question Why did Britain build outdated tanks in WW2?

[LarryH57]

Considering that we were reading most of the Germans Enima codes by 1941 / 42 and Russia was our ally, our intelligence services must have known of the Russian T-34 tank and the effect it was having on German troops and consequently their tank designs such as the Panther. Even as late as 1944 our cruiser tanks had vertical front plates, thin armour and very often a 6pdr (57mm) gun! And yet the M3 Lee and M4 Sherman of c.1942 vintage had sloping armour and larger guns.

 

Yes I know the USA and the USSR had the capacity to build more tanks but that still doesn't explain why we still went on building outdated designs.

[Richard Farrant]

Yes I know the USA and the USSR had the capacity to build more tanks but that still doesn't explain why we still went on building outdated designs.

 

Time for development was not on our side, and with factories being bombed, supply shortages, etc. it has to be said we done very well in the circumstances. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Don't forget that although tanks came into service in WW1, though the mid-war period very little development was done as they were not seen to be of use. Companies like Vickers built them on a commercial basis exporting around the world, the War Office did not influence their designs as far as I am aware.

[Adrian Barrell]

Hmm.... Late welded hull Cromwell had the same 4" of frontal armour as Tiger 1, which also had a vertical front plate. No 6 pdr Cromwells were fielded in battle, all having 75mm but that was only to give it a good HE capacity, the 6 pdr having (with APDS) excellent armour penetration capability second only to 17 pdr.

[Tony B]

British and French tanks at the start of WW2 were amongst the most advanced in the world. Half the trouble was the tactics employed, the so called 'penny packet'.

[25 pounder]

British and French tanks at the start of WW2 were amongst the most advanced in the world. Half the trouble was the tactics employed, the so called 'penny packet'.

I fully agree , 1939 to 1945 , 6 years , but it looks a century of (military) evolution ,

If we compare British with German military machinery at the beginning of WW 2 , there is not a lot difference , in the equipment

It was the need of superior material , and the will to achieve targets that helped the German war machine with their surch to better machinery,

At the end , it surely was a negative factor , because of the number of types and various models , the war machine had a lot of problems to keep up with spares and parts for repair damaged tanks/tractors/guns

[berna2vm]

In fairness the fact that the Centurion was so good was down to the realisation that many of the tanks we fielded in the war were substandard,and this was a serious effort to remedy the situation,the cause of many more deaths of tank crew than was acceptable.

[Bystander]

In my opinion, a lot of this comes down to the direction of industrial strategy in the war economy. I would argue that Britain led the world in tank design going into WW2 and again after the war, it was unfortunate that British tank fell to such a dire state between the Matilda 2 and the Centurion, just when it was most needed. Brilliant designers and innovative companies are a finite resource and a huge industrial effort went into things like the bomber offensive, which inevitably deflected resources from elsewhere.

 

A lot of British tank design was farmed out to the British motor industry, and when one sees how poorly for example the Morris motor company designed and constructed cars, it is not surprising that their tank designs were appalling too. Designers of unreliable 'sit up and beg' cars became designers of unreliable 'sit up and beg' tanks, where design features such as a sloping glacis or elimination of shot traps were unheard of, and diesel engines were abandoned in new designs.

 

The converse of course is true of Russia, which devoted considerable genius and engineering resources to tank design from the immediate run up to the war onwards, and were rewarded with the T-34 - a tank that shows how outmoded British tank design had become by 1941-43. The enforced use of the Sherman, because we couuld not build enough of anything better, is testomony to how far behind Britain had fallen. It is a pity that Britain did not build the T-34 (or indeed the KV1), given that the Russians were quite keen and supplied at least one example to Britain for evaluation. It is interesting to speculate how we might have done in NW Europe, etc had we been able to field a decent quantity of T-34s, instead of the inferior and polyglot collection of tanks fielded.

[ArtistsRifles]

Quite possible a replay - or precursor (not sure of the dates) of Kursk???

[Tony B]

Two problems the Britisgh faced, one was non standerdisation. The Subsidy scheme bettween the wars allowed vehicle users to purchase a a unit with a subsidy provided it was made available for military use. This was a motor version of the original horse breeding scheme. There were a lot of manufacturers all producing vehicles that coomplied with the scheme. The result was the most mechanised army in the world, just a multiple supply chain. The US on the other hand only had about 21, 00 vehicles in it's entire armed forces. Following the faluire of the Liberty Truck in the Great War, a typical miltary Camel, a horse designed by comitte, the USQM Dept. issued requirments, one of which was that the vehicle had to conatin as many standard parts as possible. The result we all know, and many own, one type but made to a master blueprint, regardless of actual manufactuer. As the US relied much more hevily on long distance heravy trucks, than Uk, that used the rail network, US designers had more experience of designing reliable heavy vehicles. There was also a diffrent ethos of production. In Britian , an apprentice served five years or more and could build a vehicle from the metal ore to finished vehicle. In US the Ford model production line was a person trained to do one job, and did only that job.

The end result was large production of standard vehicles with a lot of interchanagble parts, hennce short supply lines. Also US was not subject to the blitx etc so production was not disturbed.

As for the Russiansds, they have never been backward at stealing others designs, also they has a lot of input from Ford in their early production, so used the Ford methods. The best Tanks during the war were probably Skoda, and of course used by the Germans after the factories were captured.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Tony B

[woa2]

There is a book on the subject. 'The Great Tank Scandal' by David Fletcher. The book is in 2 parts.

 

Also, for an out-dated tank, have you seen the TOG tanks in the Tank Museum?

[antarmike]

Suggested reading

 

"Rude Mechanicals, an account of tank maturity during the second world war" By A.J. Smuthers, Published by Grafton Books isbn 0-586-20305-2,

 

The book details the British and to some extent the American attempts to catch up with the Germans and the Russians, and explains why the British lagged behind for the whole war.

 

and by same publisher an author "A new Excalibur" that chronicles Tank devlopment during WW 1.

Edited September 13, 2009 by antarmike

[berna2vm]

In my opinion, a lot of this comes down to the direction of industrial strategy in the war economy. I would argue that Britain led the world in tank design going into WW2 and again after the war, it was unfortunate that British tank fell to such a dire state between the Matilda 2 and the Centurion, just when it was most needed. Brilliant designers and innovative companies are a finite resource and a huge industrial effort went into things like the bomber offensive, which inevitably deflected resources from elsewhere.

 

A lot of British tank design was farmed out to the British motor industry, and when one sees how poorly for example the Morris motor company designed and constructed cars, it is not surprising that their tank designs were appalling too. Designers of unreliable 'sit up and beg' cars became designers of unreliable 'sit up and beg' tanks, where design features such as a sloping glacis or elimination of shot traps were unheard of, and diesel engines were abandoned in new designs.

 

The converse of course is true of Russia, which devoted considerable genius and engineering resources to tank design from the immediate run up to the war onwards, and were rewarded with the T-34 - a tank that shows how outmoded British tank design had become by 1941-43. The enforced use of the Sherman, because we couuld not build enough of anything better, is testomony to how far behind Britain had fallen. It is a pity that Britain did not build the T-34 (or indeed the KV1), given that the Russians were quite keen and supplied at least one example to Britain for evaluation. It is interesting to speculate how we might have done in NW Europe, etc had we been able to field a decent quantity of T-34s, instead of the inferior and polyglot collection of tanks fielded.

I completely agree, and as you say,at the beginning of the war the Matilda 2 was the best infantry tank in the world... If the tank's design could have been modified to accept a better gun then it could have stayed in the game longer. Unfortunately the turret ring was too small.

[antarmike]

One big stumbling block was the insistance that the tank must be rail transportable, under a standard loading gauge. It was not until A41 / Centurion was allowed to exceed this limit that a tank that could compete with the later German tanks was possible.