British Universal Tank Jan 1941

[PMN1]

It’s January 1941 and by an amazing series of events a ‘Universal’ tank is starting to come off the British tank production lines (including Nuffield’s) for issue to units.
13-78mm armour that can be upgraded if necessary without straining the engine, suspension etc.

It has a 3 man turret with a stabilised main gun firing the AP round required plus a decent HE round and also has a co-axial machine gun. The gun can be upgraded without having to reduce the turret crew or loose the machine gun. Gun has a depression of -10 and elevation of +20.

It is reliable in desert conditions and in European conditions.

Has good road speed.

Has good suspension.

Is not tiring to drive.

Has good mobility in all conditions.

Does not have an excessively high silhouette – driver may be in reclining position as in OTL Chieftain to reduce silhouette).

Has good ammunition storage.

Tank is easy to manufacture.



How will having this tank affect operations in North Africa and later in Europe?

 

[SirCliveWolfe]

Very interesting... I suppose the only question is in what numbers would it be available?

 

[Simon]

Well in North Africa one of the main problems aside from the tanks themselves were the tactics used, I seem to remember the British tanks had a penchant for wildly advancing and driving straight into pre-set anti-tank gun positions. Until they get some sense knocked into them and stop doing stuff like that would a decent tank change all that much? After that however things could get interesting.

 

[YLi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_tank

I think I just about solved your problem. Introduce that tank a year earlier.

 

[kclcmdr]

What is the Gun Caliber??

50mm or 75mm ??

 

[eltf177]

A _huge_ question is just how reliable are the first production models going to be? Remeber the Covanter (sp.) and all the teethng problems it faced...

OTOH if it works the German's are going to be in for a _nasty_ shock!

 

[Ian Hathaway]

Well in North Africa one of the main problems aside from the tanks themselves were the tactics used, I seem to remember the British tanks had a penchant for wildly advancing and driving straight into pre-set anti-tank gun positions. Until they get some sense knocked into them and stop doing stuff like that would a decent tank change all that much? After that however things could get interesting.

From what I understand the tactics used were because of the vehicles available, the gun was ineffective at long range so the only way to get into combat was to charge at the enemy as quickly as possible. It was either that or stand off at a range where the enemy couldn't hit you, but that also means you can't hit them. Unfortunately the Germans used a mix of armour and anti-tank guns so to get to the armour you also had to face the anti-tank. This changed somewhat once the Lee/Grant was introduced as the 75mm on this vehicle had a much better range.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalier_tank

I think I just about solved your problem. Introduce that tank a year earlier.

Unfortunately the Cavalier didn't have a good enough engine and had to wait for the Meteor to become available which then became the Cromwell. Plus the Cavalier was still hampered with size restrictions.

Perhaps they should have looked at a universal tank earlier instead of wasting time on projects such as the TOG.

 

[von Adler]

Well, a Crusader with sloped armour, a larger turret ring, no bow machine gun, all welded armour and a 6pdr/57mm (that included HE shots) could do the trick. It can later be upgraded to the 75mm or 77mm without that much problems.

 

[YLi]

You can't just arbitrarily drill a larger turret ring into an AFV. You have to make sure you're clearing the drive components and any crew positions before you start making "improvements" to the hull.

Study the layout of the tank, maybe you're more familiar with it than me, but the British didn't bother trying to upgrade the Crusader. Then again, the turret ring was only 55" (for some odd reason). If you really have you, you can drill a larger turret ring I suppose.

 

[Sior]

You can't just arbitrarily drill a larger turret ring into an AFV. You have to make sure you're clearing the drive components and any crew positions before you start making "improvements" to the hull.

Study the layout of the tank, maybe you're more familiar with it than me, but the British didn't bother trying to upgrade the Crusader. Then again, the turret ring was only 55" (for some odd reason). If you really have you, you can drill a larger turret ring I suppose.

The size of the Turret ring is usually dictated too by the width of the hull, most early British tanks did not have the upper hull overhang the running gear.

Cromwell with turret ring inside the hull profile.

Comet with turret ring over hanging the running gear.

 

[Simon]

Unfortunately the Cavalier didn't have a good enough engine and had to wait for the Meteor to become available which then became the Cromwell. Plus the Cavalier was still hampered with size restrictions.

Could we perhaps work on the assumption of an earlier development of the Rolls Royce Meteor engine? A quick looks says that it was developed from the Merlin III which was first produced in July 1938 with the first Meteors in early 1941. Now obviously that's way too late for our prospective tank, but they had already developed a marinised version of the Merlin in 1939 I think it was so maybe someone gets the bright idea of looking at possibly turning it into a tank engine? Of course it's PMN1's thread so he gets to decide what's allowable.

 

[von Adler]

You can either make the tank wider (but that may cause brigde and railroad transport problems) or make the turret overhang the running gear as it did on later British tanks.

The Crusader had a good engine, and sloping armour gives you not only sloping armour, but also a better weght to armour thickness ratio.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

Could we perhaps work on the assumption of an earlier development of the Rolls Royce Meteor engine? A quick looks says that it was developed from the Merlin III which was first produced in July 1938 with the first Meteors in early 1941. Now obviously that's way too late for our prospective tank, but they had already developed a marinised version of the Merlin in 1939 I think it was so maybe someone gets the bright idea of looking at possibly turning it into a tank engine? Of course it's PMN1's thread so he gets to decide what's allowable.

I would love to have seen the meteor before this but the merlin was in high demand at this time and the engines couldn't be spared. It might also have helped if the tank industry wasn't a cottage industry. The first cavalier to have the meteor fitted was done in a bus depot 10 miles down the road from where I am now. The limitation of the rail loading gauge was always a sticking point for the every day tank in the UK, narrow tanks with small turret rings. If the designers could have got past that we could have had a world beater way before the Centurian.
Here's a What If for you ... what if we had adopted the GWR track width as standard instead of the 4ft gauge in the UK?

 

[Sior]

I would love to have seen the meteor before this but the merlin was in high demand at this time and the engines couldn't be spared. It might also have helped if the tank industry wasn't a cottage industry. The first cavalier to have the meteor fitted was done in a bus depot 10 miles down the road from where I am now. The limitation of the rail loading gauge was always a sticking point for the every day tank in the UK, narrow tanks with small turret rings. If the designers could have got past that we could have had a world beater way before the Centurian.
Here's a What If for you ... what if we had adopted the GWR track width as standard instead of the 4ft gauge in the UK?

For tank use the Merlin had its supercharger, reduction gear, and other equipment removed from its camshaft, greatly simplifying its construction. It had cast, rather than forged, pistons, and was de-rated to around 600 bhp (447 kW), running on lower-octane pool petrol instead of high-octane aviation fuel. In addition, because weight saving was not so important for a tank engine, some of the Merlin's more expensive light-alloy components were replaced with cheaper, steel components in the Meteor X version. It was also envisaged that the Meteor would use some components rejected on quality grounds for the Merlin, i.e. Merlin scrap.[1] In 1943 an acute shortage of blocks was met by dismantling surplus older marks of Merlins.

 

[Some Bloke]

France Fights on and APOD have the Peregrine engine (originally intended for the Westland Whirlwind plane) adapted for tanks shortly after Metropolitan France falls.

Perhaps have the Peregrine binned in a late stage of development (say 1939) when its lack of development is realised. This provides a neat stopgap measure for the Meteor and would give the successor to the Crusader a reliable engine.

If this is too late perhaps an adaptation of the Kestrel engine which was nearing the end of its development potential by the late 30s, perhaps an adaptation of this engine starting from 1938?

This coincides with the slope armoured Covenanter. By 1940 you have the Covenanter with a reliable engine but a piss poor drive train and cooling system, and the reverse for the Crusader. It is about this time that the competition that historically led to the Cavalier/Centaur/Cromwell series of tanks begins.

In this scenario you have an enlarged Crusader with an adapted Kestrel engine (think a reliable clone of OTL's cavalier) put forward by Nuffield. An Birmingham puts forward an enlarged version of the Covenanter with the same engine and a thoroughly ironed out mechanics (we'll call this tank the Conqueror). Despite its notorious Covenentor ancestry, the Conqueror proves to be more mechanically reliable than the Crusader and the added bonus of sloped armour gives it uprecedented endurance for a Cruiser tank.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

For tank use the Merlin had its supercharger, reduction gear, and other equipment removed from its camshaft, greatly simplifying its construction. It had cast, rather than forged, pistons, and was de-rated to around 600 bhp (447 kW), running on lower-octane pool petrol instead of high-octane aviation fuel. In addition, because weight saving was not so important for a tank engine, some of the Merlin's more expensive light-alloy components were replaced with cheaper, steel components in the Meteor X version. It was also envisaged that the Meteor would use some components rejected on quality grounds for the Merlin, i.e. Merlin scrap.[1] In 1943 an acute shortage of blocks was met by dismantling surplus older marks of Merlins.

That's all well and good but in 1940-41 Rolls Royce's priority was the Merlin. Would have loved to have seen meteor come out of the factories earlier or for Rolls Royce to have passed their designs to a less precise manufacturer who could produce Merlin derivatives under licence.

 

[YLi]

I would have kept the supercharger on the tank. We know the engine could stand forced induction. The only question is whether the transmission could do so as well.

 

[Sior]

France Fights on and APOD have the Peregrine engine (originally intended for the Westland Whirlwind plane) adapted for tanks shortly after Metropolitan France falls.

Perhaps have the Peregrine binned in a late stage of development (say 1939) when its lack of development is realised. This provides a neat stopgap measure for the Meteor and would give the successor to the Crusader a reliable engine.

If this is too late perhaps an adaptation of the Kestrel engine which was nearing the end of its development potential by the late 30s, perhaps an adaptation of this engine starting from 1938?

This coincides with the slope armoured Covenanter. By 1940 you have the Covenanter with a reliable engine but a piss poor drive train and cooling system, and the reverse for the Crusader. It is about this time that the competition that historically led to the Cavalier/Centaur/Cromwell series of tanks begins.

In this scenario you have an enlarged Crusader with an adapted Kestrel engine (think a reliable clone of OTL's cavalier) put forward by Nuffield. An Birmingham puts forward an enlarged version of the Covenanter with the same engine and a thoroughly ironed out mechanics (we'll call this tank the Conqueror). Despite its notorious Covenentor ancestry, the Conqueror proves to be more mechanically reliable than the Crusader and the added bonus of sloped armour gives it uprecedented endurance for a Cruiser tank.

The Kestrel, while having more power than the existing "Liberty" or Meadows engines, did not provide the desirable 20 bhp per ton required, so the Merlin III was used.

 

[Some Bloke]

Wait January 1941?!

Well the PoD using Kestrel engines might give you some decent precursors to a reliable universal tank by that time but I think you'd need a thorough rethink of tank doctrine before the war to fully exploit the opportunity and win the challenge. Best bet is to prevent the car crash that caused John Carden's death.

Anyway, here goes. Realising that they are making good sales from the Vickers 6 ton tank it is decided to use the money gained from sales into improving the design for British use.

While not great tank in itself, it is perhaps a better basis for a battle than the early Matildas. A variant of the Vickers E gets ordered as the Infantry tank while the Cruiser tank development proceeds as per OTL until 1938 when the Kestrel is adapted to ground use. Historically the Mark II Cruiser was neither fish nor fowl, too slow for a cruiser, too lightly armoured for an infantry tank. Historically this design was the basis for the Valentine from 1939. In this scenario The experimental tank uses an experimental adapted Kestrel engine, although more lightly armoured than the Matilda II, it has speed comparable to most cruiser tanks.

The new cruiser uses this tank as a basis, incorporating innovations such as sloped armour, giving it decent speed and the survivability of most of the infantry tanks of that time.