Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

[MattII]

Why would you need a 17 pdr tank to fight the Japanese? How many Japaneses tanks do you want to kill with one shot? Anything more than the QF 75 mm is overkill
Basically the Sentinel used the M3 lower hull in any case - you need an engine license and M3 engine was licensed to Spain and Portugal.

Well the original was built with a 2-pounder, the 17-pounder was a later development. As for engines, Spain and Portugal? Really? How would Australia get engines from them?

In 1940, the Australian Govt decided they need tanks. After all the Blitzkrieg had shown that an army without tanks was in danger of being defeated. So where do you get tanks? Not from the UK, they need all they can produce for their own forces. From the USA? They were still thinking Isolationism and besides they had their own forces to equip. And the best they can come up with was the M2 as the M3 was still on the drawing boards. So the obvious answer is produce them yourselves.
The problem then becomes the power plant and by the time the Australians had decided on the power plant, the USA had decided that that particular power plant was needed by the US forces.
Hence some delay while people went back to the drawing board.
There is no doubt that the Australians, starting in late 1940 had a good view of what was needed in modern tank warfare. Their problem was getting the right components off the shelf to assemble a workable tank. It was hardly a vanity project.

They also had to come up with their own armour metallurgy, as they didn't have access to nickel.

against the IJA the 2lb is a perfectly capable weapon, the 75 on the Grant/Sherman was gross overkill, a 17lb would be obscene unless the IJA tanks were kind enough to line up behind one another to get multiple penetrations of multiple vehicles

The 75 has a good HE round though, good for more than just tanks!

 

[Derek Pullem]

In 1940, the Australian Govt decided they need tanks. After all the Blitzkrieg had shown that an army without tanks was in danger of being defeated. So where do you get tanks? Not from the UK, they need all they can produce for their own forces. From the USA? They were still thinking Isolationism and besides they had their own forces to equip. And the best they can come up with was the M2 as the M3 was still on the drawing boards. So the obvious answer is produce them yourselves.
The problem then becomes the power plant and by the time the Australians had decided on the power plant, the USA had decided that that particular power plant was needed by the US forces.
Hence some delay while people went back to the drawing board.
There is no doubt that the Australians, starting in late 1940 had a good view of what was needed in modern tank warfare. Their problem was getting the right components off the shelf to assemble a workable tank. It was hardly a vanity project.

The point is that Australia decided that they needed tanks but nine months into the procurement process (March 1941) the British are buying American Stuart, Lees and Grants. At that point the Sentinel program has no purpose. Running it until 1943 and producing 60 odd tanks never to be used even for training was a waste of resources.

The 17 pdr Sentinel III was a tank in search of a battlefield.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Well the original was built with a 2-pounder, the 17-pounder was a later development. As for engines, Spain and Portugal? Really? How would Australia get engines from them?


They also had to come up with their own armour metallurgy, as they didn't have access to nickel.


The 75 has a good HE round though, good for more than just tanks!

The point about the licensed production was not to buy engines from Spain and Portugal but to license an engine plant in Australia!

Just as they did witht he Wasp aeroengine

 

[Rickshaw]

Do you need a 17 pdr armed tank to fight the Japanese - no.
So would you build your tanks on the other side of the world to fight the Germans - no. It's like Germany concentrating Tiger production in northern Norway.
The Sentinel was a vanity project with no real purpose other than to demonstrate some Australian companies were doing their bit (with public funds).
If the Australians had set up an M4 line (or even M3) like the Canadians it would have been much more useful.

It wasn't and isn't a big enough market for most defence materiale' Tanks were not a "vanity" project, they were a necessity and the UK was not in a position to provide them to Australia. The US wasn't a combatant when Sentinel was started. There were no other providers of tanks. Therefore it was necessity that drove them. M4 was a pipedream. The M3 was as well. When M3s arrived they were more than adequate but that wasn't until late 1942 early 1943.

At least Australian aircraft production eventually produced an aircraft they could use (Beaufighter).

All the others were more than adequate. The Beaufort was a excellent torpedo bomber.

 

[Rickshaw]

Why would you need a 17 pdr tank to fight the Japanese? How many Japaneses tanks do you want to kill with one shot? Anything more than the QF 75 mm is overkill
Basically the Sentinel used the M3 lower hull in any case - you need an engine license and M3 engine was licensed to Spain and Portugal.

No it didn't. I don't know where you are getting your information from but the M3 had little to do with the Sentinel.

 

[Rickshaw]

against the IJA the 2lb is a perfectly capable weapon, the 75 on the Grant/Sherman was gross overkill, a 17lb would be obscene unless the IJA tanks were kind enough to line up behind one another to get multiple penetrations of multiple vehicles

The 17Pdr wasn't intended for the Japanese. It was intended for the Germans. The Sentinel was intended to take on the best in the world at that time - the Panzer IV/Panther/Tiger.

 

[astor88]

O

The 17Pdr wasn't intended for the Japanese. It was intended for the Germans. The Sentinel was intended to take on the best in the world at that time - the Panzer IV/Panther/Tiger.

why? The japs were the enemy now. They didn’t need a 17lber for the japanese. The mark 3 was pure vanity.

 

[Rickshaw]

O

why? The japs were the enemy now. They didn’t need a 17lber for the japanese. The mark 3 was pure vanity.

It was the Mark IV actually. Yes, it was a bit of "vanity" but remember, Germany was the big enemy. Australians were fighting them in North Africa, perhaps they were going to continue into Italy. 17Pdrs were the future of tank armament. The Sentinel was intended to fight over there, against the Germans. The Japanese were a minor inconvenience nothing more.

 

[Derek Pullem]

No it didn't. I don't know where you are getting your information from but the M3 had little to do with the Sentinel.

Australian sentinel

Discusses design process.
Admittedly this link would undermine my idea of licensed built M3 as it says Australia could produced the rolled plate in sufficient quantities.

So really the conclusion is that the Sentinel was still a waste of time and money and it would have been better to concentrate on getting access to M3 Stuarts (which were available in late 1941) and later Grant and Lees directly from the US. If Australians were going to go up against the germans they would be doing it in US or possibly UK tanks.

 

[pjmidd]

The 17Pdr wasn't intended for the Japanese. It was intended for the Germans. The Sentinel was intended to take on the best in the world at that time - the Panzer IV/Panther/Tiger.

The German tanks were the enemy , they were not by any stretch the best in the world. The Tiger was too heavy and maintenance intensive , Panthers were, most of the time, even worse in terms of reliability and the Panzer IV was only adequate. The Russian tanks matched the Germans as vehicles, Germans won on organization, tactics and crew quality ( as well as build quality for the main part of the war).

 

[Rickshaw]

Australian sentinel

Discusses design process.
Admittedly this link would undermine my idea of licensed built M3 as it says Australia could produced the rolled plate in sufficient quantities.

So really the conclusion is that the Sentinel was still a waste of time and money and it would have been better to concentrate on getting access to M3 Stuarts (which were available in late 1941) and later Grant and Lees directly from the US. If Australians were going to go up against the germans they would be doing it in US or possibly UK tanks.

Without a doubt. The main reason why the Sentinel wasn't a goer was because of the distance to the proposed battlefields - North Africa. There would have been little chance of resupply of sufficient spareparts if the Sentinel had become the main tank for the Australian forces in North Africa. It was simply too far and well, just too difficult to get the spare parts. Much easier to source them from the US or the UK. The Sentinel wasn't though a "waste of time". You appear to keep missing the point - there weren't any other tanks available when the Sentinel was first designed. There were no M3 Stuarts, no M3 Grants/Lees, M4 Shermans, no Valentines, no Matildas, no Valiants. They were all reserved for the UK or the US forces. Anyway, the M3 Stuart was a waste of time in the Pacific. It was too small and too light. It failed dismally at Buna and it failed dismally at Guadacanal.

 

[Rickshaw]

The German tanks were the enemy , they were not by any stretch the best in the world. The Tiger was too heavy and maintenance intensive , Panthers were, most of the time, even worse in terms of reliability and the Panzer IV was only adequate. The Russian tanks matched the Germans as vehicles, Germans won on organization, tactics and crew quality ( as well as build quality for the main part of the war).

Try telling that to the people who faced them. Yes, the Tiger was too heavy, yes the Panther was. However they were used.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Without a doubt. The main reason why the Sentinel wasn't a goer was because of the distance to the proposed battlefields - North Africa. There would have been little chance of resupply of sufficient spareparts if the Sentinel had become the main tank for the Australian forces in North Africa. It was simply too far and well, just too difficult to get the spare parts. Much easier to source them from the US or the UK. The Sentinel wasn't though a "waste of time". You appear to keep missing the point - there weren't any other tanks available when the Sentinel was first designed. There were no M3 Stuarts, no M3 Grants/Lees, M4 Shermans, no Valentines, no Matildas, no Valiants. They were all reserved for the UK or the US forces. Anyway, the M3 Stuart was a waste of time in the Pacific. It was too small and too light. It failed dismally at Buna and it failed dismally at Guadacanal.

With respect I would argue it is you who is missing the point. The Sentinel tank program was arguably justifiable until the Lend Lease Act was signed into law (March 1941). Beyond that date it was not credible that Australia could design and supply tanks faster and cheaper than the Americans. And commonality of spares etc would, as you point out, argue for a common tank with the British. Even if that tank was American

By the time Australia was at war with Japan, the Sentinel program was still not really any closer to delivering a tank. In fact production of the first batch of 65 was only sanctioned at about the same time as the Grant was arriving in Australia. By the time they were delivered the idea of an australian armoured division facing the Germans in Europe had been effectively dropped and 1st Armoured itself was removed as a unit from the second half of 1943

If the "scare" was the risk of a Japanese invasion in early 1942 then Stuarts would more than capable of facing off against the invasion forces who would almost entirely lack tanks. Unless the Japanese could bring their bunkers and emplaced AA guns with them then the mediocre performance of the Stuart light tanks trying to attack bunkers with a limited approach at Buna would be unlikely to be repeated. By late 42 the Grants are arriving and they are more than enough tank even to take on these positions.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Dragging this back on topic - if the Valiant is seen as the "good enough" tank, as opposed to the Grant or Lee then this will free up capacity for Australia to take on the American tanks early. Alternatively they could end up with surplus Matilda I pom-poms which would give the Japanese a nasty shock in 1942 as they will struggle to knock them out with their pretty feeble anti-tank weaponry.

 

[Rickshaw]

With respect I would argue it is you who is missing the point. The Sentinel tank program was arguably justifiable until the Lend Lease Act was signed into law (March 1941). Beyond that date it was not credible that Australia could design and supply tanks faster and cheaper than the Americans. And commonality of spares etc would, as you point out, argue for a common tank with the British. Even if that tank was American

By the time Australia was at war with Japan, the Sentinel program was still not really any closer to delivering a tank. In fact production of the first batch of 65 was only sanctioned at about the same time as the Grant was arriving in Australia. By the time they were delivered the idea of an australian armoured division facing the Germans in Europe had been effectively dropped and 1st Armoured itself was removed as a unit from the second half of 1943

If the "scare" was the risk of a Japanese invasion in early 1942 then Stuarts would more than capable of facing off against the invasion forces who would almost entirely lack tanks. Unless the Japanese could bring their bunkers and emplaced AA guns with them then the mediocre performance of the Stuart light tanks trying to attack bunkers with a limited approach at Buna would be unlikely to be repeated. By late 42 the Grants are arriving and they are more than enough tank even to take on these positions.

Australia was a creditor for the Lend Lease Programme. It fed most of Asia and a large slice of Europe after the war ended. America owed it money. America was until 1943 heavily dependent on Australia to supply forces to fight the Japanese in South West Pacific. Without Australian forces the first major defeat of the Japanese on land - at Milne Bay - would not have occurred. The Sentinel was until 1943 the main source of tanks for the Australian Army.

The Japanese had bitten off far more than they could chew even contemplating invading Australia. Australia was simply too far from the Japanese bases and the Japanese were spread too thin to consider such an operation. Australia's main population and industrial heartland is in the SE corner of our continent. The Japanese would be faced with a choice - invade either the "Top End" where the distances from the Netherland East Indies was short but there were little population or industry and it was a long way to the capital of the nation or the could sail around the continent and attack the SE corner directly. If they invade the "Top End", they have to advance across an arid continent to reach Canberra. If they attack the SE corner directly, their ships will be subject to naval interdiction. The Imperial Japanese Army wasn't sure that the Imperial Japanese Navy wasn't suffering from "victory disease", They doubted that they had sufficient ships to actually conduct an invasion let alone maintain it.

The M3 Stuart was a small vehicle. It failed at Buna. It failed at Guadacanal. It's was too light to work well in Jungle warfare. It often became "bellied" on tree trunks. The Japanese didn't need AA guns. They had soldiers. Soldiers who were willing to sit in firepits with large calibre shells. They could destroy tanks easily.

The Sentinel was the only tank that Australia could obtain in 1942. There were no M3 Stuarts, no M3 Grant/Lees, no M4 Shermans. The M3 Lee/Grant were the tanks needed in North Africa. No one was willing to send them to Australia. No one. We were on our own.

 

[Derek Pullem]

The Sentinel was the only tank that Australia could obtain in 1942. There were no M3 Stuarts, no M3 Grant/Lees, no M4 Shermans. The M3 Lee/Grant were the tanks needed in North Africa. No one was willing to send them to Australia. No one. We were on our own.

They (65 Sentinel I) arrived in June 1943. The first unit was delivered for testing in August 1942. Australia could not "obtain" the Sentinel in 1942. If this timeline shows anything it's the time a tank design takes from drawing board to production. And that's with companies already familiar with tank construction and design.
1st Armoured brigade received tanks (Grants and Stuarts) in the first half of 1942 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Armoured_Brigade_(Australia) otherwise how could they have been deployed to Buna in October 1942????

 

[marathag]

Soldiers who were willing to sit in firepits with large calibre shells. They could destroy tanks easily.

Any size tank, from M2A4 light to the T26 Pershing, had similar belly armor. The first US Series that were more mine resistant, were the Pattons, with their more curved boat like lower hull. It was unintentionallythat way, they were cast that way for economics, not mine protection, after the US finally ditched the bow gunner

 

[allanpcameron]

Again with the pages and pages of comments! Sheesh! You all have a fascinating breadth of interests. Thanks again for all the suggestions and ideas but I don't see myself dealing with small arms or Australian tanks or much more beyond providing the British army with an improvement in Vickers designed tanks.
Specifically:

A few questions from the last post.
With the Valiant showing it can take the 6pdr already that is likely to get the idea of 6pdr tanks into the minds of the MoS/Army now. Even if not a priority it is likely that at least some thought will be given to future tanks that can take the 6pdr either through upgrade like the Valiant or as a new design. Could we see a more limited run on cruiser tanks (infantry tanks see below) like the Crusader as they cant easily take the 6pdr. Could we also see development or at least design of new cruisers started that can take the 6pdr sooner?. This could play out in interesting ways, particularly once the HV Vickers shows up.
How much are the RTR guys liking the pom pom? If the say enough good things about it and it gives good service in France is their a possibility it shows up in other tanks, namely the Matilda II as that cant be up gunned to take the 6pdr and as the Valiant comes into more widespread use it does fill the role of the Matilda II in a better package so it's not worth keeping going with both in the same formations, it's either one or the other. That could either see Matilda II going out of production sooner or being sent in greater numbers to Crete as well as being sent out east far sooner. If the second one happens and it gets the pom pom then the Matilda II could well see production for the whole war in limited form.

Hope you don't mind the long, rambling, far looking posts.

• If Carden gets a 6-pdr to play with, then Pope's comments after Dunkirk about tanks needing more armour and a bigger gun, will hopefully mean that every British tank isn't still using the 2-pdr long after they should have been. A Crusader with a 6-pdr came along eventually, maybe it will sooner here, but that depends a lot on what happens with Dunkirk.
• As I mentioned before the pompom will have demonstrated earlier the importance of having HE. If the 3-inch howitzer being produced for CS tanks learns that lesson, and since it is designed to go into the 2-pdr turret fitting, it may be what's chosen, after all it is a Woolwich design not Vickers.
• The Matilda II going out of production earlier is a probable outcome, but with Australia and New Zealand having it till the end of the war is more likely. A lot will depend on what goes to Stalin in lend-lease.
• I don't mind them at all.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
Quad Pom-Pom on a Tank. It would make a wonderful SPAA(/PBI)G!
SPAA(/PBI)G - Self-Propelled Anti Aircraft/Poor Bloody Infantry Gun!

Already mentioned looking at the A9 hull as the platform for this, but not sure of a quad. The fighting in May 1940 will be the driver, not before.

Now maybe have the ministry to ask vickers help to set up a valiant factory in canada and australia? And as i said i still think a infantry carrier wich is at first ment for the organic infantry for the tank battalions and stuff could be a project for our protaganist.

Canada produced the Valentine, I guess it will produce the Valiant (maybe many going to Stalin as OTL?). Australia didn't produce the Valentine, can't see a driver to change that here. Maybe they could work with Bob Semple in New Zealand. There was a visionary! Sorry, just not doing the infantry carrier thing, let it go, let it go.

What about a tracked supply vehicle? Not unknown since they did have them in WWI. Just for fun have one of the TOG boys come up with it.

The TOG boys version of such a thing would be sight to behold. Something like that monstrosity pictured earlier for digging trenches!

Dragging this back on topic - if the Valiant is seen as the "good enough" tank, as opposed to the Grant or Lee then this will free up capacity for Australia to take on the American tanks early. Alternatively they could end up with surplus Matilda I pom-poms which would give the Japanese a nasty shock in 1942 as they will struggle to knock them out with their pretty feeble anti-tank weaponry.

Dragging this back on topic...good luck with that.
Not sure that many of the Matilda I pompoms will make it back from Dunkirk, none did OTL. If they bring anything back, it'll likely be the more valuable A12 Matilda IIs.
Allan.

 

[steamboy]

Whats the difference between TTL's Matilda I and 2? I know the 1 is a far more modern looking tank and has the 2lb pom-pom, I assume the Matilda II is as per OTL? Perhaps that could replace the 1 in the Pom-pom tank role?

Also RE the Churchill analogue of TTL if there was one, whats folks thoughts on putting a 25lber in it? It would make it a very good infantry support tank with a nice and easily available HE shell and I doubt tanks would want to get slapped by a HE round, dunno if there's an AP round for the 25lber though.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I always maintain that the Australians would have been better off making the Valentine

I understand why they made the Sentinel though - at the time of its implementation (1941) US Tank production was but a shadow of what it would become

The resulting vehicle was only built in small numbers due to the subsequent direction of the war, availability of US Tank production and AFV development which ahd sort of left the design behind.

@Rickshaw

I see you mention a few times now that the heavier weapon trails ie twin 25 pounder gun turret laid the ground work for the Firefly.

I have only ever seen that claimed here by yourself and I have never seen it mentioned anywhere else before.

I would be interested to learn where you found that information?

For example work began on the 17 pounder armed Challenger in 1942 (same year as the AC3) and the Firefly in 1943 - an then unofficial project by 2 men Major George Brighty and Lieutenant Colonel George Witheridge both RTR veterans and the Vickers engineer W.G.K. Kilbourn who resolved the recoil and gun cradle issues.

Those 3 men are the principles involved in Firefly