The Universal Tank

[Riain]

I'm sorry, but what? how on earth does the width of the turret ring play into either the height or overall width of the tank?

If the top of the hull is level with the top of the tracks then the turret ring must fit between the track. But if the top of the hull is higher than the tracks, like the Sherman, then the turret ring can be wider than the width between the tracks. Those loading gauge pictures show this quite nicely, how the turret sits on the hull and must be narrower than the width of the hull between the tracks.

 

[MattII]

I would have thought you could plonk down any size of turret ring on the hull, but that for a wide turret ring on a track-top hull you'd have a segment on either side that was basically unusable.

 

[Ian_W]

Im still confused by the conflating of a good tank and a universal tank.

Lets look at the OTL "cavalry" tank of the late war Allies - the Sherman. It has a dedicated HE variant (the 105), a dedicated AP variant (the 17 pounder) and a general purpose variant (the 75/76).

At all stages, it is a cavalry tank - it moves faster than leg infantry does.

The need IMO is for a recognition that the greatest risk to a tank isnt another tank, it is an anti-tank gun, and therefore all tanks need an adequate HE shell.

To me, this means CS tanks and tank-hunting tanks was the right idea.

 

[steamboy]

How about using the gun on the older Mk II mediums as a starting point? That was a 47mm gun, the UK also built a single one off variant with a 6lb 57mm gun, that could point the way.

The 2lb 40mm gun on the British tanks was actually a very good AT weapon, it could penetrate Panzer III's and IV's with ease, the big problem the UK's tanks had was a lack of decent doctrine, lack of numbers and during the battle of France very low reliability issues.

If the UK had mass produced the Matilda II before the war and had them be the major tank for the RAC then who knows, sure its not a great tank but at its time it was near invulnerable to German tank and AT guns. And there was a 2lb HE shell, problem is it was as potent as a hand grenade going off. So pathetically small.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

I would have thought you could plonk down any size of turret ring on the hull, but that for a wide turret ring on a track-top hull you'd have a segment on either side that was basically unusable.

The turret ring ie. the hole that projects downwards from the turret into the hull has to have usable space below it. For one thing the gun at full elevation must fit through the hole into the hull and still have room for recoil. The space below the ring must be clear of obstacles.

The two examples of the British crusader and the US sherman are good as they have a similar width. The crusader hull is built within the limits of the tracks and has a turret ring of approximately 1.4m, the sherman hull is built up above the tracks and has a turret ring of 1.75m. The crusader could take the 6lb gun at max but the crew members in the turret had to be reduced to 2 to do this. The sherman could take much larger weapons.

 

[MattII]

Im still confused by the conflating of a good tank and a universal tank.

Lets look at the OTL "cavalry" tank of the late war Allies - the Sherman. It has a dedicated HE variant (the 105), a dedicated AP variant (the 17 pounder) and a general purpose variant (the 75/76).

At all stages, it is a cavalry tank - it moves faster than leg infantry does.

No, the Sherman was a 'medium' tank. The concept of a 'cavalry' tank more-or-less died with the Crusader, after them, tanks were up-armoured to become more-or-less 'universal'.

The need IMO is for a recognition that the greatest risk to a tank isnt another tank, it is an anti-tank gun, and therefore all tanks need an adequate HE shell.

Yes.

To me, this means CS tanks and tank-hunting tanks was the right idea.

that's the American doctrine, not the British one, the 'cavalry' tanks were made to hit the enemy's weak areas, not themselves to hunt tanks.

 

[Ian_W]

that's the American doctrine, not the British one, the 'cavalry' tanks were made to hit the enemy's weak areas, not themselves to hunt tanks.

My general opinion on military affaris is equipment is meh, but doctrine is everything.

 

[MattII]

My general opinion on military affaris is equipment is meh, but doctrine is everything.

Mostly, but not quite, because doctrine dictates equipment development.

 

[Riain]

The term universal isn't about the gun, its about the armour and performance and therefore role. IN Britain the division was Infantry tank like the Matildas and Churchill and the Cruiser tank that all seemed to start with the letter 'C'. The universal tank is one that can combine the majority of the toughness of the Infantry tank with the majority of the performance of the Cruiser tank, which finally happened with the Centurion. The idea of this thread is to work out how to get this package before the war, within the limitations of the time of course.

In my mind something about 20 tons with 300+ horsepower, 2-3" front armour and a 3-6pdr gun with a CS option would suffice. Such a tank could crawl along with infantry as well as make wide sweeps out to flanks.

 

[Ian_W]

In my mind something about 20 tons with 300+ horsepower, 2-3" front armour and a 3-6pdr gun with a CS option would suffice. Such a tank could crawl along with infantry as well as make wide sweeps out to flanks.

So.

What you are asking for is something with the armor of a Matilda, but 5t lighter, but 50% more power, and a bigger gun than the British managed in 1940.

You want a wankmobile, in short.

 

[Lord Wyclif]

So.

What you are asking for is something with the armor of a Matilda, but 5t lighter, but 50% more power, and a bigger gun than the British managed in 1940.

With 6.5hp/ton to the panzer3's 12hp/tom perhaps an RR kestrel engine 20hp/ton. 2pounder and 3" howitzer were adequate at the time.

 

[Riain]

So.

What you are asking for is something with the armor of a Matilda, but 5t lighter, but 50% more power, and a bigger gun than the British managed in 1940.

You want a wankmobile, in short.

I you think that the Pz III and PZ IV or the Crusader tanks are wankmobiles, then yes, I want a wankmobile. However if you think these tanks were well within the realms of the possible in 1938, then no I don't want a wankmobile, I want what was possible with the technology available.

BTW I said 2-3" of frontal armour, the Matilda had armour 2.2-2.8" on the sides and rear which might go some way to explaining its excessive weight. In addition it used a pair of bus engines coupled together, which was a pretty poor way to underpower a tank.

 

[tomo pauk]

Since the British went for ~27 ton Matilda rather early on, I don't think that we must aim for a 20 ton tank.
So far I'd pick the RR Kestrel, Horstmann suspension, 12 lb 12 cwt gun, a coax MG obviously, perhaps 0.50 Vickers as the AA MG, and if possible 3in armor in front, 2in on the sides and to the rear. At least 4 crew members, if not 5 outright - the radio is a necessarry part of a tank as much as it is a gun. Hull with sponsons, so the turret ring can be decently sized.

Come to think about, both British and French have had all necessarry ingredients for excellent tanks before 1940, just did not 'connected the dots'.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

My thoughts are that instead of the valentine vickers works on this new tank design that they consider the army will need.

I suggest it has Christie suspension, a 350-400hp engine, 50-75mm frontal armour and I'm still undecided about the gun, the 12lb 12cwt looks on the face of it to be a good choice... But at over 3m in length it's just too long. A cut down version may be possible, something like the 12lb 8cwt but updated greatly as this is 2/3 the length. The main constraint is always going to be the requirement for rail transportation but personally I don't think it's that big a deal.

 

[steamboy]

I'd stick with the 6lber personally as a starting point. Its not TOO powerful whilst a long barreled 12lber (which is basically a 76mm gun) might be asking too much and be a bit wankery. The 6lb can still fire a HE shell, sure its not a big one but its better than the high velocity hand grenade round built for the 2lber.

 

[RodentRevolution]

I'd stick with the 6lber personally as a starting point. Its not TOO powerful whilst a long barreled 12lber (which is basically a 76mm gun) might be asking too much and be a bit wankery. The 6lb can still fire a HE shell, sure its not a big one but its better than the high velocity hand grenade round built for the 2lber.

Not really you have to understand that both the 3" 20CWT and the 12lb 12cwt are originally much lover velocity guns meaning the actual energies involved are similar for the 3" and lower for the 12lb...those this would change once you start adding in newer tech. The main point though is that effective round for anti-personnel/anti-field fortification work as the tank is mainly there to punch holes for the infantry and not just in other tanks.

 

[steamboy]

Ahh I thought the 12lber was a high velocity naval weapon, I know the original tanks were armed with 6lb naval guns, and they just shortened the barrels on them when they had issues with them getting stuck in trench walls.

 

[tomo pauk]

The 12 lb 12 ct was 'low-' or 'mid-power' from ww2 perspective - 670 m/s, or a bit more powerful than the Shermans gun, or the F34 installed in Soviet tanks.
As a fall back, perhaps going on with 3lb Vickers might be good - 785 m/s, with plenty guns and ammo to get the ball rolling. That 3lb-er might also be good for the tank destroyer based on Vickers light tank (especially with Littlejohn adapter), and on a ~15 ton tank that still might be needed - not every factory is equaly caable to produce a 25-30 ton tank, and this one will not need the pricey 400-600 HP V12.

 

[steamboy]

For a TD how about using the Universal Carrier with the 2lber that was designed? Small, mobile, and cheap as chips to make.

 

[PMN1]

For a TD how about using the Universal Carrier with the 2lber that was designed? Small, mobile, and cheap as chips to make.

There was a trial with a 2 pounder on a light tank but nothing seems to have come of it.