1942 British Covenanter Tank
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 авг 2016
- This seems to be the only video extant on youtube of the British Covenanter Tank. Shown here during training exercises somewhere in the South of England (only one or two Covenanter tanks saw action very briefly in the desert as trial as part of Kingforce). The Covenanter was a development of the Cruiser MkII/IV utilising the same Christie suspension in a much modified and lower profile hull and an entirely new turret whose design was shared with the Crusader.
Some still believe that the Covenanter was a predecessor of the Crusader tank but in fact the Crusader was a contemporary of the Covenanter both of which were designed and built at the same time to a similar specification.
The Covenanter's main weakness was the low profile flat-12 configuration engine in combination with a low hull that required the radiator cooling fins to be sited under armoured louvres on the front plate. Having hot coolant pipes passing through the crew position left both the engine and the crew in danger of severe overheating. As such, the tank was unsuitable for the desert war that was being waged at the time it was being built. It was deemed to be only suitable for Western European operations and so it served only as a training tank being eventually superceded by the Cavalier, Centaur and Cromwell designs as time progressed.
The tank had other inherent weaknesses in its design, the use of bolted armour plate instead of welded armour, a weak front idler wheel mounting, a turret ring an inch smaller than the Crusader precluding the mounting of the 6pdr gun, the box over the driver's position presented a useful target for enemy guns that abrogated the use of well-sloped armour used elsewhere. The tank's design sacrificed armour for mobility in order to satisfy a cruiser requirement that was a tactical mistake. Despite having a well-performing AP round the gun it mounted was not the equal of its adversaries having an insufficient weight of shell precluding firing a useful high explosive round.
The Covenanter was an almost entirely new design created just to address one perceived weakness of the earlier Cruiser tanks, the high silhouette of the Cruiser III/IV. It did succeed in addressing this issue but with regard to mobility and armament the tank was not an advance on its predecessor. Unreliability plagued the over-complex Christie cruiser designs and it has to be said the Covenanter was not a successful design.
Despite all its weaknesses over two thousand were created and the tank served very well almost exclusively as a training vehicle but in doing so, saving better types more suited to the battlefield.
Regardless of failings the tank is very good-looking (for a tank) and that Meadows flat 12 engine sounds very meaty indeed.
All rights reserved to the original owner, reasons for publishing here: a historical video that seems to have disappeared from public view. I am happy to credit any original owner. The Skoblin Archives seem to own this video but I cannot find any link to them on the internet anywhere.
I hope the video is useful to you for historical or gaming purposes, if it is then please leave a comment and a 'like'.
If you'd like a World of Tanks Guide to playing the Covenantor then look here - lightquick.co.uk/world-of-tank... 
Игры
The Covenanter had a minor role in the 1944 movie “Tawny Pipit”!. The movie is currently available on youtube. 3 Covenanters appear between 38:20 and 43:30.
Good observation. Thanks for that.
The Best Looking Tank!
Yes, agreed. If looks could kill...
The best thing the British could have done with the Covenanter tanks is send at least 1,600 of them to the USSR instead of the 1,084 Matilda II's that were sent historically.
The hot pipes running through the Covenanter's crew compartment that made it very unsuitable for use in hot climates, would have been welcomed by the Soviet crews in the frigid temperatures of Northern Russia. Also the Russians were very good with fixing tanks, the Covenanter's unreliability would not have discouraged them.
The Covenanter would have been a good substitute for the Russian BT-7 light tank. The Covenanter is much slower than the BT-7, but has far superior armour protection. The 2-pounder gun is sufficient armament for a light tank.
As for the released Matilda II's, they were badly needed in the Far East against the Japanese. They would have fought in India, Burma and New Guinea.
That's an interesting observation and probably quite correct. Note: The Soviet BT engine would probably have been a close if not direct replacement for the Meadows, the Liberty being the previous engine fitted to the A13 MkIII, with a bit of hull tweaking it might still fit.
Regarding sending them to Russia - the thing is the British would still have needed a training tank in large numbers and that would have had to have been taken from the pool of useful combat tanks, meaning they would not have been available for combat, being worn out soon. Training tanks receive a lot of wear through continuous and daily use. Think of the Covenanter as a dedicated training tank and its existence starts to make more sense.
Make do and mend was the motto of the time and that is what you do in war, you fight with what you have.
But I should imagine after Dunkirk these tanks would have been necessity against any German invasion in 1940. Obviously, they would have been used as a defensive tank. So high mileage would have been kept to a minimum, which would have suited this tank. The big question is, how many were available in 1940 and how would they have faired from a defensive point of view against German invasion?
@@TheWersum Same as the Crusader.
But then the Soviets probably would have collapsed, once morale failed when receiving the 'aid' Britain sent. People greatly underestimate how close to collapsing, again, they were.
@@cavscout888 : Nonsense. Soviet morale was very good once their propaganda machine changed the message from ‘fight for Stalin and the Communist ideal’ to ‘fight for Mother Russia’. The Soviets were running short of tanks by late 1941, and were glad to receive anything with tracks and a gun.
The Covenanter wasn’t a fantastic tank by any means, but then neither were the German light tanks. The Covenanter was a better fighting vehicle than the German Panzer II, Panzer 35(t), and Panzer 38(t) which made up a very large proportion of the German tank force in 1941-42.
Against the Panzer III and Panzer IV, the Covenanter would have more difficulty, but could handle them at closer ranges. The Covenanter was a low profile tank, and would have been hard for the German gunners to hit at long range.
The main problem the Covenanter had was the same one as the Matilda II and Valentine - the 2 pounder gun had no high explosive shell to fire at soft targets like anti tank guns, trucks and infantry. All it had was the machine gun. However, it may have been possible for the Russians to refit the Covenanter with their own 45 mm tank gun, used by the T-26 and BT-7, which did have a high explosive shell.
World of Tanks anyone?
Not as many as there used to be... but I'm sure you'll find someone to play. The covvie is a hard tank to be successful in.
yereverluvinuncleber I meant Wot: Blitz. I thought it would be easy. I don't play the console version.
I main this tank in wot
how well do you do in it?
One of the worst tanks... They actually use this tank as an example when teaching people how NOT to build a tank
Not really, it had some good aspects that you don't understand as you clearly haven't researched it. The gun was hard-hitting and could be upgraded so penetration could be increased over time. The shells were small in size meaning it could carry a lot of ammo. The armour was increased over earlier designs and sloped in general meaning that more shots would bounce. The armour was layered to reduce interior spalling, increasing crew safety in this respect. Most tanks of the period were not so equipped. The US-designed suspension was advanced and gave a stable gun platform and good cross-country performance. It is very low in silhouette and as a result is a hard target to hit. With regard to the tanks it was designed to meet (PzIII, M15/42) it was a capable tank and would have been a formidable adversary. The main fault is that it was designed to use an alternative engine as suitable engines were in short supply. It was specified to be an upgrade to the Cruiser MkIII and as such it was a reasonable upgrade but the engine choice led to engineering compromises that could not allow the Covenanter to be used as a battle tank. It served successfully as part of the UK home defence forces in the increasingly unlikely event of invasion but most of all it served a very useful life as a training tank. That meant that good battle tanks would not have to be used and worn-out serving in a training role. Most British tank crews were trained on the Covenanter and so it really did have a successful role in the British army.
First of all, I don't play that pos WoT game. #WarThunderIsBetter
Second, It's radiators to cool the rear mounted engine were mounted on the front of the tank. The one place enemy fire was certain to hit. As a design flaw for a combat tank its pretty major. It never left the British Isles as poor engine cooling caused versions MkI-MkIII to be declared unfit for use overseas service especially in hot climates. This was rectified in the MkIV after many corrective actions were undertaken but by February 1944, it was declared obsolete.
In video games you don't see the reliability issues that this tank suffered from.Their is no evidence that this tank actually saw any combat due to it being taken out of service so quickly being deemed "unfit for combat" (although the unit markings indicate they MAY have been deployed alongside Kingforce with Churchill Mk IIIs)
It was used as a trainer mostly because 1700 of them were built and they needed to be put to use.
I did not mention world of tanks in my response. Video games have nothing to do with my response to you. You were talking about the tank in reality? I assumed you did, or did you mean its capabilities in a video game?
Secondly, why have you re-quoted the original description above regarding the radiators? We all know that, that is why it is in the description. We know also it was used as a trainer, that is why I said it was used as a trainer. In fact I've said that twice now.
I assumed you meant in game when you said that I haven't "researched it" considering the video is under the category of gaming in World of Tanks (I was talking about reality). And I didn't read your description, everything I said was from my own research.
Well, you know just a little more now.