the problem with crusaders

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by ncayote, Mar 1, 2013.

  1. ncayote

    ncayote Member

    hi my grandfather told me;

    about his regiment 'the queens bays were using crusader tanks - maybe the inspiration for the operation name(?) they had two pound guns on until later in the war when upgraded to seven pounders they had a major flaw that when the turret was facing backwards or sideways the driver couldn't get out or open his hatch properly, he said due to this when hit a lot of drivers were killed.

    is this true about crusaders?
    jonathan
     
  2. arnhem44

    arnhem44 Member

    stolpi likes this.
  3. chrisgrove

    chrisgrove Senior Member

    Not the only tank that had this problem; Later Cromwells got a new drivers hatch to resolve it. There were other problems with Crusaders too.

    Chris
     
  4. FMAlanbrooke

    FMAlanbrooke Junior Member

    The Mark II had a 6 pounder (57mm) gun. It wasn't the only tank that had problems for people trying to get out of it in a hurry. Read "Tank Men" by Robert Kershaw (a pretty harrowing read in places because of the descriptions of men being burnt alive). The Crusader's main problem was that it was unreliable, though was just as unreliable as other UK tanks of that time, and this unreliability was made worse by the desert conditions.
     
  5. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    On technical reliability, see here:

    Mechanical Issues of British/US Tanks during CRUSADER | The Crusader Project

    The 120 breakdowns account for about half or so of the Crusader tank strength. Furthermore, this does not include those tanks which broke down and were fixed by L.A.D. directly attached to Brigade/Regiment level.

    And here:

    Experience with Cruiser Tanks in 2 Armoured Brigade, January 1942 | The Crusader Project

    And here, from the Queen's Bays war diary:

    Some more on the mechanical reliability of Crusader Tanks | The Crusader Project

    The basic problem in Jan 42 was the total inadequacy of the 2-pdr gun. It could no longer penetrate the face-hardened frontal armour of the German Mark III tank. You needed to have two hits on pretty much the same spot - the first to shatter the face-hardened, bolted on piece, the second to penetrate the underlying armour. Clearly this was close to impossible to achieve.

    Having said that, during the counter offensive most tanks were not lost because of battle in the Queen's Bays, but rather due to lack of petrol and mechanical failure.

    All the best

    Andreas
     
  6. Bernard85

    Bernard85 WW2 Veteran WW2 Veteran

    hi arnhem44,today.01-03-2013,12:48pm.re:tank museum video,a great presentation.it must be tank heavan for an x tanky.and great viewing for non tanky;s most interesting thread.i myself would not like being shut inside a steel box.they were heroes no doubt about it.thanks for a great message.have a good day.bernard85
     
  7. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    Jonathan

    Did your grandfather have any observations on the US-built M3 Honey tank?

    All the best

    Andreas
     
  8. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

    Names (Including Lt Col Lidderdale) that may lead to other links scan the pages there are several Armour experimental units- Armour:



    Army list



    Other experimental units, Signals, Bridging,Gunnery airborne etc all listed in this publication.


    Fighting vehicles:


    Army list



    Picked a name - Brigadier Morrogh from Fighting Vehicles Establishment chose a link-

    LEYLAND'S VITAL CON | 6th July 1945 | The Commercial Motor Archive


    Once you have a datum or start point by name - Experimental Establishment Chertsey:

    :
    http://ww2.runnymede.gov.uk/DERA_plans/ES_Appendices/App_13.4.pdf
     
  9. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    I read a good Osprey book about the Crusader, and it went into some detail about the problems.

    1) As pointed out, while the armor and gun were adequate for 1940, when the tank was designed, they were already becoming outmoded by late 1941.
    2) The tank went into production very quickly, without adequate pre-production testing.
    3) The Liberty engine generated a lot of power but it was a WWI aero engine, and it lacked the toughness to take the battering WWII AFV engines were subjected to.
    4) The cooling system was faulty, a particularly bad problem in the desert.
    5) Crusader Mk I's and early II's had a hull MG in a small turret. The turret was terribly cramped and inadequately ventilated, so it was often removed in the field and it was omitted on late II's and all III's.
    6) The commander's hatch on the early marks was large and double-hinged, and it had a nasty habit of banging down unexpectedly on the commander's head. This was corrected on the Mk III.
    7) The tank's mechanical problems were made worse by inadequate maintenance, especially during the long voyage from the UK to Egypt. Tanks often arrived in Egypt in wretched condition, and required weeks of work before they were fit for the field.
    8) According to C. E. Lucas-Phillips (Alamein, in the old Pan British Battle Series) even as late as October 1942 some Crusaders received by 8th Army showed signs of shoddy manufacture, with defective radios, guns, etc.
     
  10. Wills

    Wills Very Senior Member

    There is a report of 1944 which gives a catalogue of problems with tank production. In fact questions were asked in the house about millions spent on unsuitable tanks. Unlike the air side there was no inspectorate at the workshop level-subcontractors inspected and passed their own produce, the report tells of bad workmanship, with much of the produce being 'scrapped' gears and other metal to metal components not heat treated correctly (case hardening) allied to bad design.
     
  11. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

    I have read 4th CLY grumbles about replacing their Crusaders with Shermans!
     
  12. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    I have read 4th CLY grumbles about replacing their Crusaders with Shermans!

    The Crusader did have some strengths. Speed and manueverability were foremost among these, and the low-slung design made it a good tank to fight from a hull-down position. The Christie chassis enhanced speed and gave a relatively smooth ride, and it was retained on subsequent British cruisers. The Crusader had better range than the M3 Stuart, so the 9th Australian Div and the Free French used it in the recce role. The Italians liked the Crusader so much that they designed a copy of it, but they never got it into production. The Mk III with the 6-pounder was not a badly armed tank by 1942 standards, but it still had the unreliable Liberty and inadequate armor.
     
  13. Andreas

    Andreas Working on two books

    7) The tank's mechanical problems were made worse by inadequate maintenance, especially during the long voyage from the UK to Egypt. Tanks often arrived in Egypt in wretched condition, and required weeks of work before they were fit for the field.

    This may refer to the incident with 22 Armoured Brigade tanks which arrived in October 41, and if that's the case, the 'weeks' were unnecessary.

    All the best

    Andreas
     
  14. TTH

    TTH Senior Member

    This may refer to the incident with 22 Armoured Brigade tanks which arrived in October 41, and if that's the case, the 'weeks' were unnecessary.

    I got that out of the Osprey book, and to tell the truth I don't recall the exact length of time required to get Crusaders fit in Egypt. It was certainly longer than it should have been or would have been if they had been properly maintained en route, and the comment in the book was a general one--that is, the problem was not confined to a single unit or instance.

    Poor maintenance during the voyage to Egypt was a common problem for other tank types as well. The Valentine was one of the more reliable British tanks, but when the crews of the new 23rd Armd Bde met up with their old mounts after they had been delivered in Egypt they found them in poor condition. (That from Barr, Pendulum of War.)
     

Share This Page