I'm not entirely sure that you are right on that one unless I am misreading what you are saying.Regarding the 75mm rather than 76.2mm, we've been having this conversation for awhile on the thread. OTL Vickers proposed the 75mm HV, it was eventually changed to the 76.2mm because of the 17-pdr not being able to fit the Cromwell. Also, all the 6-pdrs that are converted to 75mm for using US ammo. At this point it isn't all that different to OTL.
Not to my knowledge.Didn't they propose American 75mm shells because there was a working supply line for them where there wasn't any production lines in the UK for other 75mm ammo since it wasn't a standard UK calibre?
I find it exceedingly odd that the OTL British adopted so many different barrel diameter sizes given the logistics lessons that they must have learned during WW1....
I agree! Let's focus on the real issues here... the caliber and other projectile characteristics of the small arms carried by the tank crews!Oh ffs! How many more times do we have to relive this whole 75mm/76mm/not again.5 mm gunmalarkey? Let Allan write the TL and leave these tedious arguments alone.
This time, I think it's less a debate about what should be done, and more confusion about what is being done.Oh ffs! How many more times do we have to relive this whole 75mm/76mm/not again.5 mm gunmalarkey? Let Allan write the TL and leave these tedious arguments alone.
To quote Sir Alan Brooke:I think Churchill's advisors most important qualification was the ability to say "No Prime Minister" and make it stick.
(There's a TV series in there somewhere)
[Churchill is a] genius mixed with an astonishing lack of vision – he is quite the most difficult man to work with that I have ever struck but I should not have missed the chance of working with him for anything on earth!
And the wonderful thing is that 3/4 of the population of the world imagine that Churchill is one of the Strategists of History, a second Marlborough, and the other 1/4 have no idea what a public menace he is and has been throughout this war! It is far better that the world should never know, and never suspect the feet of clay of this otherwise superhuman being. Without him England was lost for a certainty, with him England has been on the verge of disaster time and again.... Never have I admired and despised a man simultaneously to the same extent. Never have such opposite extremes been combined in the same human being.
No you misunderstand.Sure, there is some tooling for barrels and projectiles in 75mm available, but what I'm trying to say is that it's nothing like the amount of tooling they already have for 76.2mm guns since 76.2mm was a commonly used British calibre since before the turn of the century.
You mean having an 4,5 inches gun in the RN (adopted by the British Army as heavy AA gun) that was incompatible both in the RN, and its British Army heavy AA gun derivative, between different marks using fixed and separate rounds?The RN laughs at your concerns........
You do know there are very good reasons why that happened? Small ships without power assist needed lighter shells to manhandle, hence separate rounds, larger ones with power got greater rate of fire out of fixed rounds ( they were also slowly groping towards unmanned turrets ). Naval guns will also always be different from mobile land ones, ships don't care about weight as much and have a different set of constraints. So an optimised naval gun will have a greater rate of fire than its land based equivalent ( its why some shore batteries were just naval turrets in a concrete bunker. ) , hence the differing marks/typesYou mean having an 4,5 inches gun in the RN (adopted by the British Army as heavy AA gun) that was incompatible both in the RN, and its British Army heavy AA gun derivative, between different marks using fixed and separate rounds?
Sorry I had forgotten that the British Army used an long range gun of the same caliber but, of course, totally not compatible.
I am sure that the whole amount of (incompatibles) 4'7, 4'5 etc diferent marks were also as logicalYou do know there are very good reasons why that happened? Small ships without power assist needed lighter shells to manhandle, hence separate rounds, larger ones with power got greater rate of fire out of fixed rounds ( they were also slowly groping towards unmanned turrets ). Naval guns will also always be different from mobile land ones, ships don't care about weight as much and have a different set of constraints. So an optimised naval gun will have a greater rate of fire than its land based equivalent ( its why some shore batteries were just naval turrets in a concrete bunker. ) , hence the differing marks/types
Also, a ship is (mostly) its own supply train, so stocking multiple rounds isn't quite as much of a problem in the navy as it would be in the army. It'd probably be a bit simpler if they did standardise a bit more though.You do know there are very good reasons why that happened? Small ships without power assist needed lighter shells to manhandle, hence separate rounds, larger ones with power got greater rate of fire out of fixed rounds ( they were also slowly groping towards unmanned turrets ). Naval guns will also always be different from mobile land ones, ships don't care about weight as much and have a different set of constraints. So an optimised naval gun will have a greater rate of fire than its land based equivalent ( its why some shore batteries were just naval turrets in a concrete bunker. ) , hence the differing marks/types
You do know there are very good reasons why that happened? Small ships without power assist needed lighter shells to manhandle, hence separate rounds, larger ones with power got greater rate of fire out of fixed rounds ( they were also slowly groping towards unmanned turrets ). Naval guns will also always be different from mobile land ones, ships don't care about weight as much and have a different set of constraints. So an optimised naval gun will have a greater rate of fire than its land based equivalent ( its why some shore batteries were just naval turrets in a concrete bunker. ) , hence the differing marks/types
I am sure that the whole amount of (incompatibles) 4'7, 4'5 etc diferent marks were also as logical
Not to mention the switch from 15-inch guns to 14-inch for their battleships. A more minor issue, but when every one of your capital ships but 5 of them use 15-inch shells, sounds like a headache for the people in charge of logistics.All of the individual decisions were sensible in isolation but the cumulative result was that the RN had an absolute mess in the medium calibres that was a problem.
All but seven, Nelson and Rodney use 16" guns.Not to mention the switch from 15-inch guns to 14-inch for their battleships. A more minor issue, but when every one of your capital ships but 5 of them use 15-inch shells, sounds like a headache for the people in charge of logistics.
I honestly forgot about the Nelrods.All but seven, Nelson and Rodney use 16" guns.