No cruiser / infantry split in UK tank design

From Christopher Chant’s ‘World Encyclopaedia of the Tank’

Up to the early 1930’s the British had remained confident that they had the right ‘mix’ of armoured vehicles, in the from of the light tank for reconnaissance, and the medium tank for independent mobile operations and support of the infantry. But when the failure of the A6 and A7 programmes coincided with the realisation of a rapid rearmament programme forced by Germany’s growing strength and belligerence, the army decided that it could best cater for the independent mobile and infantry support roles with different tank types. Thus the medium tank gave way to the cruiser tanker for mobile operations, and the infantry tank for support operations.

What kind of medium tank could you expect to see in 1939 if there hadn't been a split?

 

.
The British were committed to infantry escort heavy tanks production
Reconnaissance was the job of armored cars , the British had some claim to distinction on the subject
they were also most excellent for colonial purposes ,
the duality , heavy breakthrough and fast long range tank was in fact totally justified , except for a short while from 39 to 42
Thus there was no basic fault of the British or French doctrine
except that ... THEY WERE SO BLOODY SLOW
the British and French tanks could and did laminate the Germans panzers into mantel shelf ornaments , if they only could get together and find them
The problem wasn't the machines the men or the tactics , it was the headquarters who couldn't fight a war and chew their lunch at the same time

.

 

I won't claim to be an expert on the subject of pre-WW2 British mediums, but wouldn't a development of that concept have led to a line of tanks roughly similar to the Cruisers? Even in 1940, after all, there was no reason to assume that multi-purpose tanks would need thick armour and would be required to sacrifice speed because of it.

 

.

Since the doctrine was infantry escort against strongly entrenched opponent
there was no need for a pace much faster than a walking man and plenty of need for thick impervious armor such as the Mathidas ,Russians KV1 , French B1 and even the PZKW IV , all those tanks were " assault tanks with infantry
support , there was a lot of talk about how to use them , in concentrated group or spread thin over the line , but that was all .
The cruiser tanks role were not clearly defined ,forward and retreat screening scouting , exploitation , harassment ...it was seen as a secondary task , Dependant of the outcome of the real fighting

Nobody in a hight position of power believed in the tanks regiments disappearing over the horizon for days at the time
that was only the delirium of a few prophets

.

 

The Panzer IV's armour was several steps down from the likes of the KV1 or the Matilda. Its top speed was also quite respectable for a "heavy" tank. Really it seemed more like a medium from the start, especially considering the fact that its short 75mm gun still had greater penetrative capacity than the Panzer III's main gun.

 

maybe better penetration but harder to use as it would have lacked velocity for decent accuracy at range

FNG

 

Do you mean the 37mm or 50mm?

 

The 37mm that was still more common at the time than the 50mm L/43.

 

Were not the "cruiser" tanks Cromwell and Comet effectively fast medium tanks ? The British kept on improving and beefing up cruisers till they got it right and ended up with the excellent Comet - a tank which may not have been so good had the medium tank path been taken as there would have been less emphasis on mobility. The constantly improving cruiser tank path is what eventually led to the main battle tank ie the Centurion - mobility, armour , firepower. From iffy beginnings to great things ...

 

.
To have been a precursor do not change the fact that all tanks ended up as Medium , fast and well armed ,
The cruiser tanks like the Stuart , T- 60 and fast tanks did not present much advantage over Wheeled vehicles of the Puma or the M8 class they had similar armor and gun , better range and mobility
there is still light fast tanks today mostly from soviet design , armor on tracks with usually a weak gun ,some water crossing
they are usually sold on the basis that they can be airlifted ?!?

.

 

Well, reading through my copy of Chamberlain & Ellis, it appears that a certain Lt Colonel Martel (Assistant Director of Mechanisation) visited Russia in 1936, and decided that what the UK really needed was Medium Tanks with Christie suspension. The result was the A13 series, with the speed of the cruisers but 30mm of armour (same as the Pz IV). These peaked with the Covenanter (which had engine problems) and then spilled over into the A15 Crusader and finally the A27(M) Cromwell and A34 Comet. (the latter two being designated 'heavy cruisers')

So, from the A13 Mk III onwards the 'cruisers' were deliberately designed as medium tanks. It is notable that the only outward difference between the A13, A15, A27 and A34 is in the thickness of armour and the design of the turret. Oh, and the gun. The suspension and tracks are virtually identical.