British Army 'sanity options 2.0', 1935-43

[ArtosStark]

French not further developing the bird in the hand due to having high hopes about two birds in the bush was their own goal (not that the Fench - or anyone - have had some kind of monopoly for making mistakes when purchasing the military hardware).

Was it? The French had pretty much the most advanced semiautomatic rifle program on earth in the 1920’s. Arguably in the 1930’s as well. The fact that they did not “simply” adapt the existing system is, I think, more an indication of problems with the system than problems with the customer.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that the French, like Garand, took what was worth taking from the RSC. The RSC was very much a wartime expedient. Taking what was good about it and adapting it to a new cartridge is going to basically give you a new rifle (as happened with the Garand and the MAS-40). The direct gas impingement concept was great (and favoured by the French even pre-WW1) but the use of the Lebel forestock with the space for the tube magazine holding the gas tube meant that the gas had a long and difficult angle coming out of the barrel. This caused the gas system to become clogged quickly (it had to be cleaned about every 100 rounds). The loading system, Barrel and chamber are mostly only special in the context that they managed to handle 8 mm Lebel (though the interrupted screw breach is pretty cool). The connecting system was mostly built around the limitations of the above systems. The trigger group was certainly clean and simple, I will give you that.

So if you are taking the RSC and redesigning it for .303 and updating it to British preferences you are effectively pulling out the direct gas impingement concept (not unique to the RSC though it was a good proof case), and the trigger group. And then fitting your own chamber, bolt assembly, magazine and barrel. Then making the connecting rod system to fit those within the furniture. In other words you are designing a new rifle based on the RSC. Which is basically what the French and Garand both did.

I was really hoping for an easily-accessible source, since there is hardly anything to read about the fortunes of the RSC. Or, more accurately, probably the best hope should be the book about the French rifles by Gun Jesus, but I'm not in a mood to spend 98 USD + PP to Europe for it right now.

If you are looking for a free source, the video on construction and history by C&Rsenal and Forgotten Weapons give a pretty good overview:

Would you be so kind to quote my post where I've claimed that the French were further developing the RSC?

You asked for a source to “back up the claim” that the French did not see the RSC as worth further development. Since they were actively developing a semiautomatic rifle program and did not use the RSC it seems the burden is to prove that they did see it as worth development. I naturally assumed that your somewhat brusque demand for sources was due to information you had to the contrary?

Apologies for the assumption I suppose.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

- It is quite pointless to make use of the Vickers Type E by 1935, Vickers is already advanced enough in the A9 project which is already an extrapolation/descendant of the flawed Type E

The point of using the Vickers E is not to replace the A9/A10 cruisers but to give the regiments that historically used the Vickers Mk VI light tanks a fighting chance if and when they encounter enemy armour. Yes they're not intended to do that, but it happens anyway and even against armoured cars, Panzer I's and II's Mg's are all but useless.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

How possible would it have been to rework the ZH-29 into .303? Much lighter than than the FQH and Czech made so the UK has the connections to license build.

Reloading is pretty similar to the SMLE in so far as charger and "totally removable but the sergeant will yell at you" magazine. Could be similar capacity too. Also probably the best of the inter-war semi-autos in so far as being actually a not totally impractical design that required some weird gimmick to work.

Figure the time before Munich to work out the bugs and then wide scale roll out in the lead up to '39 with the SMLE still being issued to rear line forces.....and I've just realized I've accidentally copied the French plan for rifle issuance for the war.

It's bizarre off-axis barrel rightly disqualifies it immediately.

 

[FrangibleCover]

To be perfectly honest, I see any effort in the direction of an SLR as an attempt to get a decent semi automatic rifle into German service . They're going to equip the BEF but not the Territorials and then they're all going to be lost at Dunkirk, then the next year of war is fought with Mk.III SMLEs instead. Would it be nice if British infantry was better in Combat Mission? Yes, it would, but I don't see SLRs as an impactful investment for a stretched 30s budget in terms of actually winning the war sooner or on better terms for Britain. Think bigger.

 

[PMN1]

Is it my imagination or do these type of threads always have a high percentage of posts on small arms?

 

[ArtosStark]

Is it my imagination or do these type of threads always have a high percentage of posts on small arms?

We all like our peashooters 😉

 

[yulzari1]

You can

I do not think so. The C2A1 was 16 lbs loaded and was not known for great accuracy. The Browning 1919 is 33 lbs, no belt. You are saying that the Bren weighs the same as the Browning. The Canadians went to the FN C2A1 because they could easily interchange mags and parts to keep the squad support weapon running. You can quick change the barrel on the Bren but not the C2.

You can interchange the L1A1 magazines with L4 magazines. Contrary to myth they work either way up.
The L4 loaded was 11kg and the C2A1 7.3kg so is heavier but that mass is put to good use and not just extra metal. The Royal Marines had no qualms doubling their machine gun complements in unit by complementing their L7A2s with an equal number of L4s drawn from stores in the Falklands War despite being yet another set of parts.

 

[jsb]

The 4.5” and 5.5” gun were pretty good but and earlier start so that they are in production by 1939 would be helpful.

Would the 5.5 do both jobs and save having 2 different guns if you just built the post-war better lighter shell out of higher quality steel? You could make both shells and have a long and short range shells if you are worried about using too much of the good steel using just good shells?

- It is quite pointless to make use of the Vickers Type E by 1935, Vickers is already advanced enough in the A9 project which is already an extrapolation/descendant of the flawed Type E. As I said elsewhere, I think the A9/A10 were sort of wasted as stopgap Cruisers due to their poor suitability to high speed movement, but can be very easily reoriented to a pseudo 3-man Valentine role as they can actually take a reasonable amount of armor, an AEC diesel, and using A10's sloped front hull layout (the hull MG not being demanded of prewar Infantry tanks). The infantry tank role also saves this "thicker" A10E1 from the horrible doctrine of Armored Divisions if it remains until 1940.

I have the feeling that even with the need to increase the number of suppliers and the imminent arrival of better tanks in mind, the A10 and A13 Mk II orders were not as big as they could have been prewar. Tied to the industrial buildup, might be something to look into to field more fully-equipped units in 1939-40 and have tanks to train on.

- Matilda II: Fine, a lot more could have been in France in 1940 if the British had fixed soft ground mobility issues with grousers from the start, which they had thought about. To explain: in 1939 they found out the tank had issues in soft terrain so dozens stayed in the UK while they were fixing the problem, which they thought was insufficent ground clearance. Engineers had considered either grousers or ground clearance from the start so it wasn't much of a stretch to select the correct solution. The French could actually help a bit with this one since they had encountered the same problem earlier and had looked into track link design as a result.

However, the existence of a tank Kestrel and the push to 6pdr means that a proper extrapolation to use these components, thicker armor, wider tracks and a bigger hull/turret (a "Matilda III"/Infantry Tank Mk IV of sorts) is possible. It would be a better path than A22 due to the layout of the tracks allowing easier increases of the turret ring diameter.

- A13 Mk 1/2: could probably do with the tank Kestrel, the 30-40mm armor basis could have been experimented and implemented earlier.

- A14/A16 heavy Cruisers: skip in favor of Matilda III and the heavy cruiser I suggest here. Twin MG turrets was a completely pointless requirement which was surprisingly easy to kill doctrinally, even prewar. Hull MG or bust.

- Covenanter/Crusader: As said before, ditch the whole idea of using the old 18-ton bridge and move over to the 25 ton one made for Matilda II. This means you actually only need one new Cruiser, not 2, at around 21-23 tons. Use tank Kestrel, upscaled DAV, or Liberty depending on how much the timeline changed. 40mm front and side basis, maybe 60mm front depending on the exact weight you play with. Comparable to the French policy of armoring well against your own gun and neatly follows the vindicated idea that at least 40mm of armor is needed (40-70mm recommended in 1937 by the British). Turret ring diameter increased as needed to integrate 6 pounder when ready. The extra weight must also allow the engine bay to laid out for easy access for maintenance and air filters to be mounted internally for good engine life.

As a bonus, the British can move as quickly as possible to externally-mounted Christie suspension springs without cross shafts (like AMX-40) to facilitate weight growth, save space on the sides and bottom of the tank (greater turret ring diameter and lowered fighting compartment of the same internal height, or taller fighting compartment at the same overall tank height), allow monolithic side armor.

After all of that which is basically set up by 1941, you can freely increase the weight and size and improve the armament, armor and powerplant of your tanks as bridge capacity is increased and as higher capacity Christie coil springs are fielded. Unifying on a single chassis (with external Christie only or with heavy duty bogies if they really can't figure out independent coil springs for >40t) should be feasible after that, with heavier armor/armament for special roles. At worst we could still end up with a similar medium-heavy mix like T-34/IS where the heavy tank brings actually much heavier armament and armor than the medium while not being unified, if we get more "descendants" of Matilda.

Would a A10 but scaled up to take the Rolls-Royce Kestrel and a 6pdr not be a perfectly good tank for much of the early war?

The point of using the Vickers E is not to replace the A9/A10 cruisers but to give the regiments that historically used the Vickers Mk VI light tanks a fighting chance if and when they encounter enemy armour. Yes they're not intended to do that, but it happens anyway and even against armoured cars, Panzer I's and II's Mg's are all but useless.

Are they not just supposed to be recon light tanks anyway & they are really cheap and easy to build in numbers so it's probably a good idea to build them light to get larger numbers early just like PZI? Could you not just build a few of them as "TDs" with a casement or open-top 2Pdr or something larger like old 18pdr (or old 6/12pdr navy guns?) to support each regiment of them against real tanks?

 

[naraic]

Is it my imagination or do these type of threads always have a high percentage of posts on small arms?

Most understandable topic to a lot of people while they don't understand artillery, armour or logistics in the same depth.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Is it my imagination or do these type of threads always have a high percentage of posts on small arms?

Have posted previously on British armour.

Keep it KISS.

Basic Christie tank, with raised deck for standard liberty. Cheap and supplus in US.

Main hull and turret cast, as UK lacks weldable steel, electrodes or welders.

RHA for all flat areas, drop in turret roof, etc. Have detachable RHA standoff plates. Not for HEAT, but for shattering hard core ATR shot. Side plate are removed to meet rail gauge.

3pdr 47mm gun, maintaining small turret ring, with good ammunition load. 47APC will defeat most anything and low LVHE give good and reliable blast round.

QED

 

[JasTysoe]

On to tank models:


- It is quite pointless to make use of the Vickers Type E by 1935, Vickers is already advanced enough in the A9 project which is already an extrapolation/descendant of the flawed Type E. As I said elsewhere, I think the A9/A10 were sort of wasted as stopgap Cruisers due to their poor suitability to high speed movement, but can be very easily reoriented to a pseudo 3-man Valentine role as they can actually take a reasonable amount of armor, an AEC diesel, and using A10's sloped front hull layout (the hull MG not being demanded of prewar Infantry tanks). The infantry tank role also saves this "thicker" A10E1 from the horrible doctrine of Armored Divisions if it remains until 1940.

It's hard to find definitive information on the E and variants, but quite a few sources indicate that the E has heavier armour than the A9, and it's much faster than the A10. Doesn't that make an updated E quite a competitive early-war light tank and much better than the ones the Brits used?

 

[Paul_Sussex]

An update to my (and others) previous comments. After watching the Tank Museum tank chats on the 6 tonner and T26, what would be the impact of the army not ignoring this design, buying in substantial numbers (for the UK - it is fairly cheap, after all) and eventually mounting the QF 2pdr and a Vickers/BESA? Enough of these in France - and with more units pre-war allowing for better training and doctrine - might be interesting?

 

[tomo pauk]

Doh - was just writing this

How the tank 'weight generations' might've looked, so to speak:
- spin-off from the Vickers 6 ton (that actually grows to perhaps 10 ton); later used as a platform for SP artillery and AA
- 17-18 ton tank, talk Valentine with the twin 'bus engine' (= as Matilda II used, so it starts with 190 HP instead of 130 HP), start with at least the spin-off from the 3pdr Vickers as the main gun
- 26-28 ton tank, similar to a Matilda, but with more engine power (can start twin the AEC engines for 260 HP, or Liberty at 340 HP)
- 40 ton tank that can grow to 45 tons, (talk lower and shorter Churchill, but a bit wider) will need a lot of power (500 HP, should be provided by Lion, Kestrel, or RR diesel Condor), main gun of 3in caliber for the starters

Note that I try to avoid 'cruiser tanks' all together, while giving the 'infantry tanks' more HP (by ~50% - not too shabby) so they can move faster on the battlefiled. 3pdr Vickers should also be minimum for the not-Valentine and not-Matilda, I'd prefer the RN's 6 pdr instead.

 

[jsb]

Have posted previously on British armour.

Keep it KISS.

Basic Christie tank, with raised deck for standard liberty. Cheap and supplus in US.

Main hull and turret cast, as UK lacks weldable steel, electrodes or welders.

RHA for all flat areas, drop in turret roof, etc. Have detachable RHA standoff plates. Not for HEAT, but for shattering hard core ATR shot. Side plate are removed to meet rail gauge.

3pdr 47mm gun, maintaining small turret ring, with good ammunition load. 47APC will defeat most anything and low LVHE give good and reliable blast round.

QED

Why use the Christie tank (I presume suspension?) or Liberty engine?
Would an external boggy system like Horstmann suspension (used in modified froms the pre-war Vickers light tanks to the Chieftain tank) not save a lot of internal room and a more modern engine say a derated Rolls-Royce Kestrel give more power for the weight?

I mean, can we just build an early larger Valentine with a 6pdr and a 4-man crew (with 3 in turret, unless you want a 5th in hull) as the standard tank? If you scale it for the derated Rolls-Royce Kestrel and design it (especially the suspension) to add more protection as the threat increase it should be very possible?

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Why use the Christie tank (I presume suspension?) or Liberty engine?
Would an external boggy system like Horstmann suspension (used in modified froms the pre-war Vickers light tanks to the Chieftain tank) not save a lot of internal room and a more modern engine say a derated Rolls-Royce Kestrel give more power for the weight?

I mean, can we just build an early larger Valentine with a 6pdr and a 4-man crew as the standard tank? If you scale it for the derated Rolls-Royce Kestrel and design it (especially the suspension) to add more protection as the threat increase it should be very possible?

Christie is the best system of the time.
Both soviets and British evolved it, T34 and crusader to Comet.
Horstmann was better for heavier and slower, like the Centurion and Chieftain.

As said, the production skills and people of kestrel, were needed to make Merlin's and set secondary factories. Liberty is in creates, low tech and much easier to mass produce.

Crusader could take 3 in turret with 2pdr, only 2 with 6pdr. You need a Sherman sized tank with a 57mm/75mm gun and 3 crew.

The choice is 500 20t tanks or 300 30t plus

 

[jsb]

Christie is the best system of the time.
Both soviets and British evolved it, T34 and crusader to Comet.
Horstmann was better for heavier and slower, like the Centurion and Chieftain.

I disagree, Christie was the known cool thing they had, and they used it as they were short of time, the tanks using it are basically just 2 development lines UK (ie all the Nuffield Cruiser tanks) and Soviet (BT-T34) and then it died out? By contrast, Horstmann suspension and similar has been used up until relatively modern IFVs after its use in tanks ended. I just think it's a better system as it saves internal space and is easier to repair and was available at the time it's just a matter or working on it and not on Christie developments.

Crusader could take 3 in turret with 2pdr, only 2 with 6pdr. You need a Sherman sized tank with a 57mm/75mm gun and 3 crew.

The choice is 500 20t tanks or 300 30t plus

My point thought is that I want a GB MK4 Pz like tank that will be useful for the early war until the pressure is off, and they can bring in a war developed tank, This 25-30t heavy Valentine with a 6pdr with 3 turret crew would be a monster if ready in numbers in 1940 until a couple of years when development diverged from OTL on German side....

It could replace both infantry (Matilda II, Valentine) and cruiser tanks (Cruiser Mk III, A13, Covenanter), apart from light cheap Mk6s tanks that I would use for recon and training.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I thought I might tally up the number of posts on different types of weapons systems; I got through the first two pages before thinking better of it as a means of spending one's life, but 20 posts on tanks/anti-tank guns, 7 on small arms, 5 on artillery and 4 on general purpose systems or bigger picture stuff is fairly telling.

The nitty gritty of tank design or anti-tank gun choice won't be decisive on the tactical battlefield, nor will it really play a role in operational or strategic terms. However, if there is the opportunity to rationalise it as well as kick starting the best (or least worst) choices as close to 1935 as possible, then it isn't going to be a negative development.

Given the decent enough British Army small arms of WW2, this also won't be too much of an area for decisive difference, with the exception of the tactical utility of a GPMG if one can be developed.

Artillery was a British strength in both World Wars and getting it to yield even better results doesn't take much. The 25pdr was smaller than the German and French 105mm, but had a different role of suppressive fire; its combination of a very decent rate of fire and good range made up for the smaller shell in combination with this role. The only thing that can be done is make sure there are more of them early on, as well as tweaking their performance. Heavier guns do present an opportunity to do something different on the potential battlefields, with the best answer to German advantages in anti-tank guns and infantry firepower being an oblique approach through smashing them from outside their range. The 5.5" was only a 1939 specification for a 5.5 ton weapon with a 16000 yard range, or general properties similar to the Yank 155mm for those familiar with the weight of comparable equipments; going for a 6" weapon that might be half a ton heavier could yield greater range and further flexibility, given that the weight in practice of the 5.5" was in that range. The utility of having more and better heavy weapons is manifold, but whilst it may influence battles, it won't win wars.

As some chaps have said, getting some form of military training in place is one of those notions that will have a bigger change, as it allows for a larger army in 1939/40 and more options as a result, with further consequences flowing down the line. This larger force won't all be plowed into France as some might think, but rather the systems and 'machinery' of a larger force will be intact at home along with a few divisions in the pipeline, as well as the various TA units.

It is easy and not a bad thing to get caught up on the wood of the minutiae of tank design or the merits of one rifle over another, but these should be but two of perhaps 10 different developments/programmes coordinated under an overall vision. If more money could be found, then option time really opens up.

 

[jsb]

The nitty gritty of tank design or anti-tank gun choice won't be decisive on the tactical battlefield, nor will it really play a role in operational or strategic terms.
....
It is easy and not a bad thing to get caught up on the wood of the minutiae of tank design or the merits of one rifle over another, but these should be but two of perhaps 10 different developments/programmes coordinated under an overall vision. If more money could be found, then option time really opens up.

The problem with all these threads is that it's simply a matter of how much hindsight we are allowed to use, so we hide in the easy small stuff we think is not cheating.....

Using technical knowledge on them doesn't feel like cheating as it's only telling them what the best SMG to build is even if it's actually based on studies of battlefield experience they had no access to and industrial & technical knowledge and development they had far less access to and thus is really cheating and using hindsight almost as much as simply getting out a campaign map and or getting HMT to open the funding taps years earlier for the army for a continental European commitment that would have been politically unthinkable.

Like if you really want to increase the power of British Army in 1935 and have hindsight you don't work in GB you cheat by playing in India and moving the Gurkhas out of India army to the empire (use war in China as the reason to move them to Malaya?), once out they are funded by London (in a secret black budget) and India nationalist don't care about them any more as they really only mostly cared about taxes. You can now massively expand them and at the same time replace them with more Indian regiments in Indian army to fill the gap...... as you are not increasing taxes, you might even be able to increase the size of the infantry if you don't buy much expensive heavy weapons and fund them out of central GB/UK funds as local men's jobs will be much more popular than mostly imported weapons. The result will be maybe at least 200,000 extra troops ready by 1940 even if they are only armed with SMGs and cast off WW1 weapons and little in heavy weapons.

 

[ArtosStark]

As said, the production skills and people of kestrel, were needed to make Merlin's and set secondary factories

I mean, not necessarily. The Meteor was mostly developed by the somewhat under-utilized division of RR that specialized in vehicle engines. Having this division, or another automotive company adapt the design to ground service and set up a separate production line would not greatly interfere with aerial engine production or development.

 

[jsb]

I mean, not necessarily. The Meteor was mostly developed by the somewhat under-utilized division of RR that specialized in vehicle engines. Having this division, or another automotive company adapt the design to ground service and set up a separate production line would not greatly interfere with aerial engine production or development.

Especially if we are allowed an early POD and have them simply lead others and subcontract out the work, we need to remember that OTL had huge inefficiencies as well like the railway manufactures getting in late to the game and building very questionable stuff like the 1,771 Covenanters....