Talk:Covenanter tank


 * '' "...influenced by the Soviet T-28."

Really? It looks more like it has something in common with BT tanks or the T-34. —Michael Z. 2005-10-13 00:04 Z 


 * I agree, it also looks a lot like its predecessor - so more checking required before that line goes back in. GraemeLeggett 09:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * wwiivehicles.com says "Inspired by Russian T-28" and doesn't elaborate on the subject.


 * wwiivehicles.com Cruiser III article says: "Lt. Col. G. le Q Martel saw Russian BT tanks in manoeuvers and suggested the war office adopt the Christie suspension. Morris Commercial Ltd. built prototypes based on 2 Christie tanks purchased in 1936. (source: The Encyclopedia of Tanks and Armored Fighting Vehicles - The Comprehensive Guide to Over 900 Armored Fighting Vehicles From 1915 to the Present Day, General Editor: Christopher F. Foss, 2002).


 * Fletcher, Sarson - Crusader Cruiser Tank 1939-1945 says: "In 1937 the British Army, influenced by what a delegation under General Wavell had seen in Russia, adopted a system of tank suspension devised by... Christie. This resulted in a new family of cruiser tanks, with the General Staff specification A13".


 * In other words, the A13 (Cruiser III) inherited a suspension from the BT, and in turn became a base for A13 Mk II (Cruiser IV), A13 Mk III (Covenanter), A15 (Crusader) and A16 (canceled). Bukvoed 12:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * More like the BT and Cruiser both inherited their suspension from Christie's experimental tank. The Brits just got inspired to get on with it when they saw the Russian BTs' high speed.  —Michael Z. 2005-11-28 15:50 Z 


 * Yes, Brits didn't copy the suspension of the BT. "Inherited" was just a bad choice of word. I just wanted to comment on the above T-28/BT/T-34 talk, to show that some remote BT connection does exist here. As for T-28 connection.... that puzzles me. A9 with its triple-turret configuration resembles T-28, but I don't see anything in common between T-28 and the A13/A15 family. A mistake ? Probably, but... perhaps there's something remote here too... Bukvoed 19:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Engine
Not the Liberty V-12 engine; how can you have a horizontal (flat) V-12? Was it a flat-12 derived by Nuffield from the Liberty?? Hugo999 05:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Meadows engine wasn't related to the Liberty V-12 but it may have been a 'flat' V-12 i:e a V12 with the angle of the V being 180 degrees rather than a 'boxer' type engine ( see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_engine ). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.231.19 (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingforce
The "Combat Usage" section mentions something called Kingforce. What was Kingforce? A shufty on Google returns very little information other than that it was a force of tanks commanded by a Major Norris King MC, but who was Norris King? Was it KingForce or King Force? Given that the article does not supply a reference that the Covenanter was used alongside Kingforce, my suggestion is that mention of the force should be excised entirely (unless there could be a way to summarise it very briefly, e.g. "KingForce, an experimental armoured force commanded by a Major Norris King (reference)"). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From the style of Battle of Arras (1940) and Battle of the Kasserine Pass it appears "Kingforce" would be the correct use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfit for combat?
I have taken the liberty of replacing the line: "Although adequate as a training vehicle it was never considered fit for combat use." in the opening para. It certainly would have been used in combat had Britain been invaded in late 1940, 1941 or 1942. It equipped many front-line units such as the 9th Armoured Division. It was the cooling problems that prevented them being sent to Africa and the Med, which was where all the fighting was in 1940 to 1943. By the time the British Army was fighting in northern Europe, the Covenanter, like the Crusader, was already obsolete as a fighting tank. However, in support roles it seems to have done its job very well. Alansplodge (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * These points were in the article, but not expressed in the lede. The lede is a summary and doesn't normally need to be cited because it repeats information that is cited in the body of the article. So I've taken the liberty of moving the cite further down to support the text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I would retain it. At a time when the UK was desperately short of tanks (I think there were even still some Mk VI around), the Covenanter was considered so bad as to be unfit for combat use, in any field, and to even be unfit for training use in hot climates (it was basically undrivable and even more likely to overheat than a Crusader). The only question is why it stayed in production (see Fletcher). Nor was the 9th Armd. Div. ever a "front line" unit.
 * It wasn't available in any significant numbers during the Sea Lion era. Post Sea Lion, it was certainly considered unfit for combat. They might well have ended up in the hands of the Home Guard, but even then they were mostly in Scottish training grounds, well out of the useful way. The only way the bridgelayers managed to work without overheating was by making their fighting compartment uninhabitable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the lede - it needed it, but I haven't come up with a better form of words for its non-use in combat. Presumably it was retained for training because it was already being made - such was the confused thinking of the time. "Great Tank Scandal" indeed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone for your comments and apologies for tinkering with your work - I didn't expect any input so quickly. I found this that may be of interest:


 * "Covenanter has been described as unreliable. A comparative trial between pairs of Covenanters, Crusaders, Grants, Valentines and Churchills at the AFV School, Bovington in July 1942 showed some interesting results. Covenanter required four hours maintenance each day, as did Churchill, with the others needing over three hours. Both Covenanters had new engines after over 1000 miles running, better than the Crusaders which averaged 700 miles."


 * Of couse, this refers to the one of the "improved" models - I expect that the earlier examples were as bad as they were reputed to be. I added some examples of the bridgelayer variants on active service, although no amount of digging has produced any evidence of the Czechs actually using theirs. The New Zealanders had some too, but what they did with them is a mystery - not much I suspect! Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the period 1940-41 the British Army had had to leave most of its tanks behind in France after Dunkirk. There was a very credible fear of invasion, and the Covenanter, unsatisfactory though it may have been, was built in some numbers in order to build up at least some vehicles with which to counter any German tanks that might at any time be brought ashore in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.233 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Covenanter 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/20110714154719/http://www.nasenoviny.com/DunkirkEN1944_45.html to http://www.nasenoviny.com/DunkirkEN1944_45.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)