is a slide from a talk by Nicholas Moran showing the casualty rate per tank knocked out.  The higher rate for British crews was possibly them not wearing helmets but berets. Nicholas in the talk shows photos of the egress of the drivers positions of comparable tanks. In his videos of the different types of tanks he always does an escape from a burning tank where he tries to get out as quickly as he can. The Sherman it is un-lock the spring loaded hatch  and straight up, no twisting or turning. There was a problem with the early tanks in not having a loaders hatch, most were retro fitted. All later production tanks did have this feature.

 

 

We had the capability to do large castings, the Tortoise was huge and was cast armour. The inability of British firms to adapt their practice remained a problem well into the 1950s, hence both riveted and welded 16 ton mineral wagons. There was not a drive to get all companies to change how they made things.

 

The Churchill tanks when first made had 4 inches of armour, later versions this was 6 inches. We did have a very reliable tank with sloped armour that was progressively up gunned, the Valentine. It was physically too small by the mid war.

 

The Cromwell, Challenger (A30), Comet and Archer Avenger (A30 SP 17 pdr gun) were all fitted with the Meteor Engine before the Centurion.

 

As for the Soviets and crew comfort, why did their crews prefer fighting in a Sherman to a home produced T34 despite the T34 being a good weapon? 

 

1st Battalion Royal Tank Regiment during the European campaign were equipped with Cromwell tanks, except for the fourth tank in each troop which was a Sherman Firefly. Did they lose a higher proportion of their Fireflies for their historian to come up with his conclusions.

 

 

Edited June 27, 2020 by Clive Mortimore
whoops wrong name

[sir douglas]

there are some other interesting videos by this channel such as WW2 russian tanks still in use in Yemen

 

 

 

[Ohmisterporter]

The idea of a joint European main battle tank has been around for years. This from 19fortyfive.com is about the joint Franco-German project with potentially a bigger gun than the 120mm NATO standard. The UK was reportedly thinking of joining this project as a replacement for Challenger 2. Still early days but worth a read.

 

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/02/european-main-battle-tank-could-get-a-massive-gun/

 

[Barry O]

the Leclerc turret is not that well protected but to get a 140mm gun you do need some form of autoloader.

 

Problem is, on pan european defence projects I have been involved in the French and Germans are always the ones who fall out in lumps.

 

Baz

[John Harris]

On 23/06/2020 at 16:44, Barry O said:

but said the Merkeva was a well designed opponent.

 

From Comet we went onto all "bang" ammo stored under the turret ring, no hydraulics for turret drives etc..

 

Baz

 

The Merkava is a tank design to a very specific requirement, the crew must survive.  It was designed after several intense wars that threatened the existence of Israel, the loss of machinery was bad, the loss of trained crews to a small nation could be catastrophic.

 

The IDF was a big user of the British Centurion, which with well trained crews could defeat even the most modern Soviet built T-72s, and could easily cope with the older T-55/62.  Israel was interested in the Chieftain, and during a secret operation in 1966, two British-manufactured Chieftain tanks were brought to Israel for a 4-year-long evaluation for service with the IDF. The plan was for the IDF not only to purchase some Chieftains, but for IMI (Israeli Military Industries) to produce the tank under license. After the trials were done, Israeli improvements and ideas were implemented by the British manufacturer, but politics intervened and nothing came of it.  The knowledge earned during the improvements on the 'Chieftain', together with earlier experiments in tank improvements, gave the last push for the development and production of the 'Merkava' tank.

 

The first 'Merkava' prototypes were in fact based on Centurions, effectively reversed so the engine was towards the "front"'

 

Or with a US M48 turret. 

 

 

jch

[Barry O]

Two Mk4 Chieftains went to Israel. I think one is now in the USA. Mods to the Iranian, Kuwaiti and Omani Chieftain came after the trials.

 

Merkava also includes the ability to carry troops.. something the UK has never required.. and quite a bit of training of Tank crews in Israel was undertaken by Swiss instructors for some reason ...

 

Baz

[rocor]

Britain was quite prepared to supply Israel with tanks, as long as it not use them.

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13619462.2014.930348

[Barry O]

Centurion parts were easily available.. lots and lots of them were built. 

 

Baz

[Gordon A]

35 minutes ago, Barry O said:

Centurion parts were easily available.. lots and lots of them were built. 

 

Baz

But a problem if our government won't give you an export licence.

[Barry O]

50 minutes ago, Gordon A said:

But a problem if our government won't give you an export licence.

you could get Centruion spares from a variety of places.. South Africa, Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Sweden.. so you didn't have to buy from the UK at all. Ammunition from Belgium/India/Israel..

 

Question is weher did Iran get spares fro their Chieftains when they were fighting Iraq??

 

Baz

[burgundy]

4 hours ago, Barry O said:

Problem is, on pan european defence projects I have been involved in the French and Germans are always the ones who fall out in lumps.

 

Baz

Barry 

I think you are being slightly unfair to the UK. We can be at least as good at falling out as either of them. 

Best wishes 

Eric  

[Ohmisterporter]

I am wondering just what future an MBT has these days. The Armenia/Azerbaijan war and the Turkish incursion into Syria showed their vulnerability to drone attack. Reportedly 100 Armenian AFVs were destroyed by Turkish supplied drones and that must have had a significant affect on the result of the war. Perhaps the concept of large numbers of AFVs sweeping across the Norhern European plains is now outdated.