Don’t worry, you can’t hurt a concrete wall with a brick.
Most of the prewar designs turned out to inadequate for the actual war. The main ptoblem was the designers had mostly theory and little practice on the real world use of Tanks. Before 1940 there had been very little mass tank vs tank combat. It is difficult to develop new technology for projected future when no one really knows what the future holds.
The main problem for the Matilda, as with most early war British tank designs, was that its hull was too narrow to allow for significant improvements in things like a larger turret for a bigger gun, or for a more powerful engine in the power-train compartments. It’s not that the Matilda was a bad tank–it sure scared the hell out of the Germans at Arras in France–but that it could not be sufficiently upgraded due to what I believe to be Briton’s predilection to design tanks that were easily shipped around the empire…
Just like the Grant was designed for fighting in the Phillipines, but never got there.
The British had severe limitations in the design department of tanks, money and ability wise between the wars. The Matilda I was developed as a cheap tank (well mobile pillbox) just to get something built. In 1938 most tanks in service were built in the 1920’s. An excellent book on the state of British tank design and development is ‘Death by Design’ although the author is a little biased.
The Matilda II was a good tank in 1940 in France but unfortunately there were only 23 in the BEF. It unfortunately could only just accept the 6 pdr and like most British tanks was incapable of being up-gunned or armoured.
The first decent all round tank developed by the British was the Comet (the last Cruiser) shortly followed by the Centurion (which should have had the 20 pdr when it entered service).
I can’t believe there were only “decent” tanks at the end. It’s all bias and loss of perspective. It’s the same story for Axis as well as the Allies.
There is no reason to dismiss tanks just because they were invented in prewar time, or because of smoothbore guns for example…
The Matilda II was a fine tank. It definitely made a difference against the early German vehicles. No British division ever claimed to give Matilda’s away with pleasure …
Once the T55 arrived, one can easily call all prior Soviet vehicles as rubish, easily.
The British did have some good tanks in their way prior to the Comet.
The Churchill Infantry Tank after its teething problems was a very good tank and was eventually armed with 6pdr (good AT weapon poor HE) and 75mm MV guns (Good HE poor AT), excellent armour and all terrain ability, very adaptable hull, well liked, very good crew survivability.
Matilda II as already stated.
Cromwell Cruiser Tank, incapable of being updated, very fast (had to be governed down), 6pdr and 75mm MV weapons so same problem as Churchill (also had some with 95mm guns for HE use).
The main problems were they came too late and were classed as obsolete when they entered service. The British never seemed to get the balance right and kept the 2pdr as the main tank gun for far too long (even 2 years after its replacement the 6pdr had been designed and was ready for production). This led to huge delays in the 17pdr as tanks were still being designed for the 6pdr and could not take the 17pdr. (luckily the 75mm MV could fit in many turrets designed for the 6pdr but its AT ability was not as good).
The T34 and Panzer IV were not spectacular tanks but they were solid performers with generally adequate to good, armour to gun to mobility ratio’s. From the start they could be upgraded without having to totally re-design them. The Sherman could be put in the same class even though the US never took the option of really upgunning it with the 17pdr.
Whats the thoughts on the T44, in the small amount of information I have on that it seems to have been a worthy successor to the T34 and its a pity it never entered full production when it was ready.
reminds me with striking resemblance of the 37 / 50 / 75 mm dilemma in the panzers :shock:
T-54 proto was finished in 1945 … production started in 1947 …
The T-54 (later 55) was no bell ringer either, it suffered from many detrimental design flaws.That is not to say that it was unusable, or could not get a job done, but mostly against modern Nato tanks it got the job done to itself.
In a way, if you put the posts together, this is the same as saying “russian armour never was really really that good” :mrgreen:
Centurion all the way
You probably more close to true then you think;)
I actually know that BEFOR the T34 all the prior soviet Vehicles were rubbish. Even it’s direct
predecessor BT was piece of crap.Although we had an few interesting designs like the T-38 amphibious scout tank. It’s not my personal oppinion , but reality of war. Almost all the other types of tanks, developed in pre-war time was stopped becouse of its useless.
I still think that the Brits have made the excellent and balanced tank - the modification of Sherman Firefly. Good gun on maneuver chassis - simple and fine decisison. It would be IMO much better for Royal forces to take this tank for armament instead to develop thei own projects.
I always liked the look of the BT7 and especially the next development the A20 prototype light tank.
sure mate, it wasn’t so good but it was cheap. The cheap mass decent medium tank - all what the soviet needed for the firts post-war period according to its doctrine.
again… in 1945 the Centurion was ready. And no Sherman could beat that :mrgreen:
Yeah, it was ready but the war was OVER :mrgreen:
Not quite, still had Japan to finish off.
:shock:
hummm… yes
there was no need for a tank that countered T55, you think?