Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
I’ll check but I thought it could, albeit at closer range than a tanker might desire.
Though it should certainly do so from the side or rear. With a four or five to one numerical advantage, such shots should be forthcoming in most battles of manoeuvre.
Jwilly is spot on. Allan's US Post is sublime. Sums up the mess/ enormity of US tank dev/ production. Even with the Super Valentine / Comet _- Sorry Valiant / Victor coming 2 years earlier and the gains that UK has made... that doesn't change Detriot. But I think the US guns will get pulled forward. UK upgunning has happened earlier - 6lber production not paused due to better Dunkirk and wider turret rings/ Carden pushing 7Xmm HV / Model 1931 / 20 Cwt earlier (without the debacle of Cromwell - "Dave, get me a cup of tea and a bigger Spanner , now what did this drawing say again on the gun size...... oh bugger Lads ".
The standard 90mm AAA is huge BUT no reason to think that US won't get started earlier. OTL they shit a brick later in '42 when Tiger came out and the excellent M36 Tank destroyer with a modified 90mm was the result - just late to the game like the Comet. ITTL the yanks could go either way. They haven't seen the 37mm ping off 1942 Panzer IVs , and based on what the Brits captured at Dunkirk , won't have same hurry to adopt British 6lber but could skip all together.
But with everyone upgunning ( Allan - you are killing me - What is happening in Kharkov? VK20/ 30 early? 4th Luft?) it's quite possible/ likely that the Americans will replace the M3 with the r M3 instead of the , er M3. That's the M3 on the M4. Also known as the M2 when it's on the M3. No not that one the M3 . FFS. You can understand why the British gave US kit names.......
Ok so they have the HV 75mm older AA gun, the WW1 equivalent of the 3 inch 20 cwt - the M1918 - also known as , can you guess? - The M3 - but modified to go on a vehicle as M7 on the M10 Priest. Stick that M7 directly on Shermans. Yes the modified cartridge version that came later for the Hellcat / upgunned sherman - the, can you guess - M3 - was better / compact but they can fit in the M7 if they really try no problem. Basically in this picture go from Number 5 to Number 9 instead of waiting for number 8.
What's great about this pic is you can see right away why the 57mmx441mm AP (Number 4) 6lber might do a better job going through something than standard sherman 75mm x 350mm (Number 5) As I tell my wife ... Size isn't everything.
The 90mm AAA ( aka ...M3!!) was modified with a new mount in Sept '42 to become the M2 ( thank god!!) . Jwilly is right - it will fit in a Sherman later with those mods. But If the Ordance board thought the M1918 was tight , they'll probably do a lot of mods before putting it in. but Voila - Standard Shermans, more of them with much better M7 75mm and then some with 90mm and/or M3 75mm but sooner.
Can talk all day about why Pershing "failed". Reality is - US was geared up to make lots and lots and lots of Shermans. Unless the war drags into 46/47 somehow - that is what you will get. It's a huge industrial machine that turns about as well as a NeoPanamax Ship in Baltimore Harbor. B-24 Bomber was the same - it was well out of date by '44 but they still made over 8000 in 1945!!!
Finally - with Brits having Valiant and now Victor .. are they even going to take the M4 Tank ? Cos if they don't - it won't get called Sherman
The standard 90mm AAA is huge BUT no reason to think that US won't get started earlier. OTL they shit a brick later in '42 when Tiger came out and the excellent M36 Tank destroyer with a modified 90mm was the result - just late to the game like the Comet. ITTL the yanks could go either way. They haven't seen the 37mm ping off 1942 Panzer IVs , and based on what the Brits captured at Dunkirk , won't have same hurry to adopt British 6lber but could skip all together.
But with everyone upgunning ( Allan - you are killing me - What is happening in Kharkov? VK20/ 30 early? 4th Luft?) it's quite possible/ likely that the Americans will replace the M3 with the r M3 instead of the , er M3. That's the M3 on the M4. Also known as the M2 when it's on the M3. No not that one the M3 . FFS. You can understand why the British gave US kit names.......
Ok so they have the HV 75mm older AA gun, the WW1 equivalent of the 3 inch 20 cwt - the M1918 - also known as , can you guess? - The M3 - but modified to go on a vehicle as M7 on the M10 Priest. Stick that M7 directly on Shermans. Yes the modified cartridge version that came later for the Hellcat / upgunned sherman - the, can you guess - M3 - was better / compact but they can fit in the M7 if they really try no problem. Basically in this picture go from Number 5 to Number 9 instead of waiting for number 8.
What's great about this pic is you can see right away why the 57mmx441mm AP (Number 4) 6lber might do a better job going through something than standard sherman 75mm x 350mm (Number 5) As I tell my wife ... Size isn't everything.
The 90mm AAA ( aka ...M3!!) was modified with a new mount in Sept '42 to become the M2 ( thank god!!) . Jwilly is right - it will fit in a Sherman later with those mods. But If the Ordance board thought the M1918 was tight , they'll probably do a lot of mods before putting it in. but Voila - Standard Shermans, more of them with much better M7 75mm and then some with 90mm and/or M3 75mm but sooner.
Can talk all day about why Pershing "failed". Reality is - US was geared up to make lots and lots and lots of Shermans. Unless the war drags into 46/47 somehow - that is what you will get. It's a huge industrial machine that turns about as well as a NeoPanamax Ship in Baltimore Harbor. B-24 Bomber was the same - it was well out of date by '44 but they still made over 8000 in 1945!!!
Finally - with Brits having Valiant and now Victor .. are they even going to take the M4 Tank ? Cos if they don't - it won't get called Sherman
Last edited:
It could with M93 HVAP round. That achieved penetration stats at 1500m that other rounds managed at only 100m.
Unless there are major strategy changes at high level - yes. OTL British tank production peaked in 1942 and then declined as industrial exhaustion, resource shortages and competing priorities took their toll. I believe exactly one British armoured division in Normandy fielded British designs, the rest all being in Shermans. If TTL the British are standing up more armoured divisions sooner, that means the resource squeeze is going to hit earlier and harder. And lower losses to date don't help, as having piles of surplus Matilda, Crusaders and Valiant Is around won't be worth much in the battle for France. By the time Overlord happens, even the Valiant II will be very much a second-line tank.Finally - with Brits having Valiant and now Victor .. are they even going to take the M4 Tank ? Cos if they don't - it won't get called Sherman
Of course, TTL the British High Command/War Cabinet may decide to go all-in on the Victor, rather than de-facto standardising on the Sherman as the Universal Tank. But that will mean downgrading something else big - presumably in aircraft production, since it's hard to see what else they can cut. Which is more important, giving the Royal Armoured Corps Victors instead of Shermans, or the RAF Typhoons and Halifaxes instead of Thunderbolts and Liberators?
As for the Americans, it's mid-1942 and they've spent the last 18 months (from the specification) or 12 months (from the final design) getting to the point where they can field M4s in six months and flood Europe with them in the 12-18 months after that. The M4 may not be the Victor, but it's significantly better than any German tank anyone has seen - and the latest Pz III and Pz IV "specials" that have begun to appear in Russia are pretty obviously the same early-war designs stretched to the limit. The Germans (let alone the Italians or Japanese) have yet to field an M4, Valiant or T-34 equivalent, never mind whatever fever-dream horror the Victor was designed to fight. Sure, the Germans likely have a new generation of M4-equivalents somewhere between design and production, but anything the US decides it wants now will be arriving on the battlefield somewhere around the second half of 1944 - which might not be in time for the victory parade.
This. One thing that's not often appreciated is that the 75mm Sherman that everyone loves to complain about was largely out of production by the start of 1944, replaced by 76mm models. Six months later, the Allies landed in Normandy largely still using the 75mm base model because that's how long it took to get the new builds through the logistics system - plus they already had myriads of 75mm Shermans from 1942-3 production and weren't about to go scrapping them.
US doctrine is untested, but they aren't going to change it because the British complain, or bring up experience based on fighting Italians or Japanese. It's based on masses of mobile medium tanks, crushing artillery firepower, total mechanisation and overwhelming logistics. They will point out that Blitzkrieg works much the same way and that "small numbers of supertanks" didn't work well for the French in 1940 or the Russians in 1941.
A few other thoughts:
- OTL, the Sherman first saw action in October 1942 - and that was after the US stripped their training units to rush an emergency delivery to Egypt. TTL, if the US 1st Armoured is going to land in Algeria in Aug-Sept 1942, they'll likely be doing it in M3s.
- With the US making a much smaller commitment to North Africa than OTL and the British drawing down their North Africa/Middle East to send reinforcements to South-East Asia, will a Sicily/Italy campaign in 1943 even be possible? OTL it was driven at least partially by the presence of massed Allied forces in Tunisia. TTL will the Americans be willing to commit an army to what they always considered a sideshow?
- And the Bi g One - if there's no Italian Campaign, will the British be able to talk the Americans out of launching Overlord in 1943? The Russians will be screaming for it, and both the British and American armies will be more confident about facing the Wehrmacht than they were OTL.
Almost anything could penetrate a Panther from the side or rear. I believe (and I have no idea when or where I picked this up) there was one documented case of a 37mm round knocking out a Panther with a close range side shot. From an M8 armored car maybe? My memory is a bit sketchy on this...
Not exactly, the 75mm was better with HE and the US Generals did not think they needed a better AT tank at the cost of that extra HE capability. They were told they needed the 76 but decided they knew better, quickly found out they were wrong. Hence the yelling.
Okay, did a little research. Somewhere near St. Vith. Not a Panther, but a Tiger (type unknown) from the rear and the story, while in the official history is not exactly 100% verified...
But it was an M8.
But it was an M8.
More likely to be a Panzer IV as there apparently were no Tigers deployed in the St Vith area. Although as nearly every German tank was misidentified as a Tiger it's an easy mistake to make.
I don’t think you will get anything like the same level of exhaustion, you aren’t going to have the same need for replacement manpower without the losses in NA Greece and the far east, plus the shortening of shipping routes will help as well. British industry should be able to keep up with the demands more easily the economic dislocation will be reduced, plus morale will be higher overall.
Also given they are properly testing and setting up the lines under Vickers compared to what happened OTL there is probably better quality control and ease of production compare to OTL as well.
Fewer Matildas and Crusaders, and the Valiant I is easy easy enough to upgrade to the Valiant II, as it's mostly a new turret, and the old ones can be melted down to save on resources.
Well there's fewer ships in need of repair, so that's the likely source. I mean, at least ships use steel, while aircraft don't.
Also, the local commanders weren't interested. There were actually hundreds of 76mm Shermans in Britain on D-Day, but no-one felt they were needed, so they stayed in Britain.
Only a few hundred M3s got produced here, so they'll be landing in M4s.
If they want to gain experience in amphibious landings they will.
There's going to be at least a landing in Sicily regardless, because the British need to secure Sicily to properly open the Mediterranean to shipping.
Superb points Merrick. My gut tells me you are right. They would still get some Shermans. But hopefully fewer.
For all the (massive) improvements that an accident didnt happen at Croydon airfield in 1935.... There is a still a massive German war machine to be dislodged from Europe - and one that is ( Allan you are killing me...Kharkov man, Kharkov......) winning ? ? in the USSR. Part 1 of the post had Lord Birch (RIP) and the Vickers management get not just the design right but better consolidation of investment in Tank production. Sadly Liddell Hart and Martel did not get run over by a bus in 1936 after a few too many post dinner Ports one night at Rules but there is a , not quite the full Shadow factory system for aircracft, but better than OTL capcity in place.
With Victory in North Africa two things of consequence do not happen ITTL 1) I do not exist as my Mum (born May '43) was the product of a brief leave back to blighty between re-training to meet my baby uncle and he knocked up my Gran again before being sent back to North Africa in Summer '42 in the build up to El Alamein. He did joke my mum's middle name should be Rommel - Less relevant to the story but quite important to me. 2) Britain has not lost any tanks and production is much more standardised/ efficient. Albeit not a hard baseline to improve from as OTL looked a lot like the Benny Hill show.
There won't be any Challengers, Cromwell cock ups, and whilst we'll all miss the comedy value of the real Valiant, ITTL it is no longer a byword for utter incompetence. No shitty Liberty engines ( the "we can't stop making them US military industrial complex of 1919) Fewer cruisers, no Black Prince, No Tortoise (yes we'll miss it but it was a flawed concept even if we'd all love to imagine it taking out a King Tiger from 3000 yards and then brewing up a nice cup of tea behind its NINE inch armour) That's a LOT of resources. Everyone is just making Victors and soon... ( Vanguards? Venom? Viking? Vendetta? Viper? Vivacious - don't laugh the RN has all had these names as real ships! ) whatever the first MBT gets called ( can only hope for Valentine given the entire premise of this story).
You're absolutely right something would have to give. Hindsight is a wondeful thing but British GDP on Aircraft in WW2 was an extraordinary waste. Of capacity, tools, training. Not destryoing British finances quite so much by building far too many expensive aircraft capacity / planes and instead having welders, industrial land vehicle capacity etc would be a very good thing. If Britain has more industrial mid / large sized vehicle capacity in the 50s / 60s - and a bit less debt - then Europe, which needed trucks/ tractors / trains/ trams/ construction equipment/ Bulldozers */ diesel engines a lot more than a plethora of 4 engine planes or government sponsored BOAC Comets falling out of the skies. . Far too much was spent on Lancasters et al , and ITTL - why bomb Dusseldorf if you can drive there sooner?
* Ok I can see how Lancasters create consumer demand for Bulldozers in Europe Post' 45 but still......
For all the (massive) improvements that an accident didnt happen at Croydon airfield in 1935.... There is a still a massive German war machine to be dislodged from Europe - and one that is ( Allan you are killing me...Kharkov man, Kharkov......) winning ? ? in the USSR. Part 1 of the post had Lord Birch (RIP) and the Vickers management get not just the design right but better consolidation of investment in Tank production. Sadly Liddell Hart and Martel did not get run over by a bus in 1936 after a few too many post dinner Ports one night at Rules but there is a , not quite the full Shadow factory system for aircracft, but better than OTL capcity in place.
With Victory in North Africa two things of consequence do not happen ITTL 1) I do not exist as my Mum (born May '43) was the product of a brief leave back to blighty between re-training to meet my baby uncle and he knocked up my Gran again before being sent back to North Africa in Summer '42 in the build up to El Alamein. He did joke my mum's middle name should be Rommel - Less relevant to the story but quite important to me. 2) Britain has not lost any tanks and production is much more standardised/ efficient. Albeit not a hard baseline to improve from as OTL looked a lot like the Benny Hill show.
There won't be any Challengers, Cromwell cock ups, and whilst we'll all miss the comedy value of the real Valiant, ITTL it is no longer a byword for utter incompetence. No shitty Liberty engines ( the "we can't stop making them US military industrial complex of 1919) Fewer cruisers, no Black Prince, No Tortoise (yes we'll miss it but it was a flawed concept even if we'd all love to imagine it taking out a King Tiger from 3000 yards and then brewing up a nice cup of tea behind its NINE inch armour) That's a LOT of resources. Everyone is just making Victors and soon... ( Vanguards? Venom? Viking? Vendetta? Viper? Vivacious - don't laugh the RN has all had these names as real ships! ) whatever the first MBT gets called ( can only hope for Valentine given the entire premise of this story).
You're absolutely right something would have to give. Hindsight is a wondeful thing but British GDP on Aircraft in WW2 was an extraordinary waste. Of capacity, tools, training. Not destryoing British finances quite so much by building far too many expensive aircraft capacity / planes and instead having welders, industrial land vehicle capacity etc would be a very good thing. If Britain has more industrial mid / large sized vehicle capacity in the 50s / 60s - and a bit less debt - then Europe, which needed trucks/ tractors / trains/ trams/ construction equipment/ Bulldozers */ diesel engines a lot more than a plethora of 4 engine planes or government sponsored BOAC Comets falling out of the skies. . Far too much was spent on Lancasters et al , and ITTL - why bomb Dusseldorf if you can drive there sooner?
* Ok I can see how Lancasters create consumer demand for Bulldozers in Europe Post' 45 but still......
Last edited:
On British tank production - it was not exhaustion or maxed out industry as much as production priorities
One of the reasons that tank production was reduced from 1943 was that a large number of the Tank production lines were using railway company's which by 1942 was causing issues with Locomotives and rolling stock numbers throughout the British Empire
With the OTL success of the Sherman in late 42 in Africa and there being no then better British tank then in or soon in production the decision was made to revert many of those railway company's in the UK back to the production of "Locomotives and rolling stock" and make use of the soon to be massive production of M4s and M10s
This left about half of the earlier tank producing companies still making tanks - principly Cromwell (and other A27s) and the Churchill
There had been talk about having US Companies making suitable "Locomotives and rolling stock" for the British Empire instead but the decision was made on the basis that the Sherman was good enough and was far easier to transport than "Locomotives and rolling stock".
ITTL instead we might see this latter decision made instead with US made "Locomotives and rolling stock" produced along with fewer British Lend Lease AFVs sent to Russia (as mentioned in the last update US tanks to be sent instead directly from the USA).
So ITTL a combination of superior 'Vickers' derived tank designs plus no reduction of British Tank production with US "Locomotives and rolling stock" sent over instead and fewer British tanks sent to Russia and Commonwealth forces in the Far East making use of the older tank estate and US tanks would significantly increase the tank production in the UK
If that would be enough tanks to equip 6 ETO Tank divisions, x number of Army tank Brigades with the then required number of British tanks - I don't know?
if it’s US supplied rail transport supplied rather than tanks, the UK rail network is fucked post war. We can’t chuck them over a bridge rather than pay for them.
Any Victors initially armed with the 6pdr can be retrofitted with the 75mm HV or the 17pdr... I think the first production Victors were produced in March 42 with full production around May, with further expansion from the firms the Ministry of Supply took away from Nuffield, and perhaps more once Churchill production is over. Full production just from the initial group of firms is supposed to be around 280 per month. If they achieve that in May 42 and the absolute earliest D-Day could be is August 43, that's 15(May42-July43)*280= 4200 Victors. Not bad at all. Especially as this does not include any of the firms currently making Crusaders and Churchills.
Victoria? or going away from the V's and to honor the Lion Class which donated their steel. The Vickers Lion, the worlds first MBT.
There's plenty of rubber plantations in Malaya whose products can be sold to the Americans to reduce the amount owed.
The problem is that HVAP round was rather rare due....even with might American logistics.
Its why the Panther was such an unpleasant surprise. The damn thing was immune frontally to the 76mm gun unless you had HVAP rounds which were quite rare. Yes, if you could get a side shot, you could kill it. But the problem was that when fighting at range, that could be damned tricky.
sorry to multi post Mattl
Are you suggesting that say, IF the IJN sank / was sunk itself quickly by the RN then more steel / $$ resources would be needed/ free'd up for Tanks? Maybe we should talk about Aircraft Carriers some more.....So I think the IJN.....
I suspect the HVAP round was rare in Europe because no-one realised they'd be needed, so they didn't bother shipping any. And who knows, with Victors likely to be far more numerous in Dunkirk than Fireflies, perhaps they won't need them.
Well I was actually thinking about the lesser repair/replacement needs for the RN due to, among other things, the lower losses the senior service has suffered in the Med. They've also done rather better in the Pacific/Far East, so again, less need for repairs/replacement.