Just thinking how the Crusader III matches up against the T-34-76 on its introduction in October '42. Both tanks have Christie suspensions, two-man turrets, sloped armour, and both have much improved reliability since their combat debuts. The advantages for the T-34 I believe are: Heavier maximum armour standard (60mm vs. 50mm) Duel-purpose F-34 gun fires superior HE shell Wider tracks give better flotation Diesel engine Hull machine gun The advantages for the Crusader should be: Composite armour less prone to spalling 6 pdr. gun has better AP capability Faster and more accurate hydraulic turret traverse Turret basket Radio fitted to all tanks On the whole I think the two tanks are pretty evenly matched. Any thoughts?
Did the T-34 really have a Christie suspension? How did the turret sizes compare. Having a three man turret was fairly useful in WWII was it not? did the Crusader have one?
The 2pdr Crusader has a 3 man turret, however the 6pdr takes more space and the turret crew reduces to 2 with the commander being loader, radio operator and commander.
It makes little sense to compare a 30t tank with a 20t one. A better comparison would be with the 1941 T34 57 that was produced in limited numbers as the 76 mm F-34 proved good enough against 1941 German armour. For that period give me a Pz IVG.
Yup it did, along with the BT series. I guess the final factor would be the terrain at stake... if you're fighting in places that are not suitable for tanks (like Russian bogs) or with very bad infrastructure, or places that aren't 'flat' for a better way of putting it then the T-34 would probably be better due to the suspension and the tracks. Aside from that I'm not an armor expert so I can't decide for sure, although I'd go with the T-34 because I am in Russia right now... and plus, I just love the T-34 Random question: did the Crusader III deal with dust well? I know they fought in the deserts of North Africa so they've got to have at least above average filters I'd guess...
As far as I can tell it dealt with dust better than the Marks I & II, but that might not be much of a recommendation. It's generally considered that the Liberty engine and its auxiliary systems were improved throughout the Crusader's service life, but there's not really much detail around on what definite improvements were made and when. This makes the Crusader on the whole a difficult tank to assess. It's got a very poor early reputation, and then a somewhat ameliorated one, but there's very little real evidence I've seen that allows one to make a truly sound judgement.
I thought I remembered reading that it didn't. Looking at: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_t-34_develop_combat.html it looks like it becomes something of a matter of semantics, i.e.: My impression is that the variations from the standard Christie suspension were due to Soviet design changes and not Christie but I'm not sure where I got this impression.
The big weakness of the Crusader was the layout of the Liberty 330hp engine. Converting it from an air-cooled aero engine to a water-cooled tank engine, required fitting a radiator, water pump & fan. The linkage to the crankshaft was an exposed 18" chain drive. Dust, mud, rocks etc. would often dislodge the chain from the sprockets > Engine overheats > Stop engine > Dismount & repair/replace chain > Remount & rejoin battle. Very difficult in the midst of a tank battle or advance to contact. No problems with the 6pdr: it was capable of penetrating any tank until the Tiger came along. But the Crusader was a cruiser tank, dependant on speed & mobility; once it lost those assets due to mechanical breakdown, it wasn't much use to anyone. Cheers, Cliff
Hi Cliff, I thought all of the Liberty V-12s were watercooled right from the start. Welcome to the forum though
Weird thread. I'm with Cliff, Crusader broke down on the way to the test so we couldn't give it the masculine test against the T34 implied,,,
Thanks, mate. I'm a shift worker & I can't take my mobile phone into the workplace, so apologies for the time lag. To expand on the Liberty engine: it started life as a power plant for fighter aircraft in WWI. In this role, cooling was no problem: at ~100 mph at ~1000 ft with an airscrew blasting away in front: cool. Driving 25 tons of tank over the desert in ~110degF: overheating big time. Enter the externally-fitted rad, WP & fan. The Brits did much better with the 600hp Meteor - adapted from the Merlin aero engine. The Americans did it properly from the word go: the M3 Stuart ran with a major rework of (I think) the Wright Cyclone radial engine. The fan (modified airscrew IIRC), cooled not only the engine, but the crew compartment as well. ... (Tried to insert a smiley there, but W7 is playing weird tricks on me again.) Cheers, Cliff
Thanks for the welcome to the forum, guys. I feel such a dickhead with my lack of research. Of course the Liberty V12 was watercooled even as an aircraft engine. The problem was with the layout when the Brits adapted it as a tank engine. It went on to power early versions of the Cromwell, but was quickly supplanted by the Meteor when Merlin production reached sufficient volume for the RAF's needs. To return to the subject matter of the thread: It would depend on the theatre of ops. and the range at which engagements could take place. T34/76 would be marginally more effective than Crusader III, IMHO, if they met on the Russian plains. Narrow-width tracks wouldn't handle the snow & mud all that well. Much harder to call if they opposed each other on the N. African desert; move the scene into Tunisia and Crusader III would probably be the better tank. 6pdr-armed Churchills got the better of Tigers in that environment. Cheers, Cliff