1939s British army sanity options

[marathag]

SPG - Based on the Birch gun, the mobile artillery has an 18lber which is adequate but the latest version on a new hull has the new 25lber. These are supported by Bren ammunition carriers.

Why not a light SPG, say a Carden-Loyd Mark VI tankette(but swap Ford 4 cylinder for V8) with a Davis recoilless gun, rather than OTL 45mm?

Plus the 3" version of the Davis Gun that had a 9 pound shell, weight was 182 pounds, less breech block and Lewis gun used for spotting

 

[marathag]

I've got the notes I made and according to Pages 369-370 it was October 1936 as follows:600 engines at £500 each = £300,000.

Still a bargain than having Nuffield restart Liberty Production

 

[Glyndwr01]

For infantry tanks it might be worth doing away with the AT armament entirely, if the close support variant of the Matilda was standard, with the QF 3in, it would be far better at doing the actual job of supporting the infantry with HE fire. Each tank could be issued a couple of HEAT shells for emergency AT work, and one tank in each platoon could have the 2pdr for engaging armoured vehicles.

Such a tank unit would be fearsome in the support role, able to engage and destroy emplacements and towed weapons

As for the cruisers it seems like a lot of time was wasted on duplication of effort, leading to several not quite adequate designs coming in quick succession. The 2pdr was a very good AT weapon, and what was needed was a focus on a single decent chassis to mount it on. Even if the resulting vehicle was only adequate to begin with, as long as it had sufficient room for upgrades.
Dumping the railroad requirement would be ideal here, as it should be recognized that British tanks would ideally be fighting overseas and thus transported by ship, and if not Britain is a small enough country that road marching should suffice.
Fitting them out with 2pdr HE is also necessary, even hand grenade size burst is useful to to destroy soft vehicles and supplies that they might encounter once they have broken through into the rear area. A CS armed tank per platoon will aid them them in reducing dug in fortifications and gun emplacements.

25pdr armed SPG would also be ideal to support both kinds of formations.

I don't think there is any particular need for a tank destroyer type vehicle. At least early war, Bren carriers towing 2pdr and 6pdr pieces should suffice, they just need to be better grouped into dedicated mobile AT units that respond to breakthrough, rather than sprinkled across the front lines peicemeal.

The only problem with the CS tanks was that they were only issued with smoke shells, once again HE was artillery only!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farquhar-Hill_rifle
The British Army appears to have adopted and ordered the Farquhar-Hill rifle in 1918, but the end of hostilities in Europe led to the cancellation of the order before any rifles were delivered. The rifle did see some use with British aviators, along the same lines as the Mauser M1916 and Mondragon rifles.

Lot of Napier aero engines knocking around in the 30's the Lion comes to mind 450 bhp up to 1300 bhp supercharged.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Lion
Between the wars the Lion engine powered over 160 different aircraft types.


The Napier Lion installed in the Napier-Railton car.
In highly tuned racing versions, the engine could reach 1,300 hp (970 kW) and it was used to break many world height, air speed and distance records in aircraft and boats, delivering 1,375 hp (1,025 kW) in a highly tuned Lion for a water speed record of 100 mph (160 km/h) in 1933. In land speed records, Lion engines powered many of Sir Malcolm Campbell's record breakers including a record of over 250 mph (400 km/h) in 1932 and John Cobb's 394 mph (634 km/h) Railton Mobil Special in 1947—a record that came well after the Lion had passed its prime and stood until the 1960s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Still a bargain than having Nuffield restart Liberty Production

It was an observation not a comment, but I agree about it being a bargain compared to the Liberty.

When did the first Liberties come off the Nuffield production lines. The Merlin entered service on the Battle early in 1937. Could Nuffield have been tooled up to build Liberties instead.

And if Nuffield had been paid to build a factory to build Liberties, then Rolls Royce could have just as easily have been paid to make Meteors instead.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Instead of developing the 3.7" AA gun would there be any advantage to using the Royal Navy's single 4" AA mounting? Even if a new mounting and carriage had still to be designed would there be any economies of scale in gun barrel and ammunition production.

Also the RN developed a single 4.7" HA mounting which was fitted to Nelson, Rodney and the minelaying cruiser Adventure.

• Could the Army have adopted that instead of designing the single 4.5" AA gun and mounting?
• Could the single 4.7" HA mounting have been fitted to the A to I class destroyers without an unacceptable increase in size?

Not strictly on topic, but instead of developing the twin 4.5" Mk II and III mountings could equivalent twin 4.7" gun mountings have been developed instead? If it was a lightweight version of the Mk III would have been fitted to the Tribal, Javelin and Lightning classes of destroyer.

 

[tomo pauk]

Instead of developing the 3.7" AA gun would there be any advantage to using the Royal Navy's single 4" AA mounting? Even if a new mounting and carriage had still to be designed would there be any economies of scale in gun barrel and gun production.
...

The 3.7in AA gun indeed seems like reinventing the wheel, and, even without the economies of scale with going with 4 in AA, time and material resources are saved with this proposal.

 

[marathag]

When did the first Liberties come off the Nuffield production lines.

Lord Nuffield bought Wolseley Aero engines in 1927 and merged with Nuffield Mechanizations in September 1937.

L.N. seems to have bought his first 25 Liberty engines, along with drawings, from Walter Christie, for $1800*each in January 1937, and around 50 more later to complete
his order for the A13 MkI Cruisers. These were US WWI built engines, modified with British Lucas ignitions and Solex carbs . These are known as MkI Liberty engines.

It seems that the first MkII all British made engines were first made in early 1938 in the ex-Wolseley plant in Birmingham. Around 350 were made
The later Mk III engines were substantially reworked to reduce the height of the engine by relocating the water and oil pump locations, and introduced the output to allow chain driven cooling fans to be driven. That was nothing but trouble, being changed to shaft driven fans for the Mk IV Nuffield Liberty.

In August 1941, the need for engines exceeded what the Wolseley plant could do, so Morris Motors at Coventry was set to also make Mk III Liberty engines.

That's the time to make RR Meteors, earlier in 1941.

* I've seen notes that WWI surplus Liberty, in the original factory crates, were surplused out for $100 each in the late '20s when the Army stopped using the type in favor for the Curtiss Conquerors

 

[tomo pauk]

There is excellent and not over-priced book (at least at the publisher) about Liberty engine, that also covers the Nuffield Liberty engines: link

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Lord Nuffield bought Wolseley Aero engines in 1927 and merged with Nuffield Mechanizations in September 1937.

L.N. seems to have bought his first 25 Liberty engines, along with drawings, from Walter Christie, for $1800*each in January 1937, and around 50 more later to complete
his order for the A13 MkI Cruisers. These were US WWI built engines, modified with British Lucas ignitions and Solex carbs . These are known as MkI Liberty engines.

It seems that the first MkII all British made engines were first made in early 1938 in the ex-Wolseley plant in Birmingham. Around 350 were made
The later Mk III engines were substantially reworked to reduce the height of the engine by relocating the water and oil pump locations, and introduced the output to allow chain driven cooling fans to be driven. That was nothing but trouble, being changed to shaft driven fans for the Mk IV Nuffield Liberty.

In August 1941, the need for engines exceeded what the Wolseley plant could do, so Morris Motors at Coventry was set to also make Mk III Liberty engines.

That's the time to make RR Meteors, earlier in 1941.

* I've seen notes that WWI surplus Liberty, in the original factory crates, were surplused out for $100 each in the late '20s when the Army stopped using the type in favor for the Curtiss Conquerors

If it is early 1938 as stated above then I think there's time to turn the Merlin into a tank engine and have the first deliveries in early 1938.

 

[tomo pauk]

<silently reminds that RR Kestrel just cries to be installed in a tank, the tooling is around, while the RAF has no requirement for it after mid-1930s>

 

[Cryhavoc101]

<silently reminds that RR Kestrel just cries to be installed in a tank, the tooling is around, while the RAF has no requirement for it after mid-1930s>

I was half way through posting the same thing

How much would the RR Kestrel be worth as a 2nd hand Power plant adapted for ground service use in a 'Meteor' type fashion or even new purpose built production - over 4000 Power plants built and power starts at 450 HP in the late 20s and and topping out at over 750 - with few of the aircraft that used them still in service - I think that it would be a better choice of AFV power plant - being more modern and easier to build than the older engine.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Some background information I found whilst looking for something else.

Tanks

• In 1936 the British Army had 375 tanks - 209 light and 166 medium.
• 304 including 164 of the mediums were designated as obsolete.
• The 164 obsolete medium tanks were Mks I, Ia and II delivered between 1925 and 1929.
• The 2 non-obsolete medium tanks were of an experimental type.
• The 69 non-obsolete light tanks were Mks V and VI.

Trucks

The total number of trucks ordered 1923-32 was little more than 5,000 or about 500 per annum. Of this the six-wheel lorries, the main element of mechanised equipment, formed somewhat less than half.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The vickers 6 ton would be a good replacement for the Light mkIV, but I don't think it could adequately replace the Cruisers in 1939-40. A dedicated design was needed for that. I think part of the indesicion and inability to commit to a single model for a cruiser was down to inexperience. The army simply didn't know what it needed.
Having vickers 6tons in service from the late 20's in dedicated tank units, may have given them the necessary instituitonal confidence in the procurement of armoured vehicles to choose a half decent cruiser tank in time for the battle of France, and have it ready in number.

You're right it's not a cruiser tank, but it allows the light tanks to actually be able to fight if they have to. Having them available instead of the machine gun armed light tanks would make for a much stronger BEF in 1939 even though by then they are obsolesent and in need of replacing.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Starting in 1933 in response to the election of Hitler in Germany.

A reasonably low cost option that would be a benefit to the Infantry would be to issue them with 6 of the WWI 20rd trench magazines for the SMLE + 1 on the rifle instead of using charger clips. Doing that makes the old reliable Lee Enfield a close match for any of the early issued semi automatic rifles.

Non Infantry don't need a full sized rifle, it just gets in the way. Issue them with shortened carbine sized rifles with standard 10rd mags and charger clips.

Get rid of the revolvers and license 9mm Browning Hi Power pistols. Find a good SMG and buy a licence to produce it. Even if you don't make it general issue it'ss already there if you need to start churning them out.

When they switch to the 25pdr gun don't scrap the 18pdrs store the ones in best condition just in case you need to rapidly expand the army.

 

[yulzari]

Just to mention that OTL Rolls Royce etc/ was flat out making Merlin aero engines and Kestrels were still needed for Masters and supporting old types in use as trainers (and operationally in East Africa and India).

The Nuffield Liberty was OK at first but got pushed too far to remain reliable in the quest for speed with increasing armour etc. If one accepted it being geared down instead it would do the job until Meteors could take over. Liberty engined Crusaders and Cavaliers and Centaurs were still in service in 1945, albeit not as gun tanks. Even Covenantor bridgelayers with the Australians despite the alleged cooling issues. The Nuffield Liberty has more capacity and is lighter than the Lion and much the same power output on pool petrol normally aspirated. It ain't broke so don't fix it. You will need a Meteor but not in 1939.

A tracked mover for 25 pounders would be nice but not vital. The Quad can do the task for the moment. Spending resources on more and better tank transporters would be more productive. Light tanks are an expensive way to make armoured cars.

 

[marathag]

The Nuffield Liberty was OK at first but got pushed too far to remain reliable in the quest for speed with increasing armour etc. If one accepted it being geared down instead it would do the job until Meteors could take over.

OK, as in better than nothing. The increased output on the later Marks was from raising the governor from 1500 to 1700rpm, that hurt the reliability. They had finally got the waterpump and cooling fan situation fixed, but the overall reliability remained poor.

The Nuffield Liberty has more capacity and is lighter than the Lion and much the same power output on pool petrol normally aspirated. It ain't broke so don't fix it. You will need a Meteor but not in 1939.

By the time the Liberty was 'fixed' UK Pool Petrol was rated the same as the USA, 80 Octane, since they were supplying it in the ETO

The Liberty could run on lower octane from lower compression, and have automotive style breaker point ignition rather than Magnetos like on the Lion: it was possible to retard the ignition spark to reduce knock on low Octane fuels. Note the Liberty had reworked ignition for the acceptance tests, while not done for the Lion

A tracked mover for 25 pounders would be nice but not vital. The Quad can do the task for the moment. Spending resources on more and better tank transporters would be more productive. Light tanks are an expensive way to make armoured cars.

UK tracks had poor life till made of higher magnesium content alloy, that didn't occur til 1942, IIRC.
So no sense doing SP Arty till long life tracks are developed, otherwise you will need even more tank transporters

That's why the US had an advantage in High Speed Tractors, that rubber block 'Live' Track that dated back to the post Christie Tanks.

 

[Some Bloke]

Although if we go for the Lion without ever building the Liberty ...

 

[Millsy]

Some really good input thanks

Think the biggest gap for me still is the infantry anti tank weapon do we stick with the Boys until Piat is available ? Find a better at rifle ( the solothun as used by Dutch is better ? ) or try to get a rifle Grenade solution ?

Actually as the 2" mortar whilst excellent is platoon level does the section/squad need a rifle grenade ?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The most insane thing was running down the Army too much between 1919 and 1934 making the cost of modernising the TA by 1939 prohibitive. The actual programme was to modernise the Regular Army and provide the TA with training scales of modern equipment, which in the event of war would be pooled to allow the mobilisation of 4 TA divisions, so that 9 of the 19 divisions in the UK (5 regular and 14 TA) could be put into the field.

The BEF actually had 10 divisions in May 1940 plus 3 TA divisions serving as pioneers in the rear because there was no equipment for them.

Had the policy between 1919 and 1934 been to have enough modern equipment for 9 divisions (5 regular and 4 TA) the cost of modernising the rest of the TA would have been less daunting because a larger armaments industry would have been in existence and the cost of modernising the 10 remaining TA divisions was less than the cost of modernising 19 divisions (5 regular and 14 TA) that the Treasury was actually faced with.

Edit

If the Cabinet and Treasury had been willing/able to follow that policy the plan to double the TA in 1939 would have been completed faster too.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Some really good input thanks

Think the biggest gap for me still is the infantry anti tank weapon do we stick with the Boys until Piat is available ? Find a better at rifle ( the solothun as used by Dutch is better ? ) or try to get a rifle Grenade solution ?

Actually as the 2" mortar whilst excellent is platoon level does the section/squad need a rifle grenade ?

The 2" mortar for obvious reasons is no anti tank weapon. The Boys .55 was barely adequate in 1940 and useless by mid 1941 in Europe and the desert. It was also very heavy and a beast to shoot. An anti tank rifle grenade while not ideal would however be a very useful weapon, and would be viable longer.