AHC: each nation's best possible tank for 1941

Similar to the other threads, this time it's the panzers. Using the technology of the day (and the day before), how should the best possible tanks looked for nations that were producing them historically in 1941? Ability to be series/mass produced also counts, not just a shiny cannon or engine.
People might opt for a high-low mix if that affords better stuff in aggregate.
 
For Britain using components that were already in prototype production it would be a Churchill. It should have a welded hull with sloped glacis, Welded turret with external gun mantlet and a more powerful engine (my favourite would be a RR Peregrine detuned for land service).

The welded hull would be lighter than the OTL Churchill MkI to IVs rivetted frame with armour plate rivetted and bolted on whilst having the same armour thickness.

The RR Peregrine derived engine should be able to put out 450hp though a RR Meteor of 600hp would be nice.

Welded Turret is easier to produce than the cast turret of the mkIV. External mantlet with a six pounder allows more room in turret and easier upgunning when the US M3 75mm gun comes into service.

Speed will still be low but with a weight a little less than the 39 tons of the OTL early marks and a Hp to Ton ratio of 11.5 it should be capable of high teens. A Meteor engined version might hit 20mph.

This reimagined Churchill would slap any Panzer MkIII or IV around the chops in the Desert.
 
Matilda II was at under 5m long, Churchill was at almost 7.5m. So I'd go for a 6-6.5m long hull (should keep the weight at ~35 tons), indeed a turret with external mantlet with a 6 pdr. Hopefully sloped armor at least at the front arc. Kestrel or Meteor will be nice, even the Bedford Twin Six can propel better a 35 ton tank than a 39 ton one.
 
Problem is if you shorten the tank you end up with a smaller hull volume, less room for the crew smaller hatches and less room for a more powerful engine. The Comet and Centurion were both about 7.5m long if you go to a 6 or 6.5m long tank your reverting to something the size of a Crusader or Cromwell.
 
Matilda II was at under 5m long, Churchill was at almost 7.5m. So I'd go for a 6-6.5m long hull (should keep the weight at ~35 tons), indeed a turret with external mantlet with a 6 pdr. Hopefully sloped armor at least at the front arc. Kestrel or Meteor will be nice, even the Bedford Twin Six can propel better a 35 ton tank than a 39 ton one.

Sure, but the Matilda was bad. Not sure I'd use that as a metric for a well-sized tank considering it was powered by coupled London Bus engines and not a large powerful powerplant. Sure, it had a nice time beating up on weak Italian M11/39s and tankettes in North Africa, but aagainst a Pak-40 armed tank which Germany could potentially field in 1941 it would be very vulnerable
 
Matilda was not bad.

Problem is if you shorten the tank you end up with a smaller hull volume, less room for the crew smaller hatches and less room for a more powerful engine. The Comet and Centurion were both about 7.5m long if you go to a 6 or 6.5m long tank your reverting to something the size of a Crusader or Cromwell.

Size of the gun will drive the size up, 'my' tank uses a modest gun.
Comet was with 6.55m long hull, Challenger (of ww2 vintage) was at 21 ft IICR.
 
Id go for a Land use 'Meteored' Kestal powered MkIV A13MK3 as the base vehicle

Change the Suspension to a simplified Horstmann with wider tracks over the OTL Christie type (which I don't like) - I am swapping better cross country speed for reliability and ease of maintenance

Double the armour thickness everywhere (so 12mm - 60mm) - stick a larger external mantlet mounted 'modernised' 13 pdr 9 cwt gun in a larger 3 man turret with Co-Axial BESA 7.92mm MMG - Commanders cupola with a Vickers K gun which can be fired buttoned up.

Obviously it would be slower than a Cruiser but I'll accept 15-20 mph

If the Front hull can have a sloping front with no idiot cutting hole in it then great - but its not ever going to stop a PAK40 at combat ranges although this weapon is unlikely to be encountered in numbers much before the beginning of 43 but it might stop the German 37mm and 50mm which are the main weapons of the Germans at combat ranges

Crew - Driver (sits centrally) Gunner (left of gun) Commander (Left of gun behind and above Gunner) Loader/2ic (Left of gun - has access to bustle mounted radio set and has his own hatch)

And decent bloody hatches at that
 
fdhJ8f5.jpg

T1E1, first completed at Baldwin Locomotive Works at Eddystone, Pennsylvania on 8 December 1941

900hp radial, Electric transmission, early form of HVSS 3" with 37mm coax. 76mm armor basis, 60 tons. .30 and .50s everywhere

In 1940, the 90mm T2 was Standardized as the 90mm M1. Later the T7 90mm tube was trialed in the series of heavy tank, while retaining the 37mm

Since this had the 69" turret race that the Sherman laater used, it shows that the US could have done larger turrets sooner, not needing the M3 Lee/Grant
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
fdhJ8f5.jpg

T1E1, first completed at Baldwin Locomotive Works at Eddystone, Pennsylvania on 8 December 1941

900hp radial, Electric transmission, early form of HVSS 3" with 37mm coax. 76mm armor basis, 60 tons. .30 and .50s everywhere

In 1940, the 90mm T2 was Standardized as the 90mm M1. Later the T7 90mm tube was trialed in the series of heavy tank, while retaining the 37mm

Since this had the 69" turret race that the Sherman laater used, it shows that the US could have done larger turrets sooner, not needing the M3 Lee/Grant
Jesus that thing is f'ing huge.
 
Again I have trouble with the 'best' matter. Either a spanking new prototype sitting on the trials site on December 31st 1941 or something that can be in general service pretty well throughout 1941. i.e. the best one can make in 1941 or the best one can have as the service tank for 1941?

For a tank for general service we have a good gun in the 6 pounder, ideally with a 75mm barrel for improved HE performance and adequate AP.

For chassis guide we have the OTL Valentine whose deficiencies lay in the turret ring size and power. Otherwise it is easy to make in quantity in normal railway workshops. So a slightly oversized Valentine hull with an enlarged turret for 3 man operation with our projected gun and put a bustle on the back to shift the radio out of the turret working space but within reach.Putting gun in an external mantlet allows us easier future gun upgrades but see below. Wet ammunition stowage. Put in large hatches for crew exit.

We have adequate transmission designs already so there is no need to risk adventurous engineering there.

The engine is a more debatable matter. It is tempting to stick in an aero based engine but the size and weight impact upon the vehicle size and weight. My model is the late GMC diesel used in the OTL Valentine.So either have GMC make the 6-71 it in the UK or have them make the 4-71 and mount it as two in line 4 cylinder engines running a single output shaft.

Set up a tough quality control system for accessories and have ergonomics play a part in the minor layout systems to make maintenance and replacement easy and fast. Probably the most difficult features!.

Now you have a tank using 1940 technology with good period armour and firepower in a small reliable and easily maintained package which can perform all the tasks needed of a tank bar the classic British unsupported wild cavalry charge head on into the guns for which the best answer is to have tank doctrines come from the RTR and not the cavalry.

----------------

Now. in the background, we can work on it's replacement which would be a sloping front Cromwell with the Vickers HV 75mm gun in an external mantlet 3 man turret. Possibly we can get a prototype in trials by the end of 1941 to qualify.Essentially a Comet with fewer compromises and hatches a human being can exit in a hurry.
 
6pdr Valentine - not spectacular, but good and reliable. Notably the Soviets liked the ones they were sent via lend-lease. I'd copy the Soviet mantlet design (below) and mix in some with the OQF 75mm guns (bored out 6pdr) to give decent anti-infantry firepower.
valentine-mod-3.jpg
 
Trivia: but the 6 pounder was not bored out to 75mm. They changed new production to 75mm barrels made as 75mm. These went to Overlord units as a priority. Italian units still made do with the 57mm.
 
Ram III

Canadian Pacific Railroads Angus shops in Montreal started 1941 building Valentines and ended the year building Ram tanks.
Valentine was the most reliable of British tanks. Valentine still had room for one more series of upgrades. Canadian production could have been upgraded with sloped cast bows and even larger cast turrets.

However, Ottawa decided that the Canadian Army needed "cruiser" tanks so they ordered Rams based on the reliable American M3 Lee chassis. Ram was the first of the Sherman line with a large diameter turret.

POD General Worthington finally convinced Ottawa that Canadian tanks need big guns, at least 75mm.
Ram 3 runs on the same Canadian dry pin tracks as OTL and shares most drive train components with M4 Sheman production.
The biggest change to the drive train involves laying the Continental R-975 radial engine flat in the hull. This change in engine orientation lays the drive shaft flat on the floor, allowing the turret basket to hang lower in the hull. Ram 3 hull is shallower and lighter than Shermans. If a shallower hull makes sponsons (above tracks) too shallow for ammo stowage ..... fewer ammunition fires and fewer casualties.
If that change restricts ammo stowage too much, apply the Firefly solution of eliminating the bow gun/co-driver and stowing more ammo where he used to sit. The hull is lined with cotton or hemp spall liners.
Will the guy in the back row suggesting "asbestos" please shut up? We can soak cotton or hemp on enough fire retardant to allow crews to exit.
Ram 3 hull is festooned with with toolboxes and brackets for more tool boxes. Most of those brackets are strong enough to hold spare track links or extra armour.
For god's sake, install a pair of tank phones on the transom and teach accompanying infantry how to use them.
Cast bulldozer-mounting-points into the bow.

The fictitious Ram 3 incorporates OTL American 75mm gun. The bolt-on mantlet is longer and pyramidal or conical (think Merkava) to better reflect incoming fire. The longer mantlet allows adjusting trunnions position (fore and aft) to balance the gun (reducing loads on elevation gear). Ram 4 mantlets incorporate optical range-finders.
Ram 3 turret castings are longer with integral bustles. Bustles can accommodate spare track links or baskets to balance the weight of the gun (reducing loads on traverse motors). Ram 3 turrets have plenty of brackets for adding spare parts, toolboxes, etc. cast into the outer surface.
Secondary armament includes a co-axial .30 cal Browning and a .50 cal Browning for AA, smoke mortars, claymores (for discouraging SS tank ambushing fanatics), etc.

In summary, the best tank Canada could make in 1941 would be Ram 3 with an American 75mm gun. The cast turret would look like an M-41 Walker Bulldog. The hull would look like a shallower version of cast M4A1 Sherman Grizzly hull ..... er ..... if you ever got a good look at the tank under all its camouflage, spare parts, tool boxes, track skirts, etc.
 
Last edited:
The British are limited by their narrow rail loading gauge and by their designs which fit the turret ring flush with the hull deck and therefore between the tracks. However I was wondering can this limitation be ameliorated by making the turret overhang the turret ring, a bit like the difference between the Lee and Grant M3? If the turret was fattened out could the British have both the 6pdr and a 3 man turret in their 1941 cruiser tanks?

Brit-M-3Grants-ElAlamein.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top