Strip the canvas off the Centurion mantlet and it looks similar to the Comet. Take the Comet and put a Cromwell turret on (in your mind only) and you can now appreciate that the Comet was the Cromwell if the turret and gun designers had actually talked to each other. The Centurion was the Comet freed from using Cromwell jigs (hence the sloping front) and general agreement that Horstman bogies were as good as Cromwell suspension but infinitely easier to maintain and replace.

For a mid war British tank one needs to define your 'mid war'. Winter 1942/3 fits the bill to my satisfaction. So you only have Valentine, Churchill and Crusader to choose from. The Meteor was first tried in a Crusader in 1941 and the Crusader replacement was to be a modified Crusader hull with a Meteor engine and a 75mm HV gun. As it happens they were still manufacturing Crusaders into 1945 as 17 pounder gun towers. Even the Crusader turret could take the 75mm ROF gun. The Churchill was beginning to move out of it's unreliability stage and could also go on to mount the 75mm ROF (if you can put in a 6 pounder you can re-barrel to the 75mm). The Valentine was able to finally mount the 75mm ROF but only in a 2 man turret but fought it's way to Berlin.

If I had to choose from what Britain produced in late 1942 for delivery in early 1943 I would have to choose the Valentine. More reliable than a Churchill (then) and a Crusader. Slow yes but it can mount the same gun as either (albeit in a 2 man turret). Cheap and easy to make. Now if I had to make the same choice but to use them to the end of the war then the Churchill's armour would tempt me.

One might take a lateral approach and note that the limit on British armoured unit numbers was that of crewing and supplying them. By 1944 Britain had access to more gun tanks than it could field. One could postulate that investment in more transport for the logistics train, more transporters and increasing armoured crew training might give better returns. Of course even better if they had better tanks. Equally one might opine that better tanks meant that you did not need so many so you can make do with a poorer logistics train. If I were a tankie I would opt for the comforting armour and escape hatch of the Churchill.

While I would agree that the Churchill is probably best around 43, I can't believe that there's been so little mention of the Matilda. It was slow and not heavily armed, but it could take a pounding and was in service until the end of the war. Notionally the Valentine was built as a replacement, but it was about as slow and had less armor, so it's main benefit was it was cheaper per copy.
 
While I would agree that the Churchill is probably best around 43, I can't believe that there's been so little mention of the Matilda. It was slow and not heavily armed, but it could take a pounding and was in service until the end of the war. Notionally the Valentine was built as a replacement, but it was about as slow and had less armor, so it's main benefit was it was cheaper per copy.

While Matilda II was more than able to withstand most (not all) battlefield threats in 1940, by 1942 that was not the case. The 7,5 cm with long barrel was available to the Germans, and with it Matilda was no more viable on terrains where the Churchill can still compete. Especially once Churchill was up-gunned with 6 pdr (Germans up-armored their tanks in the meantime), and immediately after that with 75mm.
 
Last edited:
One of those ideas that looks good on a sheet of paper, but when you actually try it in real life either doesn't work at all or is just a lot more trouble than it's theoretical benefits could ever justify. Just like the K class steam powered submarine my Grandad served on.

Apparently the original design had been for a generator engine and was very succesful at that job. Unsurprisingly for something designed to run at near constant revs and temperature the design didnt like being revved hard especially when cold. We warmed up the engines very gently and if the engine hadnt been run for more than a couple of days the warm up meant sitting in a cloud of partially burnt diesel and engine oil (no wonder I have a bad chest) till everything had warmed up.

There was also a design fault the oil was supposed to be contained in the engine when stopped and not drain into the sump making it virtually impossible to work out the oil level meaning an inexperienced driver could overfill the engine cause too high an oil pressure and blow the cylinder seals letting water into the combustion chamber. Or underfill the engine and because they all made a noise like the big end bearings had gone even when brand new and the temperature guage was about as much use as a Ouija board it wouldnt be spotted till too late that the engine had just ground itself into scrap.

After about 10 years they got it all working okay and it was a torquey beast that could shift a Cheif surprisingly quickly but it was always a leaky thing the only way to keep the engine bay clean and dry for an inspection was not to fill up either the engine or the transmission with fluids and definitely not run it. Half an hours running and the engine bay look like the bilges of an Oil Tanker.
 
Apparently the original design had been for a generator engine and was very succesful at that job. Unsurprisingly for something designed to run at near constant revs and temperature the design didnt like being revved hard especially when cold. We warmed up the engines very gently and if the engine hadnt been run for more than a couple of days the warm up meant sitting in a cloud of partially burnt diesel and engine oil (no wonder I have a bad chest) till everything had warmed up.

There was also a design fault the oil was supposed to be contained in the engine when stopped and not drain into the sump making it virtually impossible to work out the oil level meaning an inexperienced driver could overfill the engine cause too high an oil pressure and blow the cylinder seals letting water into the combustion chamber. Or underfill the engine and because they all made a noise like the big end bearings had gone even when brand new and the temperature guage was about as much use as a Ouija board it wouldnt be spotted till too late that the engine had just ground itself into scrap.

After about 10 years they got it all working okay and it was a torquey beast that could shift a Cheif surprisingly quickly but it was always a leaky thing the only way to keep the engine bay clean and dry for an inspection was not to fill up either the engine or the transmission with fluids and definitely not run it. Half an hours running and the engine bay look like the bilges of an Oil Tanker.

I'd always understood that the issues came from increasing tank weight making the 'legacy' aircraft engine conversions no longer viable and this before people like MAN etc making very powerful diesels

As for the engine being leaky - what's that saying about British Engines in the 60s and 70s - if there is not oil under it - then there is not oil in it

Lastly - and this from what I was told by some one who was a British Tanker in the 70s and 80s - the Leo1 powerpack had to be replaced twice as often as the L60 but for some reason never got the same poor rep as the Leyland powerpack?
 
Lastly - and this from what I was told by some one who was a British Tanker in the 70s and 80s - the Leo1 powerpack had to be replaced twice as often as the L60 but for some reason never got the same poor rep as the Leyland powerpack?

Wash your mouth out German engines dont break down, they were simply practicing quick engine changes and boy they must have enjoyed the practice because they did it so often.

To be fair the Bundeswehr did things differently, we were regulars expected to get dirty doing our own basic maintenance and repairs. The Germans would swap an engine because of a slight oil leak and tank crews were conscripts who would write a whiney letter to there MP if they had to get oil on there immaculate overalls.
 
Wash your mouth out German engines dont break down, they were simply practicing quick engine changes and boy they must have enjoyed the practice because they did it so often.

To be fair the Bundeswehr did things differently, we were regulars expected to get dirty doing our own basic maintenance and repairs. The Germans would swap an engine because of a slight oil leak and tank crews were conscripts who would write a whiney letter to there MP if they had to get oil on there immaculate overalls.

Ohhh if you insist (sound of a can of 'Old Speckled Hen' being opened) - Don't mind if I do!

I now feel so foolish -what was I thinking obviously the MTU engine was obviously the 'Engine of Dreams'
 
I know someone who had a very nice BMW M something or other and boy did he bang on about superior German engineering. It was very satisfying when it had to be towed to a garage and have £thousands spent on the engine when the cam belt snapped. x'D
 
Top