True the type 1 and type 2 launches from what I have read slammed very hard into the waves in anything above a flat calm. The mid war type 3 was 4 foot longer and wider butabout 10 knots slower in a flat calm but could hold 24 knots in a swell. For work in the North sea late in the war the RAF used Fairmile D type gun boats as they could stay at sea in anything short of a gale.
Improved Early War British Tanks?
- Thread starter Paul_Sussex
- Start date
True the type 1 and type 2 launches from what I have read slammed very hard into the waves in anything above a flat calm. The mid war type 3 was 4 foot longer and wider butabout 10 knots slower in a flat calm but could hold 24 knots in a swell. For work in the North sea late in the war the RAF used Fairmile D type gun boats as they could stay at sea in anything short of a gale.
Exactly
My Great Aunt (having popped over from the free states) built Merlin's up somewhere near Crewe during the Great 2nd unpleasantness and she had no letters after her name, so not wanting to take anything away from her 'they cannot have been that hard to build' if a young Irish lass with no engineering background was able to build them.
As for the Tank - giving it a Merritt Brown gear box and a land use Kestrel - lets be conservative and give it 350 HP thats almost twice what the twin bus engines were giving it OTL
So even if nothing else changed it is suddenly an awesome tank for the 1940 period
However my main issue with Matilda II is not however its foibles - low speed and armament (although the 2 pounder /BESA is not an issue when it was introduced) - no my issue is the incredibly small numbers produced by June 1940
The first Matilda was built in 1938 and by Sept 3rd 1939 - a second one had been built and 23 made it to France providing 4th and 7th RTR with a single Squadron each at Arras - the rest of their tanks were 77 Matilda 1 - which was a very heavily armoured machine gun armed tankette that was even slower than Matilda II and bore no family resemblance.
Wow!
Although production ramped up with 274 Matilda II being available by August 31st
Monthly production was increasing rapidly with 57 built in June to 90 in August and then 127 in December 1940
So what is needed is Tomos 'Chad' Matilda II with its superior transmission in far greater numbers.
For this a dedicated 'Kahn' type factory is required - with a large well lit factory building/s with a sufficient numbers of single use machine tools allowing people without letters after their names to build them - something like the Castle Bromwich Assembly plant but for the final assembly of AFVs instead of planes.
So once again we are back to an earlier realisation that the British army needs to be able to provide a continental force - which is likely beyond the scope of this thread but still an important consideration non the less - and the purse strings are lossened sometime in the mid 30s and not in late 38 which was too late.
I am not suggesting that had Britain sent 500 'Chad' Matilda IIs to France (instead of 23 Matida II, 77 Matilda I, 170 Cruiser and 300+ Light tanks) the campaign might have gone differently - unless Britain is able to send a force several times the size and or France sorts its shit out (again beyond the scope of this thread) - granted it might have given the Germans a bigger bloody nose.
No what this would do is provide the British with decent numbers of this tank in 1940 instead of the Mk IV light, Matilda I (a glorified heavy tankette) and lightly armoured Crusiers - a tank that would serve them better into 1941 - eg in North and East Africa
Then perhaps a 'Chad' Churchill with a better power plant (Meteor) and 6 pounder from 41
Then a 'Chad' Black Prince with an improved Meteor and 17 pounder (sloped frontal glacis) from 43
But it all requires more money earlier!
But...the nose of the A12 Matilda needed an awful lot of machining to the casting to remove excess metal, causing a bottleneck in production* So keep them in low volume production as OTL and ramp up Valentine production as soon as possible. Meanwhile, address the track problem. No need for Lions, Kestrels until later in the war. Vickers could even put more effort into the Vanguard tank (not the horrible Valiant) including a larger three man turret. So from perhaps 1943 onwards you get a version of this -
*My copy of Matilda Infantry Tank 1938-45 has arrived
*My copy of Matilda Infantry Tank 1938-45 has arrived
Simple (in theory) way to increase the fighting power of British armour in the Battle of France. Drop the turret from the Vickers Mk VII light tank onto the hull of the Vickers Mk VI light tank giving it a 2pdr gun. It's still horribly vulnerable and bounces like crazy but at least it can knock out a German tank rather than have a .50 or 15mm bullet just bounce off.
Throw enough factory and forward planning at a problem and its no longer a problem.
Had sufficient Matilda II production been established then its possible that the Valentine would not be needed.
The Valentine much as I like it is the Sten gun of tanks LOL
And I suspect that the issues you are talking about would be reduced over time as the production lines and workers etc gain experience.
Just look at the sheer number of changes made to the Sherman design between 42 and 44
I feel like this has come up before but can't seem to find it ATM. In any case my favorite PoD for improving British tanks in the early phases of WWII is to have the various exercises with the EMF in the mid-late 1920s shake out differently in such a way that the Tanks make less of a splash the Royal Artillery prioritizes further development of the Birch Guns.
Royal Artillery develops thier "Motorized Armored Gun Carriage" into ~25 ton vehicle armed with an 18 pndr Mark V and designed to be armored against splinters from counter-battery fire as well as light anti-tank weapons. (I'm basically imagining something half way between a Matilda and a M10) A battery of these vehicles accompanies the BEF to the Battle of France where they prove to be rather effective in the direct fire role while covering the British and French retreat to Dunkirk. A follow-on variant that trades some indirect fire capability for fully enclosed cabin and more versatile weaponry then goes on to serve as the basis of the "modern" British armored force
Royal Artillery develops thier "Motorized Armored Gun Carriage" into ~25 ton vehicle armed with an 18 pndr Mark V and designed to be armored against splinters from counter-battery fire as well as light anti-tank weapons. (I'm basically imagining something half way between a Matilda and a M10) A battery of these vehicles accompanies the BEF to the Battle of France where they prove to be rather effective in the direct fire role while covering the British and French retreat to Dunkirk. A follow-on variant that trades some indirect fire capability for fully enclosed cabin and more versatile weaponry then goes on to serve as the basis of the "modern" British armored force
Last edited:
All this needs money and unfortunately the Army was third in line for cash and quite often got handed the brown smelly end of the stick. British war policy was 1st defend the Home Islands 2nd defend the sea lanes that connect the Home islands to the Empire and the Americas, 3rd and it was quite a distant 3rd till about 1938 give the French a token hand on the continent whilst 1st and 2nd are not in any way effected.
If you look at the Army in 1935 its quite remarkable that the 1st BEF was so big and that the 2nd BEF which was due to start arriving sometime in summer and would have been at full strength by early 1941. The 1st BEF was about half a million strong the 2nd BEF wouldnt have been so big because the logistic structure was already in place but would have had a lot more Tanks and Infantry (lots of Canadians).
If you look at the Army in 1935 its quite remarkable that the 1st BEF was so big and that the 2nd BEF which was due to start arriving sometime in summer and would have been at full strength by early 1941. The 1st BEF was about half a million strong the 2nd BEF wouldnt have been so big because the logistic structure was already in place but would have had a lot more Tanks and Infantry (lots of Canadians).
Where would Kestrels come from? The ones in stock were used up for trainers and supporting older types used as trainers ad they ran out of them. The machinery and staff are busy making Merlins. Bar the drawings and jigs there is nothing left once RR went over to Merlins.
For a manufacturer to make a special engine for sales, at the time, in odd dribs and drabs of ten at a time is not economic. Nations normally looked through the engines in use elsewhere. Hence the doubled AEC bus engines of OTL. The UK taxation system precluded the use of large lorry engines. However the aviation industry was used to these numbers and greater power.
Possibly the air cooled V12 De Havilland Gipsy 12/King can meet the need. Allowing for performance on Pool petrol rather than 87 octane aviation spirit. Say about 250 bhp normally aspirated? They are in production in the right timescale. At 2 metres long they might need some extra hull length but have the power to cope. Air cooled might be good in the desert. At least De Havilland understood air cooling unlike Napiers who went about it the wrong way with the Dagger's external ducting. The Dagger is another possibility. Again in production, same length as a Gipsy 12 and more powerful. It too has to lose the supercharger and run on Pool petrol so maybe 325bhp. Another air cooled type.
For a hull to put it in leave Vickers alone to do it without interference but insist on a 3 man turret so it would be a larger Valentine.
For a gun how about commonality with the French and start with importing their 47mm gun whilst licencing it for Vickers to make themselves when large numbers are needed. Some HE capability and a decent hole puncher. Not made for an internal mantlet so we go for the better external option. That could make the next generation actually have a Vickers HV 75mm gun get a turret into which it fits.
Send someone from Vickers to see how the Soviets make T26 tracks for their Vickers copies.
Send someone to the USA to see how to make heavy welding kit and require it's use. In wartime forbid the ship builder to poach the newly skilled armour welders by direction of labour. It wasn't desperately new technology after all.
Nothing here is unavailable or unreachable at the time.
For a manufacturer to make a special engine for sales, at the time, in odd dribs and drabs of ten at a time is not economic. Nations normally looked through the engines in use elsewhere. Hence the doubled AEC bus engines of OTL. The UK taxation system precluded the use of large lorry engines. However the aviation industry was used to these numbers and greater power.
Possibly the air cooled V12 De Havilland Gipsy 12/King can meet the need. Allowing for performance on Pool petrol rather than 87 octane aviation spirit. Say about 250 bhp normally aspirated? They are in production in the right timescale. At 2 metres long they might need some extra hull length but have the power to cope. Air cooled might be good in the desert. At least De Havilland understood air cooling unlike Napiers who went about it the wrong way with the Dagger's external ducting. The Dagger is another possibility. Again in production, same length as a Gipsy 12 and more powerful. It too has to lose the supercharger and run on Pool petrol so maybe 325bhp. Another air cooled type.
For a hull to put it in leave Vickers alone to do it without interference but insist on a 3 man turret so it would be a larger Valentine.
For a gun how about commonality with the French and start with importing their 47mm gun whilst licencing it for Vickers to make themselves when large numbers are needed. Some HE capability and a decent hole puncher. Not made for an internal mantlet so we go for the better external option. That could make the next generation actually have a Vickers HV 75mm gun get a turret into which it fits.
Send someone from Vickers to see how the Soviets make T26 tracks for their Vickers copies.
Send someone to the USA to see how to make heavy welding kit and require it's use. In wartime forbid the ship builder to poach the newly skilled armour welders by direction of labour. It wasn't desperately new technology after all.
Nothing here is unavailable or unreachable at the time.
Possible companies that can make Kestrel engines for tanks:
Rover, Meadows (instead of their awful engines), Bedford (their flat-12 does not get produced instead). Nuffield can make it instead of Liberty, just make a deal between government, RR and Nuffield by 1935.
On the other hand, even the 340 HP Liberty in Matilda does not sound that bad. Just make sure that cooling is done right, and don't venture for the 410 HP version.
AEC twinned engines make sense for British tanks, too, just twin the engines that went into Valentine instead. That is 50% more power vs. what Matilda II got.
Last edited:
Set up a shadow factory run by a big car manufacturer. Ford is going to make Merlins, Austin are building bombers, Morris are building the Liberty so it seems obvious stop building an antique that will never be great no matter how you tinker with it and set up a Kestrel line. Kestrels for the Miles Master trainer were in very short supply so kill two birds with one stone build Kestrels for Advanced trainers and land Kestrels for tanks.
We just need a name for the land Kestrel as good as Meteor
You sub contract production to a company making engines you have no use for, like the Armstrong Siddeley Tiger. Just ensure that RR supervise to make sure the engines they build are built correctly..
Last edited:
I gave this far too much thought earlier LOL
Best I could come up with was Komet - but then I decided it was too Germanish for 1937 Britain
Then I went on a mind trip largely powered by a bottle of Spanish Red and ended up with 'RR Emu' - i.e. a large fast ground based bird
And then gave up as it still sounds nothing like as good as Meteor
I can't help it but....All I can think of is Cornetto as in the Ice Cream
I think the name should be alliterative. Best I can come up with is Kingfisher or Knave as in a Kestrel for a Knave
Ok, how about this?
The British adopt the Napier Lion (or any engine other thang the Nuffield Liberty). Tanks are marginally more mechanically reliable, meaning that developments to replace warn out tanks isn't as rushed. IOTL The Covenanter and Crusader were ordered straight from the drawing board. This doesn't happen and they are tested alongside a refurbished Mark II heavy cruiser tank. This is adopted as the IIB Cruiser tank which is quickly nicknamed the Hamlet. Good engine, designed with heavy armour in mind, an improved turret for a6 Pounder and later 75 Millimeter and the Hamlet should be a pretty good tank until about mid war, where it's replaced with a Universal Tank with the old Hamet chassis being repurposed for APCs and SPGs.
The British adopt the Napier Lion (or any engine other thang the Nuffield Liberty). Tanks are marginally more mechanically reliable, meaning that developments to replace warn out tanks isn't as rushed. IOTL The Covenanter and Crusader were ordered straight from the drawing board. This doesn't happen and they are tested alongside a refurbished Mark II heavy cruiser tank. This is adopted as the IIB Cruiser tank which is quickly nicknamed the Hamlet. Good engine, designed with heavy armour in mind, an improved turret for a6 Pounder and later 75 Millimeter and the Hamlet should be a pretty good tank until about mid war, where it's replaced with a Universal Tank with the old Hamet chassis being repurposed for APCs and SPGs.
As was said earlier, what's needed pre-war is a Office of Tank Design, instead of letting manufacturers design what they wanted, you needed it to be controlled and organised. Someone like Vickers would head it up as they had the most experience building tanks. And don't be afraid to ask the lower ranks their opinions etc.
Also keep Duncan Sandy's away from it.
Also keep Duncan Sandy's away from it.
Last edited: