British Tank Design

[Horncastle]

What was the philosophy and driving force behind British Tank design? Why did they never use sloped armour, surely by the time they were designing the Comet and Challenger sloped armour test results etc must have been fairly well kown?

Was it just down to economics and they just used the same chasis and design over and over just plonking in bigger engines more flat armour and bigger guns? Or was it some arrogant failure to stick with "british tank design is the world leader by jove! damn sloped armour is just not cricket!"

Thanks

[flamingknives]

I thought we covered this in the 'sloped armour' thread?

Many British tanks had sloped armour pre, during and post war.

Vertical plate provides more space inside the tank, allowing the whole to be smaller.

Plus, if you look at German and American tanks, those with sloped armour are very tall. I don't know why this is, but the hulls of the Panther and Sherman are taller than I am, whereas the Cromwell, Comet, PzIV and Churchill are shorter.

Was it just down to economics and they just used the same chasis and design over and over just plonking in bigger engines more flat armour and bigger guns?

Where does this idea come from?

The Challenger is a poor attempt to fit a 17pdr gun onto a Cromwell chassis, but it is a significant design change (lengthened hull and different turret).

The Comet is an entirely different chassis.

The Crusader and Valentine were upgunned and up engined, but so where the PzIV, PzIII, T34, KV-1 and Sherman, so it's hardly a British trait.

There wasn't some kind of arrogance as you suggest, at least as far as I can see, as wartime designers also produced the Centurion, which was a fantastic tank utilising sloped armour.

There was, however, a failure to appreciate the failings of tank design, mainly in the areas of turret ring size (thereby restricting gun size), reliability and provinding room for effective upgrade.

There is a good book on the subject, called "Death by Design" subtitled something like "A history of British tank design in WWII"

I don't have it to hand, so I can't give you any more info

[flamingknives]

This appears to be it.

[Siege]

The thing that always seems to get me irked on the whole topic is the general consensus that says "German tanks were always better than US tanks and British Tanks".

If you look at the late war King Tigers, then yes....we had nothing to match that. But those were the distinct minority compared to the PzIV's that made up the bulk of the Panzer divisions. The Germans were having so much trouble producing enough tanks to fit their needs that Stugs were filling up more and more of the field units because of how long it took to build Tigers and Panthers.

Early in the war when Germany had most of their major campaign success, they had the far inferior tanks. In France and North Africa, the Matilda II was considered by the Germans to be unstoppable with some of the thickest armor of the period, the Souma and Char-B had the same reputation in France. Against the 38(t), Pz I, II and III a 2pdr was actually an effective main gun. Superior tactics allowed the Panzers to overcome that. Hell, for a while even the Grants and Shermans were the best thing on the field. Compared to a Pz IV with a short-75 the were definitely NOT weaklings.

To illustrate this, you just need to look at the panicked response of mounting Russian AT guns in the Marder III chassis to show how desperate the Germans were for an effective AT system until the PzIV F/2 hit the desert with a long 75. The '88 was cumbersome to employ as a defensive AT gun, and close to useless as an offensive weapon.

All of the involved nations had long-term design projects for super-heavy tanks that would have even dwarfed a King Tiger. But like the Montana class Battlehips, by the time they would have hit the field the war would have been done with for a long time and even then only a few would have been fielded. By late 1944 and early 1945 it was basically known who would win the war and many of the projects that wouldn't be ready in time were dropped to focus production of the designs that were ready in time in the numbers needed. German eventually made the same decision but by the time they decided Tigers were too slow to produce, it was too late to change the manufacturing over to simpler chassis.

-Hans

[Stumpff]

If you look at the turrets of the A13 Cruiser and A-14 Crusader, you'll notice that they do infact have slopped armor. However they used the same chasis, as did most takes built in the UK, with the exception of the American lend lease program. The chasis for the most part, did not have any sloped armor, or atleast any that would make a damn difference.

I believe there docterine, and correct me if I am wrong, on tank design (atleast in the early years of the war) was firepower and speed first, as was evident in the A tank models (A being A13, 14 etc). However for their heavier tanks (I.E. Churchill, Valentine etc.) it was Protection and Firepower, then speed.

[Firefly]

Yes, that's right, early war British doctrine divided tanks into cruisers (the A series) and infantry tanks (Matildas, Valentines and Churchills). The cruisers were supposed to engage enemy armour and were deemed to require speed and at first weren't equiped with HE rounds, whereas the infantry tanks only needed to keep up with the PBI, so speed wasn't important. The British employed Lees (Grants), Honeys (Stuarts) and Shermans as cruisers.

One person who didn't underestimate the Lees was Rommel, who described the first encounter with them as 'an unpleasant surprise'.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Stumpff:

If you look at the turrets of the A13 Cruiser and A-14 Crusader, you'll notice that they do infact have slopped armor. However they used the same chasis, as did most takes built in the UK, with the exception of the American lend lease program. The chasis for the most part, did not have any sloped armor, or atleast any that would make a damn difference.

Although I don't wish to offend, what the heck are you gibbering about?

Feel free to peruse this web page and note the pictures of the Crusaders' glacis.

In addition, the A13 series of cruisers ends up as the Covenanter, while the Crusader is the A15. The Covenanter was never deployed as a gun tank, only as a bridge laying tank. The chassis of the A13 did lead to the A15, but only indirectly, and the results are very different tanks.

Following the Crusader, you have the A24, A27L and A27M cruisers which are entirely different chassis.

The A30 Challenger and A34 Comet are both based on the A27 chassis, although it was significantly modified to accomodate a large turret.

Finally, there is the A41 Centurion, which is a WWII design. Again, this is a totally new chassis.

Just to add to the fun, there is also the Various infantry (Churchill, Valentine and Matilda) which also have unique chassis. Interestingly the Churchill is designated A22 and the Matilda A11 and A12 for the MkI and MkII versions respectively.

I believe there docterine, and correct me if I am wrong, on tank design (atleast in the early years of the war) was firepower and speed first, as was evident in the A tank models (A being A13, 14 etc). However for their heavier tanks (I.E. Churchill, Valentine etc.) it was Protection and Firepower, then speed.

The distinction that you are making is between Infantry and Cruiser tanks (Churchill et. al. being Infantry and Crusaders and Cromwells being Cruisers)

Other than that quibble, you're right.

Late- and post-war designs tend more to Protection, then firepower, then mobility - the Centurion has a top road speed of 21mph - for all tanks.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Firefly:

[snips] The cruisers were supposed to engage enemy armour and were deemed to require speed and at first weren't equiped with HE rounds, [/snips]

AIUI, the cruisers were intended to be the breakthrough force, a la cavalry - hence the use of firing on the move, fast rotating turrets and guns that were effective at close range only.

The lack of provision for an HE round was that the main gun was for engaging tanks while the co-axial MG was for use against infantry. Note that the Matilda MkII and other infantry tanks were also provisioned with a 2pdr gun.

[...................................]

Unfortunately my memory isn't so hot but I definitely read a few years back (Ian Hogg?) that the Brits did consider sloped armour on some of their tanks early on, but decided to stick with flat armour.

The flat armour proponents cited the space/size reason mentioned above, and also that sloped armour is a disadvantage (it presents a flat target) if you are being fired on from a higher elevation, or if the target tank is travelling downhill. Flat armour becomes sloped in effect if that occurs, and perhaps they expected it to happen fairly frequently.

[ October 11, 2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Pheasant Plucker ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Firefly:

Yes, that's right, early war British doctrine divided tanks into cruisers (the A series) and infantry tanks

[snips]

Mr. Picky reminds everyone that the "A" number in a British tank designation refers to the General Staff requirement the design was intended to fulfil. All British-designed tanks of the WW2 period have an A number, with the sole exception of the Valentine, which was not designed in response to a General Staff requirement.

I'm sure we've done this before, but the other parts of a WW2 British tank designation were the type and mark, possibly with a letter suffix indicating an armament or construction variation, and, once names were officially adopted in 1941, the name, and a further mark number, again possibly with a letter suffix.

The mark by type was dropped towards the end of the war, but the mark by name was retained.

Not all tanks had names. A couple had letter suffixes to their "A" numbers, indicating engine variations. To add confusion, the A number was also modified by marks for the A13.

American tanks are not assigned "A" numbers, but given names and mark numbers, possibly with letter suffixes indicating armament variation.

Examples:

A13 Mk II Cruiser Tank Mk IVA -- "A" number modified by mark, type (Cruiser) and mark, and letter suffix indicating BESA rather than Vickers co-ax MG. No name.

A12 Infantry Tank Mk II Matilda IV -- "A" number, type (Infantry) and mark, name and mark.

Infantry Tank Mk III Valentine IV -- Type (Infantry) and mark, name and mark.

A27L Cruiser Tank Mk VIII Centaur IV -- "A" number modified by letter indicating Liberty engine, type (Cruiser) and mark, name and mark.

A22 Infantry Tank Mk IV Churchill IX LT -- "A" number, type (Infantry) and mark, name and mark modified by letters indicating "Light Turret".

A30 Cruiser Tank Challenger -- "A" number, type and name, all without a mark number in sight.

While I don't think that British WW2 tank design was anything like as bad as people often try to paint it (and didn't everyone but the Germans distinguish between cavalry and infantry tanks at the start of the war?), there is little doubt that the British designation system was the most confusing and irregular of them all.

All the best,

John.

[Firefly]

I bow to Mr Picky . Thanks, for the info John, I didn't realise that all British Tanks had an 'A' designation.

[Wisbech_lad]

Playing devil's advocate (and messing about in CMBB) the Valentine is at least equal, probably better than MkIII. Drawback is buttoning up when firing, due to small crew, but plus is small size, and reliability.

It also has sloped armour in the front...

2pdr ownz 50mmL42 and 37mm.

6pdr ownz 50mmL60.

75mm and PzIIIN are about equivalent.

[flamingknives]

Valentine MkIII (I think) has a three man turret crew. Larger guns (6pdr and 75mm) precluded three men turrets.

The Valentine is also much slower than the PzIII, but it does have a minimum of 50mm armour all round, which can really spoil your day when you're trying to get a kill with a PAK 36.