Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
from wiki :
The first British HEAT weapon to be developed and issued was a rifle grenade using a 63.5 millimetres (2.50 in) cup launcher on the end of the rifle barrel; the Grenade, Rifle No. 68 /AT which was first issued to the British Armed Forces in the year 1940. This has some claim to have been the first HEAT warhead and launcher in use. The design of the warhead was simple and was capable of penetrating 52 millimetres (2.0 in) of armor.[2] The fuze of the grenade was armed by removing a pin in the tail which prevented the firing pin from flying forward. Simple fins gave it stability in the air and, provided the grenade hit the target at the proper angle of 90 degrees, the charge would be effective. Detonation occurred on impact, when a striker in the tail of the grenade overcame the resistance of a creep spring and was thrown forward into a stab detonator.
The first British HEAT weapon to be developed and issued was a rifle grenade using a 63.5 millimetres (2.50 in) cup launcher on the end of the rifle barrel; the Grenade, Rifle No. 68 /AT which was first issued to the British Armed Forces in the year 1940. This has some claim to have been the first HEAT warhead and launcher in use. The design of the warhead was simple and was capable of penetrating 52 millimetres (2.0 in) of armor.[2] The fuze of the grenade was armed by removing a pin in the tail which prevented the firing pin from flying forward. Simple fins gave it stability in the air and, provided the grenade hit the target at the proper angle of 90 degrees, the charge would be effective. Detonation occurred on impact, when a striker in the tail of the grenade overcame the resistance of a creep spring and was thrown forward into a stab detonator.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Actually it's even better than that. Brandt also had developed a 75mm HEAT shell and the UK already has the data!
https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/981/files/2017/07/A-01-1940-French-Armament.pdf
Derek Pullem
Donor
They knew about it IOTL but it took until 1944 for an APDS round for the 6pdr to be developed. Here Allan has put the idea of using the M1897 as a HE lobber into the TL and it is inconceivable that he won't get some info on the Brandt work on APDS and HEAT. Remember we're talking about ammunition that has already been tested in France on the specific gun so it should be ready for testing in the UK at the same time as the new turret.
And the results may well accelerate the program on APDS for the 6pdtr and 17 pdr as well.
I posted in an earlier thread, "...It seems the University of New Mexico did some experiments in 75mm APDS starting in 1943. These seem to have been discontinued because HVAP was on the horizon and also due to issues with plastic sabots expanding with moisture; however, using a 57mm shell as a core, they got up to around 850m/s. This should certainly match the performance of 6 pdr AP - 112mm penetration at 500m..."
Now I don't expect this to happen any time soon ITTL, but even an early iteration of an APDS shell for the 75's would give them some AT capability.
Now I don't expect this to happen any time soon ITTL, but even an early iteration of an APDS shell for the 75's would give them some AT capability.
Derek Pullem
Donor
If the article I linked to is correct the French tests with a 75/57 managed 900 m/s! Now this may result in shattering issues requiring the inner shell to be capped but thats an issue which has to be solved in any case.
Last edited:
So whilst I think there was a lot of good stuff in that post I just don't see the 75mm happening for Britain at this point.
I feel I need to add the disclaimer here that this is NOT about the merits of the 75mm. The 75mm is a very good gun for 40-42, I do not dispute that. The issue I have had throughout all of this is that any attempts to get the UK to adopt the 75mm earlier than they did OTL run up against both Official and Doctrinal resistance along with logistical issues around actually building the guns and ammo in Britain which will need to be done before 1942 and the US entry into the war.
Now to the actual post.
Firstly as @marathag points out, the 75mm Britain has just got probably wont fit. See this post.
Then we have the issue of securing the Guns themselves. You are asking the Royal Artillery to give up guns they need so that Vickers can see if they can fit in a tank and if they do fit we want a few hundred off you so we can put them in tanks. I can not see the RA looking too kindly on that. these are guns Britain feels it needs right now as artillery pieces, not experimental tank guns. Yes getting one or two to experiment with may be a possibility but in the short to medium term getting many more will be very difficult. OTL the guns were in service to 1945 as coastal artillery so they were felt to have a place. Even as they go from being home defence front line issue they will likely go to training roles etc. That again is a valuable role for the guns for Britain. Getting them will not be easy.
Next we come to where we are in the war, its July 1940, the 25th to be precise. We are 15 days into the Battle of Britain, past the nuisance raid stage and into the shipping attacks and night time bombings. Invasion fear and preparation will be real despite the improvements in France. At this point Britain is still very short of Heavy equipment and will want to maximise its production as much as possible. Carden looking to tinker with a new, interim CS tank gun will be looked at poorly I suspect. Even if it isn't, even if Carden has the pull to get the guns to experiment with it will be a fair few months before the mounting is ready, the guns have been pried from the hands of the RA and the situation has calmed down enough for Britain to really start thinking about switching up production from things already being built or in the works. That takes you probably into 1941 so not far from the 3" being ready anyway. That kind of makes the whole process of developing a stop gap weapon redundant if it wont really be ready much sooner than the weapon it is meant to be filling in for.
We also have the issue of actually supplying enough ammo for the guns. As it stands Britain does not make 75mm guns or ammo. Yes it can set up production but that is not a quick or easy task. Britain can't rely on sourcing everything from America at this stage of the war. The cost will be enormous if they can get around the neutrality act and shipping things from America to Britain to then get sorted and put on a different ship to go to wherever Britain is fighting is a massive hassle and one that Britain would like to avoid if it could. Yes once Lend Lease starts that eases the problems and once America enters the war they mostly go away but that is making decisions with foresight that does not exist. Also relying on captured German stock to supply your guns is not a way to fight a war. If you can go it then it is nice but not something to rely on.
Finally we have the issue of actually building more Guns. As I have already argued the likelihood of getting the 75mm of the RA is likely to prove difficult. In addition to that we have the cost and time of modifying them. If this was an option Britain wanted to seriously look at they would need to build the guns themselves. Again you cant rely on America until Lend Lease and that is 9 months from being signed into law let alone becoming the war winning juggernaut it would eventually end up as. Any production in Britain would run into problems. Firstly who would make it? we have already had a post about how stretched Vickers is producing what is already adopted and working on the new 3" HV gun so they are likely out. Pretty much every other manufacturer would be in the same position. Secondly what do you make it with, all of Britain's production is set up for calibres other than 75mm and any that may be useful like the M1931 AA gun by Vickers is being co-opted for another purpose.Then you may have someone come up with the genius idea of boring out the 6pdr, its already cropped up in this thread. Can you imagine the reaction if you suggested, in 1940, that we are going to take barrels that could go towards making the fancy new 6pdr that can either go into tanks or be used as AT guns and instead we are going to bore them out so we can have a new CS gun. People won't be happy with that idea, again we need as much as we can get now, anything that disrupts short term production is a non starter for the time being.
Again I feel I need to clarify this is not about the qualities of the 75mm gun. It is about what British doctrine, policy, manufacturing and procurement of arms in WW2. Carden can change some things but not everything and as good as the 75mm is it is not, at least in my opinion feasible for Britain to adopt it or some version of it at this time. TTL we have not had that full wake up call yet that a dual purpose gun is required, yes HE has had a light shone on and yes it is on it's way but not close enough to start changing British doctrine or changing up production lines right after the fall of France. Even OTL when they had been using and loving the gun in North Africa Britain was not going to use it on it's tanks right up until they realised the gun they wanted wouldn't fit. Again when given the option to put the 75mm in there own tanks Britain said no until it had no other option. Britain still wanted a good hole puncher, just one with a useful HE round.
@allanpcameron I am sorry if this post comes across as overly harsh or critical, that really is not my intention. The timeline you have written has been truly excellent, you have written something that is not only a good piece of literature but also a well researched (pom pom kerfuffle aside) and completely plausible alt history. I have enjoyed every post and much of the surrounding discussion. I just feel that with this post you are potentially swerving too far into the territory of wanking the TL. I could well be wrong, it may in part be because of my own frustrations surrounding the discussions of guns in this thread that are causing me to read too much into one post. We already have posters almost giving the British a 75mm gun with APDS and HEAT rounds whilst they are being bombed by the Luftwaffe. I understand you wanting to move the UK in the direction of a dual purpose gun earlier but I think (and am fully willing to admit I could be wrong on this) you are too concerned with it when what you have already done has not only sped up the process but made it inevitable. Again sorry if this comes across as harsh or judgemental, I truly don't mean it too.
I feel I need to add the disclaimer here that this is NOT about the merits of the 75mm. The 75mm is a very good gun for 40-42, I do not dispute that. The issue I have had throughout all of this is that any attempts to get the UK to adopt the 75mm earlier than they did OTL run up against both Official and Doctrinal resistance along with logistical issues around actually building the guns and ammo in Britain which will need to be done before 1942 and the US entry into the war.
Now to the actual post.
Firstly as @marathag points out, the 75mm Britain has just got probably wont fit. See this post.
Or if it could be made to fit then it needs a bit of work first. That will not only slow down the initial fitting of the Gun to the Valiant but also the process of converting the guns to put them into Valiant's if it were to become an adopted practice making the whole process less appealing.
Then we have the issue of securing the Guns themselves. You are asking the Royal Artillery to give up guns they need so that Vickers can see if they can fit in a tank and if they do fit we want a few hundred off you so we can put them in tanks. I can not see the RA looking too kindly on that. these are guns Britain feels it needs right now as artillery pieces, not experimental tank guns. Yes getting one or two to experiment with may be a possibility but in the short to medium term getting many more will be very difficult. OTL the guns were in service to 1945 as coastal artillery so they were felt to have a place. Even as they go from being home defence front line issue they will likely go to training roles etc. That again is a valuable role for the guns for Britain. Getting them will not be easy.
Next we come to where we are in the war, its July 1940, the 25th to be precise. We are 15 days into the Battle of Britain, past the nuisance raid stage and into the shipping attacks and night time bombings. Invasion fear and preparation will be real despite the improvements in France. At this point Britain is still very short of Heavy equipment and will want to maximise its production as much as possible. Carden looking to tinker with a new, interim CS tank gun will be looked at poorly I suspect. Even if it isn't, even if Carden has the pull to get the guns to experiment with it will be a fair few months before the mounting is ready, the guns have been pried from the hands of the RA and the situation has calmed down enough for Britain to really start thinking about switching up production from things already being built or in the works. That takes you probably into 1941 so not far from the 3" being ready anyway. That kind of makes the whole process of developing a stop gap weapon redundant if it wont really be ready much sooner than the weapon it is meant to be filling in for.
We also have the issue of actually supplying enough ammo for the guns. As it stands Britain does not make 75mm guns or ammo. Yes it can set up production but that is not a quick or easy task. Britain can't rely on sourcing everything from America at this stage of the war. The cost will be enormous if they can get around the neutrality act and shipping things from America to Britain to then get sorted and put on a different ship to go to wherever Britain is fighting is a massive hassle and one that Britain would like to avoid if it could. Yes once Lend Lease starts that eases the problems and once America enters the war they mostly go away but that is making decisions with foresight that does not exist. Also relying on captured German stock to supply your guns is not a way to fight a war. If you can go it then it is nice but not something to rely on.
Finally we have the issue of actually building more Guns. As I have already argued the likelihood of getting the 75mm of the RA is likely to prove difficult. In addition to that we have the cost and time of modifying them. If this was an option Britain wanted to seriously look at they would need to build the guns themselves. Again you cant rely on America until Lend Lease and that is 9 months from being signed into law let alone becoming the war winning juggernaut it would eventually end up as. Any production in Britain would run into problems. Firstly who would make it? we have already had a post about how stretched Vickers is producing what is already adopted and working on the new 3" HV gun so they are likely out. Pretty much every other manufacturer would be in the same position. Secondly what do you make it with, all of Britain's production is set up for calibres other than 75mm and any that may be useful like the M1931 AA gun by Vickers is being co-opted for another purpose.Then you may have someone come up with the genius idea of boring out the 6pdr, its already cropped up in this thread. Can you imagine the reaction if you suggested, in 1940, that we are going to take barrels that could go towards making the fancy new 6pdr that can either go into tanks or be used as AT guns and instead we are going to bore them out so we can have a new CS gun. People won't be happy with that idea, again we need as much as we can get now, anything that disrupts short term production is a non starter for the time being.
Again I feel I need to clarify this is not about the qualities of the 75mm gun. It is about what British doctrine, policy, manufacturing and procurement of arms in WW2. Carden can change some things but not everything and as good as the 75mm is it is not, at least in my opinion feasible for Britain to adopt it or some version of it at this time. TTL we have not had that full wake up call yet that a dual purpose gun is required, yes HE has had a light shone on and yes it is on it's way but not close enough to start changing British doctrine or changing up production lines right after the fall of France. Even OTL when they had been using and loving the gun in North Africa Britain was not going to use it on it's tanks right up until they realised the gun they wanted wouldn't fit. Again when given the option to put the 75mm in there own tanks Britain said no until it had no other option. Britain still wanted a good hole puncher, just one with a useful HE round.
@allanpcameron I am sorry if this post comes across as overly harsh or critical, that really is not my intention. The timeline you have written has been truly excellent, you have written something that is not only a good piece of literature but also a well researched (pom pom kerfuffle aside) and completely plausible alt history. I have enjoyed every post and much of the surrounding discussion. I just feel that with this post you are potentially swerving too far into the territory of wanking the TL. I could well be wrong, it may in part be because of my own frustrations surrounding the discussions of guns in this thread that are causing me to read too much into one post. We already have posters almost giving the British a 75mm gun with APDS and HEAT rounds whilst they are being bombed by the Luftwaffe. I understand you wanting to move the UK in the direction of a dual purpose gun earlier but I think (and am fully willing to admit I could be wrong on this) you are too concerned with it when what you have already done has not only sped up the process but made it inevitable. Again sorry if this comes across as harsh or judgemental, I truly don't mean it too.
Derek Pullem
Donor
With respect, I'm not giving the British a 75 mm gun with prototype APDS and HEAT ammunition.
That was the US and French governments IOTL.
The difficulty as you point out is overcoming the NIH reaction from the RA. The point about resources, given Vickers are already developing a 3" HV, is also well made.
However, even if the weapon only gets to the prototype stage, the likely tests using the French designed ammunition will be surprising and may accelerate UK's own APDS and HEAT programs
That was the US and French governments IOTL.
The difficulty as you point out is overcoming the NIH reaction from the RA. The point about resources, given Vickers are already developing a 3" HV, is also well made.
However, even if the weapon only gets to the prototype stage, the likely tests using the French designed ammunition will be surprising and may accelerate UK's own APDS and HEAT programs
I actually agree with most of what you are saying. A lot of this type of thread quickly descend into "...so they start building Centurions in 1943..." territory. On the other hand, I think Alan's posts have been pretty reasonable - it's the following discussions that can go a bit OT (and OTT). And I'm guilty of that as well.
My take away from his last post was that Vickers may get their hands on a couple of M1897's and more that this may feed into any development of their own 75mm/3" gun and the next generation infantry tank. Meanwhile, if the RA get the bulk of these guns will they be intended as pure artillery pieces, AT guns or both? The Axis were fairly happy with the Pak 97/38, at least as an interim measure.
Last edited:
...This is the the Brit T-28, and A16 is the Brit T-29. It's insane how those tanks are similar: huge engines, subturrets, poor armor for the weight, archaic-looking suspension for the first and Christie for the second, big turret. Too bad the Brits are a few years behind on this one.
The lack of communication between the engineering guys and the tank designers is obvious. Unless this was only required of medium tanks, it wouldn't be sensible to build tanks above the 24 tons the combat bridges could then sustain. But we got Matilda II, A20, A22 and TOG...And if the maximum load capacity for bridges with the technology of the time was higher then they should have asked for a 30-ton limit minimum to make sure the big mediums can cross.
The engines are interesting. Did the Thornycroft work? It's unfortunate that none of these high power engines ever went anywhere. The Paxman-Ricardo that went on the TOG could have been neat on a vehicle that didn't have absurd trench crossing requirements. The 8-cylinder transversely mounted Thornycroft could have been very interesting for smaller and lighter vehicles.
With respect, I'm not giving the British a 75 mm gun with prototype APDS and HEAT ammunition.
That was the US and French governments IOTL.
The difficulty as you point out is overcoming the NIH reaction from the RA. The point about resources, given Vickers are already developing a 3" HV, is also well made.
However, even if the weapon only gets to the prototype stage, the likely tests using the French designed ammunition will be surprising and may accelerate UK's own APDS and HEAT programs
That last point is something I fully agree with. It may well be useful as a test bed to accelerate development but that is about it.
That was part of why I was looking at Britain having to but actually not being able to build the guns, I just forgot to mention it.
Thanks, I'm as guilty as everyone else here when it comes to starting off down a rabbit hole and turning it into a fully functioning mine shaft. I also don't often mind the discussions. A lot of the time they are both interesting and informative which allows me to look at issues from ways I hadn't before. It does get frustrating at times though to try and discuss the 75mm and come at it from a perspective guided by things like doctrine, manufacturing realities and logistics and be met with something along the lines of 'Well the 75mm has a good HE round so is better at taking out AT guns in the desert' when Britain is still in France and Italy hasn't joined the war yet.
I think I also need to make the point that whilst Britain is in a better situation TTL following the fall of France it is not massively better. Yes Britain can make some better decisions over OTL but one of the best decisions they can make at this stage of the war is avoid spending too much money in America unless you have too. Keeping things as in house as possible is the best thing Britain can do right now not only for your finances but also logistics.
Why on Earth would they want to take tanks to the Antarctic?
If it was for cold weather tests surely there's plenty of that in Alaska.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Tanks in the Antarctic
This article is inspired by Yuri Pasholok's article on the same matter. When we say WW2 and Antarctic, many people will immediately start th...
ritastatusreport.blogspot.com
Can't vouch for the accuracy of this website
Probably someone got caught with the daughter of someone important and got a new posting.
Apparently they were used in a 1939 US expedition to Antarctica.
According to a post I saw in Reddit
"They were taken along in Byrd’s Third Antarctic Expedition between 1939-1941. It was jointly sponsored by the US Navy, US State Department, Department of the Interior, and the US Treasury. The vehicles were abandoned as they were deemed too heavy for the terrain"
allanpcameron
Donor
And once they get their hands on it, they'll realise that it is too big a job. Might be fun to put it onto an A10 hull as an SPG since they won't get any 25-pdrs to play with.
Not sure which way that butterfly will go, ammunition differences are a bit outside my main theme.One potential butterfly, if the French 75mm is used as an interim measure - the Edgar Brandt engineers who OTL evacuated to Britain had already developed an APDS shell for the Mle 1897/33.
Reads OK to me, for something to be 'out-with' the remit of a committee or team would be a normal phrase in my kind of English (Scottish-British)
Thanks. It is simply a starting point, but the desire for a universal tank with a dual purpose gun will take some time and experimentation.
As mentioned above, not sure what ammunition the French brought with them, or was it just the workings? It may or may not accelerate the UK program, but they will be looking at the German ammunition first.
This.
As far as the RA is concerned, what I read, and put in the update was that the 75mm guns were given to both field and anti-tank regiments, until homegrown stuff became available. It would be useful for training all the new units, if nothing else.
My methodology, since I'm not qualified as an expert in all types of weapons etc., is to raise a flag and see who salutes, or if, as @marathag did, show that it's a false flag, then I either drop it, or try to dig myself out of the hole. It didn't work entirely with the pompom, but hey ho!
- Status