23 July 1940. London, England.
The Mechanisation Experimentation Establishment (MEE) first interim report about the A15E1 Cruiser which they had been testing since 6 May 1940. It began by noting that the vehicle had been fitted with more than a ton of lead ballast to represent a fully loaded tank, with all its equipment, five crew and increased armour thickness to 50mm (1.96 inches). The tank was assessed as being just under 18 tons.
The drivers position came in for a lot of criticism in the report. It was ‘most unsatisfactory, both opened up and closed down.’ When opened up the driver was uncomfortable, and his head was vulnerable to being hit from behind by the gun or when the turret was reversed. When closed down, although the driver was less uncomfortable, his vision was limited. The clutch pedal was badly positioned, and the spent cartridge case bin for the machine gun obscured the accelerator pedal.
During the trails the running of the tank was discontinued on the advice of the Medical Officer, who identified that the driver was in danger of severe trauma to the abdomen due to ‘extreme flexion of the driver’s thighs at the hip joint but also a degree of flexion of the lumbar spine’. To the team at Farnborough this suggested that the manufacturer had not really taken the tank out to acquire any mileage.
The engine was described as ‘very cramped’ but the transmission and suspension were normally accessible for a normal drivers’ maintenance, but major work is not simple, particularly such jobs as removing the engine or radiators. The air cleaners were noted to be exposed to small arms fire, and ‘if the flimsy bracket, which holds the concertina element extended is shot away, the element will be sucked in by the air stream and strangle one bank of the engine.’ The cleaners were also very exposed to dust it was noted.
An extra inspection plate would be needed in the belly of the tank to permit access to the clutch control rod. The electric starter was judged not powerful enough to rotate the engine. The steering control was not judged satisfactory, it being erratic, too violent when engaged and too slow to disengage. It was believed this could be fixed by changing over to an Arens cable control rather than the unsatisfactory Girling mechanism.
The report continued, ‘The vehicle is not controllable on roads to the extent that it can be passed safe for road running. It is rather out of hand on cross country, but normally there is sufficient room to avoid trouble.’ The tank’s suspension was reckoned to be unsuitable for cross country running on any type of terrain that wasn’t extremely level, the front and rear springs were too soft, causing a violent rocking motion, which contributed to the injuries to the driver.
The were a whole list of other defects listed, such as the cooling was unsatisfactory; the engine tended to oil up when climbing hills, which suggested inadequate oil scavenging; the footbrake didn’t hold the on slopes greater than 1 in 3; reverse steering could occur on gradients, with the tracks ‘freewheeling’ due to the momentum of the tank; the power traverse pipe from the turntable floor fouled the gunners leg; the vision devices lacked standarisation; stowage was a problem. Although this part of the assessment of the tank did not include gunnery trials, it was believed that ventilation arrangements were likely to be found inadequate, especially for the hull gunner position.
The A15E1 was returned to the manufacturers for them to work on the deficiencies, and it was expected that the next report would be issued in December to see what progress had been made.
NB text in italic differs from OTL. In other words, this is all as OTL, though some parts are from later reports as well as the first interim report. The details come from P M Knight, A15 Cruiser Mark VI Crusader, a technical history. Black Prince Publications