Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
see the thing is the British did so bad on all fronts that any fic might as well be a brit wank
My father picked up the phrase during National Service in the Middle East in the late 40s.
14 December 1941. Chertsey, England
allanpcameron
Donor
14 December 1941. Chertsey, England
The regular review of progress on Vickers’ tank development and production was dominated by the situation in Malaya and the Pacific. The celebration of the defeat of the Italians in Africa hadn’t had long before the news gave way to a new enemy and a new theatre of war.
Leslie Little’s project on the A17 Light Tank Mark VII (now officially known as the Tetrarch) was continuing its production run at North British Locomotives in Glasgow. With the Springburn company no longer building Matilda IIs, it was expected that they would be able to double their monthly output from eight to sixteen Tetrarchs at the beginning of the new year. The original order for 120 had been doubled to 240, but the bad news was that the follow-on design, the A25 Light Tank Mark VIII had not made much of an impression on the army after the trials of the prototypes. The heavier armour and larger size, while retaining the same engine as the Tetrarch, gave poor results. The Crusader (as Nuffield’s A15 was now officially known) was being considered for the reconnaissance role rather than the light tanks.
The Duplex Drive which had been tested on the Tetrarch had been a success, and there were now a few Valiant I* tanks undergoing tests to see it Straussler’s system could be used on heavier tanks. The first forty of the second batch of Tetrarchs from Glasgow would be built with the Duplex Drive as standard.
Little went on to say that the 1st Airborne Division had been looking at various vehicles for their reconnaissance squadron, and the Tetrarch was one of the options, but a special glider would have to be designed to carry the tank. Little had spoken to a few people, but it was still very early days to see where it would go. The other thing he mentioned was that the turret of the Tetrarch had been chosen by Daimler for use on its armoured car. The Tetrarch seemed to have a found itself a niche for roles with the Commandoes and Glider troops.
There was one other idea that Little had approached the design team with and had been encouraged to begin drawings for. The appearance in Greece and in Libya of the German assault gun which had been revealed as being the StuG III Ausf. A. While the idea of an assault gun hadn’t been part of the British army’s, particularly the Royal Artillery’s, thinking, Little could see the value of a self-propelled anti-tank gun. The towed 2-pdrs and future 6-pdrs were an important part of the arsenal, having a tracked vehicle, protecting the crew and allowing fast redeployment would seem a good idea.
He showed his drawings to the design team and had a model made. Using the A25 hull, it did away with the turret and carried a 6-pdr gun low in the adapted hull, making a fast, low, lightweight self-propelled gun. Without the turret, the weight didn’t put as much strain on the engine, and with the angle of the armour it provided better protection for no more weight. The length of the barrel extending out the front of the vehicle and its limited traverse could cause problems, but the design team could see why Little was enthused by the project. Whether the army would share his enthusiasm remained to be seen. For the roles that the Tetrarch was fitting into, supporting light forces, having an anti-tank gun, or even some with the kind of close support found in the German StuG, might win some orders.
Sir John Carden moved onto the Valiant tank, the next item on the agenda. Valiant I and I* were coming to the end of their production run and the new Valiant II and II* production was ramping up alongside the numbers of 6-pdrs being produced. Vickers itself were still producing about 100 6-pdrs a month, while the new Royal Ordnance Factory were producing 200 of the longer L/50 guns. Except for a few prototypes, all the Valiant II & II* tanks so far had been equipped with the shorter Vickers barrel. The L/50 6-pdrs had been issued to anti-tank regiments to begin training on it. In the new year there would be enough production for all Valiants to have the L/50 barrel. This could also be retro-fitted to the older tanks in due course.
The decision to ship Valiant IIs to Russia without guns, so that the Soviets could fit them with their own 76.2mm gun, meant that pressure on the 6-pdr production was lessened. Carden noted that the company had finally been given a copy of the Soviet L11 tank-gun and it was a small matter to move some of the fittings in the turret to take the 76.2mm gun. Looking at Vickers new 75mm HV and the Soviet L11 had shown that the British gun was the far better of the two which boded well for the Victor.
Since Valiant IIs were likely to be kept in production for the Soviets, even after production of the Victor began, the production of engines coming from Perkins’ diesel Lion would need to continue. Its reliability and ease of maintenance had impressed the Soviets, as it had the British tank crews and fitters. Perkins in Britain and Cummings for the Canadian tanks were both capable of meeting the demand for tanks for Russia.
The next item on the agenda was a report on the Valiant I and I* used in North Africa. One of Vickers’ executives and a senior engineer had been in Egypt meeting with all those involved in the use and care of the Valiant tanks. The responses were very heartening. The tank had the reputation of being reliable, and capable of the long journeys involved in North Africa without too many troubles. Like any piece of machinery, if it was well maintained it generally worked well. Some of the breakdowns that had been identified were cases of quality control, where something had broken that shouldn’t have. But most breakdowns were easily explainable and relatively easy to fix. One of the complaints was that sometimes there was a lack of spare parts, and that some tanks had been stripped for components that otherwise might have been recoverable. While that was a Quartermaster’s problem, the need for the company to ship plenty of spare parts, especially engines, along with the tanks was crucial.
The men who had been using the tanks generally preferred the diesel Valiant I over the petrol Valiant I*. Although it was the Infantry Tank Mark III, it could be deployed in a Cruiser role, making the Valiant I* with its slightly better top speed, but thinner armour and less reliable engine, almost unnecessary. The general gripe of the tankies was the 2-pdr gun, which was definitely obsolescent, and without a decent HE shell, it was pretty useless. Otherwise, the men were happy with the layout of the tank and the protection it gave them. They were generally happy with the idea of the Valiant II, the hull, engine and suspension remaining the same, but a turret containing a 6-pdr gun, which would be supplied with both AP and HE shells.
The Vickers team also noted the numbers of tanks which had replaced the 2-pdr with the 3-inch Close Support gun, the advantage of the HE shell being more useful when not fighting other tanks, which was the most common use of the tanks so far. The problem with the 3-inch gun was it was quite inaccurate. The question of just how effective the HE 6-pdr shell would be had been discussed at length, and it was generally felt to be adequate rather than good. The chances were that the Valiant II and II* would also need to have a number of CS variants.
Carden noted that the Department of Tank Design had just agreed to look into this at their meeting on 12 December. Just as the 3-inch Howitzer Ordnance Quick Firing Mark I had been designed to fit the turret carrying the 2-pdr, so a Close Support gun would be needed for turrets fitted with the 6-pdr. Carden expected that the problem would be keeping the CS gun down to the weight of the 6-pdr to avoid having two different mountings. The Vickers gun team were up to their eyes in the development of the 75mm HV and the idea of looking at another gun was beyond their capacity. The role of the Close Support tank was to provide smoke, but more and more, the need for HE. This brought Carden back to the purpose of the 75mm HV which would be able to do both, have an excellent AP and good HE capability. A smoke shell in the same cartridge as the HE was also developed, saving on having two sperate types of gun.
The Canadian/Australian plan to fit a slimmed down 25-pdr into the Ram/Jumbuck would certainly fit the bill for Close Support, but even slimmed down, the 25-pdr weight would still be a problem. The Department of Tank Design had thought of using the old 3.7-inch howitzer as the basis for the new gun, giving it a 95mm projectile. When the gun team talked about it, it became clearer in Carden’s mind that once tanks had a good HE capability the idea of a Close Support version would die off. Putting a howitzer in a tank was always going to be limited by the elevation the turret would allow. For direct fire, anything round the 75mm gun would be adequate enough. For indirect fire a howitzer would probably need something like a 45° angle, something a tank turret would struggle to achieve, especially if the gun had to be reloaded at that angle. The Birch Gun, a self-propelled 25-pdr would probably be the better bet, perhaps fitted with more armour to make it like the StuG, an assault tank.
Vauxhall had been asked by the Tank Board meeting about using the Churchill (as the A22 was now officially known) as the basis for such a vehicle using the old 3-inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun as the main armament. Carden wasn’t terribly impressed by Vauxhall’s idea of a limited traverse with a raised box to hold the crew and ammunition storage. The gun would be set low down on the hull making it even more limited in its traverse, and therefore limited in its application. Carden believed it was a dead end, but that at some point a bigger gun than the 75mm HV would be needed for the successor of the Victor. The 3.7-inch AA gun was likely to be a good starting point, just as Carden expected that the German 88mm AA gun was likely to appear in German tanks.
Getting a bigger gun into tanks was something that the Tank Board had been working on generally. The new 17-pdr that was being developed as a towed anti-tank gun had been given to Nuffield to work on a as a successor to the Crusader. Carden couldn’t see how they do it without moving away from the Liberty engine, but that seemed to be their plan, the gun was big and heavy, and so would the tank that carried need to be. The obvious answer was for Nuffield to start using the Perkins Lion rather than the Liberty, but it seemed that wasn’t something they would consider. Hopefully Lord Beaverbrook might be able to change Lord Nuffield’s mind, but that might be hopeful thinking.
The Victor’s 75mm HV could well fit the bill as a tank alternative to the 17-pdr, but with the Victor well on its way to production, Carden had been working on detailed plans for the next tank, and at the heart of that was the need for the next generation gun. There was room for development in the Victor’s engine, gears and suspension combination to move up to a tank in the range of forty to forty-five tons. Carden had worked out that the turret ring for a bigger gun would need to be at least 70 inches, probably more like 74 or 75 inches. Going by the research coming from Egypt about the German 88mm Flak gun which had been used in the anti-tank role, the new tank would need the equivalent of at least 5, possibly 6 inches of armour in the crucial places to protect it. Designing the armour to be as sloped as possible would help keep some weight down. Carden knew that the Meteor engine would give the Victor a reasonable horsepower to weight ratio but would be at the top end of its power for a 45-ton tank.
One of the other problems identified by the studies in North Africa was that the tank needed a lot of fuel capacity to give it the kind of range without always having to retire to be refuelled. The Meteor was a thirsty beast, and Carden felt that diesel gave a better performance than petrol in terms of consumption. He’d spoken at length to Harry Ricardo and Roy Robotham about an engine that was capable of about 1000-1200hp, probably a V12, preferably diesel. Robotham though that perhaps these requirements would mean looking at the Rolls Royce Griffon engine. Ricardo and Perkins had been working with The Old Gang on the super heavy tank and had a V12 diesel currently producing 600hp which Ricardo believed could be improved upon. Whether an improvement of doubling its output could be achieved without major work remained to be seen.
The other solution would be to work on the Meteor engine to try to get the most out of its capacity, but again, there wasn’t, at least on the face of it, that much room for improvement. Engines and guns, these were the things that tank designs always seemed to have problems with. The ‘Venom’ project still had a long way to go, it would early 1944 at the earliest before it would be able to enter service. Getting a 1000hp engine and a gun more capable than the German 88mm Flak was going to be difficult. Carden, aware that 45 tons was a lot of weight had been playing with the idea of trying torsion bar suspension as an alternative to Horstman suspension. The captured Panzer III Ausf F had been thoroughly examined, and Carden had been particularly interested in the suspension as a possibility. As with the Valiant (Valiant I 2-pdr, Valiant II 6-pdr) Carden was aiming to design the tank to take the bigger gun but could have a Mark I version starting with the current gun if the new gun wasn’t ready. The Venom could start with the 75mm HV, if necessary and then the new gun, once mature enough, could be fitted to the turret already designed with the new gun in mind.
Carden wasn’t sure what Major-General Campbell Clarke, Director of Artillery, was thinking for the follow up to the 17-pdr. The conflict between Vickers and Woolwich Arsenal about guns was long and difficult, as shown by Clarke’s dislike of the 75mm HV. Carden presumed that Clarke would be as likely begin with the 3.7-inch AA gun as the basis for a design, as Carden himself. When Carden had been looking at it he noted that the shell weighed something like 32 pounds, and it would take up a lot of space, so storage would be a design concern. When he’d mentioned this to the gun design team, they noted that the old 4-inch/45 BL that were being fitted to a lot of Merchant Ships, the shell weight was 31lbs, the muzzle velocity, when asked, was 2625 fps (800mps). The 3.7-inch gun’s muzzle velocity, the gun design team thought was about the same. He asked them what would be the result of having a 4-inch gun tube, with the barrel lined down to 3.7-inches, using the 4-inch cartridge case driving the 3.7-inch shell? Should it, theoretically, increase the muzzle velocity? The gun team spoke among themselves and agreed that the result, should take the muzzle velocity up to around 2800-2900 fps (880 mps). One of the team expressed the reservation that barrel wear would be a problem that would need addressed. Carden asked them that when they had time, they might think about it as the basis for a proposal for a tank gun to replace the 75mm HV in the follow-on tank.
Which brought the discussion to the current situation with the Victor tank. Rover and Leyland were working at putting the 600hp Meteor engine into production, which as expected wouldn’t begin as soon as hoped, but was delayed until February 1942. The delays had been caused because of difficulty in getting machine tools, one of the ships carrying tools from America had been sunk by a U-boat. As well as creating new factory space and training workers, the production managers were dealing with the various companies that would be making subcomponents. Making sure that quality control would be consistent and strict, had led to some contracts being withdrawn and given to other companies which could produce the quality as well as the quantity needed.
Meadows was having more of a problem getting their new production line set up. The decision had been made to delay Meadows involvement for at least six months. This gave the company more time to resolve the issues, and also to await more machine tools from America to be built and delivered. While production of engines built from scratch would begin in February, a large number of Merlin III engines recovered but unable to be made airworthy had been delivered. The adaptation of these into Meteors would mean that when production of the Victor got underway, there would be a stock of engines ready for them.
The Production Manager of the engines department was able to report that the cooling problems had been overcome in the prototype engines, the change to the radiators and new fan drive seemed to have worked successfully. At a previous meeting worries had been expressed over the 4-inch armour plate that would be needed. The Ministry of Supply were aware of the problems of potential bottlenecks, and alternative sources for armour plate with proper quality control were in hand. Vickers had been assured that when production was underway, enough quality armour plate would be supplied.
The Production Managers who had responsibility for the Merritt-Brown triple differential and gearbox was happy to report that some of the teething problems had been rectified. Some of this had happened because of collaboration with Vauxhall working on the Churchill infantry tank. As people were becoming more familiar with the system it was getting easier to see where problems, and solutions, might lie. The same was the case with the Horstman horizontal volute spring suspension, the teething troubles seemed behind them, and with a few adaptations, the prototypes were running smoothly.
Carden was able to report that the feedback from Lulworth (where the gun had been tested) and Farnborough (where the full prototypes had been tested) was positive. All the changes that had been made seemed to satisfy those inspecting the tanks. Some of the results were being given very positive responses, and Carden expected that when the final report was completed, which he believed would happen before the end of the year, then they could expect that an order for a number of pre-production tanks to be made. The company had been working on these, so that when the order came in, they would be able to deliver them swiftly, hopefully by St Valentine’s Day. Half would be equipped with the 6-pdr gun and half with the 75mm HV. The delay to Rover and Leyland producing engines wasn’t therefore anything to worry about. All being well, the first full production Victor tank would roll out of the tank shop in March, certainly before Easter on 5 April 1942.
The regular review of progress on Vickers’ tank development and production was dominated by the situation in Malaya and the Pacific. The celebration of the defeat of the Italians in Africa hadn’t had long before the news gave way to a new enemy and a new theatre of war.
Leslie Little’s project on the A17 Light Tank Mark VII (now officially known as the Tetrarch) was continuing its production run at North British Locomotives in Glasgow. With the Springburn company no longer building Matilda IIs, it was expected that they would be able to double their monthly output from eight to sixteen Tetrarchs at the beginning of the new year. The original order for 120 had been doubled to 240, but the bad news was that the follow-on design, the A25 Light Tank Mark VIII had not made much of an impression on the army after the trials of the prototypes. The heavier armour and larger size, while retaining the same engine as the Tetrarch, gave poor results. The Crusader (as Nuffield’s A15 was now officially known) was being considered for the reconnaissance role rather than the light tanks.
The Duplex Drive which had been tested on the Tetrarch had been a success, and there were now a few Valiant I* tanks undergoing tests to see it Straussler’s system could be used on heavier tanks. The first forty of the second batch of Tetrarchs from Glasgow would be built with the Duplex Drive as standard.
Little went on to say that the 1st Airborne Division had been looking at various vehicles for their reconnaissance squadron, and the Tetrarch was one of the options, but a special glider would have to be designed to carry the tank. Little had spoken to a few people, but it was still very early days to see where it would go. The other thing he mentioned was that the turret of the Tetrarch had been chosen by Daimler for use on its armoured car. The Tetrarch seemed to have a found itself a niche for roles with the Commandoes and Glider troops.
There was one other idea that Little had approached the design team with and had been encouraged to begin drawings for. The appearance in Greece and in Libya of the German assault gun which had been revealed as being the StuG III Ausf. A. While the idea of an assault gun hadn’t been part of the British army’s, particularly the Royal Artillery’s, thinking, Little could see the value of a self-propelled anti-tank gun. The towed 2-pdrs and future 6-pdrs were an important part of the arsenal, having a tracked vehicle, protecting the crew and allowing fast redeployment would seem a good idea.
He showed his drawings to the design team and had a model made. Using the A25 hull, it did away with the turret and carried a 6-pdr gun low in the adapted hull, making a fast, low, lightweight self-propelled gun. Without the turret, the weight didn’t put as much strain on the engine, and with the angle of the armour it provided better protection for no more weight. The length of the barrel extending out the front of the vehicle and its limited traverse could cause problems, but the design team could see why Little was enthused by the project. Whether the army would share his enthusiasm remained to be seen. For the roles that the Tetrarch was fitting into, supporting light forces, having an anti-tank gun, or even some with the kind of close support found in the German StuG, might win some orders.
Sir John Carden moved onto the Valiant tank, the next item on the agenda. Valiant I and I* were coming to the end of their production run and the new Valiant II and II* production was ramping up alongside the numbers of 6-pdrs being produced. Vickers itself were still producing about 100 6-pdrs a month, while the new Royal Ordnance Factory were producing 200 of the longer L/50 guns. Except for a few prototypes, all the Valiant II & II* tanks so far had been equipped with the shorter Vickers barrel. The L/50 6-pdrs had been issued to anti-tank regiments to begin training on it. In the new year there would be enough production for all Valiants to have the L/50 barrel. This could also be retro-fitted to the older tanks in due course.
The decision to ship Valiant IIs to Russia without guns, so that the Soviets could fit them with their own 76.2mm gun, meant that pressure on the 6-pdr production was lessened. Carden noted that the company had finally been given a copy of the Soviet L11 tank-gun and it was a small matter to move some of the fittings in the turret to take the 76.2mm gun. Looking at Vickers new 75mm HV and the Soviet L11 had shown that the British gun was the far better of the two which boded well for the Victor.
Since Valiant IIs were likely to be kept in production for the Soviets, even after production of the Victor began, the production of engines coming from Perkins’ diesel Lion would need to continue. Its reliability and ease of maintenance had impressed the Soviets, as it had the British tank crews and fitters. Perkins in Britain and Cummings for the Canadian tanks were both capable of meeting the demand for tanks for Russia.
The next item on the agenda was a report on the Valiant I and I* used in North Africa. One of Vickers’ executives and a senior engineer had been in Egypt meeting with all those involved in the use and care of the Valiant tanks. The responses were very heartening. The tank had the reputation of being reliable, and capable of the long journeys involved in North Africa without too many troubles. Like any piece of machinery, if it was well maintained it generally worked well. Some of the breakdowns that had been identified were cases of quality control, where something had broken that shouldn’t have. But most breakdowns were easily explainable and relatively easy to fix. One of the complaints was that sometimes there was a lack of spare parts, and that some tanks had been stripped for components that otherwise might have been recoverable. While that was a Quartermaster’s problem, the need for the company to ship plenty of spare parts, especially engines, along with the tanks was crucial.
The men who had been using the tanks generally preferred the diesel Valiant I over the petrol Valiant I*. Although it was the Infantry Tank Mark III, it could be deployed in a Cruiser role, making the Valiant I* with its slightly better top speed, but thinner armour and less reliable engine, almost unnecessary. The general gripe of the tankies was the 2-pdr gun, which was definitely obsolescent, and without a decent HE shell, it was pretty useless. Otherwise, the men were happy with the layout of the tank and the protection it gave them. They were generally happy with the idea of the Valiant II, the hull, engine and suspension remaining the same, but a turret containing a 6-pdr gun, which would be supplied with both AP and HE shells.
The Vickers team also noted the numbers of tanks which had replaced the 2-pdr with the 3-inch Close Support gun, the advantage of the HE shell being more useful when not fighting other tanks, which was the most common use of the tanks so far. The problem with the 3-inch gun was it was quite inaccurate. The question of just how effective the HE 6-pdr shell would be had been discussed at length, and it was generally felt to be adequate rather than good. The chances were that the Valiant II and II* would also need to have a number of CS variants.
Carden noted that the Department of Tank Design had just agreed to look into this at their meeting on 12 December. Just as the 3-inch Howitzer Ordnance Quick Firing Mark I had been designed to fit the turret carrying the 2-pdr, so a Close Support gun would be needed for turrets fitted with the 6-pdr. Carden expected that the problem would be keeping the CS gun down to the weight of the 6-pdr to avoid having two different mountings. The Vickers gun team were up to their eyes in the development of the 75mm HV and the idea of looking at another gun was beyond their capacity. The role of the Close Support tank was to provide smoke, but more and more, the need for HE. This brought Carden back to the purpose of the 75mm HV which would be able to do both, have an excellent AP and good HE capability. A smoke shell in the same cartridge as the HE was also developed, saving on having two sperate types of gun.
The Canadian/Australian plan to fit a slimmed down 25-pdr into the Ram/Jumbuck would certainly fit the bill for Close Support, but even slimmed down, the 25-pdr weight would still be a problem. The Department of Tank Design had thought of using the old 3.7-inch howitzer as the basis for the new gun, giving it a 95mm projectile. When the gun team talked about it, it became clearer in Carden’s mind that once tanks had a good HE capability the idea of a Close Support version would die off. Putting a howitzer in a tank was always going to be limited by the elevation the turret would allow. For direct fire, anything round the 75mm gun would be adequate enough. For indirect fire a howitzer would probably need something like a 45° angle, something a tank turret would struggle to achieve, especially if the gun had to be reloaded at that angle. The Birch Gun, a self-propelled 25-pdr would probably be the better bet, perhaps fitted with more armour to make it like the StuG, an assault tank.
Vauxhall had been asked by the Tank Board meeting about using the Churchill (as the A22 was now officially known) as the basis for such a vehicle using the old 3-inch 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun as the main armament. Carden wasn’t terribly impressed by Vauxhall’s idea of a limited traverse with a raised box to hold the crew and ammunition storage. The gun would be set low down on the hull making it even more limited in its traverse, and therefore limited in its application. Carden believed it was a dead end, but that at some point a bigger gun than the 75mm HV would be needed for the successor of the Victor. The 3.7-inch AA gun was likely to be a good starting point, just as Carden expected that the German 88mm AA gun was likely to appear in German tanks.
Getting a bigger gun into tanks was something that the Tank Board had been working on generally. The new 17-pdr that was being developed as a towed anti-tank gun had been given to Nuffield to work on a as a successor to the Crusader. Carden couldn’t see how they do it without moving away from the Liberty engine, but that seemed to be their plan, the gun was big and heavy, and so would the tank that carried need to be. The obvious answer was for Nuffield to start using the Perkins Lion rather than the Liberty, but it seemed that wasn’t something they would consider. Hopefully Lord Beaverbrook might be able to change Lord Nuffield’s mind, but that might be hopeful thinking.
The Victor’s 75mm HV could well fit the bill as a tank alternative to the 17-pdr, but with the Victor well on its way to production, Carden had been working on detailed plans for the next tank, and at the heart of that was the need for the next generation gun. There was room for development in the Victor’s engine, gears and suspension combination to move up to a tank in the range of forty to forty-five tons. Carden had worked out that the turret ring for a bigger gun would need to be at least 70 inches, probably more like 74 or 75 inches. Going by the research coming from Egypt about the German 88mm Flak gun which had been used in the anti-tank role, the new tank would need the equivalent of at least 5, possibly 6 inches of armour in the crucial places to protect it. Designing the armour to be as sloped as possible would help keep some weight down. Carden knew that the Meteor engine would give the Victor a reasonable horsepower to weight ratio but would be at the top end of its power for a 45-ton tank.
One of the other problems identified by the studies in North Africa was that the tank needed a lot of fuel capacity to give it the kind of range without always having to retire to be refuelled. The Meteor was a thirsty beast, and Carden felt that diesel gave a better performance than petrol in terms of consumption. He’d spoken at length to Harry Ricardo and Roy Robotham about an engine that was capable of about 1000-1200hp, probably a V12, preferably diesel. Robotham though that perhaps these requirements would mean looking at the Rolls Royce Griffon engine. Ricardo and Perkins had been working with The Old Gang on the super heavy tank and had a V12 diesel currently producing 600hp which Ricardo believed could be improved upon. Whether an improvement of doubling its output could be achieved without major work remained to be seen.
The other solution would be to work on the Meteor engine to try to get the most out of its capacity, but again, there wasn’t, at least on the face of it, that much room for improvement. Engines and guns, these were the things that tank designs always seemed to have problems with. The ‘Venom’ project still had a long way to go, it would early 1944 at the earliest before it would be able to enter service. Getting a 1000hp engine and a gun more capable than the German 88mm Flak was going to be difficult. Carden, aware that 45 tons was a lot of weight had been playing with the idea of trying torsion bar suspension as an alternative to Horstman suspension. The captured Panzer III Ausf F had been thoroughly examined, and Carden had been particularly interested in the suspension as a possibility. As with the Valiant (Valiant I 2-pdr, Valiant II 6-pdr) Carden was aiming to design the tank to take the bigger gun but could have a Mark I version starting with the current gun if the new gun wasn’t ready. The Venom could start with the 75mm HV, if necessary and then the new gun, once mature enough, could be fitted to the turret already designed with the new gun in mind.
Carden wasn’t sure what Major-General Campbell Clarke, Director of Artillery, was thinking for the follow up to the 17-pdr. The conflict between Vickers and Woolwich Arsenal about guns was long and difficult, as shown by Clarke’s dislike of the 75mm HV. Carden presumed that Clarke would be as likely begin with the 3.7-inch AA gun as the basis for a design, as Carden himself. When Carden had been looking at it he noted that the shell weighed something like 32 pounds, and it would take up a lot of space, so storage would be a design concern. When he’d mentioned this to the gun design team, they noted that the old 4-inch/45 BL that were being fitted to a lot of Merchant Ships, the shell weight was 31lbs, the muzzle velocity, when asked, was 2625 fps (800mps). The 3.7-inch gun’s muzzle velocity, the gun design team thought was about the same. He asked them what would be the result of having a 4-inch gun tube, with the barrel lined down to 3.7-inches, using the 4-inch cartridge case driving the 3.7-inch shell? Should it, theoretically, increase the muzzle velocity? The gun team spoke among themselves and agreed that the result, should take the muzzle velocity up to around 2800-2900 fps (880 mps). One of the team expressed the reservation that barrel wear would be a problem that would need addressed. Carden asked them that when they had time, they might think about it as the basis for a proposal for a tank gun to replace the 75mm HV in the follow-on tank.
Which brought the discussion to the current situation with the Victor tank. Rover and Leyland were working at putting the 600hp Meteor engine into production, which as expected wouldn’t begin as soon as hoped, but was delayed until February 1942. The delays had been caused because of difficulty in getting machine tools, one of the ships carrying tools from America had been sunk by a U-boat. As well as creating new factory space and training workers, the production managers were dealing with the various companies that would be making subcomponents. Making sure that quality control would be consistent and strict, had led to some contracts being withdrawn and given to other companies which could produce the quality as well as the quantity needed.
Meadows was having more of a problem getting their new production line set up. The decision had been made to delay Meadows involvement for at least six months. This gave the company more time to resolve the issues, and also to await more machine tools from America to be built and delivered. While production of engines built from scratch would begin in February, a large number of Merlin III engines recovered but unable to be made airworthy had been delivered. The adaptation of these into Meteors would mean that when production of the Victor got underway, there would be a stock of engines ready for them.
The Production Manager of the engines department was able to report that the cooling problems had been overcome in the prototype engines, the change to the radiators and new fan drive seemed to have worked successfully. At a previous meeting worries had been expressed over the 4-inch armour plate that would be needed. The Ministry of Supply were aware of the problems of potential bottlenecks, and alternative sources for armour plate with proper quality control were in hand. Vickers had been assured that when production was underway, enough quality armour plate would be supplied.
The Production Managers who had responsibility for the Merritt-Brown triple differential and gearbox was happy to report that some of the teething problems had been rectified. Some of this had happened because of collaboration with Vauxhall working on the Churchill infantry tank. As people were becoming more familiar with the system it was getting easier to see where problems, and solutions, might lie. The same was the case with the Horstman horizontal volute spring suspension, the teething troubles seemed behind them, and with a few adaptations, the prototypes were running smoothly.
Carden was able to report that the feedback from Lulworth (where the gun had been tested) and Farnborough (where the full prototypes had been tested) was positive. All the changes that had been made seemed to satisfy those inspecting the tanks. Some of the results were being given very positive responses, and Carden expected that when the final report was completed, which he believed would happen before the end of the year, then they could expect that an order for a number of pre-production tanks to be made. The company had been working on these, so that when the order came in, they would be able to deliver them swiftly, hopefully by St Valentine’s Day. Half would be equipped with the 6-pdr gun and half with the 75mm HV. The delay to Rover and Leyland producing engines wasn’t therefore anything to worry about. All being well, the first full production Victor tank would roll out of the tank shop in March, certainly before Easter on 5 April 1942.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
Is this TL turning into a Brit Wank? to which the answer is Yes and No. From what meany consider to be the start of WWII in 1937, in China and Spain, two of the worlds major powers ran ragged over the three super powers and one major power for 6 years up until 1943. Those super powers, America, the Soviet Union and the British Empire, note that up until 43, the British Empire had the largest navy in the world and the third largest army after that of the Soviet Union and Germany. And it was only then that the Americans, produced a navy and army larger than that of the British Empire. The two major powers were Japan and Germany, who by a combination of luck, unpreparedness and some very stupid decisions by the other, were able to run riot in parts of the world. What of the other principal axis member, Italy, hadn’t it too started it’s part of WWII even earlier in 1935 in East Africa, with its assault on Ethiopia. Italy was despite the protestation of its leader Uncle Benito, was not a major power, it was and remained for the duration of the war, a second rate power. Had it like Spain remained ‘neutral’ during WWII, only like Spain and Finland being a co-belligerent, and only sending ‘volunteers’ to fight alongside the Germans against the Soviet Union. It would have ended the war far stronger and prosperous than it did. Having retained its overseas empire, not seen the majority of its cities suffer major destruction , and having profited from acting as a major conduit for German purchases of restricted resources. As was by mid 41, other than in East Africa, which for the British was a very minor conflict, Italy had suffered a number of major defeats and was about to get its arse handed to it on a plate. It was only the intervention of the Germans, that managed to drag the Italian chestnuts out of the fire.
The British had IOTL by mid 41, had begun to get their act together, they were beating the Italians in East Africa, and had the Italians in North Africa on the run. While in the Atlantic the convoy war was becoming under control, as with the removal of the direct threat to Britain, the British now had more naval assets to deploy. It was only the intervention of the Germans in the Mediterranean region that put the British on the back foot. And their attack on the Soviet Union, which saw the British divert resources to supporting the Soviet Union via the Arctic convoys, and the subsequent reduction in resources in the North Atlantic. That saw the situation in the Atlantic take a serious downturn, along with with increasing losses caused by having to run Arctic convoys. Resources that should have been redirected to the increasing worrying situation in the Far East, were now diverted to the Mediterranean and the Soviet Union. However ITTL, the survival of one man, J V Carden, has lead to the British being slightly better prepared and equipped. The British didn’t thrash the Germans during the French campaign, but they did give them a bloody nose, far more than they did IOTL. In the Middle East, slightly better equipment and better preparation, along with the absence of a thrusting German general, has lead to a much sooner ending of the campaign and the retention of Crete. Which has reduced the strain on British resources, and allowed the deployment of slightly greater resources to the Far East, especially the deployment of a competent ground command to take the strain of Percival. And as the Japanese were operating on a shoestring in both TTL and OTL, was always a very dodge mission, and came very close to failing IOTL.
However this doesn’t mean that everything in the garden is rosey right now, there is a great deal of grief to come, along with some very hard times. In Europe the British and American heavy bomber forces are going to suffer significant casualties in the process of learning how to prosecute their campaigns against the German industry and airforce. The survival of J V Carden will have no effect on this factor of the war. In the Atlantic, the combination of the necessity of the attempt to support the Soviet Union via the Arctic convoys, and the criminal incompetence of the American establishment, both navel and political. Will result in a very hard time until mid 43, when finally the ABC, American, British and Canadian, navel forces, will with add from the RAF and the USAAF, gain effective control over the Atlantic. And while by mid 43, anyone with half a brain will have seen the writhing on the wall, and what the end result is going to be, the Germans and Japanese will continue to fight until the bitter end. One thing to consider from OTL, in 44 the Anglo American forces conducted the largest amphibious operation the world would ever see, closely followed by a second such major amphibious landing in the South of France. While the USN conducted similar operations in the Pacific, and the USAAF, started to bomb the Japanese homeland. The RAF and USAAF, in addition to supporting the land campaign in France, attempting to bomb the Germans in two submission, and supporting the British and American campaigns in the Pacific and Far East. Where in addition the USAAF, was attempting to supply the needs of the Chinese by air from India. While all the time the Soviets were grinding the Germans down in a succession of titanic land battles. So yes TTL is slightly a Brit Wank, but in reality the Germans started the war trying to find a way not to lose, while the big question for the British at the start, was how do we win.
RR.
The British had IOTL by mid 41, had begun to get their act together, they were beating the Italians in East Africa, and had the Italians in North Africa on the run. While in the Atlantic the convoy war was becoming under control, as with the removal of the direct threat to Britain, the British now had more naval assets to deploy. It was only the intervention of the Germans in the Mediterranean region that put the British on the back foot. And their attack on the Soviet Union, which saw the British divert resources to supporting the Soviet Union via the Arctic convoys, and the subsequent reduction in resources in the North Atlantic. That saw the situation in the Atlantic take a serious downturn, along with with increasing losses caused by having to run Arctic convoys. Resources that should have been redirected to the increasing worrying situation in the Far East, were now diverted to the Mediterranean and the Soviet Union. However ITTL, the survival of one man, J V Carden, has lead to the British being slightly better prepared and equipped. The British didn’t thrash the Germans during the French campaign, but they did give them a bloody nose, far more than they did IOTL. In the Middle East, slightly better equipment and better preparation, along with the absence of a thrusting German general, has lead to a much sooner ending of the campaign and the retention of Crete. Which has reduced the strain on British resources, and allowed the deployment of slightly greater resources to the Far East, especially the deployment of a competent ground command to take the strain of Percival. And as the Japanese were operating on a shoestring in both TTL and OTL, was always a very dodge mission, and came very close to failing IOTL.
However this doesn’t mean that everything in the garden is rosey right now, there is a great deal of grief to come, along with some very hard times. In Europe the British and American heavy bomber forces are going to suffer significant casualties in the process of learning how to prosecute their campaigns against the German industry and airforce. The survival of J V Carden will have no effect on this factor of the war. In the Atlantic, the combination of the necessity of the attempt to support the Soviet Union via the Arctic convoys, and the criminal incompetence of the American establishment, both navel and political. Will result in a very hard time until mid 43, when finally the ABC, American, British and Canadian, navel forces, will with add from the RAF and the USAAF, gain effective control over the Atlantic. And while by mid 43, anyone with half a brain will have seen the writhing on the wall, and what the end result is going to be, the Germans and Japanese will continue to fight until the bitter end. One thing to consider from OTL, in 44 the Anglo American forces conducted the largest amphibious operation the world would ever see, closely followed by a second such major amphibious landing in the South of France. While the USN conducted similar operations in the Pacific, and the USAAF, started to bomb the Japanese homeland. The RAF and USAAF, in addition to supporting the land campaign in France, attempting to bomb the Germans in two submission, and supporting the British and American campaigns in the Pacific and Far East. Where in addition the USAAF, was attempting to supply the needs of the Chinese by air from India. While all the time the Soviets were grinding the Germans down in a succession of titanic land battles. So yes TTL is slightly a Brit Wank, but in reality the Germans started the war trying to find a way not to lose, while the big question for the British at the start, was how do we win.
RR.
This sentence feels like it has a word or two missing; though English being as sloppy as it is it may be grammatically accurate?
Um, compared to OTL the British are doing massively better, not only did they manage to pull more men out of France (~50K more than OTL), but their victories in Greece (probably several thousand fewer men captured), Crete (probably at least 15K fewer casualties) and North Africa (probably in the region of 200K fewer casualties), leave them probably almost a quarter-million men better off than OTL. Then you add in the 100K+ not captured in Malaya. Add in a few tens of thousands fewer casualties in Burma (if that will even be a thing.
Sir John isn't resting on his laurels, I see. Lots of balls in the air, even if the long-term plans are a little vague.
Sir John's indulging in some muddled thinking there - if he wants 45-degree elevation, then his SP howitzer is going to end up with a high, bulky superstructure that for weight reasons can only be lightly armoured. Assault guns, which need heavy armour, are low-profile and don't allow high elevation of the main armament.
I am not sure if the name “Vanguard” ended up being used for a varient based on the Valiant or not. I know it was planned to at one point but I don’t think I have heard any more on it. However, if it has not been used I would humbly submit that Vanguard might be a better name for TTL’s equivalent to the Centurion than Venom.
Up to you of course, and I will thoroughly enjoy the story regardless. Just putting my two cents in.
Armour production is a specialty field. Tank armour is not quite as hard as ship armour but it still takes expensive specialist equipment and an experienced workforce. Thus ship armour makers were generally also the suppliers for tanks.
In Britain there are basically three armour makers in production in WW2 (down from 5 in WW1). English Steel Corporation’s River Don (Formerly Vickers) works in Sheffield is the largest (and they may also be using Armstrongs works at Openshaw). Built from an amalgamation of Vickers, Armstrong’s and Cammell Laird’s Sheffield armour works and jointly owned by Vickers and Cammell Laird. Firth Brown Steels is also in Sheffield and is an amalgamation of the steel works of John Brown and Thomas Firth. The third is Beardmore’s Parkhead Forge near Glasgow. Beardmore’s old works at Dalmuir was now government owned and was restarted in the late 30’s under Beardmore management. Additionally, the regular steel maker Colville from Motherwell in Scotland was brought in in both wars to make armour plate up to 4 in thick.
In the years leading up to the Second World War expansions, financed by the Admiralty, brought British armour production from 18,000 tons/ year up to around 48,000 tons/year. After 1941 Admiralty orders fell off (Battleships being largely either built or on hold) with about 16,500 tons allotted to them per year. So, in theory at least, there should be approximately 30,000 tons of annual armour production available for tank use beginning in 1942. ESC was pumping out 25,000 per year by themselves at peak and about 54% of the 178,000 tons they produced 1936-1946 (about 94,000 tons) went to tanks.
Source: The Battleship Builders by Ian Johnston and Ian Buxton.
Last edited:
Of course Beaverbrook can change Nuffield's mind, he's paying for the tanks!
Nuffield is an influential figure to be sure, but ultimately if the government say they want engine X or will refuse to use engine Y then he has no choice but to follow that instruction. It would be that way in peacetime, but in wartime if Nuffield starts being genuinely obstructive on this then he will not remain in charge for long. Look at Castle Bromwhich.
The Liberty stayed in production so long in OTL because of concerns over cooling the Meteor, concerns so serious that Leyland which had championed it decided to re-work the Liberty instead (with War Office approval). We all know the Meteor works out, but that was not obvious at the time so having some insurance was sensible, especially given the problems with cooling on previous tanks. Even then Nuffield kept working on a design with the standard Liberty just in case the Leyland re-work failed, the War Office seem determined not to have cooling problems again even if it meant pursuing 3 parallel designs.
Now in this timeline those concerns don't exist, so the War Office and Beaverbrook can just say the next Nuffield tank will use the Lion (or ban the use of the Liberty, it's the same thing) and there is absolutely Lord Nuffield can do about it apart from grimace and get on with it.
The Venom is sounding very Centurion like.
Based on OTL Vickers are going to experience an unhappy surprise.
The Government can and will blacklist a company it feels is being awkward, even in peacetime. Just look at how many pistols the Government's bought from Webley in peace time since they successfully sued them.
It could also be said though that they didn’t buy from Webley because they had already successfully copied Webley’s design and were producing the tiny number of revolvers they needed at Enfield. Thus there was no need to buy private. When they were required to equip a much larger force with arms they bought lots of Webleys.
That said, blacklisting is unnecessary and overly high handed. If a design component is unacceptable to the customer and the contractor cannot change their mind then the contractor changes the component. Simple as that. Either that or they bow out of their contract and any subsequent orders. In this case Nuffield has too much of both their own and the government’s money invested, so that is not happening. And there is a war on. If necessary the government can and will seize control of Nuffield’s factories or entire company, compensating him after the war. Nuffield is not going to push it for a few pounds savings from an internally sourced engine.
EDIT: Also fair to mention that Webley lost their lawsuit. Enfield claimed that the Enfield No.2 was designed by Captain Boys (Assistant Superintendent of Design of Boys rifle fame) “with assistance by Webley and Scott”. W&S’s suit was denied but the Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors gave Webley £1,250, about half of what they had been looking for, as compensation.
Last edited:
Is anyone still making replacements parts for Matildas, for things which need replacing due to everyday wear and tear, so that the ones in places like Malaya can be kept running for as long as possible?
(Apologies if this is a question where the answer is obvious to a WW2 tank aficionado.)
I'm surprised Carden isn't looking at the 17pdr as the starter gun for the Venom. He should know about it by now as design work was finished around the end of 1941, also I am sure it has been mentioned in a post at least once? I could be confusing reader chatter.
It will be smaller and lighter than the 3.7"/4" gun he is considering here. In addition it has the ability to be given a bit more power, see the OTL 20 pounder. Even then the 17pdr is plenty of gun for WW2 and anything more is a bit overkill and adding unnecessary weight. In addition getting the lighter gun in the tank means less stress on the engine if it is not quite up to snuff.
It will be smaller and lighter than the 3.7"/4" gun he is considering here. In addition it has the ability to be given a bit more power, see the OTL 20 pounder. Even then the 17pdr is plenty of gun for WW2 and anything more is a bit overkill and adding unnecessary weight. In addition getting the lighter gun in the tank means less stress on the engine if it is not quite up to snuff.
Derek Pullem
Donor
It's such a limited gain over a 75mmHV that making it as the centrepiece for a new tank would be very short sighted.
He's probably looking at something else to replace the 17pdr as enemy (German and hypothetically Soviet?) tanks would be designed to counter the 17pdr since it'll be coming out somewhat soon after the Victor. Also because Carden is designing tanks that can have their guns upgraded; like the Valiant originally having the 2pdr and being upgraded with the 6pdr, and the Victor with the 6pdr and then being upgraded with the 75mm HV, the Venom might take the 17pdr first but is ultimately designed to take the larger 94mm.
Also surprised that if they have 75mm HVs available and able to be produced they're still going to put 6pdrs on them; especially the Vickers L/43 almost definitely doesn't really have any advantage in penetration over the 75/77mm HV. (And I bet the War Office will request a 76.2mm calibre instead of 75mm when they give out the first contract for the Victor)
Last edited:
allanpcameron
Donor
It has been, but my Carden is concerned with an effective dual-purpose tank gun. The 17-pdr's HE capability was always going to be limited. He is also thinking about the next gun. Yes, we know the 17-pdr is enough gun for the rest of the war, he doesn't. If the Venom is 5-6 inch armoured, then there's a good chance German tanks will be likewise (King Tiger has over 7-inches in places?). The capture of some 88mm Flak guns in North Africa will help give the Allies a real knowledge of what they're up against. I think looking a jumping the 95mm towards a 102mm, or better yet, 105mm gun is well worth looking at, even at this point.
...To be honest, there's a decent chance the British might not actually develop a 102mm or 105mm gun as a jump from the 4in/3.7in Carden is thinking about currently; instead of the 105mm L7 being developed from the 84mm 20pdr, the bigger case designed from the basis of the 4in naval gun's case might instead result in being rebored to something like a 4.5in/113mm gun? 84mm to 105mm corresponds closer to 94mm to 113mm compared to 94mm to 105mm, after all. And the bigger calibre will be better for the HESH and HEAT that would be expected to make up a sizeable chunk of the new gun's ammunition load, while sabot instead of AP or APCR basically eliminates the downside of the bigger calibre.