British Universal Tank Jan 1941

[PMN1]

I've deliberately not mentioned a specific gun size or engine as i'm more interested in the consequences of having decent ones rather than go through what we could have had - my reading of things is that time and effort was spent purpose designing the engine for the Covenanter so if you could avoid trying to make it so flat, you could use those resources for something more suitable and powerful. As for the gun, again, my reading is that the 6-pdr could have been introduced sooner and been in production when the Dunkirk panic screwed things up.

Having a gun with decent HE round reduces the need for charging at A/T guns, i'm sure there would still have been some who would but the brutal reality of war should weed them out. There would also be cases where tank units just get surprised.

So, how would redcued British losses affect the battles?

 

[Ian Hathaway]

I've deliberately not mentioned a specific gun size or engine as i'm more interested in the consequences of having decent ones rather than go through what we could have had - my reading of things is that time and effort was spent purpose designing the engine for the Covenanter so if you could avoid trying to make it so flat, you could use those resources for something more suitable and powerful. As for the gun, again, my reading is that the 6-pdr could have been introduced sooner and been in production when the Dunkirk panic screwed things up.

Having a gun with decent HE round reduces the need for charging at A/T guns, i'm sure there would still have been some who would but the brutal reality of war should weed them out. There would also be cases where tank units just get surprised.

So, how would redcued British losses affect the battles?

So what you're saying is that you don't care how it was done, you'd just like to assume that it was. That Britain somehow manages to produce a design on a par with something like the T34.

I'm certain the first thing it would do is give the Germans one hell of a scare and might lead to the introduction of a Panther type vehicle much sooner than they did, abandoning other development work. The consequence of that might be a different Barbarossa with some of the new vehicles being available in the early stages. I'm hoping they would be better than the T34 with a higher level of Comms gear and that they would take a leaf out of the Germans book and consider the crew survivability as well.

 

[PMN1]

So what you're saying is that you don't care how it was done, you'd just like to assume that it was. That Britain somehow manages to produce a design on a par with something like the T34.

Something like that, interesting story on the gun for the T-34

From Bryan Perrett’s ‘Iron Fist’

That the Soviet Union Armoured Corps had adopted a 76.2mm calibre as standard for its main armament at a time when the German were making the transition from 37mm to 50mm is a story in itself. Stalin had appointed one of his old Civil War cronies, Marshall G I Kulik, as his Chief of Artillery, largely because he was too dim to be devious and could therefore be relied on. Although Kulik knew very little about his profession or anything else for that matter, he was much given to making Olympian but totally groundless pronouncements, one of which was that German tanks were being fitted with 100mm armour plate. As luck would have it, a team of Russian experts was visiting German tank production plants at the time and its members flatly refused to believe their hosts assertion that the PzKw IV, then being fitted with 50mm frontal armour, was Germany’s most recent design. The team’s suspicion tended to support Kulik’s assertions and as a result the Red Army’s newest generation of tanks was fitted with guns capable of penetrating the thicker, if as yet imaginary plate.

 

[Sior]

The British had an abundent supply of the 20 cwt 3" aa gun from WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3_inch_20_cwt

 

[Ian Hathaway]

The British had an abundent supply of the 20 cwt 3" aa gun from WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_3_inch_20_cwt

Sounds good to me, add to that armour to take hits from known and expected enemy anti-tank weapons, capable of speeds up to 30mph (preferable with Diesel engine), easy access and egress for the crew and comms equipment and you have yourself a good all rounder. Please note no size restrictions but I'm guessing there would be weight restrictions and mentions of mechanical reliability in all climates.

 

[phx1138]

Could we perhaps work on the assumption of an earlier development of the Rolls Royce Meteor engine?

Don't actually need the Meteor. Adapt the Napier Lion-derived Sea Lion, which is already rugged enough, more powerful than the Liberty, & AFAIK more reliable.

 

[Sior]

Drop the Christie suspension or Torsion Bar suspension and use the Horstmann suspension designed in 1922 and used on vickers light tanks upto Challenger tank.

Horstmann suspension is a type of tracked suspension devised by the British engineer Sidney Horstmann in 1922.
The system uses coil springs and has the advantages of a relatively long travel and, consisting of a self-contained bogie that is bolted to the hull, causing little or no encroachment on internal hull space. In addition, the entire suspension unit may be relatively easily removed and replaced if damaged, e.g., by mines.

 

[MattII]

Firstly, bar Nuffield from the design process.

BTW, would the Napier Sealion be any good as an? It's already ruggedised after all.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Don't actually need the Meteor. Adapt the Napier Lion-derived Sea Lion, which is already rugged enough, more powerful than the Liberty, & AFAIK more reliable.

Oooo... Operation Sealion....

How about Rolls-Royce approaches Canada in 1939 and negotiates for Ford Canada, say, to produce Merlins. After some development, it becomes clear that they simply can't produce the tolerances needed to run an aircraft engine merlin reliably, but clearly there's a need for good tank engines, and they're good enough for that.... About this time, the invasion of France hits and Packard, with better quality, gets the Merlin air engine contract in the US. Meanwhile, Ford Canada is churning out Meteors as fast as they can build them.

Substitute GM Canada or Chrysler Canada, if that works better.

 

[Simon]

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.

Well the obvious solution to that is the one they eventually took, decide not to bother with rail transportation within the UK and go over to using tank transporters instead. Since they already seem to have come to the conclusion that a three man turret is needed as PMN1 set out in the initial description then they must have gone for the wider tank body and transporters as that's the only solution I can think of. How we got there I don't know, but that isn't really important.

While not great tank in itself, it is perhaps a better basis for a battle than the early Matildas.

When you say early Matildas do you mean the original Matilda or the Matilda II that became generally known as the Matilda after the original Matilda was discontinued? I ask as it can get a bit confusing. That aside I was under the impression that the Matilda was actually pretty okay for what it faced early in the war, only really being let down by its poor engine/speed and for some bizarre reason it never having its high explosive shell put into production? If you could get a better engine introduced would it of made a decent stop-gap until the Universal Tank of this thread appears in 1941?


But back to PMN1's initial question at the start of the thread. The obvious first major difference this is going to make is in North Africa since if they only start coming off the production line in January they wont make it in time for the Battle of Greece. IIRC the Afrika Korps was made up initially of a mix of Panzer Is, Panzer IIs, Panzer IIIs, and a small leavening of Panzer IVs. The new Universal Tank being reliable and easy to keep maintained is going to be a major bonus for the British. Against the early Panzers it's going to give the Germans quite a shock so we could well see a crash development and production of Tigers and Panthers. Whether their being in service a bit longer means that the Germans work out some of their problems I couldn't say, but a number of them seem inherent and others due to their proclivity for going for the over-engineered super tank rather than simply more good tanks so it could be unlikely. In an ideal world the Heer switches en-masse to Tigers and Panthers and spends the rest of the war breaking down at the most inopportune times possible.

 

[NothingNow]

Firstly, bar Nuffield from the design process.

BTW, would the Napier Sealion be any good as an? It's already ruggedised after all.

It's got legs, and irony. but yeah, a Sea Lion or RR Kestrel would probably be the best bet to start with (the Kestrel's a bit less powerful, but much simpler to make, and just as seasoned.)

And why the fuck is that Anti-Christie suspension thing coming up again? That was pretty much the only good decision made on early-war British tanks, and the advantages in travel provided by Christie suspension's geometry make it seriously advantageous compared to anything else out there.

As for the gun, the 20 cwt 3" sounds good, especially if it's given a decent HE shell. Additionally, any close support version would do well to have a 25pdr as it's main armament. You'd probably want one or two per company as well, for that extra fire-power when facing anti-tank guns and the like. Something like the 105mm Howitzer-armed Shermans.

You'd still want a 17pdr/77mm HV or a beast like the 20pdr in the pipeline though.

 

[PMN1]

Some info on the 6-pdr.

Death by Design…Peter Beale

During the period when the two-pounder was being developed and mounted in tanks (as well as being used for ground-mounted anti-tank equipment), the thickness of armour on all tanks was rising steadily. There was clearly a case for a heavier gun. Col. Campbell Clarke was deputy Chairman of the Ordnance Board in 1937, and he had urged the then Director of Artillery, Maj Gen H. A. Lewis, to order a tank gun which could deal with tanks armoured to the 78mm standard of the Matilda. Lewis said that the General Staff did not consider it necessary. On 1 April 1938 Campbell Clarke succeeded Lewis as Director of Artillery, and on handing over Lewis said to Clarke, ‘Now you can get on with your gun’. Clarke proceeded to do just that.

The prime cause of this work was the field anti-tank gun rather than the tank gun; but from the start the possible future use of the gun in tanks was allowed for. Clarke called for general exploratory work on a six-pounder anti-tank gun in April 1938 ‘following generally the specification which governs the production of the two-pounder’. This request was made by the Design Department; but that department was understaffed and busy with other guns, and Clarke could not get General Staff priority.

Because of the shortage of design resources and the priorities given to them, designs for the six-pounder was not available until autumn 1939. The attention of the Director of Mechanisation, Maj Gen A.E. Davidson, responsible for the provision of tanks to the armoured forces, was drawn to the new gun at an early stage. But he was even less interested in a six-pounder tank gun than a six-pounder anti-tank gun; thus when a gun was available for trial in April 1940, and was approved, subject to testing, a tank and anti-tank gun, it was not specifically adopted for use in tanks.

In June 1940 the six-pounder passed its test at Shoeburyness. In July 1940 the Ministry of supply was asked to make fourteen pilot models, and in October they increased this to 50. At about this time Clarke read in an Ordnance Board minute that the Churchill tank currently being rushed through the design and manufacturing process was still to mount a two-pounder. Clarke protested vigorously to the Assistant Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir G.N. Macready and to his own boss, the Director General of Munitions Production, Sir Harold Brown. Clarke had already pointed out that the Germans, having investigated the Matildas left behind at Dunkirk, were very likely to increase the strength of both armour and the armament on their tanks – which they did.

Clarke also pressed the Director of Mechanisation to adopt the six-pounder in his tanks. Maj Gen Davidson pointed out that there was no General Staff requirement for a more powerful gun on tanks, and that ‘it was no part of the Director of Mechanisation’s duties to dictate to the General Staff when they had already decided their policies; the new Churchill tanks were designed to mount the two-pounder; and the size of the six-pounder would involve radical enlargement of the hull and turret’.

Macleod Ross records that: ‘On Clarke’s remonstrance Adm Sir Harold Brown (the DGMP) immediately ordered 2,000 six pounder anti-tank guns and 2,000 six-pounder tank guns. Unlike the D of M he did not care whether the General Staff approved or not, action which might be termed “the Nelson touch”.

The orders were there, but was the manufacturing capacity? Production was allowed to start only in a new factory at Radcliffe near Bolton because of War Office insistence that the production of two-pounders in existing factories should not be compromised.


However, don't want them in production too early and left behind at Dunkirk....want to keep them a surprise...


There is also Tony Williams article on tank guns

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/alt WW2 tank gun.htm

 

[Simon]

And why the fuck is that Anti-Christie suspension thing coming up again? That was pretty much the only good decision made on early-war British tanks, and the advantages in travel provided by Christie suspension's geometry make it seriously advantageous compared to anything else out there.

Didn't the Christie system weight a fair bit and take up hull space? Or am I mixing it up with one if the other ones.

 

[NothingNow]

Didn't the Christie system weight a fair bit and take up hull space? Or am I mixing it up with one if the other ones.

Christie suspension takes up hull space, but it really isn't that intrusive, since it's right on the sides of the hull, and is pretty compact to begin with.
Meanwhile, it lets the tank sit much lower, and gives a better ride. Extra width isn't as much a problem comparatively.

As for weight, I couldn't say, but the convertible drivetrain added a decent amount of weight on early models, but this was deleted on most later models.

 

[Sior]

Christie suspension takes up hull space, but it really isn't that intrusive, since it's right on the sides of the hull, and is pretty compact to begin with.
Meanwhile, it lets the tank sit much lower, and gives a better ride. Extra width isn't as much a problem comparatively.

As for weight, I couldn't say, but the convertible drivetrain added a decent amount of weight on early models, but this was deleted on most later models.

Christie suspension had a problem dealing with the heavier weights of tanks as the war progressed.

The Italians actually improved the Crusader tank!

Carro Armato Celere Sahariano Medium Tank

Being impressed with the British cruiser tanks, the Italians attempted to make a copy for use in North Africa. The Italians lost the battle for North Africa before a prototype was completed in 1943 and the project was cancelled. A 75mm main gun was proposed for production models. A 47mm gun was used in the prototype.​

Italian Experimental Vehicles​

"Celere Sahariano

is of particular note here. An upgraded version of the Carro Armato, the production lines were ready too late and cancelled after the armistice but this tank would’ve definately been a problem for us. From the Soviets they imitated the Christie suspension, sloped armour and even greater speed. The Italians stumbled on to the best tank engines of the war too late, from their own fighter-plane engines. Great horse-power for their weight, great speed and range and uncharacteristically reliable. From the Germans they tried to further make up for adequate-only armour with an lengthening the tank and providing an unusually low profile making it hard to target. From everyone they learnt to have a longer 75mm gun. All in all, had Italy continued the war, this tank would definately be a match for ours and a complete surprise considering their past failures."
Best Tanks of the Second World War

Being impressed with the British cruiser tanks, the Italians attempted to make a copy for use in North Africa. The Carro Armato Celere Sahariano ( Fast Saharian tank) was clearly inspired by the Crusader, it had sloped armor and the 47 mm high velocity gun installed in a M-14/41 modified turret.
The hull employed a torsion bar suspension for improved cross country abilities. The tank can reach 60 km/h powered by a 270 hp Fiat diesel engine.
The war in ended before this AFV could be put on service and the project was cancelled. A 75mm main gun was proposed for production models.
​

 

[phx1138]

Oooo... Operation Sealion....

So it can't succeed no matter which side they're on?

Okay, leave aside the aquatic fauna. What about the Hall-Scott Defender marine engine? 400+hp V12, up to 950hp with turbo, introduced 1937, built in the U.S.

 

[Some Bloke]

The last Lion variant was designed in 1933, a year before the Soviet Union ordered the Vickers (which eventually became the T-28). OTL's Cruiser Mark 1 was ordered in 1936 from the Mark III light tank. Would this give enough time to put together a design based on Vickers 6 tonner with a Napier Lion as a starting point for cruiser tank development? That way tank designers only have the cooling system and the suspension to worry about. OTL's cruiser tanks were notorious for shedding tracks and the Vickers 6 tonner and its variants/derivitives never had this problem so this would eliminate 2 out of 4 mechanical problems that plagued British tanks.

 

[MattII]

Well the Sea Lion was pretty rugged, so that would probably be a good basis to work from, especially given its 500 bhp, compared to about 340 bhp for the Nuffield Liberty Mark III. Of course if it was brought in as a patch-up until better engines could be developed then it might not be so easy to work with.

 

[Some Bloke]

If they start in say 1933 or 4 then I doubt it would have been conceived as a stop gap measure.

 

[NothingNow]

Christie suspension had a problem dealing with the heavier weights of tanks as the war progressed.

Just because some fuckwit doesn't want to spend some money on upgraded springs isn't a mark against the whole design.
It worked wonderfully on the T-34 and it still works on the Merkava.