Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

[MattII]

That said, have tanks to run at Aberdeen Proving Grounds that don't totally suck compared to US armor will be a bonus.

At the time of the Tizard Mission, the USA had only a handful of M2s, so the Valiant is likely to leave them feeling rather inadequate. Possibly they skip over the M3, or at least the tank they designate the M3 bears little resemblence to the OTL vehicle.

I can see that you want to avoid this becoming a cascading wank, which is reasonable. But it feels like you're bending over backwards.

And to have big chunks of 1940 action happen unchanged? If a sports team had a different head coach, with different training regimen and different playbook, who brought in some different players... having a long segment of the Big Game happen exactly the same, right down to the individual passes and kicks and tackles and penalties and scores?

It feels wrong. I can see that it would be tons of work to generate a plausible faux-narrative at this level of detail. But that isn't necessary, if the overall outcome is about the same. Zoom in for a vignette where it matters - the performance of alt-equipment - but otherwise, just summarize and move on.

Perhaps there will be some significant effects in the last part of the campaign, worthy of fine-grained narration. As it is, you're flooding the reader (well, this reader, anyway) with detail that doesn't advance the story, which is about British tank design and production. (I.e. gearboxes and turret rings and Vickers vs. Nuffield vs. Vulcan...)

Eh, I don't think it's gone too far. Some things are already going better for the British (substantial increase in German losses at Arras), and that's only going to get more marked in the future. Yes Boulogne could have gone better ITTL, but the British aren't omniscient, so I don't think it's a stretch for it to go poorly.

With all this captured German equipment, something else comes to mind. earlier adoption of the jerrycan!!!!!

Quite possible.

 

[marathag]

At the time of the Tizard Mission, the USA had only a handful of M2s, so the Valiant is likely to leave them feeling rather inadequate. Possibly they skip over the M3, or at least the tank they designate the M3 bears little resemblence to the OTL vehicle.

The US was moving to 75mm guns, influenced by the French more than by the British OTL, besides the gun, also in use of castings.

But if the British were doing better, as in just as good as the French S-35 and Char B1 with their Infantry tanks, much more likely for Armored Force to pay more attention to UK armor developments

It has come to my attention just this year that it seems the US was casting turrets for the Churchill before full production of the M3 had started, that were far larger in volume than the Lee or Grant, so the US could go for larger turrets from the start, if they think that a 75mm can be wedged into something the size of a Valiant turret, there is no need for the sponson mount at all, and realize that the one 40mm Pom Pom was far better at infantry support(and killing AT guns) than .30 calibers sticking out from all over, that McNairs rules for the Maneuvers saying that main guns could not destroy dug in AT guns, only MGs and overruns, to Dever's dismay

 

[allanpcameron]

I can see that you want to avoid this becoming a cascading wank, which is reasonable. But it feels like you're bending over backwards.

And to have big chunks of 1940 action happen unchanged? If a sports team had a different head coach, with different training regimen and different playbook, who brought in some different players... having a long segment of the Big Game happen exactly the same, right down to the individual passes and kicks and tackles and penalties and scores?

There isn't a different head coach, or training regime, or playbook, or players. There are some improvements to the Matilda I. The changes at Arras are slightly heavier losses amongst 7th Pz Div tanks, and the two British Battalions withdrawing in better order. I have changed one RTR battalion for another at Calais. Other than the extra day's delay there were no more changes at Boulogne that would make any fundamental difference to the attack and defeat of the allied forces there. Later when we get to the fighting at the Somme there will be some extra A10s over OTL.

It feels wrong. I can see that it would be tons of work to generate a plausible faux-narrative at this level of detail. But that isn't necessary, if the overall outcome is about the same. Zoom in for a vignette where it matters - the performance of alt-equipment - but otherwise, just summarize and move on.

As I mentioned in my reply to fester I am sorry that I bothered writing the Boulogne episode, in fact at this point I am sorry that I bothered writing anything at all. Your advice is obviously something I have to learn to take, as I've never written very much on here before

Perhaps there will be some significant effects in the last part of the campaign, worthy of fine-grained narration. As it is, you're flooding the reader (well, this reader, anyway) with detail that doesn't advance the story, which is about British tank design and production. (I.e. gearboxes and turret rings and Vickers vs. Nuffield vs. Vulcan...)

I am sorry to have wasted you time. Please feel free not to bother reading it.

 

[RetiredCdntanker]

Ignore the Anarch King. If he doesn't like it, he can find something else to do.
Enough of us are enjoying your story; I hope you keep it up.
I'm enjoying it so far!

 

[MattII]

Ignore the Anarch King. If he doesn't like it, he can find something else to do.
Enough of us are enjoying your story; I hope you keep it up.
I'm enjoying it so far!

Agreed. This is a really good story.

 

[marathag]

in fact at this point I am sorry that I bothered writing anything at all.

I like the small unit detail, so keep doing as before,.
Get people to start reading for that Tank Porn, but keep reading for the Tank Plot

 

[Schlock]

I like it the way it is. The two are intertwined. Improvements to the basic equipment leading to better performance on the battlefield which feeds in to the next generation of designs which leads to different battlefield results.

 

[Unknown]

As I mentioned in my reply to fester I am sorry that I bothered writing the Boulogne episode, in fact at this point I am sorry that I bothered writing anything at all. Your advice is obviously something I have to learn to take, as I've never written very much on here before

I like this story--ignore @Anarch King of Dipsodes, and keep it up!!!

 

[Jkdelta38]

Indeed the current style is perfect as is. In order for improvements to be made, tank crews must go into action and learn what is good and not good, and their commanders must know the strengths and weaknesses of the tanks as well. Then back home they can apply the new data and get different designs to match.

 

[Merrick]

As I mentioned in my reply to fester I am sorry that I bothered writing the Boulogne episode, in fact at this point I am sorry that I bothered writing anything at all. Your advice is obviously something I have to learn to take, as I've never written very much on here before

Don't let the critics get you down - it's your story and you're free to tell it how you like.

There's a fundamental problem with writing alternate history - if you allow butterflies to beget butterflies in a wonderful chaos cascade, then the timeline diverges from OTL so fast that research becomes useless and you're left putting a plausible spin on "making stuff up", while if you don't allow any secondary butterflies then you lose plausibility as 90% of the world continues *exactly as before* while the 10% the author is working on diverges further and further. There's no "right" way to do it - but if you're interested in developing a small change in a limited area, feel free to let the rest of the world roll along until your hit some clear reason why it doesn't. Logically, the Battle of Boulogne wouldn't have played out exactly as OTL if it had been delayed a couple of days, but then logically, with a POD back in 1936 half the units involved would likely have had different organization or equipment or commanders or have been in another place entirely. So OTL is as plausible as anything else, and it doesn't require you to waste time justifying divergences when they don't affect the story you want to tell.

And for the record, I like the narrative details rather more than the rivet counting.

 

[MattII]

I think what's gone on so far is completely plausible, some tanks are a little better, and/or a little more numerous, some of local command decisions are a little better, etc. This has played out nicely at Arras (far more damage on the German side, and a bit less on the British. The big changes really start with the evacuation, such as holding Calais, meaning the troops are pulled out quicker, in better order, and with most of their personal equipment, which will mean less panic, so better long-term decisions, etc. The butterflies will only start to swarm when we get to North Africa at the end of the year.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

When we talk about "a better evacuation from Dunkirk," we have to remember that while it was an astonishing success in terms of the number of men evacuated OTL, it was mostly just the men that were gotten out. Forget the tanks or the artillery, men returned to England without helmets, boots and mess tins. Just evacuating men with most of their small arms and personal kit is already a big win over OTL


Even a recovery rate of half the Bren guns instead of ~7.6% would be a major improvement over OTL.

On June 1st 1940 - Britain had 14,023 Bren guns available which could equip 40% of the Army's needs - or more likely enough to equip the fighting companies needs but not the B echelon units etc - by the end of Aug this figure had risen to 59% (so they had made about 6500 Bren guns in less than 3 months)

So while not abandoning so many Bren guns is certainly a good thing it was not a serious issue facing the Army

British Equipment losses at Dunkirk and the situation post Dunkirk

The biggest short falls were in Anti tanks guns, artillery and AAA and it was here that there was a slow increase in the replacement in the months following Dunkirk

25 pounder production was still ramping up and modification of the entire 18 pounder "estate" to the 18/25 pounder guns was nearly completed (with many of the guns already converted lost in France along with a number of unconverted guns).

So there was not a lot that could be done to restore the shortfall other than continue to ramp up 25 pounder production.

The following shows tanks and carriers in the hands of the army between June 30th and August 31st (all figures OTL)

​	Infantry​	Cruiser​	Light​	Carriers​
June 30th​	140​	209​	582​	2,242​
July 31st​	218​	284​	657​	3,181​
August 31st​	274​	322​	659​	3,784​

The period between June 30th and August 31st sees an increase of 134 Infantry tanks, 113 Cruiser tanks and 1,542 carriers of all types. Infantry tank production is steadily increasing from 57 in June to 90 in August, Cruiser tank production is decreasing dropping from 58 in June to less than 30 a month by the end of the year. Carrier production has increased dramatically during the year to over 500 a month by May. Infantry tank production peaks in December with 127 tanks in that month alone.

ITTL we are likely to see more of the Infantry tanks having been completed with Vickers Valiant production now ramping up (in addition to that of Matilda II) and I suspect that this would cut into the Cruiser production slightly as while the existence of the Vickers Valiant production would have resulted in a subtle increase in all things AFV related it would still have resulted in a shortage of certain common parts as the 3 production lines (Matilda II, Crusier tanks and Valiant) compete for them.

For example I have seen several comments regarding the sooner replacement of the 2 pounder gun with 6 pounder - which we all agree would be a great thing.

However 2 pounder production had been ramped up by June 1940 but I suspect that the slow increase we see post Dunkirk in replacement 2 pounder AT guns in the hands of the Infantry was primarily due to the numbers required to 'also' arm the Infantry tanks, then A12 Matilda II and Cruiser tanks which would have been 247 guns in the period June 1st - August 31st - here we are adding further Valiant tank production to the mix.

To switch production from 2 pounder to 6 pounder would have IIRC taken several months and cost the production of 600 x 2 pounder guns for just 100 x 6 pounder guns - and so this would have prevented hundreds of Matilda II and Cruiser tanks from being armed (with many of them being sent to the Middle East) and this at a time when as you can see from that link the table of establishment for anti tank guns in the infantry Divisions was only 1/4 of the number required by the end of Aug.

So I am afraid that the switch to 6 pounder simply cannot happen until this shortfall has been addressed.

There is a reason why we do not see the adoption of 6 pounder tanks and anti tank gun batteries earlier than we do.

Also remember that British industry was sleepily equipping 5 Divisions in 1938, then suddenly it was woken up to equip 10 in 1939 then err actually can we make that 32? And then in June 1940 - Oh fuck actually make that 55.

An 11 fold increase in less than 3 years was not possible - on top of this mad rush to build a continental army the losses of equipment in France particularly in Artillery of all types was a major issue in the months following Dunkirk.

​

 

[vl100butch]

As far as American tanks are concerned, some lessons learned could end up with the Stuart having a larger turret and armed with a 47mm gun. For experimental purposes, you could borrow a couple of 3 pounders from the Navy...

And don't let the critics get you down...it's your story to tell!!!!!

 

[MattII]

ITTL we are likely to see more of the Infantry tanks having been completed with Vickers Valiant production now ramping up (in addition to that of Matilda II) and I suspect that this would cut into the Cruiser production slightly as while the existence of the Vickers Valiant production would have resulted in a subtle increase in all things AFV related it would still have resulted in a shortage of certain common parts as the 3 production lines (Matilda II, Crusier tanks and Valiant) compete for them.

Well, yes, but at least you don't have the Covenanter adding another (useless) draw on those resources.

For example I have seen several comments regarding the sooner replacement of the 2 pounder gun with 6 pounder - which we all agree would be a great thing.

However 2 pounder production had been ramped up by June 1940 but I suspect that the slow increase we see post Dunkirk in replacement 2 pounder AT guns in the hands of the Infantry was primarily due to the numbers required to 'also' arm the Infantry tanks, then A12 Matilda II and Cruiser tanks which would have been 247 guns in the period June 1st - August 31st - here we are adding further Valiant tank production to the mix.

To switch production from 2 pounder to 6 pounder would have IIRC taken several months and cost the production of 600 x 2 pounder guns for just 100 x 6 pounder guns - and so this would have prevented hundreds of Matilda II and Cruiser tanks from being armed (with many of them being sent to the Middle East) and this at a time when as you can see from that link the table of establishment for anti tank guns in the infantry Divisions was only 1/4 of the number required by the end of Aug.

So I am afraid that the switch to 6 pounder simply cannot happen until this shortfall has been addressed.

There is a reason why we do not see the adoption of 6 pounder tanks and anti tank gun batteries earlier than we do.​

Ah, but here Vickers is producing its own 6-pounders, they're not coming out of the factories making 2-pounders, so they're going to be ready months earlier. In fact, they're likely to be starting to be mounted in tanks (Valiants at least) before the anti-tank version is even ready for service (there were issues with the carriage, in addition to the rush to rearm).

Also remember that British industry was sleepily equipping 5 Divisions in 1938, then suddenly it was woken up to equip 10 in 1939 then err actually can we make that 32? And then in June 1940 - Oh fuck actually make that 55.

An 11 fold increase in less than 3 years was not possible - on top of this mad rush to build a continental army the losses of equipment in France particularly in Artillery of all types was a major issue in the months following Dunkirk.​

That's true, but it's at least better here.

 

[marathag]

To switch production from 2 pounder to 6 pounder would have IIRC taken several months and cost the production of 600 x 2 pounder guns for just 100 x 6 pounder guns - and so this would have prevented hundreds of Matilda II and Cruiser tanks from being armed (with many of them being sent to the Middle East)

And wasted on the Covenanter, over 1700 of them, that could have been armed with broomstick for the combat they did

 

[diestormlie]

I, for one, have really enjoyed the deep dive into the mess logistics and trade-offs that go into 'Just build more better tanks 4Head.' It's something you don't see in many other TLs and it's fascinating insight.

And I really enjoyed the Boulounge (however you spell it) bits as well. Honestly, this entire TL has been top notch.

 

[GrahamB]

With the talk of what lessons the Americans take from Britain's new tanks I shall be highly amused if The M2(medium)/M3 still gets made as an interim casement tank but without the turret requirement, perhaps with the 75mm in a more centralized mounting since you don't need to make room for the turret basket.
Yes, it won't be a 'tank' in the classic sense, but as an accompaniment to M2 (light) and later M4 formations I think a heavy 'gun carrier' like that will be a welcome addition to the American arsenal.

 

[MattII]

With the talk of what lessons the Americans take from Britain's new tanks I shall be highly amused if The M2(medium)/M3 still gets made as an interim casement tank but without the turret requirement, perhaps with the 75mm in a more centralized mounting since you don't need to make room for the turret basket.
Yes, it won't be a 'tank' in the classic sense, but as an accompaniment to M2 (light) and later M4 formations I think a heavy 'gun carrier' like that will be a welcome addition to the American arsenal.

I wonder if the British might look at it, and realise the potential, not as a tank, but as a self-propelled gun, something equivalent to the M7 Priest of OTL, (but a bit earlier).

 

[marathag]

With the talk of what lessons the Americans take from Britain's new tanks I shall be highly amused if The M2(medium)/M3 still gets made as an interim casement tank but without the turret requirement, perhaps with the 75mm in a more centralized mounting since you don't need to make room for the turret basket.
Yes, it won't be a 'tank' in the classic sense, but as an accompaniment to M2 (light) and later M4 formations I think a heavy 'gun carrier' like that will be a welcome addition to the American arsenal.

T40 3" GMC from 1941, spiked by McNair

Original design for the M3 came this way, over the planned M2A1, that with the Fall of France, was decided to be totally unsuitable with the Germans having a 75mm armed tank

Now with better examples of British Armor, the M3 would likely be a very interim tank, hundreds, not thousands made by Chrysler before switching over to an earlier M4 Sherman

 

[GrahamB]

T40 3" GMC from 1941, spiked by McNair
View attachment 615935
[snip!]

That's the handsome beast I was thinking of! Up-armour the superstructure and put the gun in a proper casement mount like the OTL M3 and I think you've got a fine 'rush' design in 1940/early 41 while the 'proper' tank is in development. Keep the T40 as-is to make a SPG on a common platform and the Americans are off to the races!

Just please, oh please have someone insist on having a transfer case on the radial engine so the turret basket doesn't have to be so high (I know, I know, it's a personal peeve of mine I keep bringing up but it's the one thing I genuinely don't like about the Sherman)!