[Graham Boak]

There is an excellent pair of books that give a full and at times acid account of the development of British tanks for and in WW2. There are times when it does indeed seem that those writing the requirements were foolish, and at other times clearly let down by the standards of British automotive production. I only have one of them, the second: I shall try to find the reference for you. They were published by HMSO, I recall.

One point to be remembered is the effect of the defeat of the BEF and the need to equip the remaining Army with anything available, leading to the retention in production of inferior types and almost a year of lost development. British tank design doesn't look quite so bad with a year's shift...not that this philosophical point helped the tankers.

However, the main thrust of the argument was not in favour of the kind of slow super-WW1 armoured monster you propose, which can indeed be seen in the prototype A33 and Black Prince, but for a single battle tank with a balance of armour, mobility and firepower, eventually arising as the Centurion. Tanks do not just require protection from the front - evidence for this can be seen in the up-armouring of the early Sherman for Normandy, with their applique over the vulnerable fuel tanks in the side sponsons. Tanks do not dash (or crawl) towards AT head on - at least not since futile attempts in the desert pre-Montgomery.

Most British armour could be penetrated by the 50mm PaK - similarly most German armour (still mainly the Mk.IV) by the 6 pdr. Or the heaviest by the 88mm - similarly the 17 pdr.

It is interesting to see that the Germans, who in WW2 designed for armour and firepower at the expense of mobility and reliability, changed to a more balanced tank (Leopard) postwar. They had seen the drawbacks of the armoured monsters and the advantages of a lighter design. Whereas the British followed the superb Centurion with the overweight super-gunned Chieftain, because they had seen the advantages of the heavy tank and the disadvantages of the lighter design. Both Armies/design teams had learned the lessons of history - just directly opposite ones. The Russians also abandoned their pursuit of super-heavies, despite the apparent success of the JS-2 "animal killers".

It's those awful compromises again........advantages have penalties, design is a matter of trade-offs. Tanks, aircraft, ships, cars, whatever. Stone scissors paper.....make your choice and roll your dice.

But if you really believe that a rocket couldn't hit a building, you really are misinformed. And the counterattack at Arras only stopped 7th Panzer for a day, with no effect on any other unit. Brave, and an interesting indication of what might have been achieved under other circumstances, but not by itself a roadmap for the future.