Sentinel Vs Valentine

[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.