Due to the utter failure of my experiments in carbomancy (that is divination through the use of coal) I reject this as too perfect. Even using Welsh coal the idea of the British Army allowing its crews decent sized hatches is a bit far fetched, even the ones on the Chieftain are not entirely user friendly.
However I can see a possible way to everything else...following continued albeit low budget efforts by the Experimental Mechanised Force the British Army comes to the conclusion that a common medium for European theatre use by both the Cavalry and the RTC (as was) is cheaper than separate cruiser and infantry tanks.
The Mark III medium is seen as fun but far too expensive so scaled back a bit with some of the weight saved used to scale armour up a bit. You should still expect it to come in two flavours with a main version with some pokey little high velocity gun and a CS version. However manoeuvres reveal that both kinds will run into awkward situation without the other and no set of pairing them up ever seems to work perfectly.
So our pokey gun tank gets a widdle HE shell. Our CS tank gets various efforts at an armour piercing shell for its howitzer none of which work perfectly until some bright spark suggests putting a QF 3" AA gun in the turret with a muzzle break...so after that someone realises anti-armour performance is better than the pokey model but expect the BEF to find itself in France with mostly pokeys plus CS tanks plus some light tank that the Treasury mandated for colonial service because cheaper and maybe a relatively small number of the Universal but with crap hatches because the British are too manly to mess around with that ergonomic rubbish.
Later on things hopefully get a bit better.
Ahhh Welsh coal - I wasn't aware that there was nothing it could not do?
Did you try using sea salt with it?
I agree on the hatches - even the Comet had crap hatches - no f*&%ing excuse!!!
And as for the AT and CS tank roles merging into a single gun again I am pinning development of this on 10+ years of continued evolution where the differing trade unions....I mean combat arms of the British army are forced to work together
Are you leaving the Universal/Bren carrier & the various OTL Armored Cars apart from this consideration?
I thought that I might leave those to separate threads but feel free to talk at them - certainly not forgotten
Sounds good so far.
In regards to the original post, British tanks had a lot of issues with doctrine as well as the terrible tanks (they were doing so well as well... sigh)
Massive holdover of Cavalry commanders and expecting tanks to operate the same way, no radios, not listening to feedback from the actual crews, etc, etc.
Yep a lot of that was to do with the various 'Trade Unions' within the greater British army Tribe doing things their own way.
An additional 10 years of working together in the same Brigade and then Division would I hope 'Maggie Thatcher them' into compliance
I think it would be easy with just a bit more cash,
The 3" (or even 75mm) is to much personally a 57mm should do fine for 39/40 (maybe make the design so it can be upgraded later)
Maybe use this ?
http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/alt%20WW2%20tank%20gun.htm
Then a engine what about RR Kestral de rated to army petrol should be better than what was used OTL and should be available now the RAF is moving to bigger engines. (say 400hp ?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Kestrel
I would then build a ALT A10 with Matilda I protection 60-10mm say 25t total.
I am familiar with Tony's work - its that very document that got me thinking along these lines.
The WW1 20 cwt 3" weighs 1000 kgs - I think that a more modern version built in the mid 30s could be a bit lighter say 800 kgs and possibly lighter still if made as a 40 calibre weapon (the original is 45 cals)
My main reason for using this gun is its ability to fire a 3” HE shell as well as still punch holes in other AFVs
The 2 pounder is listed as being 800 odd kgs but that must include the whole mount etc so I am guessing that its a lot less say 300 kgs? Not been able to find anything
Now the reasons that larger guns had difficulty fitting into certain turrets on British tanks is partially due to the turret design not exceeding the turret width (this due to the constraints of limiting the tanks width for rail travel) but also due to the practice of not using an external gun mantle – ie it was an inni not an outi – this due to the method in which the guns elevation was controlled by the gunners shoulders.
Both of these limiting factor could be and eventually were ignored.
As for engines a de-rated RR Kestrel for tank use would serve very well
What's the POD for overcoming the British rail transport width limitations, that kept the turret sizes to small for a larger gun?
Or, if that can't be overcome early on, would a British Stug fit the OP's profile?
As discussed above this would need to be overcome – options include tank transporters and simply building bigger turrets ie overhanging the Turret ring.
Well, first you need to get over a number of institutional hang-ups, the first being the Requirement that Tanks had to be Rail-Transportable.
This meant they had a maximium width, and thus a maximum turret-ring diameter. Which meant they couldn't really do 3-Man Turrets.
Additionally, you can't really do Universal/MBTs without all the Tank Development that you got during WWII. I mean, the first Tank that might be reasonably labelled an MBT would be the T-34, and that only got into production 1940, and the Soviet designers had a lot more reasons (Read: Battles/Wars where their tanks sucked a lot.)
The French did use Sloped Armour to an extent (R35/S35,) so more British/French Collaboration could result in British Tanks getting sloped armour, which basically results in more manoeuvrability for the same amount of armour.
Other issues involve the British industrial base, which loved riveting, which is bad for your crews when they pop off and fly around inside the tank.
You might, might get a 'Universal' Tank for the Brits in 1939.. But oh boy will their be sacred cows slaughtered.
I mean, hell, your main PoD may well be a Carrier Crazy Royal Navy (Aircraft Carriers cheaper than Battleships, more demand for aircraft/more non-naval money -> more interest in combined arms -> more tank funding.)
I'm with you the institutional stuff but I would hope that 10+ years of operational development a lot of the less sensible ideas would have been found out and the better ideas adopted.
Working more with the French or the French taking notice of the continued developments and doing more of the same could result in cross fertilisation of the best practices and ideas.
As for Riveting I know that was true for the Valentine but the Valentine served well and was cheaper and quicker to build than the Matilda II (the whole point of the design) – and because of its simplified design the most part of it could be built in a train or carriage or boiler makers rather than the rarer skills of forging complete pieces and wielding etc
I'm also not convinced that an Aircraft carrier with 40 odd plus aircraft is cheaper than a battleship?
The Navy benefited from more long term budgeting and did not really start to ramp up its expenditure until after Munich.
But as you say the army got bugger all during this time.
Maybe better use of the resources they had – Lets see what Rodent has to say......ah follow the money.....
I would suggest money. The UT* not to confused the UC and most definitely not to be confused with a UTI is sold as cheaper than separate cruiser and infantry tanks. The logistics and transports wallahs raise hell pointing out the problems inherent but are overruled as the the Treasury goes all glinty eyed.
Later of course it turns that the transport experts actually knew what they were talking about so the Army gets tank transporters most probably at far more cost than the money saved (this is yet another rendition of a fairly typical pattern of Treasury efforts to save money on defence, they don't). Handily the tank transporters are also somewhat useful for long range movements when not in contact with the enemy generally and not just in home area unlike train travel so it works like it was a planned wank all along
*Universal Tank, for anyone who is still confused
Yep telling the treasury that 1 Universal tank can do the same job as a Cruiser and an Infantry tank while also doing most of the jobs of a Light tank – means that you might not need so many of them over all and therefore less men as well.
Hopefully by Munich or the equivalent wake up point they would have become wedded to the idea of a universal tank.
They had the
Scammel Pioneer (1927 design) in military use from the early 30's as a good solution for the tractor part of the tank transport.
Part of the OP premise should consider the auxiliary pieces needed to make the UT work and the Pioneer fits that bill nicely.
Sold! So due to the continued evolution of the Mobile forces – this design gets picked up in 1932-3 and stays.
Ah I thought they did not come along till later, useful to know about that thanks. So correct my misstatement to being the Army gets more tank transporters. The Pioneer is a perfect fit.
Yeah kind of sells itself! I think we are back to the Treasury Wallahs being convinced that by saving wear and tear on the tanks the Tank Transporters actually save money over the long run.
In fact a lot of it comes down to money!
Thanks for the ideas chaps
Another idea I have been reading up on explores the idea of JFC Fuller taking up the original offer of commanding the Experimental Mechanized Force in 1927 and he throws himself into the role
