Britain buys Skoda T21

Well the Shermans and t-34s would be coming from a reliable producer, so they wouldn't have to manufacture too many of their own parts, so they wouldn't interrupt existing production the way the T21 would. not so sure about the Comets and Cromwells.
 
Origins

The Pz38 is a CKD design. The T21 is the medium tank follow up to the Vz35. Building it in Britain would have it's troubles, consider what they got instead.
In 1938 they were still building the A10, and trying to get the A13, the first of the Christie suspension cruiser tanks to work. The crusader was not ready, and all they ended up with in the first years was poorly armed and either too slow or too unreliable. As for the weapons, all Brit tanks used czech MG ( Besa) firing 7,92 rounds andso the 47mm being adopted is vital for the tank to work. It would outrange the 37mm in german tanks in France ant the short 50mm used in Africa up to 42.
They would just buy the prototypes, drawings, production machinery, etc that Skoda was eager to sell, having lost the national contract to CKD, and have a whole year to get ready to build it in Britain in time to deploy them in France.
 

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Well no production or production that you have to throw away - remember this was the period when the British built tanks that they ended up throwing away because they were so unreliable they couldn't use them.

Which is why production of the 2pdr ATG continued in 1940. There was no time to set up production lines for the 6pdr and, facing That Seamammal, it was decided 2prds were better than nothing.
 
Coulsdon Eagle said:
no time to set up production lines for the 6pdr and...2prds were better than nothing.
Was that equally true of establishing factories in, frex, Canada or Oz? Since they were starting more/less from scratch anyhow...
 
Was that equally true of establishing factories in, frex, Canada or Oz? Since they were starting more/less from scratch anyhow...


An excelent idea would be to set up a canadian factory to build a British version of the T21 in Canada in 39, instead of the OTL Ram.

t21_47-001-uprav_127.jpg
 

Sior

Banned
Axe the crusader and covenator and your production problems solved.

Nuffield had too much political influance for that to happen! He still churned out crap and the government still paid him until the contracts run their course.
 
Comment by David Fletcher on the UK buying foreign designs in his book The Great tank Scandal


In March 1939 a Praga model TNH/P tank, weighing 8 tons, was imported form Czechoslovakia by Morris Commercial. Trials at MEE proved that in general it was a fine design and the tracks, in particular, were considered to be very good indeed. Its greatest fault was a tactical one; the gun mounting was designed in such a way that it had to be locked before the main armament, a 37mm gun, could be fired. Since the suspension was rather harsh, this meant that the tank could only fire accurately when it was stationary, apart form with its machine gun. The RTC was trained to shoot on the move – the very essence of tank fighting in British eyes – and as the Czech tank failed on that score it was rejected. About a year later a French tank, the Hotchkiss model H39, was examined as a possible infantry tank and, it seems, some important business interests were involved. The evaluation team were impressed by the use of large castings to form the hull and turret. They liked its power and armour protection but again felt that the suspension was not forgiving enough on difficult ground. They failed to comment on its worst feature, the two-man crew. One was the driver, but the commander occupied a one-man turret where he had to direct the tank, load and fire the main armament and the machine gun as well. The A11 must have seemed child’s play by comparison. In the event the reason given for rejecting the French deal was the worsening international situation; now much more would this have applied to the Czech design?
 
Comment by David Fletcher on the UK buying foreign designs in his book The Great tank Scandal


In March 1939 a Praga model TNH/P tank, weighing 8 tons, was imported form Czechoslovakia by Morris Commercial. Trials at MEE proved that in general it was a fine design and the tracks, in particular, were considered to be very good indeed. Its greatest fault was a tactical one; the gun mounting was designed in such a way that it had to be locked before the main armament, a 37mm gun, could be fired. Since the suspension was rather harsh, this meant that the tank could only fire accurately when it was stationary, apart form with its machine gun. The RTC was trained to shoot on the move – the very essence of tank fighting in British eyes – and as the Czech tank failed on that score it was rejected. About a year later a French tank, the Hotchkiss model H39, was examined as a possible infantry tank and, it seems, some important business interests were involved. The evaluation team were impressed by the use of large castings to form the hull and turret. They liked its power and armour protection but again felt that the suspension was not forgiving enough on difficult ground. They failed to comment on its worst feature, the two-man crew. One was the driver, but the commander occupied a one-man turret where he had to direct the tank, load and fire the main armament and the machine gun as well. The A11 must have seemed child’s play by comparison. In the event the reason given for rejecting the French deal was the worsening international situation; now much more would this have applied to the Czech design?

The TNH is the much loved Pz38(t). At the time it was being produced for the German army, but also being considered for export, for example for Sweden.
The Germans wouldn't allow the much more capable T21 to be exported to a potencial rival, so, like the Bren and the Besa, the UK would have had to make a deal to buy the tank, preferably while it was being developed, for license manufacture in the UK (much like the Hungarian deal). The reason to do it would be, like the Bren, that it was better than the British designs.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
47mm being adopted is vital for the tank to work. It would outrange the 37mm in german tanks in France ant the short 50mm used in Africa up to 42.
They would just buy the prototypes, drawings, production machinery, etc that Skoda was eager to sell, having lost the national contract to CKD, and have a whole year to get ready to build it in Britain in time to deploy them in France.
On the face of it, that seems a sweet package for a UK keen to import machine tools. A Canadian factory would be the wrong side of the ocean. All the tanks would have to be shipped over. A shortage of steel production was not foreseen.
 
Last edited:
Why Not?

I have read all the reasons why this tank can not / would not be build in England. But why take not the reason of its design --- The 47mm Gun ---.

Reject the tank, but build your matilda's / A9 - A10 / Valentines with a new/adapted turret and gun and now you have a good HE shell for your tanks.:D
 
they bought the Vz30 and it was a hit as the Bren. They bought the Vz37 and named it the Besa. In 38 britain could have bought the rights to build the Skoda T21 medium tank, with it's 47mm gun, and gone to the desert with a tank capable of fighing the Pz III on even terms...
Ideas, objetions, implications?

The British could have built many types of tank design in 1938 - 40 but it was often the will and perceived need that drove those decisions

For example the Valentine Tank Design was ready for initial construction for trails etc as early as Feb 1938 and used existing components from the A9 and A10 and its hull could be built in any heavy engineering factory such as a Boiler maker or Train factory particularly at 2 such sites that had been making the A10.

Had the decision been made to start production of the Valentine earlier than April 1939 then its possible it could have entered service in sufficient numbers in 1940 - rather than July 1941.

It started being made in Canada from late 1941 and it might have made sense for the New South Wales Railway Company to make this tank for the Australian Army instead of trying to build the Sentinal!
 
Ok lets look at this from a different perspective .

Matilda II , best tank in the world in 1939/1940 outside of the Soviet Union . KV-1 was better and the T-34 introduced in 1940 was a country mile ahead of it . If you don't believe me that's ok go to this link and look carefully .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_early_World_War_II_tanks

Now apples are not always apples so please realise that gun calibre ie 76.2 is bigger then 40 m does not tell the full story . what you need to do is look at the actual armour penetration at the same distance , or as I like to put it , do some realistic research .

The Matilda was proof against all German tank and infantry issued AT guns frontally until mid 42

The 3.7cm was ineffective at 0 metres frontally and even the PzGr 40 was ineffective

The 5cm was not introduced until April 1941 so is out of contention but just for giggles a matildas could get to within under 100 m for regular ammo and 500 m for PzGr 40 (in short supply)

The Pak 40 and associated Panzer mark IV F2 special could kill a Matilda at nearly 1000m . However non of these tanks or guns were introduced until late 41 early 42 . The previous guns mounted on the panzer mark IV was incapable of killing a matildas at normal combat ranges frontally .


The tank your recommending because of it's uber 4.7 cm was inferior in armour pen to a 2lb'er and inferior in armour as well . as far as the HE shell goes that's why 1 in 4 matildas was intended to carry a 3 inch CS howitzer . in practice a HE shell for the 2lb gun existed the problem was the ammo rack was a different shape and size and as a result tanks could carry AP or HE shells only . HE only became of major importance when the Germans could use 8.8 cm flak guns from 2000 metres away .
 
Top