Alternative British Army AVF 1930-40s

merlin

In OTL 1928 the A.6 Medium Mk III tank also known as the 'sixteen tonner' made its appearance.
An advanced design for the period, but considered too expensive - it wasn't until 1936 that a new 'cheaper' design tank came along - but as you may guess in reality it was too cheap - being ineffective and unreliable.
Moreover, for the A.11 for a Infantry tank, the designer was restricted by cost limitations - so was reduced to coming up with an over armoured machine-gun vehicle.

If the did away with the complexities of the turret mechanism, could you have a mix of something like a Valentine (with different variants for cruiser or infantry use), and an SPG - with perhaps an ex-naval 3" gun - options on Marder or Hetzer style.

How much difference, would such a combination make with the BEF 1940?
 

Cryhavoc101

merlin said:
In OTL 1928 the A.6 Medium Mk III tank also known as the 'sixteen tonner' made its appearance.
An advanced design for the period, but considered too expensive - it wasn't until 1936 that a new 'cheaper' design tank came along - but as you may guess in reality it was too cheap - being ineffective and unreliable.
Moreover, for the A.11 for a Infantry tank, the designer was restricted by cost limitations - so was reduced to coming up with an over armoured machine-gun vehicle.

If the did away with the complexities of the turret mechanism, could you have a mix of something like a Valentine (with different variants for cruiser or infantry use), and an SPG - with perhaps an ex-naval 3" gun - options on Marder or Hetzer style.

How much difference, would such a combination make with the BEF 1940?
Click to expand...

Not much unfortunately - In terms of number of divisions and manpower the BEF was very much the junior partner. the 10 odd fighting Divisions of the BEF were not bad in terms of quality and fighting ability for the time but they could have been the 10 best divisions on the planet and France would still probably have fallen - mainly because they and the Best French Divisions were in the wrong place.

My 'darling' idea for this period is Britain simply making Valentines from 1938 - and Canada from 1940

Perhaps creating a TD variant giving it a 3" gun in a Wolverine like open turret might have worked - it might also have allowed a decent HE shell to be used as well.

Be useful if mixed in at Squadron level
 

riggerrob

Consider the Valentine Mark XI which mounted a 75 mm QF gun. The gun had the same external dimensions as the old British 6-pounder, but was bored out to fire American 75 mm ammunition, the same ammo as fired by most M-4 Sherman tanks.
If you want a Valentine for tank-killing, then consider the Valentine Archer with a British 17-pounder gun firing aft, over the engine compartment.

WI they also built an APC on a Valentine chassis? ... closely followed by Valentine chassis supply wagons ....
The next thing you would see are 25-pounder SP guns based on Valentine chassis. Recoil spades could compensate for the Valentine's light curb weight.
 
Dalekiller

Dalekiller

riggerrob said:
Consider the Valentine Mark XI which mounted a 75 mm QF gun. The gun had the same external dimensions as the old British 6-pounder, but was bored out to fire American 75 mm ammunition, the same ammo as fired by most M-4 Sherman tanks.
If you want a Valentine for tank-killing, then consider the Valentine Archer with a British 17-pounder gun firing aft, over the engine compartment.

WI they also built an APC on a Valentine chassis? ... closely followed by Valentine chassis supply wagons ....
The next thing you would see are 25-pounder SP guns based on Valentine chassis. Recoil spades could compensate for the Valentine's light curb weight.
Click to expand...
So your saying an Armored vehicle family with a common chassis, because thats one of the main contributions of the Valentine. It was available and used for experiments quite often.

Fact: The DD for D-Day was originally the Valentine.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
did this post awhile ago

A better Valentine.

A few PoDs. Sir John Carden doesn't die in that 1935 crash, but lives

Sir John was not impressed with the new A.12 Infantry Tank specification that the Royal Arsenal was working on in 1936, and knew he could do a tank with nearly the same armor, but better designed and more mobile, based on his A.10

Vickers has a tank in 1938 as a private Venture, and updated to be a combined Cruiser and Infantry tank, all in one chassis, a 'Heavy' Cruiser.

70mm armor basis on the front, 60mm sides and 25mph speed, back to what the A.9 had.

uses the W-12 Napier Lion, detuned to run on 70 Octane, still higher than the standard Pool Petrol rating of 63. It gets 400HP, and that engine is still in production for Marine uses, so has availability, and far more power than the AEC Comet 6 cylinder, even though the rear deck had to be slightly raised and angled differently to house it and the relocated fuel tanks. Also more reliable than the slightly older Liberty V-12

A Three-man turret was adapted from the A.10, so the Commander could do his job unimpeded, while the gunner and loader could deal with their job
of fighting the 2 pdr or 3" howitzer, while having much thicker armor. It used an electric motor for traverse, mount balanced for the gunner to quickly adjust elevation.

The completed tank is 21 tons. It is 1938, and in trials against the A.12 built by Vulcan is found to be nearly as good protection wise, but twice the speed, but 4 tons lighter. Best of all, Vickers could build cheaper than Vulcan, and in larger quantities, if needed. It was easier to build, with few complex castings.

Some downsides were that the tracks were unreliable, with a number of pins sheared in operation, and the drivers preferred the Wilson gearbox on the A.12. It was decided by Sir John to switch from the 5 speed Meadows to the preselector 6 speed Wilson, and improving the tracks

When War breaks out, Vickers has completed 110 Valentine tanks, while Vulcan has completed less than a dozen A.12. Vickers could make 10 a week, and Sir John was sure that production could be raised to over 40 per week, once some of his associated facilities had orders.

BTW, had a ring diameter of 1466mm , actually bigger than the T34/76 with 1420mm, so has room to grow to 6 pdr/QF75
 
1965 Timelord

1965 Timelord

UK AFV development carries on during Inter-war years.

My idea of an alternate PoD is that WWI doesn't end in November 11, 1918. The Central Powers' current leadership are replaced by war-mongering clique and the general citizenry are suppressed by unusual form of mind programming. The Allies have no choice but implement a modified Plan 1919 in the Spring of 1919. Therefore, AFV production of the Medium Mk. C, Mark VIII, Mark IX(APC), Renault FT, and the Char 2C continues. Then the Allied offensive continues and make slow progress due strong resistance and the war ends by January 1921. By later years, war production is stopped but winning powers couldn't slow AFV development because the war stock has to be replaced in the next decade and the war's end leaves an uneasy peace due to the questions of who supported the coups in the defunct Central Powers. So it would mean that nations will still have to do R&D and then sell off their war stock to allied or favourite developing nations to bolster their military inventories.;)

As to my response to marathag's post, J. Walther Christie stops being procrastinator of spending time on improving his chassis design and start acting like a business entrepreneur and selling his first design for a very reasonable price in 1922 and offer his improved version in the mid-30s or get a business partner who understand his eccentrics and get rich on his designs.:cool:
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
1965 Timelord said:
As to my response to marathag's post, J. Walther Christie stops being procrastinator of spending time on improving his chassis design and start acting like a business entrepreneur and selling his first design for a very reasonable price in 1922 and offer his improved version in the mid-30s or get a business partner who understand his eccentrics and get rich on his designs.:cool:
Click to expand...

His biggest problem was in being stuck on speed, and ignoring protection and armament.
Well, that, and an inability to realize that to sell to the military, he had to meet contract requirements. everything after the M1931 was his fantasy, not what any military wanted

The Army really didn't want(or need) a 70 mph light tank that only had dummy weapons fitted. Or one that flew.
 

yulzari

riggerrob said:
Consider the Valentine Mark XI which mounted a 75 mm QF gun. The gun had the same external dimensions as the old British 6-pounder, but was bored out to fire American 75 mm ammunition
Click to expand...

Pedantic trivia but the ROF 75mm was a new 75mm barrel on the 6 pounder base not rebored 6 pounders. So only fitted to new production which prioritised D Day thus the Italian front had to soldier on with their existing 6 pounders. Hence the local fitting of Sherman mantlets/75mm guns to Churchills in Italy.

Love the Valentine. Like the Whitley it wasn't the best at anything but was available at the beginning, easily made and could do the job. A sound workhorse but not cool.
 

Cryhavoc101

marathag said:
did this post awhile ago

A better Valentine.

A few PoDs. Sir John Carden doesn't die in that 1935 crash, but lives

Sir John was not impressed with the new A.12 Infantry Tank specification that the Royal Arsenal was working on in 1936, and knew he could do a tank with nearly the same armor, but better designed and more mobile, based on his A.10

Vickers has a tank in 1938 as a private Venture, and updated to be a combined Cruiser and Infantry tank, all in one chassis, a 'Heavy' Cruiser.

70mm armor basis on the front, 60mm sides and 25mph speed, back to what the A.9 had.

uses the W-12 Napier Lion, detuned to run on 70 Octane, still higher than the standard Pool Petrol rating of 63. It gets 400HP, and that engine is still in production for Marine uses, so has availability, and far more power than the AEC Comet 6 cylinder, even though the rear deck had to be slightly raised and angled differently to house it and the relocated fuel tanks. Also more reliable than the slightly older Liberty V-12

A Three-man turret was adapted from the A.10, so the Commander could do his job unimpeded, while the gunner and loader could deal with their job
of fighting the 2 pdr or 3" howitzer, while having much thicker armor. It used an electric motor for traverse, mount balanced for the gunner to quickly adjust elevation.

The completed tank is 21 tons. It is 1938, and in trials against the A.12 built by Vulcan is found to be nearly as good protection wise, but twice the speed, but 4 tons lighter. Best of all, Vickers could build cheaper than Vulcan, and in larger quantities, if needed. It was easier to build, with few complex castings.

Some downsides were that the tracks were unreliable, with a number of pins sheared in operation, and the drivers preferred the Wilson gearbox on the A.12. It was decided by Sir John to switch from the 5 speed Meadows to the preselector 6 speed Wilson, and improving the tracks

When War breaks out, Vickers has completed 110 Valentine tanks, while Vulcan has completed less than a dozen A.12. Vickers could make 10 a week, and Sir John was sure that production could be raised to over 40 per week, once some of his associated facilities had orders.

BTW, had a ring diameter of 1466mm , actually bigger than the T34/76 with 1420mm, so has room to grow to 6 pdr/QF75
Click to expand...

Good work

On your last point I recall reading that British tanks had the gun Mantle inside the turret - further reducing what could be fitted - POD this away and we could easily see a 3 man turreted Valentine with a 57mm in 1940
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Cryhavoc101 said:
Good work

On your last point I recall reading that British tanks had the gun Mantle inside the turret - further reducing what could be fitted - POD this away and we could easily see a 3 man turreted Valentine with a 57mm in 1940
Click to expand...

Right: that's how some Churchills were modified, big hole torched in the front, M4 external mantlet setup welded in, to get the M3 75mm gun fitted

Ik5V8T1lg64.jpg


This was different in one way from US practice, where it was desired that the guns trunnions were within the turret ring, to aid in balance of the turret.

The NA75, however was overhung, similar to the Soviet T-34. This gives maximum space inside the turret
 

merlin

It was to get around the problems with gun size, and the turret size to accommodate and how impractical that is said to be with the narrow gauge on British railways.
By having a SPG arrangement the turret ring size is not a problem - there isn't one, except a commander's cupola one with a Lewis Gun. There should be less production time involved. But they will obviously lose the operationally flexibility of not having a turret!
So while the initial model has a 3" gun, the follow up vehicle graduates up to a 3.7" gun, while the turret AFV (thanks for no pedantic comments on the header), grow from the 2-pdr, to the 6-pdr.
 

yulzari

Assault guns are always an attractive way of up gunning a chassis but the purpose of a tank is to support infantry. To do this they need the flexibility of a turret. Assault guns are tank killers not tanks. They can be self propelled anti tank guns to support infantry in defence but, curiously, they are far from ideal for everyday assault.

The 2 pounder was an excellent tank killer up into the end of 1942 but the British Army lacked viable AFV HE. The 3" CS was more a mortar then an HE gun. It was the need to close with the enemy with no effective HE that was a cause for British armour to revert to the cavalry default of the charge. Was there anything that could be done to upgrade the 3"CS as an HE support gun to take on the anti tank positions? Or some alternate HE gun.
 

Cryhavoc101

yulzari said:
Assault guns are always an attractive way of up gunning a chassis but the purpose of a tank is to support infantry. To do this they need the flexibility of a turret. Assault guns are tank killers not tanks. They can be self propelled anti tank guns to support infantry in defence but, curiously, they are far from ideal for everyday assault.

The 2 pounder was an excellent tank killer up into the end of 1942 but the British Army lacked viable AFV HE. The 3" CS was more a mortar then an HE gun. It was the need to close with the enemy with no effective HE that was a cause for British armour to revert to the cavalry default of the charge. Was there anything that could be done to upgrade the 3"CS as an HE support gun to take on the anti tank positions? Or some alternate HE gun.
Click to expand...

I dunno the stug did rather well?

I'm thinking that the M4 design despite its detractors was the way forwards - perhaps if a working HESH/HEP or HEAT shell was developed for the 75mm gun earlier then its possible that the M4 might have had a fighting chance vs the bigger cats!?
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Cryhavoc101 said:
I dunno the stug did rather well?

I'm thinking that the M4 design despite its detractors was the way forwards - perhaps if a working HESH/HEP or HEAT shell was developed for the 75mm gun earlier then its possible that the M4 might have had a fighting chance vs the bigger cats!?
Click to expand...

HVAP for the M3 75mm gun was tested, but not put into production.
Tungsten Carbide reserved for 76mm

It was the T45, which was fired at 2854 fps (76mm M93 HVAP=3412fps, M72=2030fps) vs homogenous armour at 30 degrees


Range T45 [75mm M72 AP] {76mm M79AP}
500 yards: 117mm [76mm] {109mm}
1000 yards: 97mm [63mm] {92mm}
1500 yards: 79mm [51mm] {76mm}
2000 yards: 64mm [43mm] {64mm}

So, that T45 HVAP makes the M3 75mm gun the equal of the 76mmA1 firing regular AP rounds

The 75mm howitzer had a HEAT projectile, the M66, that was credited with 100-115mm penetration.

This could have been adapted, but wasn't
 

NOMISYRRUC

marathag said:
uses the W-12 Napier Lion, detuned to run on 70 Octane, still higher than the standard Pool Petrol rating of 63. It gets 400HP, and that engine is still in production for Marine uses, so has availability, and far more power than the AEC Comet 6 cylinder, even though the rear deck had to be slightly raised and angled differently to house it and the relocated fuel tanks. Also more reliable than the slightly older Liberty V-12.
Click to expand...

According to Liddell Hart in Volume 2 of The Tanks the Army had the opportunity to buy the RAF's entire stock of Lion aircraft engines at their scrap value, but I can't remember why it didn't happen.

Theoretically the Merlin aero engine could be developed into the Meteor and Meteorite about 5 years earlier. I think it could be at least ready in time to replace the Liberty on the A13, A15, A24 and A27L cruiser tanks.
 
Last edited:

NOMISYRRUC

Unfortunately this comes under the "spend more money" between 1919 and 1934-ish category.

I don't have the figures for the first half of the 1920s because the Army Estimates were presented in a different way. However, for the 10 financial years from 1925-26 to 1934-35 the Gross Estimate for Vote 9 (Warlike Stores) totalled £31,387,000 for an average of £3.1 million a year.

Of that £4,424,900 for an (average of £442,500 a year) was spent on Mechanical Transport vehicles (Tracked and Half-Tracked). However, it included spending on, "other mobile machines on continuous or half-tracks, e.g. artillery dragons, tracked infantry transport and self-propelled mountings for artillery," as well as tanks.

An A6 Medium Tank Mk III cost £16,000 and IIRC an A4 Light Tank cost £400 or put another way 40 light tanks could be built for the price of one medium tank. That explains why only six A6 tanks (including the prototypes) were built compared to the scores of A4 tanks that were built in the early 1930s.

IIRC the A9 and A10 tanks were known as "Woolworth Tanks" because they were designed to cost £8,000 each. If medium tanks of the same price had been available in the early 1930s it's probable that only 12 would have been built.

Vote 9 also included the, "Establishments for Research, Experiment and Design" and the total Gross Estimate for them over the 10 years was £6,718,000 for an average of £672,000 a year and only a fraction of that went to the establishments that were working on tanks and AFVs.

However, in 1937-38 the Gross Vote 9 was £30,326,000 of which £943,000 was for the Research Establishments and £3,626,000 was for tracked and half-tracked MT vehicles.
 

riggerrob

Rolls Royce Merlin engines may have had a great power to weight ratio, but they were short-lived and maintenance-intensive. Consider that Merlin's were designed with quick-removable engine cowlings .... vastly different than mucking about deep in a tank hull.
After WW2, Canadair built a batch of DC-4 airliners with Merlin engines. They were expensive to maintain. All the other piston-pounding airliners used radial engines. Even Canadair's last piston-pounder - the CL-215 water bomber - used radial engines because they were inexpensive to buy and easy to maintain.

Consider the Merlin engines installed in Centurion tanks. Centurions were produced from 1945 to about 1960. Try changing 24 spark plugs with a complex, 3-piece ratchet wrench. By the mid-1960s, high-time Centurions were being re-engined with diesels to reduce maintenance and fuel consumption.
 

astor88

The Royal Artillery

One big problem will be convincing the RA gunners that a SPG is worth it. As they will see that one SPG equals the cost of 6 25lber's. It only changed because of manpower shortages. To many going to air defence units.. regards
 

NOMISYRRUC

riggerrob said:
Rolls Royce Merlin engines may have had a great power to weight ratio, but they were short-lived and maintenance-intensive. Consider that Merlin's were designed with quick-removable engine cowlings .... vastly different than mucking about deep in a tank hull.
After WW2, Canadair built a batch of DC-4 airliners with Merlin engines. They were expensive to maintain. All the other piston-pounding airliners used radial engines. Even Canadair's last piston-pounder - the CL-215 water bomber - used radial engines because they were inexpensive to buy and easy to maintain.

Consider the Merlin engines installed in Centurion tanks. Centurions were produced from 1945 to about 1960. Try changing 24 spark plugs with a complex, 3-piece ratchet wrench. By the mid-1960s, high-time Centurions were being re-engined with diesels to reduce maintenance and fuel consumption.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but in terms of durability, maintenance intensiveness, ease of maintenance and fuel consumption was it any worse or any better than the Liberty?

Napier was working on a series of diesel powered aero engines, which had to be abandoned when WWII broke out. However, towards the end of the war they resumed work and it eventually lead to the Deltic.

I am working on a timeline where Rolls Royce takes over Napier in about 1930 which butterflies away Napier's family of sleeve valve engines. Some of the Napier engineers are absorbed by the RR design department where they are used to accelerate the development of the Merlin and Griffon.

However, the rest are left to concentrate on its diesel engines and one of the results is that the Sea Culverin and Sea Cutlass are used by the RAF and RN for their rescue launches and fast attack craft. It also means that the Delitc is begun earlier and takes less time to develop.

Could the Culverin and Cutlass have been adapted as tank engines? If so could it have been done in time for them to be built in place of the Liberty, Meteor and Meteorite? And if both of those were possible would they have been better than the Liberty, Meteor and Meteorite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top