Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Not Competent to Produce Tanks' Canadian Tank Production

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 'Not Competent to Produce Tanks' Canadian Tank Production

    Hi

    Hope this article is of some interest:-

    http://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewconte...11&context=cmh

    Regards

    Andy H
    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

    "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

  • #2
    Hi

    Further to the above article, is this thesis The Ram Cruiser Tank:An Ambitious Failure by Bruce Alexander Blue

    Abstract
    During the early years of the Second World War, Canada was cut off from Britain, its traditional supplier of war materiel. This forced the Canadian Army and the Mackenzie King government to attempt to arm itself using domestic resources as well as those of the then-neutral United States.

    One of the results of this policy was the Ram Tank, a design based upon the latest US medium tank in combination with the recent battle experience and expertise of British tank designers.

    Originally intended to arm Canadian and British formations, the Ram design was outstripped by faster and more responsive American technical innovation in the form of the Sherman tank.

    Though the Ram proved adequate for training, for conversion to an armored troop carrier, and gave useful experience for the later manufacture in Canada of self-propelled guns, it was an undoubted failure as a tank.
    This essay examines the reasons for that failure
    http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca.../1/MR71093.pdf

    Regards

    Andy H
    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

    "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

    Comment


    • #3
      Essentially a modified Sherman type with a huge hatch in the side. Must have presented a fine target since it opened directly into the crew compartment.

      Comment


      • #4
        Actually, ...

        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Essentially a modified Sherman type with a huge hatch in the side. Must have presented a fine target since it opened directly into the crew compartment.
        ... the Ram and Sherman were both essentially modified M3 Lee/Grant hulls (without the sponson mounted main gun), chassis' and track assemblies, with a larger main armament turret and gun.

        M3 Lee/Grant


        M4 Sherman T6 prototype (with side hatch)


        Ram MkI
        Last edited by Marmat; 29 May 16, 19:54.
        "I am Groot"
        - Groot

        Comment


        • #5
          When the Ram was 1st in production its 57 mm gun was effective against the vast majority of German tanks.

          U.S. and Canadian automotive and locomotive production have largely been integrated from the beginning. It would make sense for Canadian forces to standardise on U.S. automotive equipment.

          In the article it says the U.S. only produced only 18 models of aircraft. I can think of more .

          Just of the top of my head .U.S. Air Force fighters P 38, 39, 40, 47,51 and 61. Attack bombers A 20 and 26. Bombers B 17, 24, 25, 26 and 29. Transports C 46, 47 and 54. USN fighters wildcat, hellcat and corsair. Dive bombers Dauntless and Helldiver. Torpedo planes Avenger. That's 22 not counting seaplanes, float planes, trainers and light planes such as the piper cub.
          "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" Beatrice Evelyn Hall
          Updated for the 21st century... except if you are criticizing islam, that scares the $hii+e out of me!

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm sure this will pi$$ off many of our British posters...

            The problem with Canadian tank production was British military procurement. Had the Canadians built to US standards and simply copied US production, they'd have been far better off all the way around. Canada should have concentrated on matching and using US standards completely rather than build a half-US half British POS tank like the Ram.
            With Canada right next to the US, that makes sense. The US could have supplied portions of the materials and the interchangeability of production both would have been far more efficient.
            If anything, Canada having to build to Crown requirements was a serious mistake for Britain and Canada.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              I'm sure this will pi$$ off many of our British posters...

              The problem with Canadian tank production was British military procurement. Had the Canadians built to US standards and simply copied US production, they'd have been far better off all the way around. Canada should have concentrated on matching and using US standards completely rather than build a half-US half British POS tank like the Ram.
              With Canada right next to the US, that makes sense. The US could have supplied portions of the materials and the interchangeability of production both would have been far more efficient.
              If anything, Canada having to build to Crown requirements was a serious mistake for Britain and Canada.
              Agreed, and Canada building to US standards won out as Canadian policy according to the article, the main problem with RAM was inherent design flaws and lack of design engineering expertise in Canada. The article is very interesting in that the US favoured a narrow range of tanks and mass production which was a superior strategy to Germany's policy of high quality and many different tanks but not high quantity.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think the RAM probably would have held its own against the German armour it would have faced. The 6 pounder was an excellent gun.

                However implying that it was a failure seems to be typical Canadian modesty. In the end the Canadian army turned them into very well armoured APCs.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                  Agreed, and Canada building to US standards won out as Canadian policy according to the article, the main problem with RAM was inherent design flaws and lack of design engineering expertise in Canada. The article is very interesting in that the US favoured a narrow range of tanks and mass production which was a superior strategy to Germany's policy of high quality and many different tanks but not high quantity.
                  Germany's policy wasn't exactly that. Instead, it was a case of the Wehrmacht allowing each manufacturer to do their own design work and then produce the resulting tank. In addition, there was no concern on the part of manufacturers with regard to making their design production friendly. For example, the turret of a Tiger I required a huge rolled piece of steel forming the "horseshoe" making up the sides and rear of the turret in one piece. There was one machine in Germany capable of rolling that part.
                  While the Germans did move towards simplification and interchangeability as the war progressed, it was a case of too little too late.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                    Agreed, and Canada building to US standards won out as Canadian policy according to the article, the main problem with RAM was inherent design flaws and lack of design engineering expertise in Canada. The article is very interesting in that the US favoured a narrow range of tanks and mass production which was a superior strategy to Germany's policy of high quality and many different tanks but not high quantity.
                    Germans couldn't match in quantity so they tried to do it with the quality. The conditions of production weren't the same as for USSR and USA. Also you cannot say that Germany produced all of their vehicles in low quantity.
                    There are no Nazis in Ukraine. Idiots

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by AdrianE View Post
                      I think the RAM probably would have held its own against the German armour it would have faced. The 6 pounder was an excellent gun.

                      However implying that it was a failure seems to be typical Canadian modesty. In the end the Canadian army turned them into very well armoured APCs.
                      On the other hand, the 6 pdr had no useful HE round, something the 75mm US tanks (and later British ones as well) had. Being able to fire a useful HE round outweighed pure anti-armor gun performance.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        I'm sure this will pi$$ off many of our British posters...

                        The problem with Canadian tank production was British military procurement. Had the Canadians built to US standards and simply copied US production, they'd have been far better off all the way around. Canada should have concentrated on matching and using US standards completely rather than build a half-US half British POS tank like the Ram.
                        With Canada right next to the US, that makes sense. The US could have supplied portions of the materials and the interchangeability of production both would have been far more efficient.
                        If anything, Canada having to build to Crown requirements was a serious mistake for Britain and Canada.
                        Actually, I don't think Canada should have been making tanks at all, except perhaps the Valentines for the Soviets. Why make more Shermans when the US can meet the total demand?

                        I think they would have been better off making trucks, guns, general equipment etc.
                        "Looting would not be tolerated within the Division, unless organised with the knowledge of C.O.'s on a unit basis."
                        - 15/19 Hussars War Diary, 18th March 1945

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Don Juan View Post
                          Actually, I don't think Canada should have been making tanks at all, except perhaps the Valentines for the Soviets. Why make more Shermans when the US can meet the total demand?

                          I think they would have been better off making trucks, guns, general equipment etc.
                          Largely that is what happened, so far as trucks go, as the article notes, Canada produced more trucks than Germany, Italy, and Japan combined. By 1942 half of Britain's trucks were produced in Canada, see the first paragraphs of page 2.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sparlingo View Post
                            Largely that is what happened, so far as trucks go, as the article notes, Canada produced more trucks than Germany, Italy, and Japan combined. By 1942 half of Britain's trucks were produced in Canada, see the first paragraphs of page 2.
                            Almost everyone produced more trucks than Germany in WW1 and WW2 one reason why they were doomed in both wars - simply didn't have the industrial capacity
                            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              They had Automobile manufacturers in Poland, Italy, Romania, Austria, and France (Belgium and Czechoslavakia?) working for them. They also had a talent for taking them from the Red Army, the Commonwealth and the Americans. These three did NOT get a large number if German trucks in return. The DAK was very fond of British and American captured trucks. They did have a terrible spare parts problem!

                              Pruitt
                              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X