British armour development prior to WWII

The problem with pre-WW2 militaries is that except Germany nobody really knew what to do with tanks so nobody really knew how to design.

Sorry don't agree, though I'm working for the moment on memory. The ideas of Fuller, were tested in army manoeuvres on Salisbury Plain in the mid-thirties. A Brigade (as I recall) of tanks, together with lorryed infantry were pitted against a 'conventional army' enemy. They speed and directional surprise won the day.
And what of their commanders - Pile in charge of Anti-aircraft artillery, Hobart - after training the 7th armoured - retired. Martel - at least did get some 'action'.
In theory, the consequences of such a result should have been a higher mechanisation of the Army; but that wasn't really on the agenda - only the result was up for grabs the consequences were not!
It was just too revolutionairy - the Army wanted to maintain the status quo.
 
In theory, the consequences of such a result should have been a higher mechanisation of the Army; but that wasn't really on the agenda - only the result was up for grabs the consequences were not!
It was just too revolutionairy - the Army wanted to maintain the status quo.
Actually, the British army was far more mechanised/motorised than the German army throughout WW2. The German army still relied heavily on horse-drawn transport, particularly in the early years.
 
Actually, the British army was far more mechanised/motorised than the German army throughout WW2. The German army still relied heavily on horse-drawn transport, particularly in the early years.

Yes the RASC did not use any animal based transport in normal conditions. Even so they still didn't manage to co-ordinate armour, infantry and artillery as Fuller advocated.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The Bristol-Siddeley double Taurus (ATL 1937)

The ideal mix of in line and radial engine in a frugal diesel manufactured by Rover.

A fanned air cooled radial diesel engine with 28 cylinders in four rows (1938). Each offset from the last to form a spiral airflow over the cylinders. This pineapple arrangement stops the rear cylinders from overheating. In flight this engine is capable of a massive 1,600 hp. In a tank it is limited to half that. Fast, reliable, tanks up to 40 tons :D. Big lorries. No freezing in winter.

Displacement: 3,100 in³ (50.8 litre)
Diameter: 46.25"
Length: 98"
Bore: 5 in (127 mm)
Stroke: 5.635 in (143 mm)
Dry weight: 2,602 lb (1180 kg) - no water & system to add

An air cooled diesel Merlin equivalent, with more power than a Meteor.
An avgas supercharged version will outdo anything at 2100 hp.

Better do a three row version first (1937) for smaller tanks and aircraft.
21 cylinders delivering 600 hp for fast tanks up to 30 tons.

Displacement: 2325 in³ (38.1 litre)
Diameter: 46.25"
Length: 73.5" (3/4 the length of a Merlin)
Bore: 5 in (127 mm)
Stroke: 5.635 in (143 mm)
Dry weight: 1951.5 lb (885 kg) - no water & system to add

An avgas supercharged version will deliver about 1,575 hp. Ideal for a Sea hurricane and Sea Henley. Although I am wondering what a diesel electric carrier with diesel aircraft would be like.

Example of a diesel cycle Bristol aero-engine

The Gloster Reaper would be very fast with a 21-cylinder Taurus on each wing.
 
Last edited:
How about half a Kestrel in place of the half a Merlin of of the later Comet as an earlier engine?
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
The tank that the double Taurus powers

67mm/L50 tank gun
Call it a 15 pounder if you will.

All the tank gun that early WW2 needs. Lets leave room in the cast (sides) and welded (top and bottom) turret for an 76.2mm/L55 tank gun (17 pounder).
30 tons all up.
Multiple bogie suspension worked well on the Churchill.
I suppose sloped armour would realistically have to wait for the next model.

A 105mm howitzer enclosed on the same tank body as a SP gun.

84mm/L60 tank gun on the drawing boards. for the next generation of tank (four row double Taurus). A 40 ton sloped armour beast of a tank. Room in the turret for a 105mm/L56 gun.
 
Tank design can be very formulaic, interwar tanks were limited by train flat car size, rail tunnel clearence and the weight existing Army Engineer bridges could bear. These dictated length, width, height and weight which in turn dictated turret ring and gun size and armour. Another constraint is cost which often forced tank designers to use off the shelf engines rather than designing the ideal tank engine for both performance and configuration.

If the ideal tank was created within these parameters then the relatively poor doctrine of the RAC wouldn't quite the handicap it was OTL since the machine could take up much of the slack with it's superior firepower, protection and mobility until combat lessons were learnt and doctrine altered.
 
Top