Britain orders the 16 tonner Mk III tank into Serial production - how does this change British AFV development

[Cryhavoc101]

Thanks for the additional info.

Now for costs etc -

The 16 tonner was £16,000 each

The Vickers 6 ton Mark E was as far as I can tell about £4,500 each (this is what Finland paid for gun less Vickers 6 Mark E tanks in 1936)

So assuming that the cost of building a completed Vickers 6 Ton Mark E tank for the British Military is about £4,500 a unit then it would make more sense for the British to go down the Vickers 6 Ton route as this would give them at least 4 x as many tanks as it was possible to provide than if the 16 tonner design was chosen.

So with a the average expenditure on Sub-Head C7 in the five financial years 1930-31 to 1934-35 was £367,000 which at £4,500 each would provide 81 x 6 ton tanks a year or 23 x 16 tonner Medium MK III

This is napkin math's I appreciate that the 'expenditure' would have been for a variety of thing and probably not just 'tanks' (?) but it shows the difference in costs

I was not able to find out how much the MKIV light tanks cost per unit - but it would be interesting to see how many Vickers 6 ton tanks or what ever this had evolved into by the late 30s - might have been built instead of the MKIV light tank!?

It becomes clearer to me that the 16 Tonner was a great tank for its time but it was too expensive for its time to have been of any use to the British army and the more I look at it the more convinced I am that Britain should have gone down the Vicker 6 Ton route in the Mid 30s.

 

[Jellico]

It's maths' or arithmetic, not math.

Why Do Brits Say Maths and Americans Say Math?

The Imitation Game, a glossy new biopic about the British cryptanalyst Alan Turing, features a lot of maths. Characters take advanced maths classes...

slate.com

The bane of my life writing for different nations separated by a common language.

Spellchecker on the boards seems to direct me to US spellings. But we are talking the UK treasury...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So with a the average expenditure on Sub-Head C7 in the five financial years 1930-31 to 1934-35 was £367,000 which at £4,500 each would provide 81 x 6 ton tanks a year or 23 x 16 tonner Medium MK III.

Sub-Head C7 includes all tracked vehicles, not only tanks. If you spend it all on the Vickers 6-ton or the Medium Mk III there will be nothing left for the "carriers" for the infantry and Dragon tractors for the Royal Artillery.

Take this with a pinch of salt, but I think the A4 series of light tanks cost £1,200 each.

 

[jsb]

The 16 tonner was £16,000 each
The Vickers 6 ton Mark E was as far as I can tell about £4,500 each (

Take this with a pinch of salt, but I think the A4 series of light tanks cost £1,200 each.

£367,000 which at £4,500 each would provide 81 x 6 ton tanks a year or 23 x 16 tonner Medium MK III

So 23x 16ton
or 81x 6ton
or 305 lights.....

I think I would go with the lights, realistically in mid 30s we are talking mostly training tanks that can later be used as recon tanks. (or even developed into a APC/tank destroyers since its front engine doesn't stop you adding a fixed gun SU76 style later?)

 

[marathag]

I think I would go with the lights, realistically in mid 30s we are talking mostly training tanks that can later be used as recon tanks. (or even developed into a APC/tank destroyers since its front engine doesn't stop you adding a fixed gun SU76 style later?)

Too tiny for any decent gun, even a 2 pdr is a stretch. Its a 5 ton tank
It's a Bren Gun Carrier with a 5mm more armor, and a roof

 

[jsb]

Too tiny for any decent gun, even a 2 pdr is a stretch. Its a 5 ton tank
It's a Bren Gun Carrier with a 5mm more armor, and a roof

We are talking about the five financial years 1930-31 to 1934-35, none of them are really doing much fighting its more just a training force, the 300 light (and price would fall with that many built as you get to production line rather than stop start batches) would do fine with simply a 303 Vickers, although I would swap for a .303 Browning as soon as I can. (and a HMG/cannon if you can later)

300 tanks even light ones will teach the army more and to more crews than a few mediums will?

As to the big gun on small tank, its not impossible just not ideal,

 

[SwampTiger]

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

Stumbled across this, but price seems excessively high.

If the Treasury was persuaded that buying tank models in series for two or three years would reduce overall costs, the Army may get a variety of chassis and models. However, the Pols need to really push for these as job creators, technology demonstrators and export products. If the Army can say "the nation's manufacturers make money, bring in currency, add jobs, and lead to improved models over the next decade", you may get more support from the Treasury. This most likely leads from the 6 Ton to an improved 8-9 Ton tank. The OTL change to the Cavalry/Infantry tank split may be reinforced by this product line into a small export tank versus a larger, better armed and armored homeland tank model. Either way, a steady developmental budget for powerful diesels in the 250-500 horsepower class would be very helpful.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

If the Treasury was persuaded that buying tank models in series for two or three years would reduce overall costs, the Army may get a variety of chassis and models. However, the Pols need to really push for these as job creators, technology demonstrators and export products. If the Army can say "the nation's manufacturers make money, bring in currency, add jobs, and lead to improved models over the next decade", you may get more support from the Treasury. This most likely leads from the 6 Ton to an improved 8-9 Ton tank. The OTL change to the Cavalry/Infantry tank split may be reinforced by this product line into a small export tank versus a larger, better armed and armored homeland tank model. Either way, a steady developmental budget for powerful diesels in the 250-500 horsepower class would be very helpful.

Would have been very useful in France and the Western Desert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7TP

 

[marathag]

300 tanks even light ones will teach the army more and to more crews than a few mediums will?

As to the big gun on small tank, its not impossible just not ideal,

Ok, Drivers learn to drive and TC learn to do everthing else.
In a Medium, the Driver will still drive of course, but the the TC can do TC things, like command the tank, observe, and all the rest, while the rest of the crew does their thing, like drive, operate radio, load guns,etc.

Panzer I, the Italian Tankettes and the British Mk IVs were not worth risking crews in to do jobs that armored cars should have been doing, and those carried 20mm guns or more, so a threat to other lightly armored vehicles.
Tankettes are a mobile, thinly armored MG nest that are hard pressed to do any damage to anouther very lightly armored vehicle

One of the better 11 ton light Tanks, the US M2A4 of 1939, here in use in 1942

25mm armor, 37mm gun, 36mph, reliable

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

That would be the US equivalent of the Vickers 6 Tonner type B.

 

[marathag]

That would be the US equivalent of the Vickers 6 Tonner type B.

Except the reliability, speed, and 25mm all around. It's closer to the Type E with the 2 pdr than the older medium pressure 47mm 3 pdr.

 

[jsb]

Ok, Drivers learn to drive and TC learn to do everthing else.
In a Medium, the Driver will still drive of course, but the the TC can do TC things, like command the tank, observe, and all the rest, while the rest of the crew does their thing, like drive, operate radio, load guns,etc.

The MK V light (1936) had a three man crew (and a radio) its perfectly acceptable as a training tank to do everything you need pre war IMO, loaders will be the most junior member of crew anyway.

Panzer I, the Italian Tankettes and the British Mk IVs were not worth risking crews in to do jobs that armored cars should have been doing, and those carried 20mm guns or more, so a threat to other lightly armored vehicles.

I disagree they served a very necessary training tanks in the late 30s, they are still acceptable as combat vehicles early for 39-40 so long as they are handled well and accept they are more scouts than fighting tanks and cross country they are better than armoured cars even if they are worse on good roads.

the US M2A4 of 1939,

Not 1940 and anyway by WWII light tanks for anything but recon are obsolescent?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The MK V light (1936) had a three man crew (and a radio) its perfectly acceptable as a training tank to do everything you need pre war IMO, loaders will be the most junior member of crew anyway.

Isn't the Loader in a British tank the 2IC - he is the most experienced crew member after the TC - and therefore able to take over any position in the tank including acting up as TC?

Not sure how they do it in other armies?

 

[marathag]

The MK V light (1936) had a three man crew (and a radio) its perfectly acceptable as a training tank to do everything you need pre war IMO, loaders will be the most junior member of crew anyway.

If the UK would have used them as such, maybe, but instead built over 1700 worse than worthless Convenanter Mediums to 'train' troops

Not sure how they do it in other armies?

Soviet 2 man turrets the TC was also the gunner, and loader, loaded.
US 2 man turrets the TC loaded and Gunner gunned. Some Stuarts, the Britis tried to squeeze a loader in that, to free up the TC

 

[Cryhavoc101]

If the UK would have used them as such, maybe, but instead built over 1700 worse than worthless Convenanter Mediums to 'train' troops

Soviet 2 man turrets the TC was also the gunner, and loader, loaded.
US 2 man turrets the TC loaded and Gunner gunned. Some Stuarts, the Britis tried to squeeze a loader in that, to free up the TC

No I mean where they actually have a loader (ie a 4th or 5th man)

Is he the 2IC in the tank or the least experienced replacement?

 

[marathag]

No I mean where they actually have a loader (ie a 4th or 5th man)

Is he the 2IC in the tank or the least experienced replacement?

Can't say for other Armies, but the US, the TC's Rank is from where he fits in the Platoon: a Lieutenant or E6 or E7 Sergeants.
In the Tank itself, Gunners an E5, Driver E4 and Loader E3 or E4

In the Sandbox, I heard on M1 they left out the Gunner, since the TC could do most all that from his position, and had 3 man crews, Driver, Loader and TC

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Take this with a pinch of salt, but I think the A4 series of light tanks cost £1,200 each.

Correction.

I've found the notes that I made from Volume 1 of The Tanks.

According to B.L.H. a new light tank cost £1,700 in 1930. That's nearly 50% more than I wrote before, but still nearly one-tenth the cost of a Medium Mk III.

B.L.H. also wrote that a Carden-Lloyd tankette (now designated the armoured Machine Gun Carrier) cost £400.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The situation in 1936 according to British War Production (the Hyperwar Foundation's transcript)

The tank itself was a British invention, yet the supply and design of tanks were allowed in the late twenties and thirties to dwindle almost to vanishing point. Organisation for tank design in the War Office was rudimentary in the extreme, and but for the solitary and pioneering efforts of the designers at Vickers-Armstrong the country would have possessed no facilities for the design and development of armoured vehicles. As late as 1936 the total equipment of tanks in the hands of the Army was 375, of which 209 were designated as light and 166 as medium. Of the total number, 304 were officially classed as obsolete, and these included all the medium tanks with the exception of two, both experimental. The rest, i.e. 164 out of 166, were the Marks I, Ia and II which had been produced between 1925 and 1929 and were from every point of view out-of-date. The only 'up-to-date' equipment consisted of some sixty-nine light tanks (Marks V and VI), but these were not introduced until 1935 and 1936, and even they were armed with nothing more than machine guns. New tanks of heavier weight, armed and armoured for infantry function and conforming to contemporary ideas of tank design were not available even in project form. As late as 1937 wooden dummies took the place of heavier tanks in army manoeuvres.

 

[PMN1]

Any costs for the Vickers Medium Mk C (1927) and Medium Mk D (1929)?

Those shot traps with the side gun positions look awful, anyone know why the hull wasn't brought out to make it flush say like the M4 Sherman, might have made it easier to build with less corners.

The front also looks very shot trappy.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IOTL the A4 Light Tank evolved through six marks before being built in large numbers as the Light Tank Mk VIA, B & C. AIUI the Light Tanks Mk V and VI of 1935 were considerably better than the Mk II vehicles of 1930-31.

IMHO the A6 Medium Tank would have evolved through several marks if it had been built instead of the A4 series. I think it would have happened as follows:

• 1930 - 16 A6 Medium Tanks Mk III ordered in place of the 16 A4 Light Tanks Mk II of OTL
• 1931 - 53 A6 Medium Tanks Mk IIIA&B ordered in place of the 3 Medium Mk III and 50 Light Tanks Mk IIA&B of OTL
• 1932 - 9 A6 Medium Tanks Mk IV ordered in place of the 9 Light Tanks Mk III of OTL
• 1933 - 33 A6 Medium Tanks Mk IV ordered in place of the 33 Light Tanks Mk III of OTL
• 1934 - 34 A6 Medium Tanks Mk V ordered in place of the 34 Light Tanks Mk IV of OTL
• 1935 - 22 A6 Medium Tanks Mk VI ordered in place of the 22 Light Tanks Mk V of OTL
• 1935 - 51 A6 Medium Tanks Mk VII ordered in place of the 51 Light Tanks Mk VI of OTL

That's a grand total of 218 medium tanks in place of the OTL orders for 3 medium and 215 light tanks.

I think that the Medium Tanks Mk VI and VII would have been half-decent designs for their time. They would have weighed 16-20 tons and would have:

• been mechanically reliable;
• been fitted with the Horstmann suspension. AIUI A4 tanks used the Horstmann suspension and I think the later A6 tanks would have used it;
• been fitted with an engine capable of propelling it at a maximum speed of at least 30 mph;
• been armed with a reasonably powerful gun in a three-man turret. The small machine gun turrets should have disappeared by the time the Mk V was designed;
• had adequate ergonomics.

I'm not sure how well armoured it would have been. I think it would be equal to the early British cruisers, but armour as good as the A11 and A12 infantry tanks would be pushing it.

According to Ness another 1,291 Light Tanks Mk VI were ordered January 1936 to September 1939 plus 95 A17 Light Tanks Mk VII 850 cruiser tanks and 1,110 infantry tanks. That's a grand total of 3,346 vehicles.

If the A6 had been developed into a half-decent tank by the end of 1935 my honest opinion is that the War Office would have ordered 3,346 A6 Medium Tanks Mk VII instead of all the tanks ordered between 1936 and September 1939 IOTL. Tanks would have been built to Specifications A9 to A17, but having a half-decent medium tank in the form of the A6 family gave the British Army time to test the prototypes properly before placing bulk orders of production vehicles.

According to Ness 1,317 of the tanks ordered between 1930 and September 1939 had been produced by September 1939. These comprised 164 Light Tanks Mk II to V; 1,001 Light Tanks Mk VI, VIA & VIB, 41 A9 Cruiser Tanks Mk I, 65 Infantry Tanks A11 Mk I and 43 A13 Cruiser Tanks Mk III.

IMHO it would have been 1,317 tanks of the A6 family consisting of 167 Medium Tanks Mk III to VI and 1,150 A6 Medium Tanks Mk VII. That's enough for 3 armoured divisions and one or two army tank brigades. IOTL the regular British Army had 3 armoured divisions (1st, 2nd and 7th), one army tank brigade (1st) and a number of light tank regiments for the infantry divisions in September 1939. At the same time the Territorial Army had 2 armoured brigades (20th and 22nd) and 4 army tank brigades (21st, 23rd, 24th and 25th).

According to Ness another 317 tanks were built between September and December 1939. 180 were Light Tanks Mk VI, 66 were cruiser tanks and the other 65 were cruiser tanks (41 A11 and 24 A12). ITTL 317 additional A6 Medium Mk VII tanks would have been built and they would have been used to replace the surviving A6 tanks built in place of the Light Tanks Mk I to V or been used to equip some of the armoured formations in the TA.

IIRC the only armoured formations the BEF in May 1940 were the 1st Army Tank Brigade and 2 armoured reconnaissance brigades that had been recently formed by removing the divisional reconnaissance regiments from the BEF's infantry divisions. ITTL I think it would have had 2 armoured divisions (1st and 2nd), 1st Army Tank Brigade, one or two of the TA army tank brigades and the 2 armoured reconnaissance brigades. All of these formations would be equipped with a half-decent medium tank in the 16-20 ton class.

That could make a lot of difference at Arras.