What is a Cruiser type tank?

[SteveP]

I know that the Brits had a model of tank called the cruiser, but cruiser also designates a type of tank, in contrast to light tank or medium tank, for example. What distinguishes a cruiser tank? Speed? Type of enemy it targets? Terrain preferences?

[junk2drive]

In CMAK it goes fast before it blows up.

At Folke's CMAKdb you can compare the different Brit tanks stats side by side and read some good descriptions.

[JasonC]

In the interwar period, there was a fight within the British army over the proper doctrine for tanks and their proper role in future warfare. The cavalry school basically won that debate against the infantry school, but in a typical compromize solution, the Brits split their tanks into two separate force types, with different designations, equipment, organizations, etc.

The infantry school envisioned a use of tanks largely on a WW I pattern, as assistants to large infantry formations on a slow moving, positional backfield of improved positions. The infantry type tanks the Brits had in WW II as a result of this idea were the Matilda, Valentine, and later the Churchill series. Speed was considered unimportant; armor thickness was the single most important design variable. Most of these wound up in formations with the "Tank" designation.

The cavalry school, on the other hand, envisioned tanks as an independent arm, operating massed in land "fleets", at their own speed. They were expected to lead attacks, fighting enemy armor on their own in duels, and exploit penetrations deep into enemy territory. Speed was considered an essential design characteristic. There was little combined arms, or cooperation with other elements, since the tanks were expected to operate pretty much on their own. Most of the tanks meant for this role wound up in formations with the "Armoured" designation.

A "cruiser" tank was a medium tank intended for the second role. Speed and mass employments were expected to act as a substitute for armor, so armor thickness was not considered an important variable.

The early tanks built with this role in mind were thinly armored, not particularly fast or reliable (mostly just due to age of both the designs and, by the time of the North Africa fighting, the individual vehicles themselves).

The first tank considered a successful enough design of this type, to be produced and fielded in large numbers (with high hopes etc), was the Crusader. It was fast. It was not very well protected, though better than the Italians. It was underarmed by the standards of its day, with a 2 pdr only decent in the AT department and usefless in the HE role. (Brits thought MGs would serve against infantry, as they had for WW I tanks. They added a few short barrel 3 inch howitzer tanks for smoke and long range HE).

The British also used lend-lease Honey (Stuart) in this role, as it had similar characteristics. It was also fast, not well armored, and had a similar firepower profile.

After their experiences in North Africa, the Brits were basically persuaded that the idea had been a mistake, and shifted to the thicker hulled and fully armed, main battle tank model, with LL Shermans being the vehicle of choice, and combined arms essential to their use. The doctrinal difference remained, however, with Churchills employed in separate heavy "tank" formations for infantry support and bunker-busting. Meanwhile, the successor to the Crusader in the lighter, faster tank lineage was the Cromwell. It was used for recon elements of armour formations, and due to availability rather than doctrine in the main forces of some of them.

The US had its own experiment with "speed as armor" in the TD rather than attacking AFV force, in the form of the Hellcat. They were successful when called on to defend, but given German armor availability the US was attacking most of the time. Another comparable later idea in the US army was the Walker Bulldog.

There appears to be a bone in the cavalry-tradition-addled heads of the Anglo-Saxon armies that tells them going fast is a substitute for armor plate, despite acres of painful experience showing it is nothing of the kind.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JasonC:

In the interwar period, there was a fight within the British army over the proper doctrine for tanks and their proper role in future warfare. The cavalry school basically won that debate against the infantry school, but in a typical compromize solution, the Brits split their tanks into two separate force types, with different designations, equipment, organizations, etc.

In fairness, this was not a uniquely British approach; the French and American armies did exactly the same, and the Russians used an even more elaborate division of tank types.

Originally posted by JasonC:

There appears to be a bone in the cavalry-tradition-addled heads of the Anglo-Saxon armies that tells them going fast is a substitute for armor plate, despite acres of painful experience showing it is nothing of the kind.

Hard to think of it as a particularly Anglo-Saxon error when one looks at the generation of MBTs that saw service in Western Europe in the 1960s -- Chieftain, AMX-30 and Leopard.

All the best,

John.

[DEY]

I'm not much of a tank expert let alone a grog on British AFV's, but I believe there was more or less two main tank class types in the British army during WW2.

One was an INFANTRY TANK class type which desribes the Matilda's, Valentines and Churchill's.

The second was the CRUISER TANK class that includes the Crusaders, Covenanter's, Centaurs, Cavaliers, and the Cromwells, Comets, even the Challenger.

So you can see each one of these main class types had lighter to heavy sub classes.

Below added in edit,

It would seem at first that the CRUISER name designation started out in the late 1930's as a tank model with updated models designated with mark# as the germans done throughout the war.

Then starting in the 40's the CRUISER name seemed to evolved into a tank class.

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1975/g_tnkuk.htm

[ December 18, 2005, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: DEY ]

[Webs]

TECH PUBS BRIEFING

CRUISER TANK MK III & IV (A13)

The A13 was an immensely important step forward in British tank evolution, for it was the first British cruiser tank to incorporate a suspension system that stemmed from the designs developed by the American designer J. Walter Christie. His coil-spring suspension system was to be included in the design of all future British cruiser tanks thereafter. However, it should be noted, the most famous tank to incorporate this suspension system was the Soviet manufactured T-34, arguably the best all-round tank of the war.

The man responsible for the introduction of the Christie suspension into British vehicles was a Lt. Col. Martel, who was appointed Assistant Director of Mechanisation to the War Office in the late summer of 1936. Shortly after his arrival, Martel attended the Soviet Army autumn training manoeuvres in September as an observer where he was to see the Soviet BT tank in action for the first time and he was suitably impressed. The BT tank incorporated a Chritie suspension and demonstrated good performance and speed. It was based upon the British “16-tonner” of 1929 and was available in large numbers. Upon his return to the War Office, Martel set out to instigate the design of a vehicle with vastly superior performance than had previously been seen in Britain. This was to be achieved primarily by adopting the Christie suspension along with a powerful lightweight engine.

The War Office ordered two Christie demonstration vehicles from the United States and upon their arrival found that the Christie suspension incorporated compression springs along with large-diameter rubber-rimmed road wheels. The combination allowed the vehicle to run at high speed either with or without tracks. British designers saw trackless running capability as an unnecessary complication and quickly decided to dispense with it. They also undertook to widen the vehicle so that they could fit a 2-pr cannon along with associated turret. At the end of 1936, the British decided to build two prototypes and Morris Commercial Cars was asked to undertake the initial design. The prototypes were designated A13E2 and A13E3 after the original Christie demonstrator vehicles had received the designation A13E1.

Nuffield Mechanisations and Aero, a subsidiary of Morris, was, at the time, licensed to manufacture a high-performance American-designed World War I aircraft engine called the Liberty. With the Liberty engine, the A13E2 prototype chassis in October 1937 attained a top speed of 35 mph (56 km/h).

Certain mechanical problems, due mainly to the high speed of the vehicle, were soon highlighted and overcome. Designers added a governor to restrict the speed of the vehicle to 30 mph (48 km/h), altered the clutch and transmission, and added shorter, pitched tracks. In early 1938, the War Office awarded Nuffield a production order for 65 vehicles. Deliveries to the army began in early 1939 and by September of that year, all 65 had been delivered. These vehicles were officially known as Cruiser Tank Mark III (A13 Mk I).

In early 1939, the War Office had decided to increase the armour thickness of all British cruiser tanks to a standard 30 mm (1.18 in). One Cruiser Tank Mark III was modified to these specifications as a pilot model. Extra armour plate was placed upon the nose, glacis, and turret. Two additional armor plates reinforced each turret wall, configured so that one plate sloped out and down from the turret’s top edge while a second attached to the bottom edge sloped out and up. The two plates met and with the original turret wall enclosed a triangular hollow that gave the turret a distinctive angled look. German designers would later use this spaced armour effect to defeat hollow-charge projectiles such as the Piat and Bazooka infantry anti-tank weapons.

Amazingly, testing showed that the weight of the extra armor did not appreciably degrade the tank’s performance, and all Mark IIIs were so modified. These vehicles, officially designated Cruiser Tank Mark IV (A13 Mk II), were used almost exclusively by the 1st Armoured Division in France the following year.

Nuffield undertook main production of Cruiser Tank Mark IVs. The Cruiser Tank Mark IVA (A13 Mk II) was a later production vehicle with a coaxial Besa machine gun in place of the original Vickers. These vehicles were also used by 1st Armoured Division in France, where they took part in the Allied counterattacks against the Somme River bridgeheads, May 23-24, 1940. Falling back with the rest of the BEF, they fought to defend Calais and Dunkirk. A13s were also issued to 7th Armoured Division during the North Africa campaign. Total production of the Cruiser Tank Mk IV series amounted to some 655 examples but production ceased in 1941 as it became apparent that the vehicle was totally outclassed by the heavier and more powerful German tanks.

[Folbec]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I have the notion that the "speed vs armor" choice of the 60s had a lot to do with the technical inability to make armor strong enough for even the most simple shaped charge weapons. So why bother ?

As soon as a partial technical solution was found armor came back to the fore.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Folbec:

[snips] I have the notion that the "speed vs armor" choice of the 60s had a lot to do with the technical inability to make armor strong enough for even the most simple shaped charge weapons. So why bother ?

As soon as a partial technical solution was found armor came back to the fore.

For continental armies, yes, but the designers at Chertsey never gave up the idea of heavy armour; and it was, of course, they who eventually came up with the technical solution in the form of Chobham armour.

All the best,

John.