US & British tank names

[Armadillo]

My limited resources either refer to US tanks by US designations, or by their British names. Nothing I have tells me what the British call a "Honey", etc. The references to Grants, Lees, Honeys, etc has me confused. Can someone give me a quick translation? Also, the British seem to love some of the same tanks that the Americans hate; any explaination?

[flamingknives]

Honey = Stuart = M3 light.

Grant and Lee are varients of the M3 Medium.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I think they liked them so much because they were better than most of what they had, and there were a lot of them. As you can see in the CMAK demo, the Grants/Lees were able to stand their own against the Panzer IIIs, but the limitations of their main gun made them too vulnerable and they were no match for the 75mm Panzer IVs.

[Thomas Goetz]

The M3 medium tank that the British liked so much, and called the Grant (it had a different turret than the American version, which was called the Lee - lower, and without the little machine gun cupola on top) was a big step up for the British armored forces. Here was a tank that had decent armor (not great, but better than British cruiser tanks), good speed, was mechanically reliable, and the main 75mm gun, even if the traverse was limited, was much superior to any gun on any British tank of the period.

For all that, the M3 medium was an interim model, produced only because American industry was not yet up to producing a tank hull and turret ring for a turret large enough to take a 75mm gun. That vehicle was in the works, of course, and became the M4 medium, the Sherman.

The same principle applies to the M3 light in British service. In this case, the gun was small, but the US 37mm had a useful HE round, something the British 2 pounder (40mm) did not. The big thing about the Stuart, or Honey, was that it was reliable. Compared to British tanks, it ran forever, maintainence was simpler, and it was simply a more durable vehicle, apart from combat. In a theater such as North Africa, where logistics are so stretched, these traits were certainly enough to endear the vehicle to British tankers.

By the way, most of the tank names given to US tanks came from the British. Although many US vehicles later picked up unofficial nicknames (Stuart, Sherman, Wolverine, Jackson, Chaffee), the official US designation was always just numbers and letters - the Sherman could be the M4, M4A1, M4A3, or M4A3E8, for example.

For some reason the Brits seemed compelled to name anything with an even remotely military purpose. Further, this name was often part of the official designation as well - Churchill Mk VI, for example, or Spitfire Mk IX. They even named the engines that went into their airplanes. Those included the famous Merlin (named after a small hawk, not the wizzard), the Kestrel (another hawk) the Griffon, the Hercules, and the Goblin (an early jet engine).

To sum up - the Brits loved American tanks and other combat equipment as much for its mechanical reliability and ease of maintainence as they did for its combat capabilities. Anyone who has ever had experience with certain British motor vehicles (I used to own a '67 MGB) will testify to the occasional frustration at eccentric and often unreliable British engineering.

[NewSocialistMan]

just as a side note....

I'm told that the infamous unreliability of British vehicles throughout the war had to do with the fact that the British automobile industry was pretty late to adopt the principles of mass production that were so clearly prevalent in the industries of America, Germany, and even Russia. British autos were a hobbyist's obsession rather than a common man's form of transportation. As a result, British military vehicles suffered from all manner of problems one would associate with "one off" manufacturing.

[Wicky]

Paxman, Diesels, and Colchester

A 'little hobbyist' factory in my hometown in the UK which built landing craft and submarine engines plus...

TANK SPROCKETS

The story of Davey Paxman's participation in tank sprocket construction is a triumph in itself. Thanks to the evolution of a novel method of gas cutting, they turned out so many so quickly that what was only intended to be part of an urgent "helping out" contract after El Alamein, became a master activity, continuing almost to the end of the German war. With their specially devised cutter Davey Paxman made many thousands of sprockets for "Valentine", "Matilda", "Crusader", and "Cruiser" tanks. In addition to the above, indirect orders for sprockets included large quantities for Mechanisation & Aero Ltd., for English Electric Co., and for Ford Motor Co. Ltd. … the whole a victory of imaginative engineering. The process was quite unique … flame cutters were used like a tool and lathe … special apparatus was devised, bringing about a tremendous saving of time as well as over 40% saving of the forging weight. A capacity of over a thousand finished sprockets per week and up to 1500 bren gun carrier sprockets was reached and Davey Paxman were easily the biggest sprocket makers … Master Sprocket Makers in fact!

[ November 24, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[Thomas Goetz]

Just to clarify my above post - I'm not running down British designs and engineering overall. Especially in the field of aircraft engineering, they produced some superb, world-class designs. However, when it came to armor, the best the British could manage during the war were a few adequate tanks like the Cromwell and Churchill, and a number of flawed designs, like the entire cruiser family. I must confess I cannot understand how the nation that invented modern armored warfare could not come up with even one really great tank design during the war. OK, I'll qualify myself - the Centurion was pretty good, but was just too late to see action.

And I stand by my point about occasional eccentric engineering. Couple of examples from the MGB I used to own:

1) Speedometer cable. When they moved the steering wheel from right to left for American export, they didn't bother to relocate the speedometer cable attachment on the tire from the right to the left as well. Consequently, the cable went from the instrument on the left to the attachment on the right, and in the process made not one but two 90 degree bends, which kinked the cable so badly I was never able to get the instrument to work. The needle would simply bounce over about a 30 mph range, and your actual speed would be somewhere near the middle of that.

2) Electric power supply. The car used a 12 volt electrical system. So naturally, it drew electrical power from two very small 6 volt batteries, hooked up in series. To further complicate things, the batteries were located in two recessed open metal frames behind the driver's seat. This location actually accomplished several thinigs simultaneaously. It made it impossible to replace the 6 volt batteries with a 12 volt, since there were no 12 volt batteries small enough to fit into these wells. Since the cables were connected to the sides of the wells, that was the only place they could go. Further, the batteries rode only inches off the pavement, completely exposed to anything the elements could throw at them. They were badly coroded, which was why I tried to replace them. And of course the metal supports that held the batteries were rusting away. To top it off, the batteries were located directly in front of the gas (or should I say petrol?) tank. Every time I drove the car, I had visions of hitting a larger than normal bump, having the batteries drop free, hit the pavement, spark and then slam into the gas tank.

I could go on, but I think NewSocialistMan is correct. Much (not all, but much) of British vehicle engineering was, by the standards of the mass production of other countries, especially the US and USSR, not as shaped by the principles of reliability and ease of use.

[flamingknives]

Much of the failure of Britain to produce a decent tank in WWII was due to the scrappy way they funded development. When threatened by invasion, they put on hold all development of armoured vehicles and tank guns in order to produce as many as possible. Instead of having 6pdr guns available to combat 50mm guns, they ended up with 2pdrs while the 6pdrs were delayed until they faced the 75mm long.

In addition, some resources were devoted to useless projects such as the Covenanter and this:

http://freespace.virgin.net/mr.fred/Bovington/Prototypes/TOG2.JPG

Quite a large pic, so I won't embed it in the thread.

[Andreas]

Hehe - the TOG 2 looks like a Cromwell on steroids.

Take that Herr Gropenfuehrer!

[Wicky]

Funnily enough that Bovington Tog 2 was powered by a paxman engine

TOG Tanks

TOG 2 ran for the first time on 16th March 1941. Six months later it was decided to make various modifications and the tank's name was changed to TOG 2*. Substantial changes were made to the final drive, the most important being the adoption of sprung, torsion bar suspension which was fitted in April 1943. The modified tank performed faultlessly in trials throughout May 1943. However, the conditions for which the TOG had been designed were never likely to materialise after the fall of France in 1940 and the War Office showed no interest in placing any orders for it.

Plans were prepared for a shorter version of the tank called TOG 2R (Revised) and there were even suggestions of building a TOG 3, but neither were developed.

Most of the details given here about TOG 1 and TOG 2 come from David Fletcher's book, The Great Tank Scandal - British Armour in the Second World War, Part 1, published by HMSO 1989 (ISBN 0 11 290460 2).

TOG 2 has survived and is now on display in the Tank Museum at Bovington, still with its TP engine. The heaviest tank in the museum, it weighs 80 tons, is 33' 3" long, 10' 3" wide, and 10' high. Designed for a crew of six, it had a maximum speed of 8½

The TOG tank was designed by World War 1 veterans for World War 1 conditions.

Similar in principle to a Harley Davidson

[flamingknives]

Actually, quite a good book on the FUBAR situation of tank design in WWII is Peter Beale's "Death by Design"

[Andreas]

Wicky, you just have to come to London drinks sometime.

[Wicky]

Sure will, now that the cricket season is a dim and distant memory.

I really was tempted to blat along for the CMAK warming party.

Originally posted by Andreas:

Wicky, you just have to come to London drinks sometime.

[dieseltaylor]

Engineering -

credit for the 17lbr - best Western Allied tank gun

Crocodiles, funnies generally

Cromwell & then Comet - fast and with agood gun and reasonable armour

Bouncing bomb, tallboy

Radar

I believe discarding sabot was a British invention or possibly French?

only a few things that spring to mind

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Bouncing bomb, tallboy

And Grand Slam. Came late into the war and only used a few times, but very awesome.

Michael

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Thomas Goetz:

For some reason the Brits seemed compelled to name anything with an even remotely military purpose. Further, this name was often part of the official designation as well - Churchill Mk VI, for example, or Spitfire Mk IX. They even named the engines that went into their airplanes. Those included the famous Merlin (named after a small hawk, not the wizzard), the Kestrel (another hawk) the Griffon, the Hercules, and the Goblin (an early jet engine).

The naming of tanks was undertaken as a direct order from the Prime-Minister and Minister of Defence, Mr. Churchill who felt he was easily confused by the nomenclature adopted by the British Army to describe AFVs (usually a "A" letter followed by a model number). The result was the mass adoption of names.

Aircraft and engine names were more a combination of marketing by the manufacturers or because the RAF preferred to name their aircraft distinctively to differentiate between them.

[flamingknives]

'Cookies' - 4,000 lb bombs.

[Wicky]

Permission to speak...

Can anyone ID this AFV seen here in the pic manned by a Captain and Corporal from a rare color propaganda film "They don't like it up 'em".

[Private Bluebottle]

Obviously a Mk.I* traction engine, hailing back to the 2nd Boer War! While the Mk.II had an armoured cab and pulled armoured wagons, the Mk.I* didn't. The Mk.I* though, was an improvement over the original Mk.I in that a seat was provided for the driver, who otherwise had to stand. Neither the Mk.I(*) or the Mk.II were terribly successful in their role of pulling armoured land trains across the African veld, purely becuase "Johnny Boer", once they became aware of the clumsiness of the machines, started digging massive numbers of pits, similar to the Elephant traps that the natives did. The result was that the traction engines became largely confined to roads, where because of the Victorian era restrictions on road transport they had to be preceeded by a soldier carrying a red flag, which slowed them to the point of uselessness.