Airborne Armour: Tetrarch, Locust, Hamilcar and the 6th Airborne Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment 1938-50

Part One

HARDWARE

Chapter 1

Tanks

Two tank types were used operationally in the airborne role by the British Army in World War Two, the British Light Tank Mk.VII Tetrarch and the American M22 Locust. To start our story, we will look into the development history of both vehicles, as well as providing information on some other vehicles which were either considered for the airborne role or relate to the development of the two main types.

The Light Tank Mk VII ‘Tetrarch’ was neither designed nor produced as a glider-borne tank. Developed originally as a private venture by Vickers-Armstrong with a view for sale either to the British Army or to overseas countries, it became the penultimate design in the series of light tanks which Vickers had produced for the British Army between the wars. The prototype was completed in December 1937 and was a complete departure in design from the previous Light Tanks Mk IVI. Not only was it the first light tank to mount a 40mm/2pdr gun, equivalent to the main armament of contemporary ‘cruiser’ (i.e. medium) tanks, but the suspension and steering systems were entirely novel.

The two main reasons for this new departure have been summarised by the tank historian David Fletcher.¹ Firstly, following the take over by Vickers of the Carden-Loyd company in 1928, the Vickers light tanks had all been based on Carden-Loyd designs. Indeed, John Carden had been chief tank designer at Vickers-Armstrong until his death in an air crash in December 1935. This resulted in Vickers having to pay a percentage to both Carden and Loyd for each tank type based on their work. Secondly, the War Office prevented the export of any Vickers tank incorporating design features attributable to Government engineers. The British government’s tank orders between the wars were often very limited in number, and a company like Vickers relied on export orders to keep going. Hence, ‘in the design for this new tank the company had at least two very good incentives for breaking away from Carden-Loyd features and Government influence’.²

Reference has been made to ‘cruiser’ and ‘light’ tanks, and it should perhaps be pointed out before going any further that British doctrine at this time declared the need for three broad classes of tank. The light tank was for reconnaissance and had armour basically capable of keeping out shell splinters, blast and small-arms fire. They weighed less than 10 tons and were supposed to be highly mobile, and generally armed only with machine guns. The second class were the cruiser tanks, designed to be the main equipment of the armoured divisions, and with thicker armour (at this time to a maximum of about 30mm) and the 2pdr gun. The third category were the infantry tanks, which theoretically had armour (of perhaps 60-80mm) capable of resisting the enemy’s anti-tank guns even at close ranges. This additional weight meant they were generally slower, and they were intended for direct support of infantry formations, allocated as necessary from independent tank brigades.

Tetrarch prototype. The original Vickers turret is fitted but without main armament (IWM).

The Mk.VII light tank was designed by Leslie Little, Vickers’ new chief tank designer, and to emphasise that it was very much a private Vickers design the project was initially designated PR, for Private Research. The most distinctive feature of the new vehicle was its steering system. There were four equal sized wheels on each side, the rear wheel being fitted with teeth to act as the drive sprocket and having an armoured cover fitted to protect the final drive. In response to the driver turning his steering wheel, the road wheels (all eight together) not only turned but also tilted in order to bend or warp the tracks themselves, making the tank turn. The main idea was to reduce the mechanical strain and power wastage involved in the normal system of braking one track in order to swerve the tank round. Vickers had already employed the system, in a less sophisticated form, on its recently developed light armoured carriers which the British Army were to employ so extensively in the coming war. The suspension system was also a new departure. Instead of the sprung Horstman suspension of their previous light tanks, the Mark VII had a suspension system which used struts with pockets of air for springing, and cushions of oil for damping. Each of the wheels was independently sprung which gave an excellent ride.

Despite the complex engineering of the track-bending system, it appears to have worked reasonably well. The best turn radius available using the system seems to have been around 80 to 90 feet; for tighter turns normal track braking could be applied using a lever separate from the driver’s steering wheel. The main drawback seems to have been a tendency to throw the inner track during a ‘warp turn’, as this track became slack during such a manoeuvre. Despite modification, the tank always needed to be driven carefully when turning to prevent this occurring. The steering wheel itself was also very heavy. The engine adopted was the Meadows MAT, a twelve cylinder horizontally opposed engine whose compact design was suited to the small size of the tank. The engine provided 165 b.h.p. at 2,700rpm and gave the tank an excellent road speed of 40mph. Maximum cross-country speed was given as 28mph. However, the engine was a tight fit in its compartment which always made maintenance difficult. The tank weighed 7.5 tons, with armour varying between 4 and 16 mm.

Although a private venture, Vickers had of course always intended to give the War Office first refusal. Following generally successful initial trials of the prototype during May and June 1938, the War Office decided it was definitely interested in the tank, and specification A.17 was written around it. Following further trials, the tank was accepted for limited production in November 1938. The War Office was generally happy with the light tanks it already had, but in a time of rearmament (it should be remembered that September 1938 was the time of the ‘Munich crisis’) it was unwilling to turn down what promised to be a good tank. In the original A.17 specification, the standard light tank armament of co-axial 15mm and 7.92 mm Besa machine guns was given. However, Vickers had shown that the vehicle could accept a 2pdr and this weapon was selected for the production tanks. Various fairly minor modifications had been made following testing, the most obvious externally being the fitting of a cylindrical fuel tank on the hull rear to increase range. With its 2 pdr gun, in 1938 the Mk VII was equivalent in armour, gun power and mobility to some contemporary cruiser tanks, such as the A.9 (Cruiser Mark I) and A.13 (Cruiser Mark III) which both saw action in France in 1940. The Mk.VII, however, would not enter production until the French campaign was already over.

Its size limited its crew to three, a driver in the hull and a gunner and commander in the turret, which, the Army was realising, could be too few to fight a true battle tank. A member of 6th AARR was later to summarise the problems of commanding and fighting in this type of tank:

Commanding a [Tetrarch] tank was like looking through a bloody periscope and shaving, riding a bike, reading a map, talking on the wireless and doing ten other things at once! The gunner had an amusing act as well. He had a seat which went up and down; to his right was the big two pounder gun, and to the right of that a machine gun. He had two triggers – left hand for the two pounder, right hand for the machine gun. By moving his shoulder up and down against a pad, and bumping his seat up and down, he could move the gun. His eye was glued onto a periscope, with a brow pad that held his head steady while his left hand turned a handle with two gears that traversed the turret, and with his left foot he cracked walnuts!³

Official opinion was in agreement. The gunner or the commander had additionally to act as loader for the 2pdr which could obviously cause delays in combat. The AFV School at Lulworth reported on the tank in January 1941 and concluded that as the commander had to both fight and command the tank, control of a troop in close action would be practically impossible.⁴ Consideration had been given to adopting the Mk.VII as a ‘light cruiser’, but its small size eventually led to it being classed as a light tank by the Army, and it became the Light Tank Mark VII, having not yet been named. The number to be built was the subject of some vacillation. The War Office had indicated as early as July 1938 an intention to order 70 tanks. A three day conference on tank production held in November by the War Office, which resulted in a definite order, specified 120 vehicles. The tanks were to be built by the Metropolitan-Cammell Carriage and Wagon Company Limited in Birmingham. This company was jointly owned by Vickers and Cammel Laird Ltd, and although fundamentally a rolling stock producer Metro-Cammel had undertaken tank production for Vickers on previous occasions. Production was just beginning in July 1940 when the order was cut to 70, but following discussions the order was increased to 100, and then 220, after Metro-Cammell indicated they had already ordered armour plate for about this number of vehicles.

War Office doubts about the tank had been prompted by a rethink regarding the value of light tanks, either for reconnaissance or any other role. Prewar, light tanks had been preferred for the reconnaissance role primarily due to their superior cross country performance in relation to contemporary armoured cars. War experience had emphasised the need for stealth and the ability to make a quick getaway during scouting missions, and for this the small, two man, four wheel drive Daimler scout car had proved ideal, having also a good cross-country performance. Light tanks had also suffered badly in France when the desperate shortage of any armoured vehicles had resulted in their misuse as battle tanks. Their resultant high casualties had emphasised the vulnerability of this class of vehicle. These points are important as they will be revisited when we come to discuss the suitability of deploying the Tetrarch as part of a reconnaissance regiment in the much changed conditions of Normandy in 1944. In the desperate days of 1940, they meant that light tanks were a much lower priority than cruiser or infantry (i.e. heavy) tanks. Production was also slowed and partly curtailed by extensive bombing of the Metro-Cammell works in April 1941, and the last Tetrarchs were built in the first quarter of 1942, with final deliveries taking place in the latter half of the same year. Final production of the tank is given in most published sources as 177 vehicles. However, a lower figure of only 100 tanks is given in some surviving official documents, and the later perceived shortage of Tetrarchs for airborne use would seem to suggest that this lower figure is the more accurate.⁵ The name Tetrarch was adopted following a policy decision by the War Office that all tanks should be named, this policy being enacted from the 22nd of September 1941.⁶

As the new tanks were produced (first deliveries were in November 1940) they initially joined 1st Armoured Division, which had just lost all it tanks in the disastrous French campaign, and the 6th Armoured Division which was a new division just being formed. As light tanks, the Mk.VII’s main role was intended to be reconnaissance. The desperate shortage of any tanks in 1940 would probably have meant that in the event of Tetrarchs being used for defence against invasion or campaigns overseas, they would have been committed in whatever role tanks happened to be required, regardless of their suitability.

The most likely fate for the Tetrarch at this stage would have been use in training in Britain before replacement by other tanks, perhaps with a brief period of operational use in the Middle East, then retirement when declared obsolete. However, when the 1st Armoured Division was sent to North Africa in 1941, the Mk.VIIs were left behind as their cooling systems were considered unable to cope, although one Tetrarch did go to the Middle East for trials. During 1942, light tanks were dropped from the establishment of British armoured divisions, and in the words of David Fletcher, ‘By the end of 1942 the light tank, at least the British light tank as exemplified by the A17 Tetrarch, was regarded as almost useless’.⁷ However, the war had a few surprises up its sleeve for this vehicle. Leaving aside for the moment its selection for the airborne role, three particular uses of the tank occurred before the end of 1942. Firstly, the tank had been used in trials for the Duplex Drive equipment eventually developed for amphibious tanks. Secondly it was sent to Russia in small numbers under lend-lease agreements, and thirdly it was used, in its first operational deployment, in a little known campaign in Madagascar. The latter is best left until we explore the history behind 6th AARR, but the first two developments will be described here.

The ‘Duplex Drive’ Sherman tanks used by both the British, Canadians and Americans on D-Day feature with justifiable prominence in accounts of that operation. They were a real surprise to the Germans and wherever they arrived successfully they provided invaluable armoured support for the first waves of landing infantry. The method used to make the Shermans ‘swim’ was developed by Nicholas Straussler, a talented Hungarian-born designer who had come to Britain before the war. The tank had its buoyancy increased by having a large waterproof canvas screen erected around it. It was attached above the tracks, and was erected by 36 inflatable tubes running vertically inside the screen, which were supported by steel struts once the screen was up. The screen gave the vehicle sufficient buoyancy to make it float. When in the water, most of the tank was actually below the water line and the tank commander had to stand on the turret roof to see out. Straussler realised the vehicle would need more power to drive it in the water than the turning of the tracks could provide, and he fitted the tanks with a steerable propellor which was run by a power take-off from the tank’s engine. A speed of about 4 knots was possible, and these tanks were seaworthy up to Force 5 conditions. The screen could be quickly collapsed on reaching land using a small explosive charge and the tank was at once ready for combat.

The great thing about Straussler’s system was that any tank could be made to swim using it: it was not necessary to develop a purpose built amphibious tank and the design was not limited to light tanks which had been the subject of past trials using bulky flotation chambers, which severely reduced mobility on land. Nevertheless, it made sense to test the design on a small, light tank to start with, and the A.17 was the most modern light tank readily available. The first Duplex Drive experiment was therefore conducted using a Light Tank Mk.VII in June 1941, on the Welsh Harp reservoir at Hendon. Only one tank was converted, which came from 1st Armoured Division. Later trials were conducted on the Solent near Portsmouth, and the success of the trials led to the conversion of heavier Valentine tanks, which participated in further trials and training, and then conversion of Shermans for operations. One author has concluded that this episode was the Tetrarch’s ‘greatest contribution to the development of the tank’.⁸

The one and only duplex drive Tetrarch with canvas skirt raised (Tank Museum).

The operation of Tetrarchs by the Soviet Union is another little known episode in the story of this vehicle. As with so much other information about World War Two in the East, fuller detail regarding these operations has only come to light since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening up of various archives.

Twenty Light Tanks Mk.VII were supplied to the Soviet Union in early 1942 under the ‘Lend-Lease’ scheme, along with a consignment of Matildas and Valentines. It would seem that after the dispatch of the first 20 had been agreed, the Tank Board had decided (in September 1941) that no more Mk.VIIs should leave the country as they were the only suitable airborne tank at that time.⁹ Such a small number was obviously only a token contribution, but the Russians deployed light tanks much more widely than the British at this time and thus the vehicles were thought to be of interest. The cooling problems which prevented Mk.VIIs being used in the desert have already been mentioned. It would seem they were also unsuited for really cold conditions, ‘largely for the effect it might have on the suspension and tracks’, so operation of the Mk.VIIs was limited to the southern part of the Eastern Front.¹⁰ On arrival the vehicles were thoroughly tested. The Soviets admired the controllability, manoeuvrability and speed of the tanks. They also found they could run on low quality fuel which was not useable in Soviet light tanks. Of course, the limited armour protection was noted, and some efforts to fit additional armour plate were made, but these had too great an effect on the vehicle’s mobility to be acceptable. Nevertheless, the Soviets also noted that even as it stood, the Mk.VII was still comparable to contemporary Russian light tanks such as the T-70, whilst being lighter in weight. Some Mk.VIIs were photographed for propaganda purposes during operations in the Caucasus in 1942, and it seems that some vehicles were involved in combat. Vehicles sent to a tank training school in Sumgait in summer 1942 are believed to have engaged the Germans. As late as September 19th, 1943, records show the 5th Guards Tank Brigade being reinforced by an independent unit, the 132nd Separated Tank Battalion. Of the 15 tanks of this latter unit, 2 were Tetrarchs. One was knocked out in battle on September 30th, the other was destroyed by German heavy artillery on October 2nd.¹¹

We can now turn to the events surrounding the selection of the Tetrarch for the airborne role. There were no British airborne forces before World War Two, and it was not until Churchill put his weight behind their creation that such forces were envisaged on any scale. This process is considered in more detail in chapter three, but we can note here that it commenced in June 1940 with a set of directives from the Prime Minister himself.¹² Once the War Office began to look into what form airborne forces should take, they fairly quickly decided that gliders would be a useful part of such a force. The Germans had already demonstrated their use during the Blitzkrieg in France and the Low Countries. Gliders would obviously be useful, amongst other things, for bringing in the heavy equipment that parachute units would lack. Surviving records indicate that by August 1940 at the latest, it had been decided that such heavy equipment should include some sort of airborne tank. A draft paper on this subject from the autumn of 1940 states that ‘in the opinion of the War Office, no airborne force will be sufficiently effective against opposition unless it incorporates armoured fighting vehicles and artillery’.¹³ Discussions as to what type of tank and how it should be carried took place between departments of the Air Ministry and the War Office. A key source here is a document in the the Public Record Office entitled ‘The use of aircraft to carry tanks’.¹⁴ The document indicates that on the 5th of September 1940 the War Office officially asked the Air Ministry to consider the possibility of the air transport of tanks, weighing a maximum of ten tons, by glider or aircraft. A memo from May 1941 confirms that discussions had been going on for the previous ten months, and gives some idea of what form they had taken. One of the earliest ideas had been to adapt a Stirling bomber (at that time the RAF’s largest and most powerful aircraft) to carry a light tank. It was estimated a 5.5 ton tank could be carried for 300 to 350 miles, and that even a tank of 9 tons could be got airborne, although only over a short range due to the correspondingly light fuel load that could be managed. If a powered aircraft was to be used, it was agreed that to lift a worthwhile vehicle over a distance, a specially designed aircraft would be the ‘only sound solution’.¹⁵ Using a glider had therefore emerged as the preferred solution as such an aircraft would be easier to develop and would also be potentially more flexible in its loads.

Propaganda shot of Tetrarchs in Russia. They still have their British ‘War Department’ numbers (TankoMaster Magazine)

Of further interest is that the original proposals, in October 1940, were for a glider to carry an 8.5 ton tank. This could only refer to what was to become the Light Tank Mk.VIII, later to be christened the Harry Hopkins, which was intended as the replacement for the Tetrarch. The development of this tank will be discussed below, but for the moment it will be sufficient to indicate that because this tank was in such an early stage of development, plans for an airborne tank reverted to the Tetrarch. This vehicle was the most modern tank available which fell within the size and weight requirements thought to be acceptable. At a conference on 16th January 1941, held at General Aircraft Limited’s works in Middlesex, it was decided that the large airborne glider which GAL were to develop (the Hamilcar) would be designed to carry a Mk.VII tank, or two universal carriers, or a stores container. However, the notion of using the Mk.VIII Harry Hopkins continued to resurface throughout 1941 and beyond, as the War Office was well aware, even at this early stage, of the limitations of the Tetrarch. A War Office letter from October 1941 regarding the formation of airborne forces states that, regarding the Mk.VII tank, ‘all of these now obsolescent tanks at present available could be used for this purpose, but […] no more should be constructed in this country specifically for this use. Meanwhile the US authorities have been asked to undertake the development of airborne tanks’.¹⁶ The initiative indicated in the final sentence was to result in the T9 (later M22) Locust, whose development will also be described below.

Coordination between the War Office and Air Ministry on the issue of airborne tanks during this formative period was evidently lacking, and was criticised in an official summary on the development of light tanks between 1935 and 1944, which seems to have been written towards the end of the war. It confirms that, ‘with the autumn of 1940 the notion of airborne tanks acquired some prominence’. However, the War Office and RAF ‘made no real effort to evolve common equipment or concentrate on a useful tactical definition. The War Office expected the RAF to carry such light tanks as might be available, and the Air Ministry expected the Army to put up with such planes as could be spared without major alteration’.¹⁷ This controversy apparently continued from September 1940 to spring 1941, whilst Hamilcar development was not carried forward with any urgency. The narrative also confirms that in October 1941 ‘it was decided the requirement [for airborne light tanks] should be met by US machines’.

Tetrarch stowed ready for combat with airborne forces. The Littlejohn adapter is fitted, and a Bren gun is carried on the turret side above the 2" smoke discharger (IWM).

A particularly significant aspect of all the initial discussions was the weight of tank proposed. The British were convinced that 10 tons was about the practical limit, taking into account the performance of aircraft likely to be available as tugs. Indeed, in an official letter of May 1941, the Air Ministry clearly stated that a glider carrying the 8.5 ton Mk.VIII tank ‘could not be towed off the ground by any existing aircraft’, and they included the most powerful British aircraft of the time, the Lancaster, in this conclusion. By January 1941, then, the Tetrarch/Hamilcar combination had been agreed upon as the way of providing tank support to British airborne forces.

Before looking into the tank that emerged from the initiatives in the United States, we should tell the story of the Mk.VIII Harry Hopkins. This tank continued to be suggested for the airborne role well after Hamilcar development was under way, and no description of Britain’s airborne tank effort would be complete without charting this vehicle’s progress.

The Light Tank Mk.VIII was another Vickers-Armstrong design which was planned to improve on the Mk.VII, in particular in the area of armour protection. It incorporated wheels, chassis components and a number of other parts from the Tetrarch, and was apparently referred to initially as the ‘Tank, Light, Mk.VII, revised’.¹⁸ The proposed tank was submitted to the War Office in February 1941, and three pilot models were authorised in April. The tank was wider and heavier than the Tetrarch, (8.5 tons) as a result of a desire to give more room for the crew and increase armour protection. Frontal armour was 32-38mm (hull) and 38mm (turret), side armour 14-17mm (hull) and 17mm (turret). The design was given the specification number A.25. The turret and hull were also given a better ballistic shape by providing more sloped surfaces than the Tetrarch. The steering system was the same, but hydraulic assistance made life easier for the driver. The vehicle was 9" inches longer and (more significantly) 1’ 3.5’’ wider than the Tetrarch. Both the weight and width meant the tank could never be carried in a Hamilcar, but it should be remembered that, like the Tetrarch, the tank was not designed as an airborne tank but the latest in the line of Vickers light tanks for standard army use. The same flat 12 Meadows engine was installed, and road speed was quoted as 30mph, perfectly respectable but slower than the nippy Tetrarch. Main armament remained the 2pdr gun. The name Harry Hopkins was derived from that of President Roosevelt’s special advisor.

The tank was obviously officially considered a useful design as at a meeting of the Tank Board in September 1941 it was decided that 1,000 should be ordered, and it was hoped to commence production in June 1942 at a rate of up to 100 a month. By November, the order had been raised to 2,410. As with the Tetrarch, production was to be undertaken by Metro-Cammel. However, from this point difficulties began to be encountered. Prototype tests in 1942 seem to have raised problems, with a report on tank returns issued in December 1942 stating that modifications were required following these tests, particularly to the front suspension. A minute to the Prime Minister from the Ministry of Supply in September of that year had already noted ‘delayed deliveries’ of the Harry Hopkins due to development problems.¹⁹ It appears these problems dragged on, as a report from the Fighting Vehicle Proving Establishment of July 1943 indicates serious defects were still being encountered, and the trials here were abandoned early.²⁰ As of 31st August 1943, fourteen months after the time production was supposed to have commenced, only six Harry Hopkins had been supplied, against a revised War Office requirement for 1943 of 100.

Despite these problems, and despite the question marks over the usefulness of light tanks in general which have already been mentioned, documents show that in November 1943 there was still an official requirement for 750 Harry Hopkins.²¹ However, in the end it would seem common sense prevailed. A total of around 100 Harry Hopkins was finally completed (the author has seen estimates varying from 92 to 102), and none was ever used operationally. Production was not finished until February 1945, by which time these tanks were presumably being completed to fulfill contractual obligations rather than any operational requirement. By the time the tank was becoming available, the War Office realised it had no use for it. There was a requirement for a limited number of light tanks within the organisation of British armoured divisions, but this was met by the American M3 and M5 light tanks. David Fletcher quotes a policy report of December 1942 which suggested possible issue of the Harry Hopkins to reconnaissance regiments, or special light tank regiments for service in overseas locations (such as mountainous areas) where light tanks might be particularly suitable.²² In the end it was proposed, in 1943, to hand over the production to the RAF for airfield defence as a last resort. However, according to Fletcher, the RAF also had an interest in the tanks due to a new project to get the Harry Hopkins into the air.

The Harry Hopkins, intended successor to the Tetrarch (IWM).

As we have seen, carriage of an 8.5 ton tank by air had been proposed since the early discussions with GAL in late 1940 which led to the Hamilcar, although in the end the Tetrarch was selected for this glider. A surviving memo of May 1942 indicates that some in the Air Ministry were still considering the Harry Hopkins for the airborne role, carried in a successor to the Hamilcar.²³ However, all parties were already committed to developing the Hamilcar and there was never a serious possibility that this major project would be curtailed or abandoned to produce an even bigger glider. However, a rather different and radical idea was also put forward in 1942 regarding airborne tanks which featured the Harry Hopkins as a potential load. This was the Baynes Carrier Wing, also sometimes known as the CardenBaynes Tank Glider or the Allen Muntz Bat. The design came from the Baynes and Muntz Co. Ltd., with Mr Muntz seeming to be the main promoter of the concept. The idea was to use a ‘flying wing’ design, that is a tailless aircraft with swept wings and rudders at the wing tips. Attaching a pair of such wings to a tank raised the possibility of carrying larger vehicles than the Tetrarch by making a winged tank, flown by the driver, rather than developing a large tank carrying glider which carried the vehicle completely within it. In the patent specification filed by Baynes and Muntz in November 1941, it was expected that a 7 ton tank could be carried by a structure weighing only 4000 lbs.²⁴

The idea produced some serious interest in various official circles, including the Ministry of Aircraft Production and the Ministry of Supply as well as departments within the War Office and Air Ministry.²⁵ It received the support of Brigadier Richard Gale, then Director of Air at the War Office and later to command 6th Airborne Division, as well as the then commander of Airborne Forces Major-General Browning and the C-in-C Home Forces. A one third scale model was directed to be produced to test the concept in June 1942, and this flew successfully in August 1943. A separate project was the ‘glider frame’, an idea for a conventional wing and tail unit which could be attached to a tank, once again without the necessity for designing a glider that could carry a large tank within it. A memo of June 1942 survives from the Director AFVs at the War Office to the C-in-C Home Forces stating that such a device to carry the Mk.VIII tank could be in production by July-August 1943.²⁶

These projects were about the closest the Harry Hopkins ever got to becoming airborne, but they were abandoned sometime in 1942 or 1943. The tailless concept was still very experimental at this time, and in addition these ‘tank-with-wings’ designs seem to have relied on using the tracks of the tank as landing gear. At the touch-down speeds likely to be encountered, it was considered highly problematic whether the running gear, suspension and tracks of a tank could stand the strain. The view from the driver’s seat of the tank was also likely to be so limited as to preclude safe flying. In addition, these designs were essentially specific to one vehicle, and lacked the flexibility of the Hamilcar which could be adapted as a load carrier for any cargo that could be lashed inside it, provided the weight was within limits. Perhaps the final clincher was the sober War Office view of the Harry Hopkins as a combat tank, given in April 1942: ‘a tank such as this will be of little use in Europe in 18 months time’.²⁷

To complete the story of the Harry Hopkins, it only remains to tell the story of the Alecto light self-propelled gun. This vehicle is of interest in that it showed that a self-propelled gun