1937-42, yet another alt British Army what-if

tomo pauk

It is that time of the year :)

Let's give the British Army, and help the Commonwealth Armies when possible, the better gear (tanks, guns - from pistols to AAA and siege artillery, other vehicles both armored and not), sprinkled with necessary changes in doctrine. Some more professional people will put the doctrine 1st, and I'm okay with that. The things need to be kept feasible and within the technology available back in the day, while avoiding over-spending of the limited budget as it was available. If the changes benefit other Commonwealth armies, even better.
I don't expect that BA will stop Germans cold in Belgium in 1940, for that to happen a lot of other off-topic things need to happen. Better performance in NA is expected, though, despite Churchill's meddling.
Not-reinventing the wheel is strongly encouraged since it saves a lot, especially it saves the commodity that can't be bought - time.

Thread is not about the air component of the BA, so Lysanders and Austers are here to stay :\
 

Peg Leg Pom

The first thing I can think of is to have the government recognise that it might possibly have to send the Army to support the French before the spring of 1939 and plan accordingly. Introducing peacetime conscription after Munich would also help.

One not too difficult weapon upgrade would be the early production of the Piat to replace/supplement the Boys anti tank rifle. There's no reason it couldn't have been done by 1939 if they'd gone looking for something better.

On a similar note there was a prototype of a tank destroyer built on a Mk VI light tank built but never followed up on that could be introduced.


1669652786714.png
1669652839043.png
 
Last edited:

tomo pauk

That tank destroyer certainly makes sense, too bad it was not introduced.
I'd suggest that BA pays greater attention to the air attacks, and goes either at Oerlikon or at Solothurn for the 20mm AA guns. Solothurn's 20mm anti-tank rifles can be installed on the carriers and used from there - Polish 20mm weapons were killing up to Pz-35(t) in 1939 - and even can double as AA guns.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Peg Leg Pom said:
One not too difficult weapon upgrade would be the early production of the Piat to replace/supplement the Boys anti tank rifle. There's no reason it couldn't have been done by 1939 if they'd gone looking for something better.
Click to expand...
2 pdr was nice an all, a good hole puncher, but weighed nearly the same as this
1669655338804.jpeg
the Modernized 18 pdr that had similar AP performance

Have the Army go for a dual purpose 18 pdr as a Field Gun role, than separate Gun/Howitzer 25 pdr and 2 pdr AT

Yes, I killed the 25 pdr.

In its place, you have a new 4.5" Howitzer for the RA

Armour Divisions get something like this, for mobile 4.5" support
1669655897558.jpeg
Just imagine an A10 cruiser hull for the running gear.
That's how you really do 'CS' not some half-baked Smoke mortar firing at low angles.

For Squad level AT, do the PIAT, but have that use a Rocket assisted projectile for higher MV that gets you more range, and be flatter trajectory.
 
Driftless

Driftless

Donor
I'll go with something not very sexy, but useful, more Scamell Pioneers with tank trailer. They were present, just more of them at an earlier date, so there's better practice for hauling both to and from the battlefield. Saves wear-and-tear on the working armor, and recovers more of the kaput equipment. Also, you should have fewer issues with size constraints for tunnels and low clearance bridges.
 

tomo pauk

Some RN cannons that might come in handy for the Army needs:
- piggy-back on their 6pdr/10cwt program, production was underway from 1934 - allows the switch from the 3prd to 6 pdr before ww2
- 3pdr Vickers - much more powerful than the 3pdr Hotchkiss or any of the 2 prd guns
- 2pdr pom pom - still able to deal with German tanks, has a good supply of HE and AP shells
- 12 pdr cannons of different designs for tanks of 25 ton and above

Army getting the 2pdr pom pom can allow for them to have an useful AA gun until the 40mm Bofors is to be had in good quantities.
 

Paul_Sussex

Carry out a survey of rail routes between tank factories, army depots and ports to see whether width limits due to gauge can be relaxed.
Does a close support tank need a turret, or will a casemate suffice. Stick with the 3.7" gun but increase elevation/range.
 

tomo pauk

Choice of engines for the tanks:
- keep Liberty at 340 HP, the attempt to 400+ HP was not a good idea; for 25+ ton tanks
- double up the AEC engines as used on Valentines, for 250-300 HP total; for 20-25 ton tanks
- double bus engines were a frugal idea, just ended up in a too heavy a tank; 190 HP for 15-20 ton tanks
- tankerized Lion and/or Kestrel engines, tweaked for the pool petrol; for 25+ ton tanks
- RR Condor in diesel version; also for 25+ ton tanks
- Bedford double six is just fine, it will need a bit lighter tank to shine

Meadows flat-12 never happens. RR Meteor is a given, once there is surplus of 2nd hand Merlins. A high-compression Meteor would've been fine for better fuel mileage.
 

tomo pauk

Infantry weapons:
- SMLE stays as it is mostly
- a decent SMG is needed, suitable for mass production
- LMG - Bren was as good as it gets
- is a modern belt-fed LMG/MMG that needed, beyond what tanks needed?
- an SKS equivalent with 15 rd box magazine
- rifle grenade in mass prolifeartion
- grenade launcher, a proto M79?
- a more powerful anti-materiel rifle, in 15mm Besa or 20mm, vehicle-borne, with scope
- mortars - more of them, and as capable as possible while keeping them simple and light

A much increased level of training will be required for mortars, big rifles and rifle grenades, to make the best out of these.
 

tomo pauk

NOMISYRRUC said:
AFAIK the Army adopted the 4.5" calibre for the gun that was to defend the RN's bases from air attack so that they could use the RN's supply of 4.5" ammunition. Would there be any advantages in the Army developing a 4-inch AA gun to replace the 3-inch instead of the 3.7-inch? It might not be the same as any of the RN's 4" AA guns or their mountings but it might simplify ammunition production and supply for both services.
Click to expand...
(I'll paste this here)
Excellent idea - skips the introduction of a new calibre, it is still a potent weapon, uses existing ammo (plus whatever new is produced), it is even a better vehicle for proximity fuse.
Although, RN used several 4in gun types with different ammo by late 1930s.
 

Canuck Wingnut

Developing a 120mm-class mortar earlier than the 4.2 inch could have been done earlier, and would have provided a valuable boost in short-range firepower.
 

Bougnas

The 6pdr could have actually started development some months early in 1937 instead of 1938, as the man responsible for its development already wanted it back then but didn't have the authority to start a program. More importantly, the Department of Mechanization could have adopted it substantially earlier, as OTL they did not draw a requirement until late 1940 even though 6pdr's developper had started preliminary studies on the subject as early as April 1938. This matters less for availability than having the tanks for 1940-41 (Covenanter/Crusader and more importantly Churchill) designed from the start with a 6pdr in mind. 6pdr was also developped with limited priority and design ressources, which slowed development down. None of the corrective measures I mention there require excessive increases in budget, just a less conservative Dept of Mechanization.​

IMO, the missed opportunity to improve tanks was the lack of an early, powerful and balanced Tank Board as early as 1937-38, where the engineers can have a real impact.
 

sonofpegasus

For a better tank/antitank gun earlier and have it available with HE, adopt the coast defence Twin six gun. Not as high velocity as the later 6 ponder antitank gun but good enough through 1940/41 and in production from around 1934.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
sonofpegasus said:
For a better tank/antitank gun earlier and have it available with HE, adopt the coast defence Twin six gun. Not as high velocity as the later 6 ponder antitank gun but good enough through 1940/41 and in production from around 1934.
Click to expand...
The earlier 3 pdr works, too.
 

alspug

The Royal Artillery needs someone to beat some sense into them. If it fires a HE shell it does not automatically belong to the Royal Artillery.

Then whoever makes policy for Armour Piercing Shells for the Army needs to be educated on the behind armour effects of even a small explosion. Heck even a 2lb shell instead of solid chunk would be good. Imagine a 2lb APHE with a base fuse and even 20 to 30 grams of HE to spread splinters. Then scale it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top