British Universal Tank Jan 1941
- Thread starter PMN1
- Start date
NothingNow
Banned
It's much closer to Christie suspension than Horstmann, as it lacks paired units among other things. But, if it's got large wheels and is bolted on externally, it must be Horstmann.
Seriously just look:
Centurion:
Merkava:
Yeah, but Nuffield had production pretty much buttoned up in the early years.
Sior
Banned
It's much closer to Christie suspension than Horstmann, as it lacks paired units among other things. But, if it's got large wheels and is bolted on externally, it must be Horstmann.
Seriously just look:
Centurion:
Merkava:
Totally different operation to Christie!
NothingNow
Banned
And you're wrong.
It's pretty close to the versions fitted to BTs and T-34. Which differs from regular Christie suspension only by mounting the spring vertically instead of horizontally.
And you're wrong.
It's pretty close to the versions fitted to BTs and T-34. Which differs from regular Christie suspension only by mounting the spring vertically instead of horizontally.
I disagree, the Merkava's suspension just has the coil wrapped around the arm vertically instead of horizontally. That doesn't really make it a Christie suspension, it just has a differing arm angle.
NothingNow
Banned
It's still far closer to the suspension on the T-34 than to a Horstmann unit.
On a different note, a Sea Lion, or another more modern 20's-30's engine = good. Kill Nuffield horribly.
the 20 cwt 3" is great, but a modernized 6pdr Hotchkiss or some actual QF 6pdr is IMO more likely. A QF 18pdr or QF 25pdr for support would be nice, (although the QF 3 inch howitzer is more likely to be used) and would provide a design reference for later, more powerful marks using the *QF 17pdr/77mm HV.
~65-75mm armor for the maximum thickness, with a decent slope for better protection. Something built like the FCM 36 could get away with less, thus giving better performance, with less materials cost.
That said, we want low and wide, so there's not much point to sloping anything aside from the glacis plate and turret, although it needs to support a three-man crew in the turret. Ditching the hull gunner is another good idea.
It might be best for this to actually be a common hull or reference design, with actual production having two turrets and main guns optimized for cruiser and infantry roles, or Anti-tank and Close Support turrets. Even if just to get it by the ordinance board.
Well my round about way of doing it would involve the Mark II Cruiser and the its derivative, the Valentine infantry tank. The Valentine was based on the Mark II with a lighter engine and simpler, more reliable mechanics.
Instead of ordering the Covenanter they order a Valentine with the Lion engine (The Cruiser II.V). This gives the Covenanter time to mature as a design rather than being ordered off the drawing board.
The Cruiser II.V proves successful attacking infantry positions in the early (pre Rommel) North Africa causing a major rethink on tank doctrine. This time the Crusader and Churchill loose out to a revised, slightly enlarged Covenetor with sloping armour of comparable thickness to a Valentine which has no trouble accepting the 6-pdr as a gun in due course.
This tank starts to be replaced in late 1943.
Instead of ordering the Covenanter they order a Valentine with the Lion engine (The Cruiser II.V). This gives the Covenanter time to mature as a design rather than being ordered off the drawing board.
The Cruiser II.V proves successful attacking infantry positions in the early (pre Rommel) North Africa causing a major rethink on tank doctrine. This time the Crusader and Churchill loose out to a revised, slightly enlarged Covenetor with sloping armour of comparable thickness to a Valentine which has no trouble accepting the 6-pdr as a gun in due course.
This tank starts to be replaced in late 1943.
Last edited:
NothingNow
Banned
The Sentinel is pretty much the perfect tank for what we're looking at. Although getting it out on time and on to the battlefield is the problem. Maybe as a "heavy cruiser" design, like the Cruiser MkII/A10s were supposed to be?
It'd need to be much faster. 25km/h on road isn't going to do it much good in North Africa. It's going to by necessity be much larger and heavier to be capable of containing the necessary engine.
But if you say designed it to swallow an engine larger than the 9.6 liter AEC A179 I-6 Petrol and A190 I-6 diesel engines, like say a bastardized V-12 variant of ~19L displacement and ~260-300bhp, it would be doable. But at that size you might as well jam a Kestrel or Sea Lion in there and get something more upgradable with a bit more power on tap.
It'd need to be much faster. 25km/h on road isn't going to do it much good in North Africa. It's going to by necessity be much larger and heavier to be capable of containing the necessary engine.
But if you say designed it to swallow an engine larger than the 9.6 liter AEC A179 I-6 Petrol and A190 I-6 diesel engines, like say a bastardized V-12 variant of ~19L displacement and ~260-300bhp, it would be doable. But at that size you might as well jam a Kestrel or Sea Lion in there and get something more upgradable with a bit more power on tap.
Putting the Sea Lion there was exactly what I had in mind.
I suspect this engine might star to get a bit long in the tooth come
1942 or 3 by which time the Meteor will be available to equip the successor
to this ATL's Covenanter Mark II.
The question is, how would you persuade the British to adopt
an Australian (if awesome) design as a successor. Perhaps as a face saving measure
you could have the British make some token revisions such as sloping armour
before putting it into production.
However, the successor design is outside of the remit of this discussion.
The big question is, how will this affect other countries' tank designs as the war progresses?
I suspect this engine might star to get a bit long in the tooth come
1942 or 3 by which time the Meteor will be available to equip the successor
to this ATL's Covenanter Mark II.
The question is, how would you persuade the British to adopt
an Australian (if awesome) design as a successor. Perhaps as a face saving measure
you could have the British make some token revisions such as sloping armour
before putting it into production.
However, the successor design is outside of the remit of this discussion.
The big question is, how will this affect other countries' tank designs as the war progresses?
Last edited:
It might not do too much to the Germans. They were already moving towards 'universal' designs with the Pzr IV F2 and Panther, apart from perhaps adding a bit of impetus to that I don't think it would change their minds very much.
It might have an effect on the Americans - their tank destroyers usually had either light armour or no OHP, despite having a good gun and decent mobility. Upgunning and uparmouring the Sherman would probably look a lot more attractive if everyone else is clearly heading for heavier and less specialised tanks.
NothingNow
Banned
Yeah. Although the Grant and Sherman had some pretty serious firepower when they were first introduced.
That said, a number of Shermans would probably be fitted with the 3" M6/M7 from the beginning, and the 76mm Gun M1 later in the war. Along with a 90mm Gun M3 equipped Sherman alongside/instead of the M36.
The M5 would probably be replaced by something closer to the M18 though.
If only the Aussies had been a bit more canny and realised that the collapse of the French had meant no new tanks for the forseeable future. Of course, they could also have bought a few Rams off Canada, if they'd been willing to release any for export. They weren't world-beaters of course, but I suspect they would at least have been able to match anything put up by the IJA.
Sior
Banned
What about the RR Condor engine that they had converted to diesel in 1932?
"
Rolls-Royce also had their fingers in the pie, and converted a Condor petrol (gasoline) engine to diesel operation in the early 1930's, and this engine had passed it's 50 hour type test towards the end of 1932, with flight trials later in the year in a Hawker Horsley aircraft. The engine had 12 cylinders of 5½" X 7½" giving a swept volume of 34729 cc or 2138 cu ins. The engine produced 480 hp at 1900 rpm, with a maximum rated speed of 2000 rpm. Two Bosch pumps and also their injectors provided the fuel system, but this was to vanish as WW2 broke out, leaving many UK engine companies with supply problems. "
http://www.oldengine.org/members/diesel/duxford/aviat5.htm
Gardner diesel
Gardner was a leading manufacturer of diesel engines. They went on to build excellent marine diesels. They could use the six cylinder from the Scamell Pionnier and double it to create a V12. They could then enlarge it, or build a dedicated V12 that would be comparable to the T34s, but probably much better built.
Gardner was a leading manufacturer of diesel engines. They went on to build excellent marine diesels. They could use the six cylinder from the Scamell Pionnier and double it to create a V12. They could then enlarge it, or build a dedicated V12 that would be comparable to the T34s, but probably much better built.
Almost 200 kg heavier than the Lion, less powerful than the Sea Lion, and not ruggedised (the ruggedisation of the Liberty L-12 dropped it from about 450 hp, to about 340 hp, so the same would probably apply here).
Thing is, petrol wasn't the big fire-risk a tank faced at the time, it was ammunition cook-off, so diesel's relatively low power (the T-34 engine made 500 hp out of 38.8 L, the Sea Lion made about the same power out of 3/5 the dispacement) probably wouldn't be particularly well considered.
The thing is, a diesel doesn't make that much in the way of horsepower, but the level of torque it makes more than compensates for that, especially since most tanks spend a lot of time starting and stopping. The V2 engine has a superior power curve to the Napier Lion (max power available at 1800 vs. 2200 rpm) which makes it more responsive as an AFV engine.
The marine version of the Lion likely requires a great deal of cooling.
Really, you're better off trying to put a diesel in an AFV.
Also:
The Napier Lion was:
Length: 57.5 in (1460 mm)
Width: 42.0 in (1067 mm)
Height: 43.5 in (1105 mm)
The T-72's V-diesel, which is basically a descendant of the T-34's v-diesel was:
L1,480 x W896 x H902
Larger displacement doesn't actually mean the engine is larger.
The marine version of the Lion likely requires a great deal of cooling.
Really, you're better off trying to put a diesel in an AFV.
Also:
The Napier Lion was:
Length: 57.5 in (1460 mm)
Width: 42.0 in (1067 mm)
Height: 43.5 in (1105 mm)
The T-72's V-diesel, which is basically a descendant of the T-34's v-diesel was:
L1,480 x W896 x H902
Larger displacement doesn't actually mean the engine is larger.
Last edited:
I'd like to know where you got your stats. Also, I didn't say the engine was larger, but with a bigger bore and a longer stroke (and noting that that the cylinders were asymmetrical, one side had a stroke of 180mm, the other of 186mm) means a greater surface area for the cylinders, which means a greater weight for the same reserve strength.
As for cooling, the Lion was an in-line engine so it relied on radiators anyway. Oh, and higher revolutions aren't an issue if you put in this little device we call a 'gear-box'.
As for cooling, the Lion was an in-line engine so it relied on radiators anyway. Oh, and higher revolutions aren't an issue if you put in this little device we call a 'gear-box'.
Last edited: