Cromwell: English Dictator in Soviet Fields

Over the years of the Great Patriotic War, over 5000 British and Canadian tanks were sent to the Soviet Union. Most of them were so called Infantry tanks, with thick armour and low speeds. Light tank shipments were limited to 20 Tetrarchs. As for Cruiser tanks, they never made it into the Red Army. Despite an initial desire to receive Cromwells, they only made it to the trial stage. Read on to discover why these tanks were rejected.

Intelligence Reports

The first proposal to send Cruiser tanks to the USSR was made in the spring of 1942. The British offered as a supplement to Matildas, Valentines, and Churchills: Cruiser Tank Mk.VI, or, since spring of 1941, Crusader. This successor to the Cruiser Tank Mk.III entered production towards the end of 1940. This was a completely new tank, and a much more successful one than its predecessor. At the same time, it retained some of their drawbacks, like weak armour and not exceptionally reliable Nuffield-Liberty engine.

GABTU made a request for information from appropriate organizations. In addition to official channels, foreign intelligence was activated, and obtained exact information on the production volume and the factories that make the tanks. At first, the tank was rejected due to its gasoline engine. Other tanks shipped to the USSR had diesel engines. In addition to this, information regarding the German evaluation of the Crusader in North Africa was obtained. The Germans considered the tank quick, but lightly armoured.

Cromwell IV, registration number T.187888, Kubinka Proving Grounds, September 1944

Meanwhile, the War Office has been thinking about a replacement for the Crusader since 1940, the same year it entered production. Requirements were given to three companies: Vauxhall, Nuffield, and Birmingham Railway Carriage & Wagon Company (BRC&W). The best result came from Nuffield, the A24. The Crusader served as the foundation for this 27 ton vehicle. The tank was adopted under the index Cruiser Tank Mk.VII or Cavalier, but the tank's fate was sealed from the very beginning. The fault of this was the same Nuffield-Liberty engine. This drawback opened up a path to the Crusader III, armed with a 6-pounder (57 mm) gun.

The problematic vehicle was not discarded, and it was decided to keep working on it. The result was two more tanks, both with the index A27, but with an extra letter. The A27L was the Centaur tank, produced by Leyland and equipped with the Nuffield-Liberty engine. The A27M was the Cromwell tank, produced by BRC&W and equipped with a Meteor, a reduced power version of the Merlin aircraft engine. The new engine was not only more reliable, but one third more powerful.

Soviet specialists encountered this new tank in 1942. On November 13th, a  member of the trade representative commission in Great Britain, K. Olkovskiy, visited the Chobham proving grounds. Here he saw two experimental Cromwell I tanks without armament.

These tanks showed smooth driving on cross-country terrain. However, they were plagued by minor defects in the gearbox, and after 5 km off-road, the water in the radiator started boiling. Suspension springs broke several times. At Olkhovskiy's request, he was given the specifications for this vehicle. He did not believe the specified mass of 27 tons, and left with a general impression that the demonstration was staged to show that the vehicle was not ready. In his opinion, the British did not want to send this tank as a replacement for Matildas or Churchills. In reality, the tank was simply not ready. It took another year to perfect it.

The tank is covered in directions for shipping. A sign covering the whole rear instructs workers to not transport the tank on the upper deck.

In March of 1943, GRU agents learned about the mass production of Cromwell, Centaur, and Cavalier tanks. A report was composed that made its way to GBTU through director of the 3rd GRU Directorate, Major-General V.E. Khlopov. According to this report, by March of 1943 8-10 thousand Cromwells have been built, and 45 units were built each day by 15 tank factories. This information also came from Olkhovskiy. 

Based on this new information, Khlopov suggested that new tanks should be bought instead of Matildas. On April 3rd, the chief of GBTU, Colonel-General Fedorenko, sent a proposal to Molotov to purchase Cromwell tanks instead of Matildas. The trade representatives and GRU agents in Britain were instructed to find more information about these new tanks. It was quickly discovered that the Centaur used the Nuffield-Liberty engine, and interest in that tank waned. There was, however, a proposal to ship the Centaur, judging by a letter from the British War Mission in the USSR.

Same tank, viewed from the front.

According to the document, the British were ready to send Centaurs, but instead, the War Office proposed sending more Shermans. These were British equipped M4A2s (with British radios and some changes in equipment), indexed Sherman III in the British Army. Effectively, the British were offering to resell tanks that were shipped to them by the Americans.

According to the correspondence, that was the end result. Even though the British were happy to show the Centaur to Soviet representatives in Britain, the whole affair petered out, since GBTU was more interested in Shermans, even if they were British variants.

Better Late than Never

The next time anyone thought of Cromwells was in the spring of 1944. In a letter sent on March 17th, Deputy People's Commissar of External Trade, I.F. Semichastnov, asked Fedorenko's opinion about purchasing these vehicles. The letter highlighted the fact that the Cromwell was the best tank produced in Great Britain. By then, supplies of British vehicles ended.

This time, things went further than just letters. GBTU ordered six tanks, some of which were used for mobility trials, some of which were shot up to test their armour, and at least two were sent to various institutions for disassembly and study. For various reasons, the six tanks arrived in Baku only on August 18th, 1944. According to documents, they should have been loaded on trains on August 24th, but there was a 5 day delay.

The Cromwell's engine and transmission compartment.

Let's stop for a second to look at what vehicles exactly were shipped to the USSR. Many flame wars were fought over which modification of the tank was sent. Claims that these were Cromwell VIIs are incorrect. The vehicles were Cromwell IVs, the most numerous variant. These tanks were built in May of 1944, so the USSR was getting brand new vehicles. The only strange part is that their hull modification is specified as E in the documents. The engine compartment roof is indeed of the E type, but the assistant driver's hatch is consistent with B and C type hulls.

By the time the Cromwells arrived in the USSR, tanks of this type have already been fighting in Normandy for two months. Only the 7th Armoured Division had Cromwells as its main fighting force. In the 11th and Guards tank divisions, Cromwells composed about a third of the park, while the rest was made up of the British Sherman "workhorse", the M4A4. The 1st Polish Armoured Division also had a similar ratio of tanks. The Czechoslovak Tank Brigade also had some Cromwells. This unit was almost entirely composed of British vehicles.

In general, British tankers were sceptical towards Cromwells, preferring the Sherman. American tanks were more reliable, more fuel efficient, and had a better designed turret and hull.

Dirt road mobility trials.

Soviet intelligence did not know about these opinions, but some information leaked through. According to this information, the exhaust system was poorly designed, and rising fumes betrayed the vehicle's location, especially in moist weather. Special tin screens were designed quickly, but they limited the gun's depression when firing backwards and their lifespan was very short.

The mudguards were also poorly designed, as they constantly bent and were torn off on dirt roads. The remaining shiny metal also revealed the vehicle. The driver's emergency exit hatch also earned some complaints. The gun mantlet was deemed poor, as there was an instance where the mantlet was penetrated through the BESA mount, leading to the death of the loader.

A Year Too Late

The Cromwell IVs arrived at Kubinka in early September of 1944. Brief trials of vehicle number T.187888 began on September 8th. The trials lasted until September 11th. Their goal was to verify the tactical-technical characteristics of the tank. Information regarding the penetration of the 75 mm Mk.V gun on the Cromwell was also obtained.

Cromwell IV on an incline.

The gun on the Cromwell IV was a result of British and American cooperation. It was based on the 6-pounder gun, but the caliber and ammunition used were American. Its penetration was less than that of the long-barrelled 57 mm gun, but only slightly, and it solved the issue with a lack of HE rounds. This gun was well received by the army, and some existing Cromwells and Churchills were re-armed with it.

As a result of trials, the aimed rate of fire of the tank was about 9 RPM from standstill and 7 RPM at a speed of 9-12 kph. The target for the Cromwell was a Tiger E. At 500 and 600 meters, the M61 shell penetrated the side of the turret completely. At 650 meters, the shell made a 75 mm deep dent and two cracks. To compare, the 75 mm American gun on the M4 Sherman could penetrate this armour at 640 meters, and the 76 mm F-34 couldn't penetrate it with a stock shell at 100 meters.

While driving across swampy terrain, the Cromwell did not get stuck, but it did not behave as confidently as an M4A2 Sherman or a T-34.

The visibility of the crew was good, due to a large amount of Mk.IV periscopes. The commander's working conditions were deemed adequate. The gunner's workspace was given a much higher grade, due to his ability to easily aim and traverse the gun simultaneously. The gunner also had access to a hydraulic turning mechanism.

The loader's conditions were much worse. Only the ready rack on the turret basket was easy to work with. In order to load rounds from the main ammunition rack, help from the rest of the crew was needed. The turret was also very cramped. The diameter of the Cromwell's turret ring was only 1524 mm, compared to the T-34-85's 1600 and M4 Sherman's 1753 mm. As for the driver's compartment, it was also deemed satisfactory.

Cromwell towing a T-34 on a forest road during trials.

The cramped turret was only the surface compared to the truly destructive verdict regarding its design. This verdict also applies to the hull. While even Japan already started using entirely welded designs, British tanks were still assembled on a frame made of 13 mm thick steel, which the armour was riveted to. Only the front and rear hull plates were welded on to the side plates using angle brackets, which were riveted for additional robustness. Certainly, this method was more convenient for the Birmingham Railway Carriage & Wagon Company, but the Cromwell was not a wagon or a cistern.

The turret plates were also riveted to a frame. The outside, with its massive protruding rivets, was unmistakable, but this offered little solace to the crew. The tank's case worsened due to its blocky hull. It seemed that the tank's designers knew nothing of the T-34 and its sloped armour plates. Long story short, the evaluators had nothing good to say about the Cromwell's hull and turret.

In the winter of 1945, tank number T.187866 was partially disassembled and shot at.

During the first stage of the trials, the tank travelled 128 km. The maximum speed obtained was 52 kph. In the same conditions, the M4A2 Sherman reached a speed of 48 kph, and the T-34 reached 55 kph. The tank handled easily. However, the Cromwell spent a lot of fuel. Over 100 km, it consumed 280 liters, while the M4A2 consumed 180 liters and the T-34 170 liters.

Full trials began in late October and lasted until the end of the month. During this time, the tank travelled 340 km on an asphalt road, 1339 km on dirt roads, and 152 km off-road. The average speeds were 44.7 kph, 22.7 kph, and 24.3 kph respectively. On a highway, fuel consumption reached 225 liters for 100 km, on dirt roads 353 liters, and off-road up to 370 liters. Comparative trials off-road and on swampy terrain showed that the Cromwell's narrow tracks make it perform poorly when not on roads.

The front plate of the Cromwell after taking fire from the German 75 mm KwK 42 L/70 gun used by one of its main adversaries, the Panther.

The results of the trials were less than satisfactory. Yes, the Cromwell IV was the best tank made in Great Britain at the time. The problem was that the "Englishman" was inferior to the Sherman in all respects except speed. Supplies of the M4A2 with a 76 mm gun in late 1944 further widened the gap. The conclusion was obvious: "The Cromwell IV tank cannot be recommended for import." Tanks and their components were spread out over various factories and institutes. Tank number T.187887 remained at Kubinka and can now be seen at the Patriot park.

In the winter of 1945, tank number T.187866 was partially disassembled and shot up. It turned out that the front plate could protect from Soviet ZiS-3 and F-34 guns, but the sides could be penetrated from over two kilometers. Of course, the odds of meeting a T-34 were much lower than those of meeting a Panther, whose gun penetrated the armour of the tank at any distance.

Original article by Yuri Pasholok.

See photos of the Overloon Tank Museum's Cromwell here.

British Tank Production

"Report on the factories of the Nuffield Organization in Birmingham
March 1st, 1943

1. Organizational structure

The conglomerate of factories called Nuffield Organization is headed by Lord Nuffield (a major capitalist, born Norris, changed his name to Nuffield when he obtained the title of Lord) and includes Nuffield Mechanizations and Aero factories in Birmingham (described in January of 1942), Morris Commercial, and Wellesley Motors (3 factories), two Morris factories in and around Oxford, a Morris factory in Liverpool, a Morris factory in Manchester, a Morris factory in Lincoln, and a Morris factory in Bristol. The aforementioned nine factories are owned by Lord Nuffield and include the owners of other factories as partners.
Of the nine factories, eight were producing cars, motorcycles, engines, etc. at peace time. From the start of the war in 1939, these factories were redesigned to build Crusader tanks (fast Christie type tanks). Currently, the factories make Crusader and Cromwell tanks.

2. Description of the factories in Birmingham

Two factories were examined, one, Nuffield Organization, makes Crusader Mk.III tanks, Cavalier (an interim step on the way to Cromwell production) and parts for them. The second, Wellesley Motors, makes Bren Carriers, 6-pdr AT guns, wings for gliders, naval mines, beacons, shells, and parts for Crusader and Cromwell tanks. 9000 workers work at these two factories. 4000 workers work at the first factory, and there are 2400 various machines in the plants. 5000 workers work at the second factory, and there are 2650 various machines in the plants.

Nuffield Organization is equipped with modern tools and builds daily: two Crusader tanks (52 per month) and one Cavalier tank (26 per month). The factory began producing Cavalier tanks in September of 1942.

43-44 tanks were being assembled at the factory at the time of our visit, of them 12-13 Cavaliers and 31 Crusaders. During our second visit, there were 31 Cavaliers and 12-13 Crusaders.

Assembly of tanks is done in lines of 3, sometimes 4. During assembly, tanks are supported by 4 columns and are moved from place to place with 20 ton cranes.

Every day, 5-7 engines are assembled depending on which parts come from the mechanical plants.

When the engine assembly plant was examined, there were 33-35 engines being assembled. Engines are assembled on special 4-wheeled carts that are moved around between different assembly stages.

When engines are assembled, there is manual fitting of the casing with a chisel and file around the areas of the oil pump and casing cover, and near the distribution mechanism roller."

CAMD RF 38-11355-1389

American Tank Tires

I've picked on Soviet tires a few times, and even German ones, and now the time has come for American tires. How do they stand up to long road marches and heated chases? Maintenance of Armor in World War II from the Fort Leavensworth library has the answer.

The experience with steel and rubber tracks mirrors Soviet experience in the hot Ukrainian steppes. Rubber tracks tended to melt and fall to pieces, while steel tracks performed much better. Since the terrain was not rocky or mountainous, the drawback of all metal tracks tearing off chunks of tires did not come up. 

Even without any rocks, heat and dust appear to have a negative effect on American vehicles, which is, unfortunately, not quantified.

The British also complained about American tanks blowing bogies, although their experience with steel tracks was poorer:

World of Tanks History Section: Sharing Parts

Two articles on similar themes were posted, and both were pretty short, so I am going to merge them into one. The theme is components that belonged in both a tank and an airplane, in this case, engines and guns.

A Tank's Winged Heart

The tank is a mobile battle unit. Therefore, its engine is no less important than the gun or armour. Every country building a tank encountered the problem of an engine that combined two important factors:. First of all, a tank engine needs to be powerful enough to move a multi-ton vehicle. Second, the engine needs to work in conditions far from ideal, it needs to be reliable and forgiving.

The optimal solution would be a special tank engine, but it was not always possible to develop one. Tanks used engines from tractors, cars, airplanes. 

The talented American engineer J. Christie used airplane engines for his vehicles. The experimental M1928 used a V-shaped Liberty L-12 engine. The tank reached a speed of 120 kph in trials on wheels, and 65 kph on tracks. This engine was used on aircraft until 1927.

Liberty engines were used on British cruiser tanks, including the Crusader tank, widely used in the first parts of WWII. The later Cromwell tank used an engine derived from an aviational design, the 12-cylinder Rolls-Royce Merlin III. Famous airplanes such as the Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane and Mustang X used this engine.

The Continental W6709A engine was used on the American M5 Stuart tank, one of the country's most massively produced tanks. The M2 Medium tank, another tank from the early days of WWII, used the 9-cylinder Continental R975EC2. 

The USSR developed the M-5 engine based on the Liberty L-12, which was used on BT series tanks. Later, the USSR developed another engine that was installed on planes, as well as tanks. The M-17 engine was based on the German BMW-VI. M-17 engines were installed in heavy TB-3 bombers, I-3 fighters, MDR-2 flying boats, and other vehicles. Modified M-17 engines were used on BT-7, T-35, and T-28 tanks.

It's hard to find a person that has not heard of the German super-heavy Maus tank. Many don't know that one of the potential engines that could have powered it was the Daimler-Benz DB.603 airplane engine, manufactured since 1942. This engine was used in He-219A-7 long range bombers, Me-410B heavy fighters, and other aircraft.

The eventual decline of aircraft engines used in tanks was due to the fact that airplane engines are more suited for working in the air. They were unreliable on tanks and needed high quality fuel, which was expensive to produce. Finally, airplane engine factories simply could not provide enough engines for all customers. Nevertheless, over the course of many years, tanks from many countries rode into battle with "winged hearts".

Original article available here.

Weapons of Two Worlds

Development and improvements in airplane design led to aircraft that were difficult to shoot down. This was especially true for bombers, whose toughness grew with size. Typical armament of a 1930s fighter consisted only of rifle caliber machine guns, making shooting down a bomber very difficult.

Adding more machine guns did not solve the problem. 

Earlier, we spoke of airplane motors used in armoured vehicles. The same thing happened with guns. Some of them descended from the skies, others did the opposite, flying upward after being developed for land combat.

Airplane guns usually had a small caliber, 20-37 mm, but they were automatic, which meant they could fire in bursts. Cannons drastically increased the firepower of aircraft.

The small T-60 tank was developed and produced in 1941 to replace the losses of Soviet tank units during the first stages of the Great Patriotic War. The first T-60s were armed with the tank version of the 20 mm automatic ShVAK cannon, based on the ShVAK-20 aircraft cannon. The use of the ShVAK did not start with the T-60, it was used on earlier T-40 and T-30 tanks. The gun proved itself picky: it was not used to a dirty tank, and the automatic mechanisms would jam. The gun was modified, and the result was called TNSh-20 (Tank, Nudelman-Shpitalniy). The VJa (Volkov-Jartsev) cannon was also explored, but was never implemented in metal.

There were also large caliber plane guns. For example, G and H modifications of the Mitchell B25 bomber had 75 mm cannons. This gun was later used on the M24 Chaffee tank. It was planned with an M3 gun, like the Sherman, but it turned out that the mass and recoil were too much for a light tank. Engineers decided to equip the Chaffee with the bomber's gun.

An example of a gun that migrated from tanks to planes would be the 50 mm KwK 39 German gun, used in the PzIII tank. The BK-5 aircraft cannon was inspired by its design, and was used on the Me.410, Junkers Ju88P4, and jet fighter Me.262.

Original article available here. 

Libyan Evaluations

Great Britain and the USSR had a very healthy exchange of intelligence going on during the war. One of the documents exchanged was a captured German document on the performance of tanks in Libya.

CAMD RF 38-11355-651 p.23

"According to English documents captured in Libya, dated October 16th, 1941, the Germans give the following evaluations to their mechanized and armoured forces:

1. PzI is a weak infantry tank, and breaks down frequently.
2. PzIII performs adequately.
3. PzIV performs adequately.
4. Trucks do not survive long marches in the desert.
5. Half-tracks are the only vehicles that are capable of working in any conditions.

Moving on to English tanks, the Germans remark that any English tank can be destroyed by 50 mm guns. The English Cruiser tank Mk. VI (Crusader) is considered to be sufficiently fast, but weakly armoured.

Remark: the aforementioned German evaluation confirms that current attention is focused on manufacturing medium tanks (PzIII and PzIV) and armoured half-tracked APCs. This is confirmed by a number of intelligence sources, and the compositions of units shipped to the front."

World of Tanks History Section: British Tank Building

On July 28th, 1914, the cannonade of a new war rolled through Europe. Nobody thought that the conflict would be a global war of attrition. All participants assumed they could quickly crush their opponents in a few months of decisive offensives. New countries joined the fight, armies took colossal casualties, and Europe was crisscrossed with trenches from the north shores to the south. Offensives were ineffective. Tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of lives were given for mere kilometers. In order to break the stalemate, all participants developed new, deadlier weapons. Flamethrowers, poison gases, airplanes. The British invented the tank.

The first tanks went into battle on September 15th, 1916, at the river Somme. Armoured monsters broke through the German defenses, but the effect was only tactical, not strategic. Overall, tanks failed to play a decisive role in WWI. Two decades went by before the full potential of armoured vehicles was discovered. Over these years, not only the tanks themselves evolved, but their use in combat. Surprisingly, the British, pioneers of tank building, had problems with both these aspects.

As always, the biggest problem was the human factor. The British Ministry of Defense had many opponents to armoured warfare. D. Brown wrote that military commanders treated the tank corps with hatred and jealousy. Claims that tanks were a waste of budget were common.

The pro-tank camp wasn't running too smoothly either. There was no single opinion about what tanks should do on the battlefield. Two viewpoints were common. One was that the tanks should advance with infantry, cover it with armour, and help it fight enemy infantry. Other tanks, field guns, and bunkers were the responsibility of artillery. The second camp was of the opinion that tanks had to act like cavalry. They would break through to the rear of the enemy, strike at their communications, warehouses, attack infantry that is matching and incapable of effectively fighting back.

At the end, the British decided to sit on two chairs at once. Tanks were divided into infantry and cruiser types. The first were slow and well armoured. The second were fast and thinly armoured. The armament was more or less the same. Although it was originally proposed that infantry tanks should just have machine guns, they were eventually upgraded to AT guns. The caliber of these guns was limited, and neither cruiser nor infantry tanks were equipped with HE shells.

Let us closely examine the two British tank families at the beginning of WWII.

Infantry tanks, at the beginning, had no AT guns. An example of such a tank is the Matilda I, which was built starting in 1937. It was a clumsy, but well armoured tank. In 1940, when the British first crossed paths with the Germans, it turned out that German AT guns were ineffective against it. Sadly, the advantage in defense was completely nullified by its poor offensive capability.

In 1939, the Matilda II entered production as the heaviest British tank of the start of the war. Its 60 mm armour could only be penetrated by 88mm AA guns and 76 mm guns on Marder II tank destroyers. Unlike its first modification, the Matilda II carried a 2-pounder gun. For the beginning of the war, this was enough. However, by the middle of 1942, the Matilda's gun stopped being a significant threat. A larger gun was not possible due to the small turret ring.

The best infantry tank of the early war was the Valentine. This vehicle first saw combat in North Africa. The Valentines were produced until 1944, even though it was deemed obsolete by 1942. It was hindered by its low speed and weak gun. Unlike the Matilda, the Valentine could be fitted with a 57 mm (6 pounder) gun. The cramped turret fit two crewmen, which reduced the crew's effectiveness. Around half of all Valentines built were shipped to the USSR under Lend-Lease.

As for cruiser tanks, at the start of WWII they were far from perfect, and distinguished themselves with poor reliability. Cruiser tanks were based on Walter Christie's vehicles.

The first cruiser tank was the Vickers Mk I, produced in small numbers since 1934. They were practically not used in the war, even though several remained on active duty until 1941. Most tanks were used for training purposes.

Vickers Mk II and Mk II were a little better than the first model, but were weakly armoured and lightly armed. Still, there were many non-combat losses, credited to the poor reliability of these tanks.

The Vickers Mk IV was supposed to solve this situation. The armour was increased to 30 mm by welding armour plates on to the turret and weak spots. This gave the turret a strange 6 sided shape, which the Covenanter inherited. The suspension was also improved. The Mk IV was much more combat capable than its predecessor, but was still broke down unacceptably often.

In 1940-1941, Britain suffered heavy losses on all fronts. In France, North Africa, Greece, British tanks were inferior to their opponents. Sometimes this was due to technological superiority, sometimes due to incompetent commanders. Britain had to take drastic measures.

The Tank Committee was reshuffled in 1941, after British defeats against Germany's forces. The committee was joined to the Ministry of Defense, and given control of all enterprises that dealt with manufacturing tanks or developing tank doctrine. This was vitally important, since the current state of affairs rendered the British army incapable of properly completing the objectives of a modern war.

Based on the experiences of 1940-1942, the British concluded that their tanks were ineffective against almost all vehicles of the enemy, aside from very old ones, like the PzI. Light tanks were placed on scout duties only, and, even there, they were slowly replaced by armoured cars.

Infantry tank experience in Europe did not go as poorly. As an example, one can look at the battle of Arras on May 21st, 1940. Matilda I and II tanks of the 4th Royal Tank Regiment attacked two regiments of the 7th tank division and a regiment of the SS "Death's Head" division. The Matilda's armour, 60-78 mm thick, could only be lightly dented by German 37 mm AT shells. The SS "retreated with signs of panic" or, in more colloquial terms, fled. The British were only stopped when the Germans calmed down and towed in 88 mm AA guns. Infantry tanks could be improved by heavier armour and better weapons.

Cruiser tanks had the most room for improvement. On one hand, the cruiser tanks that Britain had in its possession distinguished themselves with neither combat effectiveness, nor reliability. On the other hand, the army needed a proper universal tank that was capable of both accompanying infantry and completing independent objectives. Cruiser tanks were the obvious choice here, but something had to be done about their engines, with the service life of several hours and their flaky ventilation and suspension. Skipping forward a bit, the British only accomplished this by 1944.

Both cruiser and infantry tanks required improved weaponry. The main tank gun at the time was the 2 pounder (40 mm) gun. It was ineffective against tanks of the time and nearly worthless against infantry: HE shells were either absent, or of such poor quality that tankers discarded them for AP.

It was necessary to use a 57 mm (6 pound) gun. The British had a gun like this, and it was used on the Valentine since 1943. For a very long time, most British tanks were armed with the 57 mm gun that, while better than the 2 pounder, was still not powerful enough. A 75 mm gun was only adapted in 1944.

Despite their active participation in the war and a realistic view of a tank's requirements, the British created several very unfortunate vehicles. For example, the Covenanter. This Christie suspension cruiser tank was released with the 2 pounder gun, and was very unreliable. By the time its technical problems were ironed out, it was obsolete. Its heir, the Crusader, was considered to be very comfortable to drive and use, but was not loved by tankers. The reasons for this were the same: poor gun, thin armour, low reliability.

The Matilda was replaced by the Churchill, which will be the topic of another article. It was a very strange tank for its time. It was probably more suited for the battlefields of WWI. Like all infantry tanks, it was slow, and had a questionable weapon layout. The turret held a 2 pounder gun. The hull, a 76 mm howitzer. This was quickly seen as a poor choice, and the Churchill was modernized. The howitzer was removed, the main gun was replaced with a 57 mm, and later a 75 mm gun. There were also fire support tanks, with 95 mm howitzers. One of the Churchill's problems was its narrow hull. It was impossible to enlarge the turret ring, and the existing turret was not large enough for a bigger gun.

This problem was addressed by a new infantry tank, the Super Churchill, also known as the Black Prince. It was largely based on the Churchill tank, but with a wider hull. The larger turret managed to fit in a 17 pounder gun. By May of 1945, when 6 Black Princes were ready for testing, the vehicle's layout and armament were already obsolete. The tank never had a chance to see combat before all work on it stopped.

The Cromwell, on the other hand, was a breakthrough. Developed in 1941-1943, it was armed with a 57 mm or 75 mm gun, and, with the "Meteor" airplane engine, it was the fastest British tank at the time. The Cromwell was a decent tank, but by 1943, the Germans had Tigers and Panthers. The 75 mm gun was insufficient against them, and the small turret ring prevented a larger gun from being mounted.

A more powerful gun was mounted on the Cromwell's successor, the Comet. With a wider and longer turret, a 77 mm gun with a muzzle velocity of 787 m/s was installed. This was the most powerful cruiser tank of WWII. It was not as good as a Panther, but significantly better than the German PzIV, which remained Wehrmacht's most common tank.

A cruiser tank nicknamed "British Panther" was built after WWII. It was called the Centurion. It had an angled welded hull, a 17 or 20 pounder gun, and remained in use until 1970. Later versions of the tank (starting in the 1950s) were armed with the 105 mm rifled L7 gun. This tank served as a basis for the experimental FV4202, which, due to a redesigned hull shape (the driver was now lying down), was smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable. The tank had the same 105 mm gun. The FV4204 was not mass produced, since at that point, Main Battle Tanks were conceived. The British themselves, in 1945, agreed that the idea of splitting tanks into cruiser and infantry was a poor one.

The last heavy tanks of Britain were the Caernarvon and Conqueror. They were built as heavily armed tanks, meant to combat the tanks of the enemy. This narrow specialization, and a large amount of technical problems, led to only 180 of these tanks built in various modifications.

Caernarvon and Conqueror were meant to fight enemy tanks from large distances. Based on the Conqueror chassis, another heavy tank was being developed, the FV215b. At first, it was meant to have a 183 mm gun with a drum type autoloader, but the gun was incapable of rotation, and had to be installed without any kind of turret. One close call with an HE shell, and the crew was dead and the tank inoperable. At first, this was solved by welding a box on top of the tank. Later, a turret was built, but had to be placed in the rear of the hull. 120 mm and 130 mm weapons were tested as well. The tank was not mass produced.

To summarize, while the British were the first to put tanks on the battlefield, they did not stay in the lead for long. Perhaps, this was due to the United Kingdom's geographical location on an island, with a reduced priority given to land forces compared to ships and aviation. When the time came to fight on land, the British were incapable of catching up to Germany and the USSR, whose tanks were the main striking force.

Original article available here: part 1 and part 2.