I think a lot of the small SPGs with big guns didn't carry all the crew they followed in the ammunition vehicle
Improved Early War British Tanks?
- Thread starter Paul_Sussex
- Start date
Still faster than unlimbering both a towed 25pdr and its ammo trailer, then relimbering once things got too dangerous.
The Loyd should stil be able to carry the crew even with the gun taking up some room. Plus you could have the crew all share driving reponsibilties as to not need a dedicated driver. As for the ammo, well it should have enough power to still tow the 25pdr ammo trailer even with the gun on it since the Morris C8 has a weaker engine iirc.
I think this might be one of the better vehicles to have a mid or front engine design; easier to load the gun from the ground similarily to the m12 GMC.
It's early war, it doesn't have to be perfect; just better than before.
Last edited:
That image is too small to read the text. It won't enlarge with enough detail to make out the design. Do you really need that huge title text and border?
The curve on the track edges stops them spreading weight unless in bogged down conditions?
It seems that the hatches (narrow) for driver and radioman are blocked from opening by the turret.
The turret ring is within the tracks. Not clear where the commander would go/sit.
Last edited:
But on the good side. The Valentine will fit into it. Perhaps slung on davits at the back?
When the Archer was issued to SPAT units in NW Europe it worked surprisingly well. The rear facing gun was not seen as a disadvantage. The vehicle would drive to a position and then enplace itself facing the enemy. Remember, these vehicles were not mean to hunt tanks. They weren't meant to be used on the advance. The Archer was actually quite a good adaptation and lasted quite a few years into the post-war world and was supplied to the various Arab armies after that. It is all a matter of how the vehicle was meant to be employed and how it was employed.
A little too light. Remember this was intended as an AT gun. The Lloyd carrier carried no armour at all.
McPherson
Banned
Source:
Illustration. (McPherson edit to make the dimensions readable.)
I suggest that this "prototype" for the Valiant, was a minimalist attempt to cram as much fighting power into the smallest tank, based on Valentine IX, that Vickers could, and they screwed it up further when they ginned it into the subsequent Valiant. You have to give the crew elbow room and a chance. By the OMG, the tank is on fire test: the driver dies, the radio man dies, the tank commander dies and maybe the loader gets out through that ammo hatch to be shot as he bails out the side. It is a terrible human factors engineering prelude to arguably the worst tank design of WW II.
Attachments
Last edited:
The only on-line image I've found is that shown - I dare say the Tank Museum have a larger original?
I did post the figures earlier, but here -
There is no radioman. The Vanguard had the same layout as the Valentine - a driver up front with a hatch on either side.
It has a two man turret - commander/loader and gunner.
From my post over on the "Early 75mm" thread -
Regarding the Vanguard, I see this as more of an upgraded Valentine -
"Vickers were also working on their Valentine upgrade, the Vanguard. (NOT it's horrible offspring, the Valiant*) Still only a two man turret, but sized for a 6pdr or 75mm gun. Note the nicely sloped and angled front armour. Now if this could be done a bit earlier...?"
And the Valiant, from http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/vanguard-tank.72139/#post-774361
"Basically what happened is that the Valiant was cancelled in early 1944, and there was no "first trial" because the prototype had not been completed. Then a year later the War Office and Ministry of Supply asked Ruston & Hornsby to submit the prototype for suspension tests. This was simply because it was an untried suspension type, and the WO/MoS were curious to see how it performed.
It's pretty obvious that Ruston & Hornsby had no incentive whatsoever to provide a fully functioning vehicle, as there would be no production contract forthcoming, and the company would have been shifting to peacetime production. All they did was lash up the prototype so that it would just about run, and I strongly suspect that many of the faults with it were deliberate in order to get this burden off the company's back."
And some additional info about 2pdr HE - from https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/AT-guns/2-pounder.php
"It has long been thought that the 2-Pounder gun was never equipped with High-Explosive (HE) shells, this is not the case however. HE was available to the 2-Pounder gun, but British military thinking was that firing Explosive Shells was the job of the Artillery. As such, towed 2-Pounder crews deployed by the Royal Artillery were equipped with HE ammunition, but Tanks, designed for infantry support such as the Matilda II, were not equipped with them.*
The 2-pounder actually had two types of exploding shell produced for it, namely the 1934 – 1937 pattern APHE shell and the HE fragmentation shell. The shell weighed 1.87 Pounds and used the Hotchkiss base fuse Mark IV. The shell is a blunt-nosed serrated cylinder made of cast iron designed to strike the ground and pitch back into the air then explode, scattering fragments into enemy infantry and animals such as horses.
This shell was used by tanks of the BEF in France 1940 but although available in North Africa, was out of favor with crews preferring to stock their ammo racks with AP ammunition. However, anti-tank units always carried a supply for deterring infantry assaults against them.
The 1934 -1937 pattern APHE shell was produced before trials of the 2 Pounder gun took place but failed to meet the War Department’s specifications of being able to have a 70% (7 in 10) probability of penetrating 14mm. of vertical face hardened rolled homogeneous armor plate (Vickers “Vibrax” at a range of 500 yards.
In tests the Hotchkiss Mark.IV. base mounted fuse either fell out in the barrel during firing or fell out when the shell hit the test target despite the actual unexploded shell actually penetrating. In other instances, when the fuse stated in the shell would explode with no or partial penetration.
Because of this, the British Army elected to dispense with APHE ammunition from 1937 to the present day. Maximum penetration was 48mm. at 100 yards versus vertical FHRHA as live APHE and 59mm. at 100 yards versus vertical FHRHA fired inert/unfilled. 562,000 were produced between 1934 and 1937, none were fired in combat or even issued. Instead, stocks were used up on firing ranges in the UK for training and issued to home defense anti-tank units during 1940 after Dunkirk."
*Although somewhere upthread it was mentioned that the whole split between Artillery and Tank units firing HE is over-exaggerated?
"It has long been thought that the 2-Pounder gun was never equipped with High-Explosive (HE) shells, this is not the case however. HE was available to the 2-Pounder gun, but British military thinking was that firing Explosive Shells was the job of the Artillery. As such, towed 2-Pounder crews deployed by the Royal Artillery were equipped with HE ammunition, but Tanks, designed for infantry support such as the Matilda II, were not equipped with them.*
The 2-pounder actually had two types of exploding shell produced for it, namely the 1934 – 1937 pattern APHE shell and the HE fragmentation shell. The shell weighed 1.87 Pounds and used the Hotchkiss base fuse Mark IV. The shell is a blunt-nosed serrated cylinder made of cast iron designed to strike the ground and pitch back into the air then explode, scattering fragments into enemy infantry and animals such as horses.
This shell was used by tanks of the BEF in France 1940 but although available in North Africa, was out of favor with crews preferring to stock their ammo racks with AP ammunition. However, anti-tank units always carried a supply for deterring infantry assaults against them.
The 1934 -1937 pattern APHE shell was produced before trials of the 2 Pounder gun took place but failed to meet the War Department’s specifications of being able to have a 70% (7 in 10) probability of penetrating 14mm. of vertical face hardened rolled homogeneous armor plate (Vickers “Vibrax” at a range of 500 yards.
In tests the Hotchkiss Mark.IV. base mounted fuse either fell out in the barrel during firing or fell out when the shell hit the test target despite the actual unexploded shell actually penetrating. In other instances, when the fuse stated in the shell would explode with no or partial penetration.
Because of this, the British Army elected to dispense with APHE ammunition from 1937 to the present day. Maximum penetration was 48mm. at 100 yards versus vertical FHRHA as live APHE and 59mm. at 100 yards versus vertical FHRHA fired inert/unfilled. 562,000 were produced between 1934 and 1937, none were fired in combat or even issued. Instead, stocks were used up on firing ranges in the UK for training and issued to home defense anti-tank units during 1940 after Dunkirk."
*Although somewhere upthread it was mentioned that the whole split between Artillery and Tank units firing HE is over-exaggerated?
Last edited:
The supply train for armoured regiments and for for towed AT pieces were entirely separate. Hence there was no problem supplying tanks with 7.92mm Mauser for their BESAs.
The HE shells existed but the Royal Artillery towed AT gun users chose to put them in the list of items one could call forward. For some reason (?) the armoured regiments did not ask for them to be on their own supply list. The armoured car regiments did have them on offer too later on. All the armoured regiments needed to do (as a part of their own supply chain from the factories) was ask for them. The artillery saw it as a better soft skin round and the armoured looked on the APHE as a worse hole puncher but what the armour needed was the nose fused HE fragmentation not the base fused APHE. I quote 'the HE fragmentation shell weighed 1.87 Pounds and used the Hotchkiss base fuse Mark IV. The shell is a blunt-nosed serrated cylinder made of cast iron designed to strike the ground and pitch back into the air then explode, scattering fragments into enemy infantry and animals such as horses.' As such it had a longer effective range than a simple canister round although a canister round like the US 37mm would be more effective closer in. The APHE is, as above, intended to explode upon penetration.
One could argue that, by the time a tank fired HE Fragmentation round became into range, the tank was moving forward, closing the range and employing it's machine gun/s. My Yeomanry predecessors saw the HE Fragmentation as something to frighten enemy AT crews stupid while the armoured cars ran away. They found that the AP/CNR was little worse without the Littlejohn adaptor and the minor loss was worth the capacity to fire HE Fragmentation. Dangerous targets had formed into two classes. The 2 Pounder could penetrate peer armoured cars but, even with the Littlejohn adaptor, had a negligible chance on penetrating any German tank except by chance so that minor shortfall of firing AP/CNR from a normal barrel was not an issue.
The HE shells existed but the Royal Artillery towed AT gun users chose to put them in the list of items one could call forward. For some reason (?) the armoured regiments did not ask for them to be on their own supply list. The armoured car regiments did have them on offer too later on. All the armoured regiments needed to do (as a part of their own supply chain from the factories) was ask for them. The artillery saw it as a better soft skin round and the armoured looked on the APHE as a worse hole puncher but what the armour needed was the nose fused HE fragmentation not the base fused APHE. I quote 'the HE fragmentation shell weighed 1.87 Pounds and used the Hotchkiss base fuse Mark IV. The shell is a blunt-nosed serrated cylinder made of cast iron designed to strike the ground and pitch back into the air then explode, scattering fragments into enemy infantry and animals such as horses.' As such it had a longer effective range than a simple canister round although a canister round like the US 37mm would be more effective closer in. The APHE is, as above, intended to explode upon penetration.
One could argue that, by the time a tank fired HE Fragmentation round became into range, the tank was moving forward, closing the range and employing it's machine gun/s. My Yeomanry predecessors saw the HE Fragmentation as something to frighten enemy AT crews stupid while the armoured cars ran away. They found that the AP/CNR was little worse without the Littlejohn adaptor and the minor loss was worth the capacity to fire HE Fragmentation. Dangerous targets had formed into two classes. The 2 Pounder could penetrate peer armoured cars but, even with the Littlejohn adaptor, had a negligible chance on penetrating any German tank except by chance so that minor shortfall of firing AP/CNR from a normal barrel was not an issue.
Well, this seems to have covered all the issues impacting on the development of British tanks in the early war period. Just to wrap everything up, the OP requirement for an improved tank (and antitank) gun may have been a red herring. The main points seem to be that –
The tactics were flawed and that insufficient attention was paid to liaison with other arms.
The QF 2 Pounder was acceptable until perhaps mid 1942 but tank units didn’t see any need to request HE shells, which were available.
There was insufficient support provided for tanks in the attack.
The army provided Army Training Instructions, etc, but these could have been better disseminated.
A quick and dirty alternative development might be –
After the Battle of France, there is still a delay in introducing the QF 6 pounder; however, a review of tank actions in France – in particular at Arras – and in North Africa show that a major danger in the advance is emplaced antitank guns and artillery.
At the same time, production of A12 Matilda tanks is tailed off, being replaced with ramped up production of Infantry Tank Mk III Valentine. Vickers are also instructed to provide a three man turret to accommodate a separate commander’s position.
An Urgent Operational Requirement (or the current equivalent) is also placed with Vickers to develop a self propelled gun, based on the Valentine chassis. This will result in a lightly armoured casemate similar to the later Archer, and be armed with a QF 18 pounder gun, as these were being replaced in Artillery units with the new 25 pounder.
An Army Training Instruction is issued for The Employment of Army Tanks in Co-operation with Infantry. This will concentrate on improved support of tanks by infantry and the support of organic artillery units using the new self propelled guns which come into service from mid 1941. Tank units are also to draw HE shells, to provide for short range suppression of infantry, soft skin and antitank targets.
In parallel with the above, development of cruiser tanks has continued through the A10 and A13, with increases in armour, culminating in the A15 Crusader; however, there has been an emphasis on better sloped armour, at the expense of a bow gunner’s position.
As a result, by mid 1941, the army has in place –
Valentine - Equivalent to Valentine III with three man turret, 2 pounder gun
Crusader - Equivalent to Covenantor with better engine and cooling choice, three man turret, no bow gunner, 2 pounder gun
Bishop - Equivalent to Archer, armed with 18 pounder gun
Along with the above, improved tactics that are starting to emphasise combined arms, which is starting to drive development of better infantry transport.
So, no Centurions in 1942, but possibly a better base for development of Churchill and Cromwell?
As always, YMMV.
The tactics were flawed and that insufficient attention was paid to liaison with other arms.
The QF 2 Pounder was acceptable until perhaps mid 1942 but tank units didn’t see any need to request HE shells, which were available.
There was insufficient support provided for tanks in the attack.
The army provided Army Training Instructions, etc, but these could have been better disseminated.
A quick and dirty alternative development might be –
After the Battle of France, there is still a delay in introducing the QF 6 pounder; however, a review of tank actions in France – in particular at Arras – and in North Africa show that a major danger in the advance is emplaced antitank guns and artillery.
At the same time, production of A12 Matilda tanks is tailed off, being replaced with ramped up production of Infantry Tank Mk III Valentine. Vickers are also instructed to provide a three man turret to accommodate a separate commander’s position.
An Urgent Operational Requirement (or the current equivalent) is also placed with Vickers to develop a self propelled gun, based on the Valentine chassis. This will result in a lightly armoured casemate similar to the later Archer, and be armed with a QF 18 pounder gun, as these were being replaced in Artillery units with the new 25 pounder.
An Army Training Instruction is issued for The Employment of Army Tanks in Co-operation with Infantry. This will concentrate on improved support of tanks by infantry and the support of organic artillery units using the new self propelled guns which come into service from mid 1941. Tank units are also to draw HE shells, to provide for short range suppression of infantry, soft skin and antitank targets.
In parallel with the above, development of cruiser tanks has continued through the A10 and A13, with increases in armour, culminating in the A15 Crusader; however, there has been an emphasis on better sloped armour, at the expense of a bow gunner’s position.
As a result, by mid 1941, the army has in place –
Valentine - Equivalent to Valentine III with three man turret, 2 pounder gun
Crusader - Equivalent to Covenantor with better engine and cooling choice, three man turret, no bow gunner, 2 pounder gun
Bishop - Equivalent to Archer, armed with 18 pounder gun
Along with the above, improved tactics that are starting to emphasise combined arms, which is starting to drive development of better infantry transport.
So, no Centurions in 1942, but possibly a better base for development of Churchill and Cromwell?
As always, YMMV.
Last edited:
My mileage will vary 
British army will do themselves the favor with not designing the 2pdr, and the Treasury will be satisfied.
The 3pdr Vickers is in the warehouses, so it is it's ammo. Or, make a good APC shot to the inter-war 3pdr and it will be killing German tanks in 1940. Or, make an APC shot for the ww1 vinatge 6pdr, it will still be killing German tanks. The better HE performance of the 3pdr, and even better HE performance of the 6pdr is there by default.
Or, use the new 6pdr 10cwt that is in production by mid-1930s.
This is before we go for tank guns that use ammo of 12lb 12cwt, 13 lb or 18lb guns that is already in the warehouses, that would've make a lot of sense for late 1930s and on.
British army will do themselves the favor with not designing the 2pdr, and the Treasury will be satisfied.
The 3pdr Vickers is in the warehouses, so it is it's ammo. Or, make a good APC shot to the inter-war 3pdr and it will be killing German tanks in 1940. Or, make an APC shot for the ww1 vinatge 6pdr, it will still be killing German tanks. The better HE performance of the 3pdr, and even better HE performance of the 6pdr is there by default.
Or, use the new 6pdr 10cwt that is in production by mid-1930s.
This is before we go for tank guns that use ammo of 12lb 12cwt, 13 lb or 18lb guns that is already in the warehouses, that would've make a lot of sense for late 1930s and on.
If you go back to 1919 insist that all future tank designs use a gunner and a loader who cannot be the TC. The Tank Commander can be anywhere in the tank but must not be given a gun or loading a gun to manage his sole job is to command and be the lookout. This leads to a three man turret by default, further insist that all new designs use the 6 pounder 6 cwt or bigger guns this forces a decent size turret ring. Vickers probably has a design for a three inch low velocity smoke and HE firing mountain gun in its commercial catalogue this should be redesigned to fit a bored out 6 pounder breech and barrel.
Ask Ricardo to work with a commercial engine company on the design of a new series of engine capable of being built in 2, 4, 6, 8 or 12 cylinder configuration. Air cooled and must have good filtration for Imperial use. The new engine will be suitable for commercial and passenger transport vehicles in the 4 and 6 cylinder configuration. The 8 and 12 cylinder configuration is for tanks, heavy vehicles, boats and airships.
By dictating the 3 man turret and 6 pounder you force designers to build a big turret ring. The V8 or V12 engine forces a decent size engine bay.
One of the major problems with Crusader was the hull was made so much lower than the previous cruiser designs there wasn't room for internal air intake filters so they got put on the rear track guard just where all the muck and dust is. The cooling system was also cramped and instead of running the cooling fan off the engine crankshaft it was powered by 9 feet of motorcycle chain. The chain wasn't protected from dust so it wore, stretched and slipped result tank engine blows up.
Ask Ricardo to work with a commercial engine company on the design of a new series of engine capable of being built in 2, 4, 6, 8 or 12 cylinder configuration. Air cooled and must have good filtration for Imperial use. The new engine will be suitable for commercial and passenger transport vehicles in the 4 and 6 cylinder configuration. The 8 and 12 cylinder configuration is for tanks, heavy vehicles, boats and airships.
By dictating the 3 man turret and 6 pounder you force designers to build a big turret ring. The V8 or V12 engine forces a decent size engine bay.
One of the major problems with Crusader was the hull was made so much lower than the previous cruiser designs there wasn't room for internal air intake filters so they got put on the rear track guard just where all the muck and dust is. The cooling system was also cramped and instead of running the cooling fan off the engine crankshaft it was powered by 9 feet of motorcycle chain. The chain wasn't protected from dust so it wore, stretched and slipped result tank engine blows up.
Gun wise - my opinion has been changed by this actual thread
The Czechoslovakian 47mm is the gun of choice
This had a superior AT round to the 2 pounder and had a larger HE shell - and like the BESA was ready!
Basically late 30s British tanks go Czechoslovakian for both gun and MMG (BESA) - and possibly even some Czech armour plate!
The Czechoslovakian 47mm is the gun of choice
This had a superior AT round to the 2 pounder and had a larger HE shell - and like the BESA was ready!
Basically late 30s British tanks go Czechoslovakian for both gun and MMG (BESA) - and possibly even some Czech armour plate!
marathag
Banned
Note the M4 Sherman had prefilters on the upper rear hull,above and to the side of the access doors. Photos will show them as boxes or cans, depending on year and manufacturer, and more filters inside
The 2 Pounder was not a tank gun. It was a towed AT gun. When the army needed new tank guns (the 3 Pounders were well used and not in production any longer) the Treasury was not going to release extra funding for a new design so a new tank gun would have to come out of the existing budget so something else would be foregone. Hence the 2 Pounder was applied to new tank production. As a 1939-41 anti armour weapon it was adequate.
The same happened to the 6 Pounder and the 17 Pounder. They were towed AT guns then applied to tanks. Were it not for the 2 Pounder being kept in emergency production post Dunkirk the 6 Pounder would have smoothly taken over in 1941 as a perfectly adequate anti armour gun in it's period.
The actual new tank specific gun was the HV75mm but the turret and gun designers used different pubs and either the turret was too short to take the gun recoil or the gun was too long to fit the turret. At least it you wanted to fit in 3 human beings as well. It took a revised hull and completely different turret before it emerged as the Comet too late to make a difference. Meanwhile the 17 Pounder squeezed into the Challenger and Firefly went on doing the British wartime job of fitting a towed AT gun into a tank.
Were it not for one (hindsight) poor decision and one cock up British tanks would have had perfectly adequate anti armour guns for the period throughout the war.
Buying or licensing a foreign tank gun would be subject to the same finance issue.
The tank engine saga always revolves around engines that can be made at a profit as the Treasury was not going to buy them in enough numbers to justify the investment by manufacturers until large orders were expected. Meadows and later Vauxhall eventually did take on the task but too late for the early war. Aero engines were ordered (or expected/hoped to be ordered) by the (few) hundreds. Tank engines by the few tens.
_____________
The BESA adoption was to release the problematic Vickers water cooled installations. Aided by the BREN experience of the time and cost of converting from 0,303" to Mauser 7,92mm they could save both by simply making the Czech gun as was and feeding 7,92mm through the armoured units own separate supply chain. Sold to the Treasury as an easy saving in the cost of installation and easing the shortages of Vickers for the infantry.
______________
Firing the 3" or 3.7" CS howitzer/mortars at a distance with the slow moving and arching trajectory at a target of unknown range and comparative height is not an easy task to hit a specific gun size target. By the time you are close enough to expect a hit within a few rounds the accompanying 2 Pounder tanks will be within range to use their coaxial machine guns accurately themselves to suppress the target. Smoke needs less accuracy and is well within the ability of the CS guns. In close in jungle environments excellent work was done with these guns firing HE but that was at very close ranges against targets unlikely to be able to penetrate the CS tanks. The CS tanks, even with HE, were poor choices to suppress AT guns at any sort of long distance ranges. By later in the war, with 75mm HE in use in tank guns, then they could support each other and their infantry with HE fire but it is a rule of thumb that a 75mm shell is the minimum needed for effective HE fire. Hence the 75mm on the Char B.
______________
What the early war armour needed, without a magic POD of a 75mm gun in 1939-41, was proper coordination of an all arms battle with tanks, artillery and infantry employed in support of each other as necessary. Exactly as the Napoleonic armies used cavalry, artillery and infantry. The foundation of the problems in the Western Desert against the Axis was the learned doctrine of elan and bravado necessary when greatly outnumbered British forces were opposing the Italians. It failed against an Afrika Korps's all arms battles and, like them, repeatedly out ran their logistics. What Montgomery brought was a return to the all arms doctrine and a determination to advance as fast as the supply train could maintain the tempo and not the faster rate the advance forces could dare to travel. It may be worth remembering that at the same time as the pre Afrika Korps war the same forces were liberating Ethiopia and Somalia, reinforcing Greece, occupying Iran, putting down a revolt in Iraq and invading Syria. Oh, and arming Britain against an invasion from 20 miles away. Timidity was not an option. By the time of Montgomery the situation had resolved into one front allowing the more methodical all arms battle and a pause allowing training at all levels to ensure the doctrine was followed. The 1st Army in Algeria came with the same doctrine and the kit and training to suit too.
____________
If one postulates the Valentine as the sole tank the Crusader becomes unnecessary. Lord Nuffield does not have to like making Valentines. He has to do so, under government direction without him if necessary. Can he make copy GMC 6-71s under licence instead of Libertys?
The same happened to the 6 Pounder and the 17 Pounder. They were towed AT guns then applied to tanks. Were it not for the 2 Pounder being kept in emergency production post Dunkirk the 6 Pounder would have smoothly taken over in 1941 as a perfectly adequate anti armour gun in it's period.
The actual new tank specific gun was the HV75mm but the turret and gun designers used different pubs and either the turret was too short to take the gun recoil or the gun was too long to fit the turret. At least it you wanted to fit in 3 human beings as well. It took a revised hull and completely different turret before it emerged as the Comet too late to make a difference. Meanwhile the 17 Pounder squeezed into the Challenger and Firefly went on doing the British wartime job of fitting a towed AT gun into a tank.
Were it not for one (hindsight) poor decision and one cock up British tanks would have had perfectly adequate anti armour guns for the period throughout the war.
Buying or licensing a foreign tank gun would be subject to the same finance issue.
The tank engine saga always revolves around engines that can be made at a profit as the Treasury was not going to buy them in enough numbers to justify the investment by manufacturers until large orders were expected. Meadows and later Vauxhall eventually did take on the task but too late for the early war. Aero engines were ordered (or expected/hoped to be ordered) by the (few) hundreds. Tank engines by the few tens.
_____________
The BESA adoption was to release the problematic Vickers water cooled installations. Aided by the BREN experience of the time and cost of converting from 0,303" to Mauser 7,92mm they could save both by simply making the Czech gun as was and feeding 7,92mm through the armoured units own separate supply chain. Sold to the Treasury as an easy saving in the cost of installation and easing the shortages of Vickers for the infantry.
______________
Firing the 3" or 3.7" CS howitzer/mortars at a distance with the slow moving and arching trajectory at a target of unknown range and comparative height is not an easy task to hit a specific gun size target. By the time you are close enough to expect a hit within a few rounds the accompanying 2 Pounder tanks will be within range to use their coaxial machine guns accurately themselves to suppress the target. Smoke needs less accuracy and is well within the ability of the CS guns. In close in jungle environments excellent work was done with these guns firing HE but that was at very close ranges against targets unlikely to be able to penetrate the CS tanks. The CS tanks, even with HE, were poor choices to suppress AT guns at any sort of long distance ranges. By later in the war, with 75mm HE in use in tank guns, then they could support each other and their infantry with HE fire but it is a rule of thumb that a 75mm shell is the minimum needed for effective HE fire. Hence the 75mm on the Char B.
______________
What the early war armour needed, without a magic POD of a 75mm gun in 1939-41, was proper coordination of an all arms battle with tanks, artillery and infantry employed in support of each other as necessary. Exactly as the Napoleonic armies used cavalry, artillery and infantry. The foundation of the problems in the Western Desert against the Axis was the learned doctrine of elan and bravado necessary when greatly outnumbered British forces were opposing the Italians. It failed against an Afrika Korps's all arms battles and, like them, repeatedly out ran their logistics. What Montgomery brought was a return to the all arms doctrine and a determination to advance as fast as the supply train could maintain the tempo and not the faster rate the advance forces could dare to travel. It may be worth remembering that at the same time as the pre Afrika Korps war the same forces were liberating Ethiopia and Somalia, reinforcing Greece, occupying Iran, putting down a revolt in Iraq and invading Syria. Oh, and arming Britain against an invasion from 20 miles away. Timidity was not an option. By the time of Montgomery the situation had resolved into one front allowing the more methodical all arms battle and a pause allowing training at all levels to ensure the doctrine was followed. The 1st Army in Algeria came with the same doctrine and the kit and training to suit too.
____________
If one postulates the Valentine as the sole tank the Crusader becomes unnecessary. Lord Nuffield does not have to like making Valentines. He has to do so, under government direction without him if necessary. Can he make copy GMC 6-71s under licence instead of Libertys?
Well when OTL you have Panzer Is and IIs going Tour de France, the gun argument sounds kinda irrelevant.
Well I think the obvious is improved tactics, infantry cooperation, and mechanical reliablity.
Yes they do - see below
Agreed
Yes, but this is true of other armies as well, including the Germans in 1939
And the correct response to this is better combined arms - more infantry and artillery in armoured divisions.
Agreed
Unnecessary - the correct response is more towed 25pdr guns and OP tanks. Flexible divisional artillery firepower is more useful than dispersed direct HE - 11th Armoured used 10 times more 25pdr ammunition than tank gun ammunition.
No. Tank brigades support of infantry divisions worked well. What is needed is an early publication of The Armoured Division in Battle, which is pretty well foreshadowed by 7th Armoured Divisions notes on experience in Italy.
Not sure about deletion of hull machine guns - it caused issues with Fireflies
OK
OK