British Covenantor in North Africa

...and further down that list, there's THIS - http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1030008589

 

Yes, I spotted that. It would be interesting to see if the cooling tests really did end in Jan '42 - that would add to the suspicion that the cooling problems really were cured.

I'm quite keen to see the reliability test results in WO185-6. Going by the anecdotal accounts given by crew members on the IWM recordings, the defects should overwhelmingly be with brakes and steering mechanisms, with perhaps the occasional gearbox problem. If this is so, it looks like the persistent cooling problems are something of a myth.

I think I might do a summary of the comments on the recordings. There are also a handful of Covenanter anecdotes on the BBC's "People's War" site, such as this one. Again, no specific comments on cooling problems, related breakdowns, over-heated interior compartments etc.

 

lets say that the cooling issues were resolved by early 1942 (a year and a half after introduction), this would be past the point where it could be combat effective in its original specification, though it possibly could have been effective in a scouting-reconnaissance role. Except it still had serious bugs in the brakes, steering, crew ingress/egress and possibly the transmission.

Sadly this design seem destined to never be "combat ready" except as a forlorn hope.

 

OK, here are summaries from veteran accounts recorded by IWM:

Just a few notes:

i) If the Covenanter really had severe cooling problems, these crews seem to be unaware of it. This may be because most of them appear to have been using the tank from 1942 onwards. At best the cooling issues seem to have been exaggerated, at worst they appear to be something of a myth.

ii) The most commonly identified problem is loss of pressure to brakes and steering, which may have been exaggerated by steep slopes and the age and overuse of the vehicles.

iii) Driver ingress and egress appears to have been compromised by the turret design.

iv) These veterans are clearly on occasion misidentifying the Covenanter with other tanks.

v) Covenanter was used for basic training, and was often the first tank that prospective crews would drive.

 

Also - "period" seals in air-assisted/air pressure systems weren't brilliant

 

I think the thing to bear in mind though is that the Covenanters in training schools were probably being thrashed. They wouldn't have had a regular crew, and the trainee intake would have changed every few weeks, so they wouldn't have had the kind of maintenance that a dedicated crew would have been inclined to give.

According to the Ronald Henderson testimony, after the 61st Training Regiment had finished crashing their Covenanters into dry stone walls, they passed them on to the Irish Guards!

 

Actually- this is one I'm not sure about; see the 19th NZ Armd.Regt account again; individual crews weren't being trained, whole units/battalions were in the UK before being sent abroad, often to pick up new kit in-theatre...

Which means that the units' mechanics etc. would be being trained too! See the comments in the Abbasia account about the amount of training maintenance the tanks got from their converting infantrymen...who ONLY had the three British tanks to practice on for some time! They'd be learning regular maintenance/servicing...REME would be expected to deal with major battle damage and resurrecting policed-up breakdowns etc.

If anything - the regular "thrashing" by trainee crews etc. would give the trainee mechanics MORE experience!

 

That may have been done in the armoured units proper, but in the dedicated Training Regiments (44th and 61st in this case) it may not have been the case.

Ronald Henderson implies that maintenance was done by crews themselves as daily "tasks".

Ultimately though, I suppose we need to find out more....

 

I saluted this post no much because I agree with you as for offering some hard data from those who actually used the Covenanter. Here are my observations from the comments.

1.) Several errors or inaccuracies in accounts must force us to take the accounts in their entirety with a measure of caution. I have no doubt this is to the best of their recollection, but clearly it is far from perfect.

2.) I agree that likely these were post 1941 accounts when most cooling issues were resolved for a tank operating in a cooler than normal environment such as central or northern England or in southern England for brief periods of summer. According to Wiki the national average high in July is 20.9 C or 69.6 f.

3.) While the cooling issue's may have been resolved by 1942-43, none of the other recurring problems (Transmission, Steering, Braking) seem to have been dealt with. Hard use they may have had by trainee's but then operational use (of other tanks) could not have been much easier. yes the crews were well trained (we Hope!) but they would be more likely to push their mounts to the limits in combat operations. So I consider this a bit of a wash. What I do gather is that recurring T-S-B trouble indicate a certain fragility within the design that never was compensated for.

4.) The turret seems to have even more problems than just a hazardous exit for the driver in a compromised unit. A cramped working space is always bad for ergonomics and the ability of a crew to operate efficiently for prolonged periods of time. Worse the need to traverse the turret to get at ready ammunition has to be considered as unwarranted flaw of design. In heavy woods or dense urban environments it might be difficult to impossible, in the case where you have fired but missed closely, then must turn the turret to reach more ammunition you are forced to re-acquire your target. In a situation when he who shoots first accurately lives this could prove terribly fatal.

Crew training was the only thing the Covenanter was ever suitable for period.

 

In response I would say:

1) I agree.

3) As far as I can tell the steering, braking and transmission were exactly the same as for the Crusader.

4) From photographic evidence it is difficult to tell if the driver entry/exit was any more compromised than for the Crusader. It may or may not have been. Also, the Covenanter had exactly the same turret as the Crusader.

I don't yet have a solid opinion on how suitable the Covenanter may or may not have been in combat, either in temperate climes or in the desert.

 

But being mounted upon a larger hull, and one with the radiator in the proper place, might have eased the ammunition retrieval problems at least.

 

Yes, it's normal for the crew to do a certain level of servicing/regular maintenance in laager.

But where do they get the training...?

Just a minor aside - brake fade...which seems to be the normal complaint....isn't actually a "repair" thing! Once the drums/shoes or BOTH cool, they're as "good" as ever they were.

"Fade" in this context sounds like the noted air servo-assisted actuating mechanism wasn't enough for strong braking, and instead lots of weaker braking...the drums still turning and rubbing...would heat up the brake drums rapidly; brakes that work HARD...full "brick wall effect"!...don't fade because they don't get the chance to overheat! They just....work...

BUT...

...if a cruiser of ANY type ends up in dense woodland or urban environment - it's lost the battle anyway! In THOSE circumstances - there are worse things will kill a tank faster than having to re-acquire the target!

But I don't read that as having to traverse the turret over a filled ammunition "segment" every time; surely the crew would...as in ANY tank...fill the ready bins or handiest segment(s) from the other locations when they could...then they wouldn't have to again until THAT "load" was exhausted and they needed to traverse again???


As for the issue of the turret having to be traversed to let the driver enter/exit...from the pics I've seen it was only 5-10 degrees from straight ahead...

...and early Crusaders had a similar issue, in that the machinegunner in the little auxiliary turret next to the driver was ALSO trapped in extremis!

 

Actually, I've missed an obvious point, which is that blaming loss of air pressure in the steering or brakes is a great way to disguise driver error, which must have been happening at least as much. I've added a summary of another testimony I've found, by James Dowie of Fife & Forfar Yeomanry. He's obviously confusing the Covenanter with the Crusader at times (he drove both) but he states there were two types of turn that could be done on the epicyclic steering system, a "smooth" turn, which could be done easily at speed, and a "skid" turn that was dangerous at speed. So there's an opportunity for disaster right there....

Also the fact that veterans seem to be confusing the Covenanter with other tanks suggests that there was nothing particularly notorious about it at the time. It was just another tank to them, that came and went during their period of service.

 

Of course it could also mean they were used to so many crappy tanks they could not tell the difference either

Sorry I could not resist that one

 

...remembering of course that these were trainees - if ANYONE was going to brake late and brake often - it was THEM!

And of course by the time they completed their training...they would have learned the trick of "assisting" the air braking by track braking anyway!

Cue the NEXT lot of trainees to abuse the poor wee things for another couple of weeks before getting the hang of it all...

 

If you were to think that any of them suddenly become more complimentary when the Sherman turns up, you'd be wrong.

 

And, courtesy of today's exchange between Don Juan and myself on AHF regarding Covenanters...





...I can now identify that particular Covenanter as a MkIII!

 

But NOW I can't help noticing THIS tank in the background...



...it has the common Crusader/Covenanter turret - but no glacis-mounted MG turret!


Is this the second Abbasia Covenanter???

 

If so (and it could be) statistically speaking what does it mean when we find two out of at most 12 Covenanter's in the same repair yard at the same time?

 

In this case possibly very little; as discussed previously, Abbasia was the Armour School in the Delta, adjacent to Cairo...and according to the OH the 19th's mechanics seem to have trained there as well as the tank crews. Although the Covenanter looks somewhat sick, we can't be sure and we NOW know we certainly can't go by the official caption to the pic!

It looks like a repair yard - but equally it could be the mechanics' servicing school, and equally the Covenanters could just be there for regular servicing...and period tanks reqired a LOT of that!

The Matilda II for example required a panel of service tasks run through every ten miles!!! In 1940 they didn't receive them during the c.130-mile withdrawal back to the start line for Arras...and so they broke down in spades when the battle began!

To know what the presence of "both" of them at the same time meant, we'd need to know what was being done to them. And bugger all chance of finding that out now!

There MAY be a surviving war diary for the 19th in whatever public record system or museum system New Zealand operates - but we'd have to find it...AND we'd need to go through it for ALL of March 1943, as the official caption...even if correct for the MONTH!...doesn't give a date...

...and we've only JUST found out who it (they?) belonged to!