Attached is page 2 of an Appendix from 65 Canadian Anti-Tank Battery, 5 Canadian Anti-Tank Regiment dated 31st March 1945. The Crusader Gun Towers appear to have almost made it to wars end, at least with 5 Cdn A/T Regiment. I was not aware that they were so unreliable. I have seen the odd photo of half-tracks used as gun towers in Italy but not that many in Europe. Cheers Kevin Although it appears not ideal.
The Crusader had issues. http://rommelsriposte.com/2011/10/22/some-more-on-the-mechanical-reliability-of-crusader-tanks/ http://rommelsriposte.com/2009/01/11/mechanical-issues-of-britishus-tanks-during-crusader/ http://rommelsriposte.com/2014/04/13/some-more-on-problems-with-cruiser-tanks/ Best technical history: http://rommelsriposte.com/2020/03/2...iser-mk-vi-crusader-tank-a-technical-history/ All the best Andreas
The general survey by 21 Army Group's AFV (Tech) organisation (i.e. Ministry of Supply liaison) at the end of the war indicated that the surviving Crusader Gun Tractors had achieved up to 2000 miles and had been generally pretty reliable. That said, they may have only surveyed British A/Tk regiments. Generally though, this vehicle was basically a tank, and needed tank levels of care and maintenance so wasn't ideal for the job. So it's difficult to say if any lack of reliability was inherent or whether it was due to a lack of overhauls or poor maintenance etc.
I think they can to a great extent, because issuing brand new vehicles to a well trained unit is very different to issuing worn out vehicles to an untrained unit. Not that I think that this is necessarily what occurred on this occasion. The Gun Tractor was quite a bit more durable than the gun tank because it had better air cleaners, which were relocated to a more appropriate location on the vehicle, and so were better shielded from dust. There had also been quite a few improvements to other components as well. I've picked up quite a few comments and reports on the Crusader Gun Tractor, and the gist seems to be generally positive, but far from comprehensively so.
