Producing a Valiant means building a new factory to make the Lion, and another to make the gearbox. The Cadillac V8s they used on the Sentinel are already enough, paired, to power the Matilda II. Not sure about the gearbox, but I suspect one designed to handle 200-250 hp is easier to make than one designed to handle 400+ hp, and they might actually have one anyway.
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
Preliminary contingency planning should already be underway. And iirc the order commandeering small boats has happened, it wasn't actually part of Dunkirk
It is exceedingly improper to peak behind a queen's skirts! Shameful!
I would find it awfully amusing if it becomes common for Matildas and Valiants (and Infantry Tank successors) to get named with girls' names because 'she's wearing a skirt'.
The odds of Nora Batty having a CS tank named after her continue to increase....
If the Matilda was the Queen of the desert, maybe the successor could be the Victoria?
The Vickers Victoria has a nice ring to it
The Vickers Victoria has a nice ring to it
Private Clarkson what the hell are you doing to my Victoria's back door?
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Or just run the Valiant with 250HP from two Caddy engines, and the Sentinel used a Clectrac differential, so I also assume a US designed gearbox as well, rather than the complex pneumatic preselector used with the Matilda, and the OZ gearbox, local industry couldn't replicate the synchronized US gearbox, so used straight cut gears, a true crash gearbox that needed more driver skill
Hm, I suppose a down-engined Valiant would be similar to a Matilda II, but with more upgrade potential.
Very true but if holding up the Nazi war machine gives No. 10 delusions of grandeur, then implementing those plans could come to late. We've already seen guns not spiked, that were in otl, If the the CIGS and PM have not accepted reality. Then you could see a massive reinforcement of failure, I'm not saying it's likely, the Belgians throwing in the towel is a massive influence. However Churchill was known for grand gestures for short term results, without fully understanding the potential long-term implications.
Last edited:
I think the A10's sloped armour should be written in italics to indicate ATL.
The difference between OTL and TTL is that there's less panic here. Better tanks weren't going to make up for the total balls-up of the French command, nor for the Belgian collapse, so there's going to be no thoughts of this being a victory. All that's really changed is that the Germans are a bit more bloodied, and the British might get some more equipment out.
Yeah watching a ww2 youtube series , british fixation with greece and almost abandoning their north africa campaign for it are real strange things especially with hindsight to be honest. And seeing as the brits knew that the germans were about to attack the soviets it makes it even worse to be honest wich makes a smaller BEF even more pointless and even more threatening than usual aswell . I still dont understand who was driving it. The greeks also werent very thrilled with the idea is another point and only wanted troops if enough were sent and even then they werent very thrilled about it cause they were kicking italian ass fine enough on their own.
If the brits could somehow convey to the germans that it isnt a land commitment and we are mainly helping with supplies and airpower and kicking the italians. Then there would be a slight chance of maybe not the germans getting distracted with the balkans before barbarossa. Wich could be rather major since it was delayed over a month from its start date. The axis would be protected (if early enough ) by the neutral countries of bulgaria and yugoslavia atleast from land attack and all they would have to do would keep them neutral atleast wich shouldnt be too difficult to do.
If the brits could somehow convey to the germans that it isnt a land commitment and we are mainly helping with supplies and airpower and kicking the italians. Then there would be a slight chance of maybe not the germans getting distracted with the balkans before barbarossa. Wich could be rather major since it was delayed over a month from its start date. The axis would be protected (if early enough ) by the neutral countries of bulgaria and yugoslavia atleast from land attack and all they would have to do would keep them neutral atleast wich shouldnt be too difficult to do.
Last edited:
Adding Greece and Yugoslavia to the Allies adds 1.5 million soldiers and a new threat to Germany
Also the British knew about Barbarossa a week after it was decided by Hitler and his evil sidekicks - this included the originally planned date - and therefore so did Russia because the British told them.
Stalin though put his fingers in his ears and made farting noises claiming he could not hear them - the delay - mainly due to heavy weather flooding airfield etc meant that when the original date came and went it made the British data (and supporting intel from other sources) look even more suspect to Stalin who did not want to believe it.
And that is on him.
When we look at Greece in isolation it looks foolish, when we look at it and also look at North Africa it looks even more foolish.
However when you take into account the known planned attack into Russia the 'Greek Adventure' suddenly starts to make a lot of sense as the picture widens to include the events of Barbarossa which started
One of the issues Wavell had with regards to Rommel is that Rommel was sending plaintive missives to his leaders begging for more equipment and was deliberately downplaying his capabilities, not too fool the British, but to fool his masters so that they would send him more stuff.
This had the effect of his masters sending him more stuff but also convincing Wavell, via intel such as Enigma decryption, that he had more time to refit his worn out formations and send W force to Greece, before Rommel could possibly mount any attack.
The subsequent impact of this was serious for the British but given the subsequent massive losses on the Russian front and the potential for Russia to have been defeated it is actually criminal for the attempts to support the Greek's and bring Yugoslavia into the fold and possibly with Russia joining Turkey as well not to have been made.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Yep
Churchill saw it as a reputation issue. if the UK continued to go around ignoring their allies or in the case of France, bombarding their ex-Allies fleet to scrap iron then it would be increasingly difficult to position themselves as the guardian of the free world and would lose them influence in Washington.
The Greeks were on their last legs by the start of 1941 - provided they had guns and bullets they could hold off the Italians but the Germans were making preparations to invade. And their munitions (all incompatible with UK logistics) were running out fast. Given the incompetence of the Italians and the terrain the Greeks could have held out for a number of months against them but they were hopelessly outnumbered on the Bulgarian front (6:1 I believe). So by February they had no option but to seek direct British involvement as it wasn't going to advance the Germans plans for intervention - that was clearly a foregone conclusion.
The only problem is that if you are outnumbered 3:1 you also lose - the British did not have enough troops to turn the tide and it was a futile Churchillian gesture. Although he justified it after the fact (April 27, 1941)
I always thought the opposite but only looking at what the Churchill became. The Merrit-Brown gearbox and the Bedford engine fit in the Matilda's engine bay, the whole engine itself is a tad lighter IIRC, the turret ring of the Matilda is the same or nearly the same as the Churchill's and a new turret was proposed for the Matilda that was faster to build (IIRC it was Cromwell-like). Vauxhall's simpler suspension for the Churchill as opposed to the A20 has the potential to also be simpler than the Matilda II's.
All you need is to simplify and upscale the hull shape to fit a hull MG if you want, but IMO you can absolutely find an evolutionary path to a pseudo-Churchill with the Matilda II with the exception that you don't use envelopping tracks and the hull is shorter which might reduce crossing capability, but IMO the Churchill's mobility was not mandatory for modern war although it could be useful.
Sadly, Vulcan was ordered to stop making tanks and the requirements for Churchill were designed around a long tank with envelopping tracks and a 3" hull gun that was never used later, but I always felt the Matilda had a serious upgrade/development potential. Not in this TL however since the Valiant already exists anyway.
I was just thinking; capturing those German tanks might have a gotcha in it. Now they know the panzer armour isn't thick, they may not worry about needing the 6-pdr and slow it down. That might be unfortunate.
On the other hand, the logical thing to do is to assume armour will increase in thickness anyway, so deploying the 6-pdr either as OTL, or possibly sooner, gives you a bigger advantage earlier and doesn't leave you struggling to catch up. Essentially you aim to keep one step ahead, not fall one step behind.
6pdr is already in the pipeline with Vickers producing it for tanks. With it already being in the pipeline stopping that production to switch to the 2pdr would take longer than just up gunning to the 6pdr. You also have the issue that the initial justification still stands, Germany may well be in the process of increasing the armour of the tanks and working on a bigger tank.
- Status