Christie-suspension British Cruiser Tanks

[rickshaw]

From a thread originally opened for British Armoured Cars, but since the question is about a turret said to be from the Crusader Cruiser Tank:

The gunner and commander were provided with permament seats while the loader had a flip down one but normally stood during engagements.

Questions:


1. I've been under the impression that all tanks would have their loaders standing during combat; but would that be a safe assumption?

For most Western AFVs, yes.  The T-54/55/59/62 used to have their loaders kneeling.  Must have been hell on their backs during an extended engagement with the turret rotating and them having to shuffle 'round with it.  Made them lower than Western tanks though.

2. It is said that when Crusader tank design was upgunned with the 6-pounder, the turret crew was reduced to two due to the size of the new gun; yet when the turret with almost the same gun (re-bored for US 75mm ammo) was used for AEC Mk.III armoured cars, the loader was reinstated.  What was so special about the Crusader or did the British simply not care that much for a dedicated main gun loader at the time of 6-pounder Crusader's introduction?

The British tended to be, shall we say, more flexible about who had what responsibilities in the turrets of their vehicles, even into the 1950s.  It usually depended on the available space and what their current round of thinking was.  In most 2 Pdr armed tanks there weren't dedicated loaders, that was the commander's responsibility.  Once they realised the folly of that they made a bigger turret (Covenantor/Crusader/Valentine with a 6 Pdr) and made space for a dedicated loader.  Then they introduced the first the 6 Pdr and then the 75mm and decided there wasn't room and took him out.  They put him back for the Centaur/Cromwell/Comet/Centurion.  They then developed the Saladin and reverted to the 2 man turret crew with the commander doing the loading again and the same for the Scorpion.  I suspect the AEC Mk.III carried less ammunition and decided a third crewman who manned the radio/loaded was more important.   I'm at work, I'll check when I get home.

[rallymodeller]

1. I've been under the impression that all tanks would have their loaders standing during combat; but would that be a safe assumption?

Well, as far as modern  MBTs go, most loaders are now sitting, as crew placement in Western designs has pretty much gelled with the loader to the left of the breech and the gunner and commander to the right. Using the M-1 as an example, the loader sits sideways on a swiveling stool, facing the center of the turret. He operates the armoured doors that enclose the ammunition storage compartment with the side of his right knee, and moves the round in a single, efficient motion to the breech. With the 120mm cannon having a semi-combustible casing, after the round is fired there is only a brass baseplate that is dropped into a basket under the breech after firing. That goes for the Leopard as well, IIRC. The Chieftain's cannon uses a two-part system (projectile and separate charge as in field artillery), so the procedure is a little different; the French Leclerc has an autoloader.

[rickshaw]

The AEC Mk.III carried substantially fewer rounds than an equivalent tank but that is in keeping with its role as a reconnaissance vehicle rather than one which is designed to duke it out with an opposing armoured force.  It carried 45 rounds.  The Cromwell in comparison carried 65 rounds.

[dy031101]

It carried 45 rounds.  The Cromwell in comparison carried 65 rounds.

Did it say how many of those are in the turrets?

[rickshaw]

It carried 45 rounds.  The Cromwell in comparison carried 65 rounds.

Did it say how many of those are in the turrets?

Unfortunately no.

[dy031101]

Another curiosity question: would the UK have allowed parts or the entirety of a particular British tank design to be produced outside of British Isles?

Wikipedia entry on the M3 Medium claims that the British did explore unsuccessfully about the possibility of having their design built in American factories.  What I'm wondering is if the US would have been the norm or the exception.

[Jschmus]

Another curiosity question: would the UK have allowed parts or the entirety of a particular British tank design to be produced outside of British Isles?

Wikipedia entry on the M3 Medium claims that the British did explore unsuccessfully about the possibility of having their design built in American factories.  What I'm wondering is if the US would have been the norm or the exception.

I read that article just now.  They must have been willing to export the design, if they asked the US to build them.  I'm guessing the proposal was voted down on the 1940s version of "Not Invented Here".

[Mossie]

Versions of the Valentine were built in Canada.

[rickshaw]

Another curiosity question: would the UK have allowed parts or the entirety of a particular British tank design to be produced outside of British Isles?

Wikipedia entry on the M3 Medium claims that the British did explore unsuccessfully about the possibility of having their design built in American factories.  What I'm wondering is if the US would have been the norm or the exception.

If they had, they would have been unique vehicles with no parts interchangeable with British produced vehicles to the same design.  American manufacturing methods and standards were different to British ones.  US manufacturers felt that they could produce a better design of their own rather than wasting time trying to adapt British designs to American manufacture.

Mossie, you're right they did produce Valentines in Canada but Canada was used to British design and manufacture methodologies so it was easier for them.  Even so, the Canadian Valentines AIUI were nearly all sent to the Soviet Union where they were out of the way and no mix ups could occur.

[jcf]

Mossie, you're right they did produce Valentines in Canada but Canada was used to British design and manufacture methodologies so it was easier for them. 

Not really, as Canadian rail equipment and motor vehicle manufacture was basically the same as US, particularly motor vehicles
as they were all subsidiaries of US companies. Also Montreal Locomotive Works, the producer of the Canadian Valentines, was a
subsidiary of the American Locomotive Company of Schenectady, NY.

Since the mid-19th century Canada, when it comes to industry, machinery and the manufacture of same, has been far more
influenced by trade with its neighbor to the South (and vice versa), than it has been by the UK or the rest of the Commonwealth.