Talk:Cromwell tank

References

Please note that the history of the Cromwell is very confused in a lot of books and references. Before making changes it's worth catching up with more recent publications which may have corrected an authors previous works.

Of note, David Fletcher and Dick Harley's book of 2006 corrects a lot of previous misconceptions on the Cromwell, Centaur and Cavalier. Dick Harley compares some of the differences and sources between earlier works in Tankette magazine 49/2. Please keep this in mind before amending or changing based on earlier publications, unless you're referring to an authoritative source, as many of these misunderstandings (including ones from that author's previous works) have entered into common knowledge and appear in otherwise good sources.

I've made some updates to the page today, removing some ambiguity and adding various bits of information. Hope that helps :) Lkchild (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you give some more specific examples please? What are the typical confusions? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Typically the difference between Cromwell and Centaur, such as the track tensioning, change of engine, etc.

• Track tensioning started as being a known difference between Cromwell and Centaur, then was believed to be a difference based on factory with mixed Centaurs and Cromwells, then found to be constant on Cromwell hulls but a change on Centaur hulls with the Final Specification, particularly with English Electric changing from manufacturing Centaurs to manufacturing Cromwell's but using the Centaur as a basis.
• Similarly lots of sources talk about the Centaurs being converted to Cromwell when the majority are now believed to be Centaur hulls that were built as Cromwell.
• There has been confusion over what was covered by the different hull types and versions, and this being mixed up with the subtle design differences between Centaur and Cromwell, and the Final specification. The "Vauxhall hatch", for instance, is now known to be part of one of the welded hull types rather than an ad-hoc difference on some Vauxhall produced units.
• Some bits appear to simply be wrong or misinterpreted in earlier texts, such as I've just changed the definition of Cromwell II to reflect the cast turret.
• Cromwell 1, 2 and 3 get mixed up in context between the design meanings (before the change of name to Cavalier, Centaur and Cromwell) and production (where Cromwell 1, 2 and 3 all relate to versions of Cromwell, confusingly with Cromwell 3 based on Centaur hulls...)
• Mixing these up, It's quite common to read/hear that Cromwell 2 was Centaur, and with Cromwell 3 being pictured in archives based on a Centaur hull, this gives an incorrect impression on Cromwell's development.

That's not exhaustive, but it should give a flavor. It's not to say it's perfect, but it's the best known so-far. As ever, I'm sure more corrections will be found over time.Lkchild (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As a general FYI to what Lkchild is saying, there are at least four finalized specification sheets in the Cromwell and Centaur Technical Documents(WO194/108); Centaur I & III and Cromwell IV & V. All of the hull and deck modifications are grouped under them. Needless to say the armour values between the types are very different, the Cromwell V for instance has 100mm frontal and 44mm side armour, while the Centaur III has only 64mm frontal and 32mm side armour. 2.26.176.109 (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Rolls-Royce made a number of changes from the original Cromwell design in order to improve reliability and durability. It is possible that some or many of these changes were not carried over to the other vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Origin of name

Was it named for Oliver Cromwell or Thomas Cromwell or someone else? And if Oliver, how'd it happen the name was changed from Cavalier to the leader of the Roundheads? -- orthogonal 12:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rich tea man - the cavalier was the same hull but with the suspeension form the crusader. the cromwell and centaurs had a new suspension system. also there was an upsized crusader called the covenanter but was only used for training . The cavalier, centaur and cromwell were developments of this.

The Covenanter was *smaller* than the Crusader, although both were developed at the same time and shared the same turret design. DMorpheus 19:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be Oliver as Thomas wasn't a fighting man. The "C" names all have a martial air to them, Churchill can also be taken as referring to the Duke of Marlborough and weren't picked with any particular party sensibility. GraemeLeggett 08:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be inconcievable that the tank is named after anyone else other than Oliver Cromwell. British military designs are only rarely named after real characters and then they would be from an elite few of great military commanders such as Wellington, Churchill, or Cromwell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.5.25 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The clue is in 'civil wars' - British tanks for a period were named after personalities or things with a connection with the English Civil War, US-built tanks after American Civil War ones. That BTW, is why the Churchill tank was almost certainly named after this Winston Churchill and not the later one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the clue is in "C" means "Cruiser", so all Cruiser tanks from Covenanter through Chieftain have C, Challenger among them. Rémy Lenôtre (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Chice of image to illustrate

I'm not happy with the current image "Cromwell tank color.JPG".

• Main gun - although the muzzle looks right it appears to be welded solid onto the front of the turret and lacks the co-axial Besa MG
• Hull machine gun - a metal tube too long and fat for to be a Besa MG.

We need a better piccie for the article than this one - if we have to stick with it for the moment it should at least have some appropiate commentary added. GraemeLeggett 11:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Help

I need to know a lot about this tank. Please tell me what you know.

I'm pretty sure the bulk of what we can tell you is already in the article, with additional material on the external links. If that's not sufficient, you'll probably need to borrow or purchase a book on it. Oberiko 01:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Surviving vehicles?

Would it be of value, with quite rare armour such as this, if we had a subsection entitled surviving vehicles where a list of known tanks could be seen.--Gaspode the Wonder Dog 17:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the number of them. If there are under ten, then it could contribute, but to much more then that and it starts overwhelming the article. The best solution would be to post a link to an external site which contains such information. Oberiko 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the danger of overwhelming the article but on the other hand the sites that list surviving tanks are always lacking in detail and invariably incomplete. I think that this is just the sort of thing Wikipedia is good at. Worst case scenario if they got too big they could make their own page. Unless there’s any strong objections I’ll give it a try and see who it works for the Cromwell.--Gaspode the Wonder Dog 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The armour world appears to lack a website as effective as britishaircraft.co.uk for listing survivors.GraemeLeggett 09:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if too many (>10?) to go in this article, why not a "List of preserved Cromwell tanks" ? Hugo999 (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

fastest ???

>The Cromwell was the fastest tank to serve in WW2 IS the word 'British' missed there ? 60 kmph cannot be the fastest tank! Just compare it to BT-7

The BT-7 maximum speed is running on roadwheels with tracks off; its more of an armoured car then.GraemeLeggett 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the early Cromwells would do 40 mph on the road, but this was found to be too much for the tracks and suspension, so subsequent vehicles were governed down to IIARC ~32 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We really should add "in LATE WW2". Crusader OP was the fastest AFV, so even among British tanks there are a competition. Rémy Lenôtre (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Continued use of the Liberty

Am I right in understanding that this continued to be used when it was somewhat past its best because Lord Nuffield had a vested interest in its continued production? I've heard something to this effect a couple of times but am unfortunately a bit short on remembering any useful details, but the impression I'm left with is that Nuffield could have produced Merlins instead of the Liberty but wouldn't, leading to the production of the somewhat underpowered A27L. If true, it sounds rather scandallous, but if false (or at least unsubstantiated or POV) obviously it's not something that could go in the article. Does anybody know anything more?
-- Chris (blather • contribs) 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this particular case, but two things come to mind. First, you'll never be able to prove it one way or the other. Second, it wouldn't be the first time something like this was done. Military procurement is no more honest than anything else, and it would be naive to think that in wartime everyone puts aside their profit motives. Ever notice how many Ford trucks the Wehrmacht drove?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMorpheus (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

I think I'm easily shocked because I'm sometimes too naive and prone to assume good faith inappropriately! But the mention of those two dreaded words, "military procurement", soon disabuses me of such notions...
-- Chris (blather • contribs) 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the state the British were in at the time, with almost draconian power possessed by Churchill - as 'Minister of Defence' - and the War Cabinet, any such machinations by Nuffield would have been quickly suppressed. HMG could have simply requisitioned/confiscated all of Nuffield's assets due to his actions being detrimental to the war effort. They really would have done that if it had been necessary. And Lord Nuffield and his lawyers would have been unable to do anything about it. So no, it's not very likely, even assuming that Nuffied was the sort of person who put profit before his own country's interests.

The fact that Nuffield's factories were already tooled up for the Liberty would have led some people to advocate the continued use of the engine, for some managers/ministers, production over-rides utility - "A Bird in the Hand is Worth Two in the Bush". Unfortunately the use of the Liberty at around 300hp severely limited the amount of armour that could be carried by a Cruiser Tank and by 1942-43 this amount was not enough. With hindsight the Merlin/Meteor should have been started earlier but then again, Merlin aero engine production took priority.

The whole British pre-war/wartime tank development story is a pretty gloomy one, mostly due to meanness/lack of money in the War Department's case, together with a lack-lustre approach to the tank by the Army, and lack of investment in the factories and machine tools by the companies involved. IIRC, the Matilda I was designed to a unit price of £11,000. Hardly a good way to go about procuring a fighting vehicle. And the Cromwell's and Comet's as well as the Chuchill's inability to mount a larger gun than a 6-pdr was due to failing to install large enough turret ring machining lathes at the factories. They simply couldn't machine a turret ring (the circular aperture in the top of the hull on which the turret is mounted and rotates) large enough to mount anything bigger. These were eventually purchased from the US and IIRC the first tank design on which they were used was the Black Prince.

The Cromwell was probably the first British tank that had bags of reliable power - around 600hp, although it was still under-gunned and under-armoured compared to contemporary German AFVs. The subsequent Comet narrowed the gap with a much better gun, whilst it wasn't until the Centurion that a British tank could be described as being an 'excellent' vehicle.

The one bright point in British AFV development was in wheeled AFVs, in-which Britain arguably led the world, the Daimler Armoured Car, Daimler Dingo, Humber Armoured Car, etc., being probably the best anywhere at the time.

BTW, IIRC the Liberty-engined A27L was produced because at the time the Meteor was in limbo having been modified by Rolls-Royce but not having yet entered full production. The RR Nottingham factory that produced them was at that time being transferred over to Rover in a deal that swapped the factory for Rover's Barnoldswick Whittle engine works. The A27L was just a stop-gap until production of the Meteor could start, otherwise they would have had a large number of engineless tanks lying around - it was either that or halt/delay production of the new vehicle, which you just can't do in war. Many Liberty-engined Cromwells were subsequently re-engined with Meteors.

The Meteor was the AFV designer's dream engine, as it had plenty of power - roughly twice that of previous British tank engines - and could be thrashed all day and not break.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

An interesting Rolls-Royce Enthusiasts' Club web page on the development of the Meteor and the Cromwell here: [1]

I can see why they continued. If you see how long it took to resolve cooling issues on the Crusader, I'd imagine the Tank Board would be very concerned about the same occurring with Cromwell. In that respect, Cavalier provided a safe bet as the problems had already been resolved in Crusader, while Centaur provided a half-way house with some of the Cromwell benefits. It's easy to consider these as wasted efforts with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time I think it's understandable. Lkchild (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

At the time it was proving difficult to balance the time needed to re-design and fix problems in production vehicles with the need to get these same vehicles to the operator and into use. In effect, the manufacturer could do one or the other, but needed more time to do both.

The Crusader and the Churchill were both designed and developed in the aftermath of Dunkirk when there was very real danger of a German invasion and so time was very short to get the vehicles into service, whether they worked reliably or not - almost all of the British Army's armoured vehicles had had to be left behind in France in 1940. I don't know why the Crusader's cooling problems took so long to sort out, I suspect it was an unwillingness to change the design and incur delays in delivery at a time when they were desperately needed. IIRC, the problem was broken fan drives due to metal fatigue in the fan drive shafts that didn't appear until the vehicle had driven a considerable number of miles.

It is also as well to point out that until June 1941 British factories were still suffering from occasional industrial action that didn't help. This disruption mysteriously ended coincidently with the German invasion of the Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.164 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Where do you get this story about 'no adequate lathes' from? Machining a 6ft-7ft steel ring to automotive tolerances is a pretty straightforward job - one well within the capabilities of British railway and shipyard shops of the time. And, 'a lathe'? Sure, ring turning machines are sometimes lumped into the category of 'lathes' e.g. vertical lathes, wheel facing lathes etc, but they're more commonly categorised as 'boring machines' (sic) or vertical boring mills. These common, conventional machines were manufactured in the UK before and during WW2 - in fact, in 1935, George Richards & Co (Manchester) were offering from their catalogue a boring mill capable of machining work up to TWENTY SEVEN FEET in diameter. In addition, "No 6207 A Study in Steel..." (YouTube) a 1937 British documentary about the the building of the Princess Royal locomotive class, will show you a workpiece some eight feet diameter being worked by British machine tools at the Crewe rail workshops.

There is absolutely no reason why tank turret ring manufacture had to wait for the arrival of American tech. other than a wartime shortage of British machines - an issue largely locally solved in the UK by about 1941 as a result of broken American promises of machine tool sales. You need to provide a credible reference for your claims - otherwise your story is nothing more than an extension of pro-American propaganda which seeks to claim that the British could invent nothing, build nothing, without the superior helping hand of Uncle Sam. Almost all those tales prove to be false on close inspection. 86.149.115.159 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The point being made was not that the railway and ship-building industries couldn't manufacture them but that the factories actually building the tanks didn't have the equipment. The shipyards were working flat out building warships and producing merchant ships to replace the losses to U-boats. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd need to see a reliable source. TBH. A vertical boring mill capable of turning a 7ft ring really isn't an unusually large or rare machine. Great Britain was a major global producer of machine tools prior to WW2 and that industry ramped up British home production massively during WW2. Furthermore, in the period prior to December 1941, Britain had placed HUGE machine tool orders in the US and received delivery of most of these; in 1940 it was estimated that 25% of the entire US machine tool manufacture for the year was bought and paid for by the UK. I have been trawling back issues of 'American Machinist' - the journal of the American tool and metalworking industry - from 1936 onwards and whilst it is replete with detailed discussions about foreign contracts and supply of American machine tools, there is NO mention of ring machining equipment for Britain. Hence, I would actually like to know a verifiable source for this particular claim of British wartime inadequacy. 86.149.115.159 (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's about 18 months since you posted your reply; no 'reliable source' was subsequently supplied. No evidence has been produced in support of your claims of equipment shortages in British wartime factories. I guess they (the claims) should be treated as the pro-American propaganda that I suggested they were. 2A01:4B00:AE0E:6200:DC7D:D977:5E79:92BB (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

And... in case anybody thinks Crewe rail workshops - despite fielding machines suitable for machining a tank turret ring - ween't actually up to that job, it's worth mentioning that they had, in fact, produced 150 Covenantor tanks earlier in the war. 86.149.115.159 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Cromwell in the IDF

From Moshe Givati - In their hands the steel was tempered [MoD 1998, p 20-21, 42]: Haganah members persuaded four British soldiers to desert with four Cromwell tanks; those were the last tanks that remained in a tank battalion camp in Haifa airport. On night 29/30 June 1948 three tanks were stolen (the engine of the fourth one didn't start); one got stuck in sand and was abandoned; the remaining two (Mk III and Mk IV) were brought to the Borochov neighborhood of Givatayim and hidden there from the British. The tanks were assigned to the 8th Armored Brigade (82th battalion, heavy tanks company) before Operation Danny (July 1948). The tanks were used in that operation, including an unsuccessful attack on Latrun on 18 July, and in some subsequent operations.

According to Oleg Granovskiy - Names, Designations and Service Figures of IDF Armored Vehicles (Russian; http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/Armor/1948-1952_tanks.html), the tanks were retired in 1952.

The Armored Corps Museum in Latrun (Yad la-Shiryon) has two Cromwells: one with dummy gun Image:Cromwell-latrun-2.jpg and other Image:Cromwell-latrun-memorial-1.jpg which is a part of the WWII memorial along with Sherman and T-34-85 Image:WWII-Memorial-latrun-1.jpg. Wheteher these are the "original" two, I don't know. Bukvoed 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Imperial / metric

Being that this is a British vehicle, shouldn't the units be in metric first, and imperial second? Oberiko 13:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They're known as Imperial units for a reason, and the UK hasn't quite gone wholly metric yet. GraemeLeggett 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but they're officially metric and it looks like most other British vehicles have metric before imperial. Oberiko 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Back in WW2 the British were still imperial, having imperial makes it a lot cleaner (as the vehicles were designed as imperial, rather than 2.5cm it would be 1 inch. (213.167.69.4 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

Why does the era matter? When we describe the Gladius, we don't use Roman units. I'll take it to the Military History task force though, and get their input. Oberiko 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted the question here. Oberiko 18:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the break as this question had become disconnected from the earlier discussion. Lkchild (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

odd

Does anyone know why the centaur's turret was calibrated? I never understood that. --MKnight9989 13:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The painted calibration marks on the turrets of RMASG Centaurs and Shermans were used to adjust deflection when fire was being adjusted by an observer outside the tank. DMorpheus 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --MKnight9989 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Change of Picture

Can someone PLEASE change the picture - It's completely the wrong tank , the photographed one being a Israeli jerry-rig if anything at all, and does not represent any Cromwell that operated in Western Europe during WW2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.202.204 (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Most common British tank design?

"Late in the war it was the most common British design in use, replacing the Sherman tank for some units."

Is there a source for this? There were about 4,000 Cromwells built but over 7,300 Churchills. Granted, the Churchill entered service earlier, so the statement may be correct for the late war period (say June 44 to May 45). Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd part of the sentance is somewhat accurate - Cromwell tanks generally equipped the recce armoured regiments and was the sole medium tank (bar Sherman OP and Fireflys etc) used by the 7th Armoured Division.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, the 7th was solely equipped with Cromwells and the recon battalions in other divisions had them. But the other British armored divisions (11th and Guards) had Shermans, and the Tank Brigades had Churchills. The Canadian, Polish and South African armored divisions had Shermans also.

British tank brigades were quite large, having more tanks than a typical German panzer division, so there had to have been a lot of Churchills around. I am simply asking if there is a source comparing Churchills in service compared to Cromwells in the last year of the war, because the assertion in the article is that the Cromwell was the most common British tank design in use, and the Churchill is the only possible rival. Thanks, DMorpheus (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also to note i do not believe Cromwell tanks were shipped to Italy (or shipped in huge enough numbers), which would exclude quite a number of recce units and perhaps the South Africans?

I have information for 1944 but not 1945, however it may cast light on the figure for 1945.

According to Fortin during the Normandy campaign they were committed as following: 46 Cromwell tanks per recce unit and 61 Cromwell tanks per armoured regt of the 7th Armoured Division. Both figures include the few CS tanks as well.(Fortin, p. 82)

31st Tank Brigade, in Normandy, consisted of 67 Churchill tanks per battalion - including modified tanks.(`Clark, p. 36)

If the latter is standard among all Tank brigades that is 603 Churchill tanks in front line service and 321 Cromwell tanks in front line service (183 in the armoured regts and 138 in recce units - assuming only the 3 British armoured divisional reccce units used them)

That would perhaps cast doubts on the exact wording of the sentence in question but not nesscerraly disprove it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, I hae never seen any reference to Cromwells used in Italy. AFAIK the recon units of the Italian-theater armored divisions used Stuarts. The Polish 1st Armored Division had some cromwells, presumably in their recon battalion (10th mounted rifles IIRC). The Canadian ADs didn't have any.

So it may well be that the Churchill was in fact the most numerous British-designed tank even in the last year of the war. Even the ~4,000 figure includes about 900 Centaurs, and only a few (a dozen or so) Centaurs ever saw combat. I suggest the sentence be removed until / unless someone can source it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be the case of a missing qualifier - add "cruiser" and its probably right since the Churchill is an infantry tank. The line also says "late in the war", by which time the earlier Churchills would be out of service giving about 3,200 of the 6 pdr and 75 mm gun tanks? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's becoming obvious that none of us knows and we are all guessing. Adding "cruiser"....well, wasn't the Cromwell the *only* British cruiser in service after the Crusader was phased out in 1943, with the exception of a few Comets in the last months of the war?

I am going to remove the sentence and, if someone eventually can source it, they can put it back in. DMorpheus (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell/Centaur

This non tank enthusiast has been unable to work out what the difference is. Does the main article need clarification? 212.159.44.170 (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Having read the introductory paragraphs, I can see its definitely not clear. I've tried to address the issue, perhaps someone else can build on it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added more today, showing development, and including a section on design differences between the two. Lkchild (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

'Tankies' on BBC2 (Spring 2013)

I was an AFV enthusiast as a kid and have never quite lost a taste for it... The programme 'Tankies' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pvbds) on BBC2 recently focused on the 7th Armoured Division which was presented with Cromwells in preparation for D-Day. The programme presenter, Mark Urban, was a former officer in the Royal Tank Regiment and was critical of the Cromwell's design - conspicuously the narrow entrance/exit hatch and (emphatically) the Cromwell's presentation of flat surfaces to enemy shell fire. The shortcomings of the main gun - which ceded a 200 yard advantage to the Tiger tank - was also mentioned. Urban's remarks were bitterly endorsed by at least two extant members of the 7th Armoured, one of whom claimed that - after repeatedly complaining about the design of the Cromwell - he was warned that if he didn't shut up he would be court-martialled. Anyone who's read 'The Small Back Room' could readily believe this to be true.

I concede that Urban (as a tank man himself) was talking about the 'user point of view' and that there is a kind of prejudice attached to this. The low profile of the Cromwell was denigrated in the programme because it didn't enable crews to 'look over hedges' (a deficit pertinent to the Bocage conflict, but a boon - as the Wikipedia article rightly points out - in general conditions); nor did Urban remark upon the superior speed of the Cromwell (I must say, like a commentator above, I was also surprised to hear it cited as one of the fastest tanks in ww2... although can't disprove the claim).

Now, while tank crews might have been inclined to whinge overly about the shortcomings of their various marques - I do think the Wikipedia articles are often uncritically influenced by manufacturer's statistics and the historic claims of military PR machines. For example, Urban repeated the observation that Sherman tanks had a reputation for catching fire easily... he mentioned that the Brits called them 'Ronsons' (after the cigarette lighter) which I some time ago pointed out on the 'Talk' page of the curiously chauvinistic Sherman Tank Wikipedia article. I didn't then know, as Urban went on to say, that the Germans called them 'Tommy boilers' - which grimly reinforces claims for the Sherman's shortcomings.

I'm a T34 man, myself (!), but there is no such thing as a 'perfect tank'. The tendency to denigrate the worst of the British tanks by comparing them to the best of the German tanks was always a tiresome tendency in WW2 discussions. (A key aspect of tank design that seldom enters such comparisons was the ability to manufacture them reliably and at speed!). My own memory of the Cromwell is that it was generally seen in a less favourable light than this article presents it - its lengthy genesis (for a war-time tank) meant that it retained outmoded features in its core concept. My memory (which could be flawed) is that the Conqueror project (post WW2) that led to the eventual Chieftan Tank set out to consciously amend this failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.197.102 (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The faults of British tanks during most of WW II were due to a combination of circumstances and decisions made at the time. The primary ones are the simple fact that the War Office and Army asked for types of vehicle that as it turned out were not what was subsequently needed, and on top of that, no-one wanted to pay for proper development. This was due to the trend toward disarmament during the 1930s and later due to the peculiar circumstances after the Fall of Dunkirk when the danger of invasion disrupted more measured analysis of the actual requirements.

For a design to make a good AFV you need a good reliable engine giving plenty of power, as well as a balanced combination of armour and firepower. For much of the war British tanks were often lacking in one, or sometimes all of these areas. If you don;t have the engine power then the vehicle is slow if heavily armoured, or must be lightly armoured if speed is a requirement. Hence the two classes of Infantry tank and Cruiser tank. If you are unable to machine a large enough diameter turret ring then you are limited in the size (and power) of gun that can be carried, the width of the hull also limiting the diameter of the turret ring, and therefore the gun size. Because of choices made higher up, and in what was available to them, the British AFV designers were therefore greatly limited in what they were able to design, and it is fair to say that it was only with the Centurion that the British Army and War Office finally asked for what was really needed. This was made possible by the availability of the Rolls-Royce Meteor and the 17-pdr gun. Prior to this British designer had always had to make choices between second- or third-best. For example the Fall of Dunkirk left the British so short of anti-tank guns - 2-pdrs - that the planned replacement - the much more potent 6-pdr - was delayed due to the urgent need for guns of any kind. So the tanks continued to be under-gunned for longer than they would otherwise have been - it was either that or no guns at all.

The Cromwell was a very reliable vehicle with plenty of power, but it was designed as basically an upgraded Crusader and so many compromises had to be made, again the turret ring diameter limiting the size of the gun that could be carried. This was why the 77mm HV was developed and used on the Cromwell's immediate successor, the Comet tank, as it was not possible to carry a 17-pdr in a turret on the Cromwell hull, as the gun breech was too long for the hull aperture at certain gun elevations. That's why the turret ring diameter limits the gun size that can be carried. The turret ring diameter also governs the hull width and hence overall vehicle width, so as gun size goes up you need a wider vehicle if you want it mounted in a 360-degree rotating turret. This can bee seen in the Black Prince development of the Churchill tank which is a noticeably wider vehicle in order to accommodate the larger turret ring for the 17-pdr. If the vehicle is wider the overall vehicle weight increases for a given armour thickness.

It is also only fair to point out that unlike the German and Soviet vehicles that were able to be transported almost exclusively overland by rail, the British and US tanks had to be suitable for transport by ship, which before the availability of LSTs and similar, meant that an AFV had to be light enough to be able to be lifted by dockside cranes for loading and unloading aboard ship. After the end of the North African Campaign this requirement was no longer a limitation for German designers and so vehicle weights were able to rise.

The Sherman was a good reliable tank but it faced the 88mm Flak and its tank gun derivatives which were extremely powerful guns for the time. In order to carry armour sufficient to resist the 88 and still be reasonably mobile a vehicle needed at least 500-600hp and needed to be designed from scratch using a clean sheet of paper rather than being a modification of an existing design. ISTR that the 88 would also knock out a T-34 at a mile as well as it would a Sherman or Cromwell. BTW, I know the Soviet Union was actually invaded in 1941 but it's one thing moving heavy industrial equipment overland by rail, as the Soviets were forced to do, and quite another having to do this by ship across the North Atlantic in autumn/winter which is what the British were facing.

So in short, the British tank designers were operating under certain specific limitations that the designers of Germany and the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent, the USA, were less limited by. A lot of the reasoning and governing factors aren't always obvious at first sight. They've rather made up for it since then though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

An interesting discussion - and quite right to have it here and not have editing wars! Just referring to the paragraph immediately above, it is important to remember these limitations. I think it was rail loading limitations that did limit the size of turret rings for instance, and British designers was asked to design tanks that could travel by rail. It's also interesting to see how British tank design was affected by the lack of a purpose built large scale tank industry. Designs were influenced by the ability of British industry to produce them with existing or modified plant. Eg how plate armour was bolted or welded onto a frame on the Cromwell and Churchill, and how a stepped rather than a sloped glacis on the hull was easier to produce. So indeed, not the finest tank of its era, but they were put into the field maintained, armed, fuelled,and with trained crews as part of a bigger all-arms team. They did their job, I'd say. Thanks for a good article and some good insights guys. Salute! Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it is that the Cromwell, Sherman, T34 and Pz4 were all equally awful, it was only because of the heavier German tanks like the Tiger and the Panther (which only made up a minority of axis armour) that give the Cromwell a bad name. When the Cromwell entered service it was going against the biggest and best German armour, so it was compared with it, whereas the Sherman and T34 were compared with the Pz4. The Cromwell wasn't a bad tank, its just that German over-engineering was far superior (apart from the all important production figures that is!). (213.167.69.4 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

Unhelpful first sentence.

If one puts a search for [Cromwell tank] into Google this article is returned as the first item in the list but its entry is not very friendly:

"Tank, Cruiser, Mk VIII, Cromwell (A27M), and the related Centaur (A27L) tank, were one of the most successful series of cruiser tanks fielded by Britain in the".

The lead would be much better if it used the common name and reserved the details for further down the lead. The Google search would then return:

"The Cromwell Tank was one of the most successful series of cruiser tanks fielded by Britain in the Second World War."

The details such as its official name, or whatever "Tank, Cruiser, Mk VIII, Cromwell (A27M)" is meant to be, can appear later in the lead, it does not have to be in the first sentence.

-- PBS (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've amended the initial paragraphs for ease of reading, which has changed some of the above, but hopefully reads better now. Lkchild (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lkchild Good work over the past few days in giving the article some maintenance. Regards Irondome (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Cavalier can be determined"?

In #Cromwell and Centaur differences, there is a sentence added in this edit that I don't understand. It starts with "By comparison, Cavalier can easily be determined...". I don't know what it means to determine the Cavalier. Is there a word missing? I think it's just a simple typo, but I'm at a loss to know what. Hopefully Lkchild can easily solve this and rescue what looks like good info. Sorry if it's obvious to everyone else. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

"identified" or "distinguished" might be clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

good call both of you, I've made the change to "identified". I may have a picture to upload to illustrate the difference. Lkchild (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Most successful?

"one of the most successful series of cruiser tanks fielded by Britain .... " questionable, as found during Villers-Bocage during the Battle for Normandy; Beevor (D-Day p195) commenting on the "inability of the Cromwell to knock out a Tiger even at point-blank range" (partly as the intended gun couldn't be fitted) and the "flat front" making it vulnerable Hugo999 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pathe News pictures of the aftermath of the Villers-Bocage action here: [2] (from 3:13 onwards) Evidently whatever the shortcomings of the Cromwell they had little impact on the eventual outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

75mm CS Cromwells couldn't, but the 6 pdr-armed ones could. The 6 pdr could knock out a Tiger I from the side or rear at useful ranges, more so when firing APDS.

The Cromwell CS was a 'Close Support' vehicle armed with a gun not intended for use against armour but intended for use against buildings and opposing enemy positions in the support of accompanying troops. The normal Cromwell was armed with a specialised 6 pdr anti-tank gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point, but to be clear there are three types of armament. 95mm close support, 75mm dual purpose, and 6 pounder. It would be nice if we could find an authoratitve or statistical source for the opinion, as there are many conflicting views amongst tank enthusiasts, and many different interpretations of the tank's strengths and weaknesses, which can lead to unfair comparison. Lkchild (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

And by "dual purpose" here for the OQF 75mm we have to mean "A 6 pounder, converted to fire a useful HE shell, and with whatever AP performance it might get as a result, using a case limited in size by the 6 pdr breech". This was an excellent weapon and just what was needed at the time: the first UK dual-purpose tank gun (thus enabling the first "universal tank") and that fitted into the tanks then in production. However its AP energy was no better than the 6 pdr and it was the weakest of the 75mm AP guns of WWII (Other than the short-barrelled KwK 37 L/24 of the Panzer IV, which did have a dual use AP round too, although rarely needed as German doctrine didn't send them out alone).

The OQF 75mm was a lot different beast to the other AP tank guns of similar calibre used on British tanks in the post D-Day period. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

By 1944 APDS was available for the 6 pdr and this put the anti-tank performance up to around that of an average 75mm long barrelled tank gun, which is why the towed 6 pdr was still a useful gun to have in 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.200 (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

But we're talking about the OQF 75mm here, which never had APDS (perhaps a strange decision). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Possibly it was because the war ended before they had developed an APDS round for it, or perhaps it was because it wasn't an anti-tank gun and so they never thought to develop one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The article in general is great apart from the Turret and armament section, which is a miss match of dates and general bad information. There is quite a good book soley for the Cromwell but many sources say the same.

Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942–50 By David Fletcher, Richard C Harley and Peter Sarson

"If the gun is what the tank is all about, then the Cromwell and its cousins were caught at an awkward stage of gunnery development. " Is an extremely polite way of explaining the relative disaster that the planned gun 75mm HV didn't fit the turret. The relative panic and reboring of near all cromwells shipped to Europe meant none could use the APDS round. The Cromwell was a great tank and if the 17-pdr had fitted it would of been the very first in what became a MBT default and it was close but a tank is very much about the gun.

The 17 pdr was never going to be fitted to the Cromwell/Centaur/Cavalier as the turret ring and hull was too narrow to accommodate the gun's recoil at certain gun depressions. This was because the vehicle had been designed to be as close as possible to the overall dimensions of the preceding Crusader and to use as many of this vehicle's components as possible. It was also because of this that the vehicle had a flat driver's plate instead of a sloped front plate as that had been decided upon early in the vehicle's design process and changing it would have disrupted production.

I should also perhaps point out that at the time the German 88mm guns fitted to the Tiger I and the Tiger II could destroy every armoured vehicle in the world bar-none at around 1,000 yards/meters and that as-such criticism of the Cromwell's armour protection viz these opponents is fairly pointless and those doing it should really know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"The original 6-pdr for tanks, the Mark III, was a 43-calibre (length) weapon, which firing Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap (APCBC) could penetrate 56mm (2.18in) of armour at a range of 1,828m (2,000yd). It was superseded, in 1943, by the longer Mark V that had a similar performance, but neither could fire an effective HE round. This problem was solved temporarily by Vickers who reamed out the 57mm gun to 75mm and chambered it to take the American ammunition used in Sherman tanks, both HE and AP. Unfortunately what was gained with HE was lost in terms of armour piercing. The best this gun could do, firing a 6.3kg (14lb) APCBC shot, was 50mm (1.97in) of armour at 1,828m (2,000yd). The free elevation arrangement already described was fine given a properly trained gunner, but it made the task of firing HE more difficult and in any case de- manded a well-balanced gun. This could not be achieved with the hybrid 75mm, so a crude system of geared elevation was employed, which some believed gave the worst of both worlds. Yet this was not the gun the army wanted. In March 1942 Vickers-Armstrongs had offered a new, high-velocity 75mm gun with a 50-calibre barrel and there was a general belief that this would fit the new cruiser. It took until May 1943 to learn that it would not. Thus, with time pressing, it was the modified 6-pdr or nothing if the Cromwell was to carry a dual-purpose gun. Meanwhile, there had been developments elsewhere. Experience in the desert showed that the old concept of close-support, with a breech-loading mortar firing only smoke rounds, was antiquated. In 1942, in keeping with the typically British skill at improvisation, a new gun was created by combining the breech of the Royal Artillery’s beloved 25-pdr with the barrel liner of the 3.7in anti-aircraft gun. The re- sult, known as the 95mm howitzer, proved to be a remarkable weapon. Firing a re- spectable HE shell it had a maximum range of 5,486m (6,000yd); firing High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) rounds it could theoretically penetrate 110mm (4.32in) armour at any range it could reach. Both guns had been standardized for Cromwell and Centaur by February 1943. The most interesting result of these changes was that no Centaur or Cromwell went to war mounting the 6-pdr gun. This was a pity since, with the introduction of Ar- mour Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) ammunition in June 1944, the Mark V gun proved to be an excellent anti-tank weapon at close range. It could penetrate 108mm (4.24in) of armour (which even over-matched the Tiger’s front plate) at 1,371m (1,500yd) and at any range up to 1,828m (2,000yd) was second only to the legendary 17-pdr."

That is the truth of the matter with the Cromwell and the Turret and armament section is highly inaccurate in just about every way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.8.73 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact that in Normandy the British armour would be facing the majority of the German panzer divisions in the West was not known at the time such armament decisions were being made. As such, the expectation was that the majority of targets following the invasion would be infantry and other 'soft' opponents. It was only shortly before the invasion that Hitler ordered the reserve panzer divisions to deploy between the Pas de Calais and Normandy itself, due in large part to the Operation Bodyguard deceptions, and it was only then that such moves were discovered through ULTRA reports.

It was hoped that the German panzer reserves would be positioned closer to the Pas de Calais, which at the time was a much more plausible and practicable Allied invasion area, however Hitler vacillated between that location and Normandy and eventually compromised by positioning the reserves between the two.

Despite the alleged shortcomings of the Cromwell, the British breakout was eventually successful, and caused the effective destruction of the German panzer forces then in Normandy, including almost eliminating such panzer divisions as the SS Panzer Division Hitler Jugend and Panzer Lehr such that Hitler, after initially giving a 'No withdrawal' order, on being faced with the imminent complete destruction of these divisions, had to personally order them to withdraw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

A Canadian historian has stated that the British and Canadian elements were well aware before the invasion of the terrain and likely disposition of German armour and the route it would (had to take). He described the reinforcement of one Canadian division - that would be opposing the likely thrust - with extra artillery including A/T guns as "armed for hunting bear". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cromwell tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219163158/http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/versionanglaise/fichesvillesus/hermanlabreus2.html to http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/versionanglaise/fichesvillesus/hermanlabreus2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Doctrine

I have added a citation needed in the Performance section of the article. There are a few problems, it suggests that German tanks were on the whole sluggish and larger. However vehicles such as the Panther had good mobility, and the majority of German AFV's such as the Pz IV or tank destroyers/assault guns were similar in size to the Cromwell or Sherman, and were also well within the capabilities of the 75mm gun at standard combat ranges.

Secondly is this area "Cromwell crews in North-West Europe succeeded in outflanking the heavier and more sluggish German tanks with superior speed, maneuverability and reliability."

This is an odd and un-referenced claim, and it is not explained in terms of doctrine. A troop of British tanks would always be accompanied by a few Sherman Firefly or Challenger tanks (typically 1 in 4, but as high as 1 in 2 at times), specifically designed to counter heavier German vehicles which were immune to the 75mm from the front or at standard engagement ranges. The British cruiser/infantry mix had been thoroughly shaken over the course of the war and it is possibly spurious to assess the performance of Cromwell within that framework (particularly taking into account the widespread use of Sherman tanks by the British Army, and the use of 17pdr armed tanks providing support to both Infantry and Cruiser tanks).

Outflanking the enemy was not a purpose for which the Cromwell was specifically designed or used in on a regular basis. It was very much more a general purpose vehicle compared to previous cruiser tanks (which lacked any sort of substantial armour), the frontal armour of the Cromwell was comparable to that of the Churchill, in fact some models of Cromwell had the same frontal armour thickness as the Churchill. Both tanks carried the same gun.(Fdsdh1 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC))

"In common with British tank doctrine of the time, the vehicle was designed to fire on the move." This again is totally untrue as the tank was designed for the 75mm HV there is absolutely no way a human could stabilise a gun of that size no matter how well balanced. Any check of any Cromwell and any remaining photo's show an absolute lack of shoulder harness and a sole mechanical gun mechanism. The Cromwell was designed to take a gun that proved too big to fit and necessitated the introduction of the comet and the entry about doctrine is pure fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.8.73 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

" .. and the majority of German AFV's such as the Pz IV or tank destroyers/assault guns were similar in size to the Cromwell or Sherman, and were also well within the capabilities of the 75mm gun at standard combat ranges." - yes but the British and Canadians in Normandy around Caen were facing Panthers, Tiger I's and Tiger II's, and they were facing them in for the most part open country, not in the hedged 'bocage' country the Americans were in.

... and the problem was that ".. standard combat ranges." differed between combatants, for the Allies armed with the 75mm the range had to be 500 yards or less, for the Germans the range at which their tank guns could knock out a Sherman or Cromwell was usually in excess of 1,000 yards. That meant the Allied tank crew had no choice but to wait until the range was under 500 yards before they could fire with any hope of knocking out the German vehicles, whereas the Germans could open fire as soon as an allied vehicle was seen. In open country even a camouflaged vehicle can be seen at up to a mile. Even greater distances in the desert. It was because of this tactical disadvantage that the British made such urgent efforts to get a tank armed with the 17 pdr into service.

... and a result of having to fight with these disadvantages during WW II is why every British main battle tank from Chieftain onwards has had the biggest, longest-ranged gun they can put on it whilst everyone else in NATO was content with a 105 mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Try this then: "When Cromwell went into action it was already out-matched in firepower by its German opponents but it was superior to them in speed, reliability and, notably, in quick response in laying and firing - qualities which were rewarding when freed from the restrictions of close country when it could out-manoeuvre the heavy tanks and seek out their weak spots." - AFV Weapons Profile 25 Cromwell and Comet by Major James Bingham, Royal Tank Regiment, Profile Publications, 1971, p.28

BTW, the power-to-weight ratio of the Cromwell was around 22.2 hp per ton compared to the M18 Hellcat's 23.5. hp per ton, i.e., roughly the same. So the Cromwell was very mobile indeed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The majority of German tanks in Normandy were Mark IVs, which 75-gunned Cromwells, Churchills and Shermans could take on quite well -- particularly the Cromwell, with its speed, manoeuvrability and low profile. Tigers were quite rare and Panthers not very common either. No panzer division except 1st SS ever seemed to receive its full complement of Panthers and one of them never received any at all and relied wholly on Mark IVs. Cromwells could, of course, kill even Tigers by stalking and surprising them side-on and hitting the drive sprocket or turret ring. Cromwells of 7th Armoured killed two Tigers point-blank like that during the brief battle of Villers-Bocage. (A third Tiger, Michael Wittmann's own, was knocked out by infantry with a 6-pounder positioned down a side street.) The Tiger and Panther had very slow turret traverses, so they were always vulnerable in those circumstances. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Reference 15 (Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (1993). Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 20.)

I have the book and page 20 doesn't mention anything from this paragraph "In June 1944, the Cromwell saw action during Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy. It had a mixed reception by crews, being faster, with a lower profile and thicker frontal armour plate than the Sherman tank, but also being smaller and more cramped. Cromwell had 3 in (76 mm) of frontal armour compared with 2 in (51 mm) on the glacis of the early Shermans, though it was unsloped and hence less effective in head-on combat." In fact, it doesn't seem to mention the Cromwell at all. I suggest we at least remove the citation. Thoughts? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Seeing how nobody replied to this since January, to the point where I forgot about it too, and nothing has changed, I'll edit that part and add a proper citation myself. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Bannister collection example

Tankfest says that have one converted from Dozer version back to gun tank. Is this one from our existing list (perhaps one of the isle of wight ones) or a new one that's popped up:

https://tankmuseum.org/article/centaur-iii-to-run-at-tankfest-2023

©Geni (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)