Sentinel Vs Valentine

[Ryan]

Would Australia have been better served during the war if it too, along with Canada, had manufactured the Valentine tank instead of the Sentinel tank?

Canada was able to bring Valentine tanks into production within 11 months (June 1940-May1941) of beginning the program. Production for the next few months was slow but they were being produced.
Australia on the other hand went its own course developing the Sentinel tank over a 22 month period (Nov1940-Aug1942). Production was slow and was terminated in mid 1943.
By mid 43 Australia had enough tanks from the USA or UK at hand to equip its field units warranting Sentinel termination. I think it has to be said however if Sentinel development and production had continued into 1944 the AC3 model with 25pdr would had served very well in the South West Pacific.
But what if Australia had joined Canada, in July 1940, in the development and production of the Valentine tank locally. Would it be reasonable to say Australia may have begun production some 12 months later, in July 1941? This would have given the army a much needed boost by the time of the entry of Japan to the war in Dec 1941. Australia having only 10 Vickers VIB and 10 M3 Stuarts then. The year 1942 would then have been a full year of tank production in Australia.
There is some issues I have with it in my head, such as suitable armour and the powerplant. Would we have had to use cast armour like the Sentinel, delaying the program? Would it have been acceptable using the Cadillac 117hp V8 found locally or could Canada supply diesel powerplants in time?

Would an earlier 12 month period of tank production in Australia have made much difference in the long run?

Just thinking

[jack neville]

I think we were flat out making what we did make at that time let alone building tanks.

[Roger Lucy]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Canada was able to bring Valentine tanks into production within 11 months (June 1940-May1941) of beginning the program. Production for the next few months was slow but they were being produced.

The Valentines were being produced, but just barely. The first pilot Valentine was rolled out of CPR`s Angus Works on 22 May 1941 for a photo-op and was promptly rolled back again for completion. Scheduled deliveries were one in June, five in July, ten in August and 14 in September. There were major problems getting drawings and components from the UK (a problem shared by all other Canadian AFVs based on British designs), and even where North American substitutes were found sourcing some of these from the USA was unreliable. In addition Canadian armour plate production had to be started from scratch, and CPR`s production methods were frankly artisinal.

Canadian Army HQ Report 38 of 27 July 1950 gives a good overview of the challenges involved.
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-...qga/ahq038.pdf

The Ram is perhaps a closer analogy to the Sentinel. Both used an M3 chassis, with a cast upper hull and turret. The basic design was undertaken in early 1941. The pilot was rolled out on 30 June 1941 and it was in series production (not without its share of glitches and bottle-necks) by the end of the year. Unlike the Sentinel, the Ram could source a lot of key components such as the hull and turret castings, the engines and the transmissions in the USA (although initially the supply of these was erratic and dependent on the good will of US Ordnance).

All this and much much more can be found in Canada`s Pride; The Ram Tank and its Variants.
http://www.mapleleafup.net/forums/sh...ad.php?t=22036

I do not, by the way, recall coming across any references, in my researches, to Australian interest in the Ram programme.

[Luke R]

Originally Posted by Roger Lucy

The Ram is perhaps a closer analogy to the Sentinel. Both used an M3 chassis

The Sentinel did not use a M3 chassis, close but not the same.
But Roger does make a good point, we would have been better building a copy of the ram or sherman grizzly.

[Ryan]

But building something off the M3 chassis would have delayed the program to something similar to the Sentinel timeline. Building the Valentine would have got us tanks much earlier into field units.

[David Herbert]

There is a great deal of work in the manufacture of a Valentine. All the components of the hull were fitted together very accurately and the steering mechanism was way more complicated than it need have been. Typical British engineering - add more pieces till it works ! In contrast the M3 / M4 series were production engineered from the start and were much simpler.

The Canadians did simplify the front hull of their Valentines by casting it in one piece, and fitted a much more modern Detroit diesel and decent gearbox which was a huge improvement but they still soldiered on with a rather crude and over complicated steering system. All in a tank that was rapidly becoming too small and slow for the needs of the time.

In contrast the Sentinel started off with a modern design that had scope for development and was simple enough to be manufactured. It is a great shame that the availability of engines was reduced to the triple Cadilac set up and that the project was overtaken by politics and events. If Canada and Australia had got together and developed the Sentinel instead of the Ram, who knows what could have been achieved.

David

[Mike Cecil]

Australia- the Government - had the option of Guiberson Radial Diesel engines, but considered the royalty rate too high and declined, so it wasn't so much availability as a reluctance to pay the price. The result was the triple Cadillac (individual engines), then the Perrier-Cadillac (3 engines, common crankcase) then the experiments with the Gypsy Major and the decision to use down-rated, local production aircraft radials (called 'Scorpion' ) in one production stream (Ruwolts in Victoria) , and Perrier-Cadillacs in the other (NSWGR in NSW).

The Aust Cruiser tank, the Mk.1 was the Sentinel, the Mk.3 the Thunderbolt - the Mk.4 was only ever produced as a trials vehicle on a E series hull and was never given its own name, so we should not count that at all - had some extreme problems that would, if the project had continued, taken a considerable amount of effort to overcome. In the end, the project produced not one 'battleworthy' tank, yet consumed resources such as manpower, hardware and foreign exchange, at a steady, if not increasing rate, with nought to show for it. The tank had some extraordinary and revolutionary design and construction elements, but all up, did not result in a tank that you could confidently send men into battle with. The 25 pdr might sound good, but fires separate ammunition, making life bloody complicated for the poor old loader, and slowing down the rate of fire - not a good thing in a tank V tank engagement, where every second counts.

We Australians like to look at the upside of the AC project, but the down side paints a pretty dismal picture and leads to the conclusion that it was little wonder the project was terminated in 1943.

I think I'll head back to the bunker - that post is bound to bring 'incoming'!

Mike C

[Ryan]

Mike, would not the Mk.3 with 25pdr have given very valuable service in the South West Pacific operations where it would have taken on the role played by the Matilda tank.

[Tony Wheeler]

I came across some footage recently which may be of interest here:

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F07029/

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Tony Wheeler

I came across some footage recently which may be of interest here:

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F07029/

Bloody great find Tony. Sentinel, carriers, dingos, rovers, mortar carrier and a quick hint of 2pdr carrier. Video saved.

[Tony Wheeler]

Glad you liked it Ryan, you'll find some more footage of these AFVs in the November '42 Munitions Parade in Melbourne: http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F04716/

And if you fork out $44 plus $6 P&H you can buy this 7 minute newsreel on DVD:

Iron cavalry - Australian made (News From Home No. 46)
Description: Building the Sentinel Cruiser Tank the first all Australian tank. Shows every stage of production including the casting of the turret and hull. Trial run of completed tanks at the factory testing course.

http://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F00741/