Britain orders the 16 tonner Mk III tank into Serial production - how does this change British AFV development
- Thread starter Cryhavoc101
- Start date
-
- Tags
- afv british army tanks
Britain has the worlds oldest rail net work, Made up of lots of different companies who in the early years had different load gauges. When these companies merged or grouped it was the smallest load gauge that usually became the group standard. If you discounted the few choke points that set the minimum load gauge then you could carry a larger load. I believe this is what was done in the case of the Churchill tank. I am no expert but I an sure someone out there can give the exact details.
Soviets were choosing 45mm, French were with 47mm for AT duties and were introducing the 47mm as a tank gun, Italians introduced 47m as AT gun and were installing the 47mm on a M13/40.
Nobody suggested that Germans install 8.8cm on the Pz-IV. They, however, installed the 7.5cmL43 and later L48 there, cannons that were in the league of the Vickers HV 75 and 77 mm cannons - a quick job, unlike the Cromwell situation that stopped cold such attempt.
Nobody was asking too much that 17pdr fit on existing tanks; when it was asked, Sherman was able to do it.
You might as well be right about a better part of tooling for the Kestrel going into other RR engines. OTOH - why would British government invest a single penny for any Meadows engine past 4 cylinder type(s)? Liberty at least gave useful combat service.
Don't forget that until early 1939 the Government was telling the Army that it wouldn't be sent to Europe in the event of a war breaking out. Quite what they expected the Army to be doing I wouldn't like to speculate.
The silent Implication for any POD such as this one has to imply that a requirement for a continental force was proposed and acted upon several years earlier than late 38/early 39 and also that national Service conscription was enacted earlier than early 1939.
Otherwise it would not matter if the UK builds 1 or 2 thousand decent Medium tanks if they have not got the ability to stand up a army to use them with!
So there
Not really, the Medium I's and II's were getting long in the tooth and needed replacing anyway. This can be done with Medium III's as proposed or as otl with A9's, A'10's and Matillda's without changing the intentions of the Government. What tanks the government chooses to buy doesn't need to change how many they intend to buy or how they intend to use them. That's down to a combination of economics and politics.
Last edited:
Glyndwr01
Banned
British Track Gauge & Loading Gauge
History of the evolution of the British railwy track gauge and loading gauge from 1930 to date
www.igg.org.uk
What imperial policing couldn’t be done with armoured cars? The armoured cars could then double as scouts in a continental commitment. There is still need for universal carriers. Use the Abyssinian crisis as a driver for tanks capable of desert conditions.
The Italians had shown that tanks could be used in the desert during their colonial battles in Libya and obviously later on in Ethiopia
The British had already made great use of Armoured cars to police the Middle east - and many of those were heavily involved in the initial victory over the Italians
marathag
Banned
Size wise, the 20 pdr is slightly larger the 17 pdr, much of it in a longer barrel.
Cartridge was 84×618R vs 76x583R, and the US 90mm M3 was 90x600R
That one also mounted the gun higher in the turret, making a taller turret, along with 1626mm ring diameter from the Comet, not the 1448mm or the Cromwell
From my notes of latewar and early Cold War tank guns you can see where it fits in
75mm KwK 42 Weight with muzzle brake and breech: 2,200 lbs 46400 psi 6.8 kg shell @ 935 m/s for a muzzle energy of 2.97 MJ
British 17pdr weighed 2,032 and was 184.05 in long. 17lb projectile at 2900-2950fps,---3,084632 joules muzzle energy.
88mm L56 fires a 10.2 kg shell @ 773 m/s for a muzzle energy of 3.05 MJ
90mm M3 weighed 2450lb with muzzle brake 186" long fires a 10.94 kg shell @ 808 m/s for a muzzle energy of 3.57 MJ
French 105mm/57 weighed 2343lb? and was 182in long. 10.95 HEAT at 800 M/S---3,504,000 joules muzzle energy.
British 20pdr weighed 2,885lbs and was 220in long . 20lb ABCBC at 3300fps. ---4,545,000 joules muzzle energy.
88mm L71 fires a 10.2 kg shell @ 1000 m/s for a muzzle energy of 5.10 MJ
100 mm D10T fires a 15.8 kg shell @ 880 m/s for a muzzle energy of 6.11 MJ
US 90mm M41 weighed 2370lbs and was 186" long. 19.9kg APBC-T at 914m/s for a muzzle energy of 6.31MJ
British L7 105mm weighed 2,826lb and was 231.9 in long. 6.48kg APDS at 1480m/s---7,096,896 joules muzzle energy.
[QUOTE="marathag, post: 20202288, member: 68581"
That one also mounted the gun higher in the turret, making a taller turret, along with 1626mm ring diameter from the Comet, not the 1448mm or the Cromwell
[/QUOTE]
I never have seen a Charioteer in real life but a few of my peers had been Charioteer crews in the past and they spoke of it as a straight forward Cromwell chassis using existing gun tanks re turreted. Happy to be advised of evidence that the Charioteer was fitted with a Comet turret ring. No Comets were used for Charioteers. Like the Archer it was a mobile AT gun in use.
That one also mounted the gun higher in the turret, making a taller turret, along with 1626mm ring diameter from the Comet, not the 1448mm or the Cromwell
[/QUOTE]
I never have seen a Charioteer in real life but a few of my peers had been Charioteer crews in the past and they spoke of it as a straight forward Cromwell chassis using existing gun tanks re turreted. Happy to be advised of evidence that the Charioteer was fitted with a Comet turret ring. No Comets were used for Charioteers. Like the Archer it was a mobile AT gun in use.
marathag
Banned
I dont really follow,
1- perfectly acceptable on most modern MBTs......
2- I would prefer top due to dust and dirt but does it really mater with the thickness (or rather lack of) that tank is likley to be?
3- Again considering the thinness of protection what's it trapping, and would it not be a added spaced plate out from and in addition to the hull side anyway improving protection?
4- why 4.7cm is fine for the time period....
5- used on many other perfectly good tanks and they can simply add a thin deflector near the top....
6 - like many others PZ MKIII/IV.......
Armoured cars are useful - on roads. Once they go cross country, they are less able to maneuver. Tanks, being full tracked vehicles don't face that limitation. The Germans developed 8x8 armoured cars as a consequence. The British 6x6 post war (Saracen, Saladin).
Yes but 99 out of 100 times the colonial policing could be done from roads and tank tracks carve up paved streets so the A/C is not as hard on the Imperial infrastructure.
From: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/brit...d-effective-tanks-during-the-second-world-war
The too many light tanks problem could have been avoided.
The Wikipaedia entry on the Medium Mk III says that the A6E3 prototype was re-engined with a Thornycroft V6 engine producing 500hp. Does anyone have any more information on it?
It also says that there was a proposal to re-engine A6E1 with a pair of two Rolls Royce Phantom engines, but it wasn't carried out for reasons of expense. However, ITTL more money is being spent so the proposed conversion would have been carried out. Does anyone know what the combined hp of a "Twin Phantom" engine is likely to have been.
It also says that there was a proposal to re-engine A6E1 with a pair of two Rolls Royce Phantom engines, but it wasn't carried out for reasons of expense. However, ITTL more money is being spent so the proposed conversion would have been carried out. Does anyone know what the combined hp of a "Twin Phantom" engine is likely to have been.
Seems like one engine of the RR Phantom was good for 120 HP:
Der langhubige Motor hatte einen Hubraum von 7668 cm³ und war mit 95 PS (70 kW) bei 2750 min−1 leistungsfähig genug, um den schweren Wagen angemessen zu bewegen.
(link)
Yes, English-language Wikipedia is that bad.
My google fun has been weak but I have found the following for the 1936 Phantom III engine
7,338cc OHV V12 Engine
Single Carburetor
126bhp at 4,000rpm
So I can only imagine that the 'Twin' is twice that?
Although that gives it less HP than the Armstrong - that was Air Cooled while the RR was (from what I understand) liquid cooled
No luck with a Thorneycroft 500 HP but I imagine that it was a Marine Engine so it might not have been so good as the other 2 at delivering useful power to the final drive of the tank ie acceleration and the required torque (a marine engine is designed to run for long periods at a single power setting) - despite being 500 HP!
marathag
Banned
Marine engines are fine on the power front, but most were very heavy, since there was little incentive to reduce weight.Weight is good, that's a sign of reliability, since they, like stationary engines, were meant to run at rated horsepower 24/7