Heavy Cromwell - Tank Design & Development
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 тра 2022
- Today’s video will take a closer look at the development of Cromwell and the testing and design of the heavy armour applique packs by Rolls Royce in 1943. The video will also cover some of the background of the Cromwell, issues I development, and why it took nearly 4 years to enter service and yet was still under armoured and under gunned in combat despite the solutions having been proven.
/ discord
#Cromwell #tank #worldoftanks #applique #fredsmum #A27M #Rollsroyce #WW2 #british #testing #bovington #experimental #tiger
I hereby dub the 'Heavy Cromwell' the "Fat Oliver"!
Remembering the Cromwell as a decent-to-good tank badly let down by pre/production issues so it arrived years late to when it _could_ have started service is a pretty fair assessment.
If there had been a need for it the Cromwell and/or Centaur could probably have reached the front line in small numbers in mid to late 1943 in Italy. However there wasn't really much they could do that wasn't already being done by the Shermans and, being a new tank, they would undoubtedly have been less reliable than both the Sherman and Churchill. So it was really not worth the hastle of shipping them from the UK to the Mediterranean theatre, especially with all the spare parts needed for a new type of tank. Even by the time of D-day in June '44 they were mostly used by the Armd Recce Regiments I believe (except for the 7th Armoured Div) because other than speed they didn't offer much of an improvement over Sherman.
One interesting 'what-if' would have been if the Cavalier had beed fielded instead of the Crusader Mk.II and Mk.III in 1942. This implies that Nuffield spend most of 1941 and 1942 pulling their fingers out and concentrating all their effort on Cavalier instead of Crusader so they could ship small numbers of probably unreliable Cavaliers to North Africa in summer or maybe autumn. The question is if this would have been a better option than the not exactly awe inspiring upgraded Crusader variants.
How about - Oliver's Wart!
@@WOTArtyNoobs Not bumpy enough. If it had the bolted/riveted turret with those big welts on it I'd accept "Cromwell's Toad".
@@Vespuchian lol
What I don't understand was, why no sloped armour? British engineers among the best in the world never seemed to have considered this labour and life saving technology. And when one looks at Churchill, Cromwell and Comet they scream out for sloped armour!
ConeOfArc brought me here, he praised your content highly and I can see why, looking forward to learning a lot of new stuff from your channel
This channel deserves far more subscribers, informative and and very entertaining to watch
It is a shame that the armor was not increased on the production tanks. This is something I had not known about until now but had the Cromwell been up-armored it may have remained a front line tank until the end of the war. Thanks for sharing this.
Another good video.
Keep up the awesome work you are doing.
got to admit probably one the best channels youtube
Thanks for another video!
heavily armoured
extraordinarily
fast yet undergunned
Thanks for another interesting video.
Most excellent as always 😊
just in the nick of too late! thanks for the interesting video again, ed!
Very interesting, thanks for that.
Excellent video, in-depth and entertaining as always. I spotted a minor problem in it though, the date of birth and death of Sir Percy James Grigg is written as between 1980 and 1964. Should be 1880, if I'm not mistaken, or maybe he's a time traveler?...
Thanks great video
Having these as units in a strategy or tabletop game might not be so fun if one would get to field them in 1944. Still, would be fun to see someone deploying 30 of these against some sort of German or Italian armour formation.
Testing is important. But frequently vehicles in WW2 end up in the field before things on drivability and life tests which run 2000 miles is finished and accessed. It’s very head spinning to see what sort of testing has a high priority and what is put on the back burner so long the vehicle has been in service over a year before getting its tests in.
In truth, one only has to look at the expenditure of HE vs AP rounds in our tanks in WW2. Nearly all of the memoirs focus on tank v tank because that was a very memorable event (should one survive). The extra armour might have given some additional protection against AP but most combat ranges were close enough tnat a PAK40 could have still solved the problem. It was only really post WW2 that tanks became specialised tank killers and to do that they had to restrict their rounds to 40 or less which makes them pretty useless in the breakthrough role.
Erm , what ? ... so, ,.. no . Post war main battle tanks are multi purpose gun platforms , not specialized tank killer.
In fact I'll start at the top and work down,..
Tank on tank combat occurred far more regularly during word war two than it does today because there were far fewer anti tank weapon systems available. No missiles , no helicopters , jets , ect , ect,.. so tanks ended up doing a lot of the heavy lifting in big battles like normandy.
Looking at the expenditure of ammunition is a blunt instrument. HE was plastered everywhere , all the time. Searching fire. Keeping heads downs. And so on, as you'd expect.
I get the distinct impression from your comment about war memoirs that you are repeating a mantra that you have been taught. Have you actually read any memoirs ? Or any history books , for that matter , ones dealing with battles like El Alamein or Normandy ?
I have read quite a number of war memoirs , myself , and none of the ones that I remember reading seem to focus on tank v tank to the exclusion of anything else.
This seems to be a dismissive comment , as if you are criticizing the authors in some way , or attempting to delegitimize the entire genre , but what is your point exactly ? That tanks didn't fight tanks ? That they are remembering it all wrong ? It's not as if there aren't plenty of history books recording the entire war,....
The extra armour would have greatly increased the survivability of the Cromwell, period. 101mm of armoured plate is a far better bet than 63mm of plate. Most rounds come in at an angle or are otherwise sub optimal hits .
Many tanks in WW2 were specialized tank killers. Sherman firefly , all the ''tank destroyers'' (tanks in all but name),....anything with a two pounder or similar weapon ,...
Modern MBTs are multi purpose gun platforms. They have had to restrict their load outs to about 40 rounds for the main gun on western tanks, about twenty or twenty five on soviet legacy designs. This is because of the size of the rounds. They use bigger guns because a bigger gun is more useful in ALL battle field roles, not just the anti tank role. These days the anti tank role is far LESS reliant on tank V tank battles. Attack helicopters, powerful and accurate missiles , manpads, ..all these things and more have gradually taken up the burden of the anti tank work. Tanks are now mostly used as direct fire support against reenforced positions .
MBT are extremely useful in the breakthrough role. We saw that in the first gulf war , and the second.
Taken to it's logical conclusion , you would seem to be arguing for a lightly armoured tank armed with a small gun with minimal anti tank capability . Not a modern MBT at all.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 Part II: To make it absolutely clear I did not say “to focus on tank v tank to the exclusion of anything else.” I was a territorial army infantryman in my 20’s (I’m in my mid 60’s now) and have read a great many memoirs, history books etcetera including having talked to many of my patients who were in both great wars, one of whom was a tank driver on the Somme, and still had crippling injures from that time. I am not trying to denigrate anyone, nor support any particular theory but you do actually make my point when you state: “HE was plastered everywhere, all the time.”. This is my point exactly. Particularly in the case of personal accounts. So for example, in Tank Action: Ab Armoured Troop Commanders War 1939-1945 David Render (the first one I found on my kindle) there are18 references to AP but none to HE.
The 2lb and 6lb gun armed tanks were a disaster for the British Army. Lacking an HE capacity they left machine guns as the only weapon to use against ATG and soft targets. This was clearly the view by 1942 when 200 NA75 Churchills were rebuilt to allow a 75mm gun with an effective HE round to be used. The 6lb gun was intended to be the primary armament of the Cromwell but it was bored out to accept a 75mm round accepting the significant reduction in anti-tank capacity that gave. That was even more noticeable with the introduction of APDS for the 6lb gun. And yes, they could have been refitted quickly into Cromwell, both mounts were similar.
Finally, if I were designing a modern MBT on the premises you abstracted from my comments I would remove the loader, have an autoloader on a vehicle a bit like Challenger 3 (Say Challenger V). I would equip it solely with 120mm HESH rounds (No LRP's) reduce the barrel length significantly, allowing more rounds with the additional room available. This would nicely meet your primary criterion of “Tanks are now mostly used as direct fire support against reenforced positions” Oh and I would want at least 500 (and I know we only have about 238 hulls less whatever we have given to Ukraine.
@@simonnorburn3518 Good stuff. I am also ex army. Three actually . ZNG (Croatia 1991), British army signals (Armoured Squadron for a couple of years) and the YPG in Syria a few years ago.
My Grandfather fought at Cambrai. In fact , from what I was told , he fought through the entire war. Northumberland Fusiliers .
Now that we are introduced.
Personally I have yet to read a war memoir that focuses unduly upon tank on tank combat, in fact I am struggling to think of a single one that could be said to focus on tank versus tank combat at all.
I am in complete agreement with you as regards the 2 Pounder and the 6 pounder guns. I think that anyone who has read a few accounts of the fighting or a few history book on the subject must agree with that. These weapons lacked a decent high explosive shell and that was a big problem.
However, the 75mm round was lacking in the anti tank department and they paid for that too.
A tank needs to have both capabilities. It's not one or the other.
Thank god you are not in charge of designing the next generation tank is all I can say, I don't think the lads would thank you much for taking their Kinetic ammo ! :-)
Although , now I think about it,... they kept challenger two with a rifle for the longest time simply because they had a decent HESH round for it. So, ...just keep challenger two , then ? But leave the auto loader for the Russian ...
I'm don't think we are giving any tanks to the Ukraine . Deployed to Poland , yes, given over to the Ukraine army ,.. no , I think not.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 For some reason this doesn't show so I will resend it without the links - part 1 for the third time!
Thanks for the long and detailed reply. I actually posted a response earlier but it seems to have gotten lost in youube so here is a similar one. To start with the effectiveness of an additional 38mm of armour. Fortunately we have an easy comparison here. The Comet had about 103mm frontal armour, was in the same theatre of war and was fighting the same weapons.
During its period of service in WW2 there were 54 comets wiped out - sources How-many-Comet-tanks-were-knocked-out-in-World-War-2 and also british-tank-losses-march-to-may-1945-the-war-in-north-west-europe/ Cromwell losses were 73. As a percentage of types in service they were Cromwell 22% and Comet 16%. This would seem to support your contention that the thicker armour was better. However Only 4 of the Comets and 18 ½ Cromwell were knocked out by mines. These losses would not have been affected by heavy frontal armour and so we can recalculate the figures.
These new figures give us 15% of Cromwell and 14.2% Comets lost. In each case Hollow Charge (HC) was the single largest killer and it is noted (table 3) that these were primarily the Panzerfaust. That gives us a good explanation as to why the percentages are so close. The longest ranged Panzerfaust (150) was about 150m. (No surprise there!) That is well within the effective range of penetration by a Pak 40, let alone a PAK43. Indeed from table 2 on the first reference about 2/3 AP attacks penetrated, with the PAK40 (the least effective A/T gun) penetrating 7 times and bouncing 3 times.
Also, from table 10 here british-tank-losses-march-to-may-1945-the-war-in-north-west-europe about half the hits would have been on the sides of the tank which was not uparmoured (note that just over 60% would also have been on the front, there are ambiguous positions that could be either side or front.
So I think this shows quite clearly that at most combat ranges throughout the Comets time in the European theatre the additional armour compared to that of the Cromwell was not terribly useful.
@@simonnorburn3518 There has been a problem with UA-cam for a couple of months now and it seems to be getting worse. Very often comments are deleted or hidden. very annoying.
Comet was only introduced into the fighting from January 1945 onwards, after the Ardenne offensive was over. From March onwards the Germans effectively abandoned the western front and those few tanks and guns they had left were sent east with their formations.
So , yes , by that point all they had left were mines and close range anti tank weapons , PanzerFaust and bazookas and such like . The war was over , they were done, No tanks , no guns , no fuel , nothing.
And , yes , they would have been hit on the sides because that is how you ambush a tank with a short range weapon. You don't hit it head on because that is where his thickest armour is. Also, you are only going to get the one shot because , after that, you ain't going to around long...
It does not follow that, had the Germans had Anti Tank guns they would have engaged at 150 yards !
If you have the range you use it. As the Germans did every chance they had during the war. You don't wait for the enemy tanks to close to 300 meters or less because by that point he is firing his machine guns into your position at point blank range and his infantry is yards away from you and pulling the pin on a grenade. The only reason you might wait that long is if you have no alternative
All this shows is that during the very last few weeks of the war (March, April , May) the germans had nothing left to fight with .
Again , I am having trouble understanding what it is you are trying to prove.
Perhaps a better approach would be to re read David Render , with his eighteen references to AP, and , instead to comparing this to his ammunition expenditure and trying to prove him wrong , you might consider the possibility that the man might be trying to tell you something?
You have already stated that , were you to be put in charge of designing the next generation MBT, you would deprive it of any significant anti tank capability , are you now arguing that it should be thinly armoured too ?
I want to return to your previous statement that the 2 pounder and 6 pounder guns were a disaster for the British army . Yes they were. But not as much of a disaster as not having them would have been. Anti tank capability proved essential in the desert, as it did in Normandy.
A comment 4 better range. Incredible content! A heaviy Cromwell seams to be a great tank.
One also wonders just how essential the extra armor was in light of what represented the common Germany antitank weapons of 1943-44. When the enemy is fielding a lot of weapons that comfortably defeat 150mm of armor, does having 101mm instead of 63mm really matter? I wonder if anyone in the paperwork was acknowledging that during development.
I also wonder what the British steel supply looked like in 1943-44. Could the extra armor plate be economically accommodated? We tend to forget that just because you have the technology and/or knowledge to make something doesn't mean it is wise to make that thing, especially when juggling future requirements and needs. Sure, you have tooling to make a 1.5'' plate of steel, but maybe that would mean you don't have the men to run your 3'' plate tooling for another project, or you can't buy the tools for the 3'' plate because you ended up putting all the money into expanding the 1.5'' plate production. Opportunity costs matter a lot in economics, especially in war economies that have serious bottlenecks like Britain's did.
I can't speak for the points raised in your second paragraph, but the short answer to the question you ask in your first is yes, it does matter. 101 mm of armour makes for a far harder kill than 63 mm of armour .There's plenty of stuff flying around on the battlefield and very few hits are head on and otherwise optimal hits, most come in at an angle of inclination.
For the rest , it seems to me that you are rationalizing . I would think that sending five men in to battle in an inadequately armoured tank is a far worse economic decision than sending men into battle in an adequately armoured tank, especially given that we are talking about no more than an extra couple of tons of good quality steel . If you lose twenty seven tons of expensively machined equipment for the sake of a couple more tons of steel , that represents a dead loss and a poor investment.
Then there's the human element. War is about far more than economics. Men have to take the tank into action and they will be perfectly aware if it is poorly armoured. This is exactly what happened to the Cromwell tank, the poor armour was noted and the tank gained a poor reputation. This, quite understandably, affected the fighting spirit of the men. Poor moral loses battle .
Most nations tank effectiveness is limited by skilled crew (and the attrition of them) NOT by their industrial ability to physically make the armor plate. Even a modern tank isn't 4 men to bring to battle, an Abrams armor company is 62men for 14 tanks just in the vehicles, and you have an almost equal number of staff supporting in direct fuel, munitions, maintenance. But it also takes people for the logistics further back, for the training staff, army workers not in the combat theater (presently about 50% as many civilians work for US army as soldiers). So in terms of cost, doubling the thickness of steel in the actual tank is a tiny difference in requirements compared to providing one additional tank per company or any such other option where you repurpose that metal as another combat unit. And thats assuming you HAVE the skilled crew, most nations ended up with tanks they produced but never could use... sitting in storage (or in covananteers case, riding up and down the railroads for PR), which tied up WAY more strategic war materials than any increase in quality you could manage. Other nations decided to feild vehicles anyway without the support or training, and these mostly never made it to combat before being abandoned, and if they did where totally ineffective.
@@SheepInACart Very good point. The Germans certainly showed that large numbers of light tanks with competent crews in 1940-41 were worth more than Tiger IIs manned with raw recruits in 1944.
The irony about Cromwell, however, is that it was not very efficient due to its higher maintenance requirements. Exercise Dracula and other tests showed the Cromwell was just harder work to keep running than M4 Sherman, needing more than twice the manhours.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 As I said, I wonder if any of that was a factor in the actual British paperwork. I personally would rather a tank with 101mm, but unless I was one of a handful of British officials in 1940-45, I would never have much say in the matter. My query was if someone who did have say in the matter did argue that 101mm was not enough to matter so far as they were concerned.
@@genericpersonx333 Fair enough , didn't mean to jump down your throat.
My answer would still be that I doubt it very much it. The logic is simply too easy to pick apart and the argument too weak .
I did once read ''the great tank scandal'' by David Fletcher. I know armoured archives doesn't like David Fletcher, but I personally recommend the book. What it makes clear is just how sclerotic and disorganized the British tank procurement program was during the war. Everything was secret , even essential information . The most likely explanation is that the Cromwells new armour fell victim to this drastically over compartmentalized and chaotic mess of a system. It really was a question of systemic problems in the entire industry and it took years to get straightened out.
You put an excellent slant on this subject even though I may disagree in certain areas "the real effect of a HESH round" ;) HOWEVER, did you notice the little spat, lower in the comments regarding an unusually fast Cromwell that had been wandering around Arnhem recounted by Troop Leader by Bill Bellamy.... With no armour "making these tanks faster than any other tanks in the European theatre of operations, forward or backwards....man". Maybe you could settle this one..
High quality video as always! Will we see the subject of the A29 tank in a later show?
A27 or A29?
@@armouredarchives8867 A29 Clan.I only know it has a certain relationship with the A27,and it's also a Rolls Royce's work.
It is on record that one Cromwell killed a Tiger. So it did have its moments. Yes to the video
Sometimes Tigers killed themselves also
Heh, I can see it in the premium section of WoT any time soon.
Great work as usual chap! 👍
If they could make it a tier 8 it would be there already 😉
If they could make it a tier 8 it would be there already 😉
If they could make it a tier 8 it would be there already 😉
3 cups of tea and two "biscuits". Is that a recommended consumption for the video?
Sir Percy seems to have a case of Benjamin Button going on. Either that or British time machine development was lightyears ahead of Tanks.
but that's one beautiful beast!
British tank development can be explained in one single sentence:
Too many cooks in the kitchen spoils the soup.
To extend that a bit further, too many cooks making too many soups in the same tiny kitchen and only one or two of the cooks were actually experienced at making soup. 😆
did they ever also change any aspect of the drivetrain to compensate for the added weight of the armor?
such as the gear ratios, final drive or even to the Meritt-Brown transmission.
also, having it in War Thunder would be nice, it would work help as it's armor is kinda lackluster especially with that attrocious reverse speed (hence why i still love playing the Crusader even in slightly higher br).
would it have been easier to angle the upper glacis plate, that would saved so much time and you wouldn't need add more weight.
Me: Mom, can we get a Tiger I?
Mom: We have a Tiger I at home.
*The Tiger I at home.*
Love the humour
Being only 3 tea cups long, this was really a "quick one".
Always wondered why they never thought of extending the hull over the tracks to take a bigger turret ring and hence a bigger gun as with say the IS2
yuo could i suppose but it would make repairs harder, the christie has an inner outer hull skin, so to change a broken sus unit you would need to take the outer skin off, which would mean taking the hull top of and turret off to do it that way
Isn't that more or less what they did on the A30 Challenger?
They cut, widened and lengthened the whole hull. The turret ring stil barely extends over the tracks
@@tanfosbery1153 A30 also has a very different turret and turret basket from regular tanks, which was a timley and expensive sod to build
when the Americans built the A-10 they built it around the gun. When the Swedes built the JA37 Viggen fighterjet they built it round the engine.
How hard can it be to build a tank with the main "thing" built around it. May it be the gun, engine or the armor!
When you involve multiple companies? Damn near impossible. Look at the MBT70, or the majority of modern car JV's: all doomed from the start, and that's when they go into it all *knowing* the problems they will face.
Is that paper, The Scandal of the British Tanks, a government publication? Is it generally available?
These supported by challenger would have been a good combination... wouldn't please the usa simps though
Seems like only the Pilot D had the 6pdr. The VwD and VwE had the 75mm Mk.V.
The Dymo label on that photo of Sir Percy James Grigg seems to read 1980 - 1964 ???
Interesting story about the heavy Cromwell and more or less about the British scandal about the tanks that was supposed to be put in production "years before". I think the turning point was the production of the the much better and modern Meteor Rolls-Royce engine derived from the Merlin engine compared to the usual license built by Nuffield of the old V-12 Liberty engine, in truth an old fashioned engine despite its upgrading. This helped to produce better tanks from 1943 such as the improved Cromwell, the Comet and the magnificent Centurion. The only standing question I have is why many British tanks are not fitted with a mantlet instead of having a gaping shot trap at the front of the turret like most of the German, American and Russian had installed on their tanks. Is there any particular reasons for this omission?
They have an internal gun mantlet with usually the same thickness as the rest of the turret face.
@@Akm72 I understand that but the following tank, the Centurion has been fitted with a mantlet like the M26 or even the Panther! Both the early Pz.Kpfw IV and the Pz.Kpfw III were fitted with the internal mantlet but they were quickly replaced by an external mantlet because they found out that the incoming shells tended to stuck the internal mantlet and the gun. This is what I understood....
@@paoloviti6156 It's probably worth looking at the earlier gun-mantlets (such as those on the Matilda, Crusader and Valentine) to see where the designers were coming from when they designed the internal-mantlet 6-pdr turrets for the Churchill and Cromwell tanks in 1941. In addition, the slightly later internal-mantlet on the A30 Challenger is worth a look.
@@Akm72 thanks I will have a better look on this subject regarding these tanks you mentioned 👍👍
Considering the Sherman with sloped armour was available in 41 it's a bit of a disgrace.
The A10 Cruiser Tank Mk.II prototype had sloped armour in 1934.
Would there have been any move to slope the front glacis?and would there have been any advantage gained by doing so?
As a development that was expected to go into service ASAP, no. Redesigning it for a frontal slope would have delayed it and caused even more delays for the production as it would have required the factories to rejig. But if the designers had have known how long it would take to see use, they may well have opted to redesign that part. Joy of hindsight, eh?
Sloping the armour would have reduced interior space so it's very likely that the vertical front glacis was a deliberate design choice to give the required space.
Tier 8 premium for....uhm...$59.99, I bet one day this will make it to WoT's
Don’t forget the comically oversized gun and the spaced armour from that Conqueror range target slapped on, with it renamed the A1066 Carlos so players don’t confuse it with the existing Cromwell lol
I'd say tier 6 or 7, depending on what gun it would use
Since this is Tier 6 material, and Tier 6 premiums aren't as expensive (and therefore profitable), I'd say its best chance of getting into World of Tanks would be as one of the anniversary giveaways.
I wasn't serious guys
At first I thought this was another attempt to squeeze another version of the Excelsior into service.
Sprocket (game) - Cromtilda, basically
Armour DLC for the cromwell
Oliver Cromwell was controversial to. So i guess the Name is fiting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and chapessss
A Cromwell with Dolly Parton frontal armour, that what I want to see…..#wartimetankporn
What is difference between a heavy Cromwell and Excelsior?
UMmm all of it :P suspension, armour, layout, shape, speed... yup pretty much all of it
Such a brilliant piece of work, right up until you referenced War Blunder.
Stick to reality eh ?
meh i rarley even play these games, but tbh need all the views i can get,
Heavy Cromwell vs light churchill
Just curious which do think was the best allied tank out of the following T34/85 the Cromwell, Churchill Mk VIII and the jolly old Sherman.
P.s I hate the fecking Sherman 🤔
I don't ''hate'' any tank from seventy five years ago. But I do hate the silly Sherman tank fan club.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 Aye I suppose hate is to a strong word . The sad fact I be old enough to have work with WW2 Vets in my teens . And some were tankmen . They didn't say nice things about the Sherman.
@@andrewgibbs8406 Well , for gods sake keep that to yourself ! The fan club will come down on you like a swarm of flies if they catch wind ,.... :-)
I'd loved to have met that generation , you know. A real privilege .
My grandfather fought at Cambrai during the first war . Northumberland Fusiliers . But he died before I was born.
@@andrewwoodhead3141 :-). Aye it was . One old boy just to work with . Served in the Green Howard's he fought in Desert, Italy and Normandy to the end. He won't talk about until the pub . Then the stories would suddenly come out. .
The 'best' is probably the Sherman, overall. However it was in no way perfect and even its vaunted standardisation isn't quite so impressive when you look at how many different and non-interchangable engines were used.
I don't know where else to ask this question so I've put it here as the most-recent Cromwell-related video.
While it is common knowledge that Cavalier gun-tanks were never deployed outside the UK, do you have any information on whether or not they were ever used to equip any Armoured Regiments based in the UK? In addition were the Cavalier OP or ARV variants ever deployed operationally outside the UK?
some cavaliers were used for training but were very unrelaible, the armoure was also bad and so they could not be issued for the front, most were used up on ranges
The whole tank industry in Britain was a shit show. Was it just RN and RAF taking the lions share? Especially with the yanks being able to crank them out at a ridiculous rate. Thanks for the video.
During the depression and up till Chamberlain started rearmamament in the late 30s there was no spending on armour but tank prroduction was used by the Government as a way of propping up manufacturers, a large government contract is a subsidy basically.
Which means contracts are given out to people who have lots of patriotic enthusiasm but no practical knowledge so every tank has a load of beginners mistakes, suspension too weak, engines too weak or bright engineering ideas that arent practical such as MG turrets or putting the engine cooling inside the crew compartment.
Once the retreat from France occurs the Government cant be picky they have to go to all these small scale manufacturers and say ' i dont care what it is just produce lots of them' so you end up with things like the covenanter and Crusader.
Its only after 42 that manufacturing exceeds loss and the buying of American models to fill in gaps that the army can take a breather and think about quality insted of quantity but by then theyre a year or two behind the Germans (althoug admittedly 10 years ahead of the Japanese and Italians)
British production rates, if you include Canada, were decent its just that unlike the Americans who had several years of cranking out models for sale the British were having their stocks depleted by combat losses so production verus loss rates would be different.
hmm according to a lot of Brits their tanks were a lot better than the Shermans and the US was terrible to send them such miserable tanks. Also have heard that the US left them to starve, just only found out a couple of days ago that potatoes and Bread were never rationed in England. odd this
no not at all the shermans and grant/lees were very well liked in north africa, considered to have good overall reliability, and protection. certainly better the crusader by a long shot.
LMAO, "overpriced Soviet premium in a lootbox in World of Tanks." It's funny because it's true.
No milk in that tea. Unsubscribed.
Hang on a second, it may be Earl Gray
@@adamrudling1339 I think you mean Earl GREY you filthy colonial! /s
more ww2 tanks for britain in Warthunder? Are you MAD? surely you know britain has run out of content
Mod procurement is still just as bad if not worse.
Can't stand the robot voice. This is a rip-off.