Funny, I suppose I better inform the Royal Australian Armoured Corps of that...
The Forge of Weyland
- Thread starter Astrodragon
- Start date
Is that two armoured divisions at home in the UK plus what's out in Egypt, or is it one in the UK and one out in Egypt?
I'm assuming their composition is similar to our timeline's ones of three armoured regiments to be attached to infantry formations as and when needed?
As has already been mentioned there's no real need. Even when things start hotting up in the region I'd think that the armoured cars might be more useful taking into account likely opposition and local infrastructure. That's not to say a small number of tanks wouldn't be handy though.
Last edited:
The Armoured Brigade composition will be a little different, but the principle of attaching them to division is currently the same
Current idea seems to be one in egypt and one at home for regular forces . But they are running into the issue that expanding training needs investment and the british arent thrilled about doing it mainly cause of cost and limited manufacturing.
I guess in otl that role was filled with coveanters by the way even if it was a truly trash tank.
I guess in otl that role was filled with coveanters by the way even if it was a truly trash tank.
Its not just the cost, its the fact that they have too few tanks. Shame they didn't build all those Mk VI's now, isn't it 
Egypt is getting a full Armoured Brigade of proper tanks, everything else is aimed at Europe. If nothing else, they hope it will keep the Italians honest.
Egypt is getting a full Armoured Brigade of proper tanks, everything else is aimed at Europe. If nothing else, they hope it will keep the Italians honest.
allanpcameron
Donor
Do you remember when the History Channel used to do documentaries about tanks (before they moved to the whole alien thing)?
The poor guys who had to stand up beside British tanks and try to find something nice to say was always a struggle. Oh well, the Churchill was good a climbing hills... being one of the memorable things. There are some who argue that having the Covenanter as the primary training tank was a very good thing, because it meant people had to learn to fix broken machinery in the field. This increased the mechanical capacity of the tankers and the Light Aid Detachments no end!
Damned with faint praise.
Well, so far they don't have any really bad tanks. Of course, things tend to go downhill in wartime, with wanting tanks NOW and not giving enough time to test and fix (not just the British that were bad at that).
The USA was lucky in its timing; the M4 was pre-war (as far as the US was concerned), and they didnt do brilliantly at a successor.
The question on British tank quality is how long will they have to design the next generation, and how long to train up the quality control people they need with increased production. A rushed design WILL have problems; if they can keep going longer with the current designs (or derivations), that eases the pressure a bit.
The USA was lucky in its timing; the M4 was pre-war (as far as the US was concerned), and they didnt do brilliantly at a successor.
The question on British tank quality is how long will they have to design the next generation, and how long to train up the quality control people they need with increased production. A rushed design WILL have problems; if they can keep going longer with the current designs (or derivations), that eases the pressure a bit.
Yeah ordering like 200 training light tanks isnt a horrible idea . Or order like 100 regular tanks who are used for training and arent allowed to go out of uk maybe both of them - they could be another armored divison but a paper one wich is ment for training and home defense?
But thats if you want to spend extra money rather than your idea of redistribution of otl spending sofar?
But thats if you want to spend extra money rather than your idea of redistribution of otl spending sofar?
To be honest mild steel training tanks would not be a problem , quicker and easier to make , no need for all them to have guns or a turret ( similar to modern driver training vehicles ). The much reduced weight coupled possibly with derated engines ( to keep performance the same ) will help with wear and tare as well.
Because one limitation is the skilled workforce. If you have them building light tanks, they aren't building proper ones.
The only reason for building a training tank in mild steel would be a shortage or armour plate, so that will only occur if that becomes a bottleneck. It didn't in OTL, so probably wont TTL
At least training the gunners is easier now
The only reason for building a training tank in mild steel would be a shortage or armour plate, so that will only occur if that becomes a bottleneck. It didn't in OTL, so probably wont TTL
At least training the gunners is easier now
There is another issue with training tanks. Tanks aren't like cars, pretty much the same. They have different steering, transmission, engine power, weight distribution etc.
So, especially when you look at training a lot of drivers quickly, you really want them training on the same thing.
Same for the gunners
So, especially when you look at training a lot of drivers quickly, you really want them training on the same thing.
Same for the gunners
i didnt mean training tanks , i ment regular tanks but it would be understood that they wont be deployed away , they would be for training tankers and infantry with and against tankers could be the attraction of it. This is probably something to do during wartime tough ?
What is the abit longer term goal for the british army , i think it was 35 or 40 divisons in 1941? And like 5 of them were supposed to be armored ?
What is the abit longer term goal for the british army , i think it was 35 or 40 divisons in 1941? And like 5 of them were supposed to be armored ?
The OTL goal was for around 6,000 - 7,000 tanks
The problems the RTC in particular is just encountering doesn't have a quick and easy solution. It's basically a result of the POD.
This resulted in more and better exercises, a better doctrine, leading to the tanks they actually needed and a tank industry geared up to producing those tanks. These are all good.
But there is a bad side as well. The existing mediums are worn out from the extra training and exercises, and while some may be available for training, none are in a condition to be sent abroad, they didn't built 1,000 light tanks, so are low on tank numbers compared to OTL, they don't have a pool of training tanks, and while the existing tank manufacturers are better able to build the new designs, there are fewer companies with experience (although of course judging by Vulcan that might not be quite so bad), and the numbers aren't as high (at least until they gear up, which isn't a fast thing to do).
The only way to get all the good new stuff without the bad would have been for a continental strategy to be kept, and a lot more treasury money. Which didn't happen (one POD only, remember)
The problems the RTC in particular is just encountering doesn't have a quick and easy solution. It's basically a result of the POD.
This resulted in more and better exercises, a better doctrine, leading to the tanks they actually needed and a tank industry geared up to producing those tanks. These are all good.
But there is a bad side as well. The existing mediums are worn out from the extra training and exercises, and while some may be available for training, none are in a condition to be sent abroad, they didn't built 1,000 light tanks, so are low on tank numbers compared to OTL, they don't have a pool of training tanks, and while the existing tank manufacturers are better able to build the new designs, there are fewer companies with experience (although of course judging by Vulcan that might not be quite so bad), and the numbers aren't as high (at least until they gear up, which isn't a fast thing to do).
The only way to get all the good new stuff without the bad would have been for a continental strategy to be kept, and a lot more treasury money. Which didn't happen (one POD only, remember)
Last edited:
That's... actually an interesting point. I wonder if there'd be any call for a tank with an 'automotive' control layout, that is with a wheel or handlebar instead of a pair of steering levers, to speed driver training and familiarity. I suppose it wouldn't matter in the end, since (as I understand it) the hard part of driving a tank isn't the controls, it's being able to maneuver a such large vehicle with terrible vision and worse spatial awareness. Once you've learned that you've gotten used to any controls you've got your hands on.
I imagine you'd still want fellows with some driver training, since they'd know what you were talking about when you showed them where all the gubbins are.
Exactly. Its the vision, control and awareness which is hard, and that differs with the model of tank.
Driving over the infantry squaddies is rather frowned upon, even in the RTC
Yes it is. ALL interwar medium bombers are and the fastest of them - the JU 88 suffers more losses than the Do17 and He111 . and the Luftwaffe loses around 36%of force in the battle of France against far weaker opposition than the RAF would face, This is acceptable because the plan is to win the war in a single campaign so high losses are acceptable. As is stripping the Flak units from Germany to provide a Flak Corps for each army group.
The problem being fighter performance is much higher whatever you do so if intercepted you are toast without a fighter escort. Strategically you might get away with it because there are so many targets and its not possible to maintain a standing patrol everywhere then its just maths, can the fighters travel from where they are to where you want them to be before the bomber can get there.
near the battlefield you are attacking the one place defending fighters will be in the air and over the potential target.
light flak will be deployed to cover any target the Germans regard as important. So essentially suicide unless you have a fighter escort. And if you have enough fighters to escort use them as the attacker if you need to do low level attacks.
Going to low level - which is inevitable in an accurate dive bombing attack puts you in range of light flak at your slowest as you pull out of a dive so the maximum top speed is not the metric, its the speed on pull out and vs the time it takes for the flak to train on target and shells to travel. Same with a low level, level attack, which is just not accurate. The Battle modifications considered are all about maintaining current performance by swapping out range or bombload for protection, which will make no difference in practice and the RAF knows it,
The BAFF instructions ( British Air Forces in France) note
Bomber aircraft have proved extremely useful in support of an advancing army, especially against weak anti-aircraft resistance, but it is not clear that a bomber force used against an advancing army well supported by all forms of anti-aircraft defence and a large force of fighter aircraft, will be economically effective.
The underlying problem is that the Battle is probably the worst in a class of useless aircraft once the single engine strategic bomber role is lost there is no point in building it. Of the total run of around 2,000, 500 are made after September 39, Once the RAF has the role of supporting an army on the continent its going to produce the aircraft needed for that role Ordering 500+ obsolete strategic bombers to do something you know they will fail at is pointless. September is the start of the war so fair enough. Pre war while you might look at converting existing aircraft and end up using them you realign production to meet projected needs, which now includes battlefield support as well as the ADGB and Strategic bombing. You can argue whether the factory space is best used for fighter or medium bomber production but the engine you are producing int he Merlin and if war is regarded a a material possibility well ADGB wants fighters and the Army wants fighters to keep the Luftwaffe off so build fighters. This is born out by the actual component of the Actual forces deployed.
The Air Component of the BEF is 5 sq Lysander, 4 sq Blenheim IV 4 Sq Hurricane to be reinforced by 4 Sq Hurricane on the start of hostilities. The AASF which has the battles is not part of the air support of the BEF, its there to bomb the Ruhr. With the Blenheims listed as Strategic recon not medium bomber in the Air Component.
Because one limitation is the skilled workforce. If you have them building light tanks, they aren't building proper ones.
The only reason for building a training tank in mild steel would be a shortage or armour plate, so that will only occur if that becomes a bottleneck. It didn't in OTL, so probably wont TTL
At least training the gunners is easier now
The other reason is so the tank can jump over canals. The serious reason is you can train maintenance procedures on a cheaper vehicle which you may get faster if you dont have to wait for armour so deployment to the troops is faster. Then it sometimes gets issued by mistake.
And you can jump over canals with it and ask for the 20mm flak rounds to be dug out of the armour because really fast and nippy and can jump canals and has served from Normandy - nd would continue to do so until they were reequipped with Comet.
With 20:20 hindsight, they would have been far better off building another thousand or so Hurricanes rather then the Battles. But ITTL, they are trying to get the best use out of what the RAF leaves them.
No-one really knows yet how vulnerable low level or divebombing attacks are, because they haven't been used against serious defence. Everyone comes up with different numbers (often inside the same airforce!)
The Battle's aren't going to save France, but hopefully they may do more effective damage.
No-one really knows yet how vulnerable low level or divebombing attacks are, because they haven't been used against serious defence. Everyone comes up with different numbers (often inside the same airforce!)
The Battle's aren't going to save France, but hopefully they may do more effective damage.
marathag
Banned
Many early UK tanks were built of a mild steel structure, with the real armor plate riveted or bolted on, not like near everyone else who did monocoque structure, even if the armor plates were riveted to interior bracketsBecause one limitation is the skilled workforce. If you have them building light tanks, they aren't building proper ones.
The only reason for building a training tank in mild steel would be a shortage or armour plate, so that will only occur if that becomes a bottleneck. It didn't in OTL, so probably wont TTL
At least training the gunners is easier now
So leave the real armor off, it still looks and runs like a tank, just lighter, and a lot cheaper
That allowed somewhat easy upgrade, like with the some of early Churchills to be uparmored to later standards
marathag
Banned
Some tanks had tiller or wheels in the interwar period, but the big change, is the driver relying on the TC for directions, as buttoned up, the driver is near blind.
Before headphones/throatmic/intercom system, signalling the driver involved yelling, as well as the easy kick the driver on the appropriate shoulder to turn left or right