EAF no longer Experimental

[Astrodragon]

http://beleben.files.wordpress.com/...2004-2005-gauge-clearance-indicative-only.png

While this is for 2004-2005, gauge clearance is rarely reduced.

http://www.railway-technical.com/UIC-Loading-Gauges.gif
key
http://beleben.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/network-rail-loading-gauges.png?w=499&h=491

1930s
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/gansg/2-track/02track3.htm

on the GWR broad gauge lines some main line coaches were built that were about ten feet wide.

It's a shame we cant ship the tanks on their sides...

 

[pedmore1202]

It's a shame we cant ship the tanks on their sides...

Agreed. It would be so much simpler. However, I get the feeling that the people who do that won't be very popular with the government/army.


Right, I was thinking last night, and came up with a small list of ideas/thoughts/questions regarding this that I want to run past you guys.

• When were the tanks/vehicles transferred from manufacturer's control to the government/army?

At the factory? Elsewhere?

• Who was responsible for shipping the tanks by rail from the factory to their new bases/training areas etc

The manufacturer? Government? Army?

• Does loading gauge vary according to the line?

Can tanks be shipped on certain lines only, thus increasing the loading gauge?

• Could they be sent by road instead of rail?
• What about by sea?
• Maybe a combination of transport, such as:

Sea - main transport from the factory
Road/rail - secondary transport, from docks/ports to training areas/storage facilities/military bases?



The first 2 are the major points that need to be addressed. If its the government taking control of the tanks at the factory and shipping them elsewhere, I don't think we'll see a major change in policy before ww2. However, if its the factory themselves that's shipping the tanks to another location, I could see that being altered if a bright spark there thinks about it

 

[Incognitia]

• Does loading gauge vary according to the line?

Can tanks be shipped on certain lines only, thus increasing the loading gauge?

Yes. If you want to look into a specific line, you'll need access to the NESA (National Electronic Sectional Appendix). That's modern data, obviously, but would give you a guideline.

 

[pedmore1202]

Yes. If you want to look into a specific line, you'll need access to the NESA (National Electronic Sectional Appendix). That's modern data, obviously, but would give you a guideline.

Yeah, there's the data on page 3 from perfectgeneral which gives a very good indication of loading gauges, so I need to have a proper look at that pretty soon.

 

[Simon]

One thing I thought of last night, (typically just after I'd shut down my computer) was do the tanks currently need to be HE capable? I can understand needing it during WW2, but at this point in time, they don't need it as they can rely on the artillery to provide it.

As I said previously it would certainly help cover the gap left by the 2-pounder not having a high-explosive shell issued, and would neatly sidestep a possible row with the Royal Artillery. The two main problems that I can see are going to be coordination and sods law that at some point in the future when you need them there won't be any free as they're elsewhere supporting another part of the Force leaving you stuck with just tanks. A reasonable progression is likely to be self-propelled guns covering the chucking of high-explosives in the first generation or two of the vehicles and then thanks to feedback from training exercises they introduce a proper high-explosive shell for the tanks as well. Granted the 2-pounder version won't be great but it will be an improvement over nothing.

Looking at the spin off TL in ASB, the suggestion is that the east coast mainline could cope with a width of 3.1m. Although the idea of limiting tanks to the loading gauge of domestic railways seems odd. First thing you do is ship them abroad to where the fighting is. There may not even be a railway when you get there.

It's not just getting from the UK to somewhere else though, you also have to consider the best way to move them around the UK itself. Think about moving them around for things like the annual large divisional exercises in places like Salisbury Plain.

Driving the tanks onto ships (tank ferries) straight from the factory jetty makes more sense. Some sort of tank port near Bovington to allow manoeuvres? Tank jetty at the Tyne and Wear Elswick Works? Some sort of tank landing craft to land them on beaches abroad, where/if no port might be available.

That's great for in a war, but how many coastal army bases are there that house armoured units? They're usually well inland for the very good reason that they need large amounts of open land to exercise on. I'm also not sure where all the tank factories were, IIRC a number of them were in the Midlands.

You can then see what routes there are that are wider than the base gauge, and designate these as "Tank Gauge". Design your new tank to fit that larger size, accepting restricted rail network coverage.

It's certainly a possibility, but if you limit yourself too heavily to just certain lines what happens if the Germans manage to knock out a bridge or tunnel along it via bombing? Then you're kind of buggered. So look at the possibility but don't restrict yourself too much I'd say.

 

[Mike D]

That's great for in a war, but how many coastal army bases are there that house armoured units? They're usually well inland for the very good reason that they need large amounts of open land to exercise on. I'm also not sure where all the tank factories were, IIRC a number of them were in the Midlands.

Outside of Salisbury Plain there's not many exercise areas I've ever been on that could be used for useful armoured exercises of any kind. Even the Plain's not really that big.

Would a prewar BATUS/BATUK type set up with a Div's worth of vehicles parked in Canada or the Middle East somewhere while troops take it turns to play with them be feasible?

 

[Simon]

Well there was always Egypt but that wouldn't really prepare you very well for North-Western Europe as part of a continental expeditionary force so an early BATUS could indeed be an idea. Conversely once Italy started messing about in Abyssinia in the mid-1930s it was often thought that the Middle East/East Africa would be where things were most likely to kick off. The two main problems I could see for BATUS are the costs, whilst only a battlegroup things were pretty tight with the defence budget, and travel time since IIRC it could take anywhere from a week to a fortnight to cross the Atlantic and then you've got the rail journey ahead of you to Sheffield.

One progression that I thought about was start off with the Experimental Armoured Force becoming the Mobile Division and spending a couple of years working the bugs out of things, developing tactics and strategy and generally beating the crap out of the non-mechanised units in the yearly manoeuvres. Seeing how much of an advantage it has and needing a comparable force to be able to train against they create a second division with the Mobile Division being renamed 1st Armoured Division and the newly raised one 7th Armoured Division. Fast forward a few years and when Italy invades Abyssinia the government decides they need to increase their presence in Egypt so 7th Armoured Division is shipped out there, 1st Armoured Division stays in the UK based in the south-east to deal with anything regarding Europe and in 1936 or 1937 with things having gone so well so far they decide to raise a third mobile force as 2nd Armoured Division and base it in say the North-East or Yorkshire region.

 

[Mike D]

Well there was always Egypt but that wouldn't really prepare you very well for North-Western Europe as part of a continental expeditionary force so an early BATUS could indeed be an idea. Conversely once Italy started messing about in Abyssinia in the mid-1930s it was often thought that the Middle East/East Africa would be where things were most likely to kick off. The two main problems I could see for BATUS are the costs, whilst only a battlegroup things were pretty tight with the defence budget, and travel time since IIRC it could take anywhere from a week to a fortnight to cross the Atlantic and then you've got the rail journey ahead of you to Sheffield.

The travel time was the main downfall I could see. I wasn't sure on whether air travel between UK and Canada for an entire bde/div was realistic in the 30s.

1st Armoured Division stays in the UK based in the south-east to deal with anything regarding Europe and in 1936 or 1937 with things having gone so well so far they decide to raise a third mobile force as 2nd Armoured Division and base it in say the North-East or Yorkshire region.

Aldershot and Catterick then? Lucky, lucky people!

 

[Simon]

Well if they can't take a joke they shouldn't have joined.

 

[pedmore1202]

Well there was always Egypt but that wouldn't really prepare you very well for North-Western Europe as part of a continental expeditionary force so an early BATUS could indeed be an idea. Conversely once Italy started messing about in Abyssinia in the mid-1930s it was often thought that the Middle East/East Africa would be where things were most likely to kick off. The two main problems I could see for BATUS are the costs, whilst only a battlegroup things were pretty tight with the defence budget, and travel time since IIRC it could take anywhere from a week to a fortnight to cross the Atlantic and then you've got the rail journey ahead of you to Sheffield.

One progression that I thought about was start off with the Experimental Armoured Force becoming the Mobile Division and spending a couple of years working the bugs out of things, developing tactics and strategy and generally beating the crap out of the non-mechanised units in the yearly manoeuvres. Seeing how much of an advantage it has and needing a comparable force to be able to train against they create a second division with the Mobile Division being renamed 1st Armoured Division and the newly raised one 7th Armoured Division. Fast forward a few years and when Italy invades Abyssinia the government decides they need to increase their presence in Egypt so 7th Armoured Division is shipped out there, 1st Armoured Division stays in the UK based in the south-east to deal with anything regarding Europe and in 1936 or 1937 with things having gone so well so far they decide to raise a third mobile force as 2nd Armoured Division and base it in say the North-East or Yorkshire region.

My plan is to have the EAF become the EAD (with increases), and to then become 1AD once it is confirmed as permanent, as atm, its only temporary. 2AD (or 7AD. Why have 7AD come before 2nd AD?) would then be created in 33/34, and possibly a third division by 37/38 in response to the Abyssinia crisis, which is based in Britain while 1 of the first 2 are sent out to the Middle East. They then stay out there, training and acting as a deterrent in case Italy gets belligerent.

 

[pedmore1202]

Actually. Just had a thought. We've been so fixated on tanks, that we've completely ignored one area and glossed over the other areas that the EAF incorporated.

The ignored area is the air support. The EAF included 3 squadrons from the RAF ( No. 16 [Army cooperation] Squadron, No. 3 [Fighter] Squadron and No. 11 [Bombing] Squadron).

What impact would the continued development of the EAF have on the RAF, in terms of army cooperation and aircraft design? Could we see the RAF taking more of an interest in Dive Bombing as a means of supporting the EAF, with the knock on effect of RAF and FAA dive bombers being available earlier than in OTL and far more used than in OTL?

 

[mudhead]

Simon

I'm also not sure where all the tank factories were, IIRC a number of them were in the Midlands

The Matilda II was made in Warrington, at a place called Vulcan - I think they were the only place that could do the castings at whatever the price was.

 

[Mike D]

What impact would the continued development of the EAF have on the RAF, in terms of army cooperation and aircraft design? Could we see the RAF taking more of an interest in Dive Bombing as a means of supporting the EAF, with the knock on effect of RAF and FAA dive bombers being available earlier than in OTL and far more used than in OTL?

I suppose it would depend what kind of exercises/experiments the RAF did with their CAS squadrons before the war. From what I've read most prewar RAF training doesn't seem to have been the most realistic so there's a chance they would have gone in 'ignorant bliss' until they tried attacking Panzer columns in 1940 (presuming the war starts as it did in real life).

 

[KillerT]

The big tank plants were Vickers Elswick on the Tyne, Barnbow near Leeds, loads of my schoolmates dads worked there and one of them would regularly bring prototype models across for the lad to play with. I can remember seeing models of interesting looking Chieftans (Shir Iran 2 aka Challenger), loads of different Foxes etc etc. Wartime, other tank plants included the Vauxhall works, Leylands, assorted tractor, railway loco and other works. (Vauxhall making the Churchill).

 

[Simon]

Actually. Just had a thought. We've been so fixated on tanks, that we've completely ignored one area and glossed over the other areas that the EAF incorporated.

The ignored area is the air support. The EAF included 3 squadrons from the RAF ( No. 16 [Army cooperation] Squadron, No. 3 [Fighter] Squadron and No. 11 [Bombing] Squadron).

What impact would the continued development of the EAF have on the RAF, in terms of army cooperation and aircraft design? Could we see the RAF taking more of an interest in Dive Bombing as a means of supporting the EAF, with the knock on effect of RAF and FAA dive bombers being available earlier than in OTL and far more used than in OTL?

You certainly might see more light/tactical bombers, not sure whether about dive bombers though. IIRC the RAF was initially put off them by the high casualty rates suffered during the Great War and further tests in the interwar period that suggested they would still be too vulnerable. As well as light bombers though you could well see the earlier introduction of 20mm cannon armed aircraft since that would give better performance against ground targets, also perhaps earlier investigation of larger guns like the Vickers 'S' class or similar for a proper ground attack 'tank buster' type aircraft. In an ideal world we would see the earlier introduction of the Hawker Hurricane and then follow-on aircraft like the Typhoon and Tempest that seem to have provided good service as fighter-bombers.

Another bonus of continued close cooperation between the Army and RAF is that Trafford Leigh-Mallory was apparently one of if not the leading figure with regards to army cooperation, what close air support was known as at the time, and working with mechanised forces. Getting him out of the way and doing something productive rather than being in charge of 12 Group could hopefully avoid the whole 'Big Wing' controversy.

 

[astor88]

h.e. vs ap

Couldn't there be two factions one pushing a pure tank force with an AP shell vs a HE shell for troop support. Getting a compromise of 1 in 4 which has a 3lber while the rest have 2lber. Artillery could be helped with a self propelled guns and control of all AA guns which it has very little of. The airforce could forge a new group called Tactical Air Command specializing in army support. All this comes from keeping the AEF as it demonstrates in regular training operations the values of HE, Air Support and close artillery assault support. The Airforce could develop this TAC through continued use and political clout could force an alternative faction to bomber one. Artillery is short of money, If a self propelled gun is developed using the 18lber. It could help free up resources for the development of the 25lber and get a start on a maybe 3lber AA gun aswell. just my 2cents worth, Happy New Year

 

[b0ned0me]

Simply from a technological standpoint there were the Scammell Pioneer tank transporters from the late 1920s so if you can get them to decide on road transport that should be able to handle your early tanks, then over the 30s you'd see improved models or an earlier introduction of a vehicle like the Diamond T tank transporter. It would be convincing people to move away from the railway that would be the trick

Bear in mind that for 10foot/3metres even today you need to give the police two working days notice and follow the other 'wide load' rules. Hauling tanks around on the 1930s road network might not gain you that much. The Scammel Pioneer was a monster vehicle of its day and was 8'6" wide (2.6m)

I wasn't sure on whether air travel between UK and Canada for an entire bde/div was realistic in the 30s.

Seems implausible. The state of the art by the end of the thirties was along the lines of:

In 1937 Caledonia was flown experimentally from Foynes on the River Shannon west to Newfoundland while an American Sikorsky S-42 flew the opposite direction. Caledonia took just over 15 hours (including a period looking for landing spot) flying at an altitude of 1,500 to 5,000 ft (460 to 1,500 m) to cover 1,993 miles (3,207 km) - an average speed of about 130 mph (210 km/h).

Things would go better if for some reason you got permission to stage military flights via iceland but even then you'd struggle to move max 40-50 people per flight with no equipment, and each transit would be what, maybe 18 hours flying time, plus the stopover. So you can work out how long it would take to move all the personnel given, say, 50 planes (which would be more than the entire long-haul civil fleet of the UK at the beginning of the war). Faster to stick them on a fast ship. Earlier in the thirties, you can forget about it completely. Things like the Short-Mayo composite aircraft were seen as a plausible approach to the near-insurmountable technical challenge of flying 1000lb of airmail non-stop from the UK to the US. Two planes, two flight crew, 8 engines, lord knows how much RD to fly the equivalent weight of six or seven people's weight in mail bags.

 

[Mike D]

each transit would be what, maybe 18 hours flying time, plus the stopover.

So much quicker than the RAF today could do it (if you factor in the four days hanging round Brize waiting for them to finish winding up the plane)?

 

[Sior]

As I said previously it would certainly help cover the gap left by the 2-pounder not having a high-explosive shell issued, and would neatly sidestep a possible row with the Royal Artillery. The two main problems that I can see are going to be coordination and sods law that at some point in the future when you need them there won't be any free as they're elsewhere supporting another part of the Force leaving you stuck with just tanks. A reasonable progression is likely to be self-propelled guns covering the chucking of high-explosives in the first generation or two of the vehicles and then thanks to feedback from training exercises they introduce a proper high-explosive shell for the tanks as well. Granted the 2-pounder version won't be great but it will be an improvement over nothing.



It's not just getting from the UK to somewhere else though, you also have to consider the best way to move them around the UK itself. Think about moving them around for things like the annual large divisional exercises in places like Salisbury Plain.



That's great for in a war, but how many coastal army bases are there that house armoured units? They're usually well inland for the very good reason that they need large amounts of open land to exercise on. I'm also not sure where all the tank factories were, IIRC a number of them were in the Midlands.



It's certainly a possibility, but if you limit yourself too heavily to just certain lines what happens if the Germans manage to knock out a bridge or tunnel along it via bombing? Then you're kind of buggered. So look at the possibility but don't restrict yourself too much I'd say.

IOTL late in the war they mated 40mm Bofor's HE to 2pdr shells successfully!

 

[Simon]

IOTL late in the war they mated 40mm Bofor's HE to 2pdr shells successfully!

Makes sense since the 2-pounder shell was 40mm in diameter, although obviously you can't just go whacking regular Bofors shells straight in. I think I remember someone on the boards suggesting at one time or another the British looking at using Bofors shells to help simplify the logistics of things.