Improved Early War British Tanks?

[Peg Leg Pom]

It was a different gun to the Pack Howitzer, It had different ammunition and was called a Mortar to distinguish it from the existing Howitzer even though it was a breech loader and had a rifled barrel. There was an HE Shell but I dont know how or when it was issued.

That was the later 3" gun, the Close support A9's and A10's used an adaption of the standard 3.7" Mountain Gun.

Tank, Cruiser, Mk IIA CS (A10 Mk IA CS)[edit]


Cruiser MkIIA CS

The CS (Close Support) version of the Mark II had a 3.7 in (94 mm) howitzer in the turret instead of the 2-pdr. The standard ammunition load was 40 rounds smoke, and a few HE shells.

This weapon was derived from a World War I field howitzer, the QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer. It was not related to the 3-inch howitzer used in later British tanks in the Second World War, which was itself replaced by a 95 mm (3.7 in) howitzer in the later versions of the Churchill infantry tanks and all CS versions of the Centaur and Cromwell cruiser tanks. British doctrine was that the CS tank was to provide smoke cover in advances or retreats and hence many more smoke rounds were carried than HE.[5]

 

[McPherson]

I do feel sometimes as if I've kicked a wasp's nest and run away!

But I an starting to think that just sticking with Valentine with incremental updates might be a reasonable compromise until mid-war? Go with McPherson's front end or that from the Vanguard ad the three man turret from the Mk III. I've also got to admit I misread the specs and thought all the 6pdr and 75mm turrets suppressed the coax, which turns out not to be the case. (Doh!)

Quite interesting to read of Russian usage - wanted production to continue (which explains why it was still in production so late) and were quite happy with the two man turret - with the gunner acting as commander, apparently!

SOURCE

SOURCE: (additional work by McPherson).

Mobility trials were very peculiar. One of the Valentine IX was located at the Gorky ABT Center, was used for testing. In order not to waste time, the tank was sent to NIBT proving grounds under its own power. In total, the tank covered 500 kilometres, of which 287 went along a snow-covered motorway, 163 along an asphalt motorway and 50 along a country road. The average speed on dirt roads and off-road was 12-16 kph, compared to the 12-15 kph of the Valentine II. Fuel consumption was 136 L per 100 km on the snowy highway and 131 L on the clear highway. The range was 230 and 240 km respectively.

This confirms Valentine's good road and cross country march reliability (for a British tank that is.). Brakes might be a problem.

Armamant.

Based on the test results, the following conclusion was made:

1. British tanks “Valentine IX” and “Valentine III” are equivalent in their mobility.
2. The tank’s armament is intended only for fighting enemy tanks.
3. The absence of a high-explosive fragmentation grenade and a machine gun paired with a gun eliminates the possibility of dealing with the infantry and strongholds.
4. Testing the reliability of the 6-pounder requires additional testing by shooting on a number of samples.

The last point of the comments turned out to be related to the breakdowns of the 6-pounder gun that occurred during the shooting. This defect was not unique, Churchill tanks had similar problems. It took some time to eliminate the defects of the gun, as correspondence on this issue lasted at least until the end of Spring 1943.

Sarcastic comments:

1. The 6 pounder was operationally no worse than the Sherman 75mm gun M2–M6 which also had hang fires and fail to extracts in service. Both guns were ergonomically fitted better in their turrets than the Soviet F-34 tank gun which was also a good tank gun of comparable performance.
2. The Valentine is SMALL, even by Soviet standards, so something has to give. I think putting a MG in a roof mount is an acceptable compromise to the coax problem which the British solve in the XI.
3. In Russian literature of the time period, with the legitimate criticism of the Lend Lease gear, it must be noted that the Russians padded some comments to CTA and to make comparisons with Russian gear show the Russian gear in a less unfavorable light by comparison. It must be remarked that when one reads American test results of Russian or British gear from Aberdeen of the same period, that the same "political commentary" for the same exact reasons is evident, so it is not just a Russian thing. I suspect it is a Human thing.

Would making the hull frame and glacis and bow plates adjustments be worth the effort, along with centering the driver and using the two piece escape hatch required? What about that shot trap under the mantlet?

All of the tradeoffs would be worth it... YMMV and it probably should.

 

[fastmongrel]

That was the later 3" gun, the Close support A9's and A10's used an adaption of the standard 3.7" Mountain Gun.

Tank, Cruiser, Mk IIA CS (A10 Mk IA CS)[edit]


Cruiser MkIIA CS

The CS (Close Support) version of the Mark II had a 3.7 in (94 mm) howitzer in the turret instead of the 2-pdr. The standard ammunition load was 40 rounds smoke, and a few HE shells.

This weapon was derived from a World War I field howitzer, the QF 3.7-inch mountain howitzer. It was not related to the 3-inch howitzer used in later British tanks in the Second World War, which was itself replaced by a 95 mm (3.7 in) howitzer in the later versions of the Churchill infantry tanks and all CS versions of the Centaur and Cromwell cruiser tanks. British doctrine was that the CS tank was to provide smoke cover in advances or retreats and hence many more smoke rounds were carried than HE.[5]

The CS Tank 3.7" was different to the 3.7" Mountain gun. The tank gun was a Vickers Armstrong design the mountain gun was a Royal Ordnance design.

The HE and Smoke shell for the Tank Howitzer was a 15 lb projectile with a 127mm slightly bottle necked shell case, the ammunition was one piece with the shell crimped to the case by 4 horizontal crimps. The gun had a 15 calibre barrel and a manually operated horizontal sliding breech block.

The Mountain gun fired a 20 lb projectile with a 92mm paralell sided shell case, the ammunition was seperate with up to 5 charges being available. The gun had a 12 calibre barrel and a manually operated Welin interrupted screw breech block.

 

[Mike D]

Quite interesting to read of Russian usage - wanted production to continue (which explains why it was still in production so late) and were quite happy with the two man turret - with the gunner acting as commander, apparently!

That's not necessarily the silliest idea - the gunner is at least supposed to be looking around outside at all times in combat so he's got the situational awareness the commander needs. Your loader should have his head down concentrating on his ammo rather than gawping round outside. Obviously neither is ideal but, for me at least, if you must have a two man turret it makes sense.

 

[marathag]

Would making the hull frame and glacis and bow plates adjustments be worth the effort, along with centering the driver and using the two piece escape hatch required? What about that shot trap under the mantlet?

US found that casting parts had higher production than welding, but not everywhere could make casting as large as a Sherman upper hull

Projects by Chrysler and ALCO has a cast nose with welded rear of the hull. Casting the just the nose would allow smaller foundries to get in the act.

But by 1943, the US already had an over abundance of Plants being able to make M4s, so capacity was never the problem originally envisioned.

But still was done for M4 and M4A4

(note duckbill grousers on both ends of the track, these used spacers to move the VVSS units away from the hull, a test program to reduce ground pressure easily)

Making a one piece nose for the Valentine is not beyond the Montreal Plant, given they were casting Ram Hulls

 

[ramtank2]

I believe the castings for Canadian assembled Ram's and Valentine's where cast in USA.

 

[fastmongrel]

the gunner is at least supposed to be looking around outside at all times in combat so he's got the situational awareness the commander needs.

The gunner has to look through the gun sight which because its magnified and the glass is covered in aiming marks gives a tiny view of the outside world, he can look out of a periscope which is not magnified but is still like looking through a letter box. The gunner can not get out of his seat to look out of the hatch easily because in most tanks the gunner is well tucked in beside and mostly below a dirty great gun and he has to wriggle slide and crawl to get in or out of his seat. The loader can stand on his pedastal and look out of the hatch with 360 degree vision (the gunner can only see about 30 degrees to the front). In less than a heartbeat the loader can step off the pedestal and be back in his loading position. The loader can also use the wireless to speak to other tanks or the comanding officer, the gunner usually can only speak on the internal net.

As an ex-tanker I know which crewman I would prefer as commander the one who can see not the one who is nearly blind.

 

[marathag]

I believe the castings for Canadian assembled Ram's and Valentine's where cast in USA.

just the initial production was done by General Steel until MLW was setup to do it themselves

 

[McPherson]

Flip a coin. Gunner or "loader". Not seen in the render above too well are the TWIN periscopes sited in parallel ahead of the 2 piece flat plate turret common hatch on the Valentine IX.

I suppose the loader would be the one poking his head up out of the 2 man turret to do the gopher thing and get his head blown off. Then you have to grab a nearby infantryman and assign him as the new "loader" after you heave the body up and out. Messy.

 

[Llewwyy]

The Valentine was a small tank, but it was wider than a Sherman, just not as long or as high. The Sherman has more volume in the hull and a bigger turret. If the Valentine is incrementally improved, stretching it, larger ring and a larger turret then you will have a vehicle than can be upgraded. As I understand it, the 77mm is a development of the 3 inch AA gun. Vickers had a 75mm AA gun in 1936 that the made for the Romanians. With a big enough turret and ring there is no reason that a 77mm gun could not be fitted to a Valentine, they mounted a 17pdr on one. The Canadian built Valentines were powered by a single GM diesel. One Sherman variant was fitted with twin GM diesels, so doing the same to a Valentine is possible. Lots of torque and 375 hp is going to move it around quite nicely. Perhaps not a speed demon but with the torque, it should be agile, able to shift quickly.

 

[McPherson]

The Valentine was a small tank, but it was wider than a Sherman, just not as long or as high. The Sherman has more volume in the hull and a bigger turret. If the Valentine is incrementally improved, stretching it, larger ring and a larger turret then you will have a vehicle than can be upgraded. As I understand it, the 77mm is a development of the 3 inch AA gun. Vickers had a 75mm AA gun in 1936 that the made for the Romanians. With a big enough turret and ring there is no reason that a 77mm gun could not be fitted to a Valentine, they mounted a 17pdr on one. The Canadian built Valentines were powered by a single GM diesel. One Sherman variant was fitted with twin GM diesels, so doing the same to a Valentine is possible. Lots of torque and 375 hp is going to move it around quite nicely. Perhaps not a speed demon but with the torque, it should be agile, able to shift quickly.

Specifications
Mass	about 16 long tons (16 t)
Length	hull: 17 ft 9 in (5.41 m)
Width	8 ft 7.5 in (2.629 m)
Height	7 ft 5.5 in (2.273 m)
Crew	Mk I, II, IV, VI–XI: 3 (Commander, gunner, driver) Mk III, V: 4 (+ loader)
Armour	0.31–2.56 in (8–65 mm)
Main armament	Mk I–VII: QF 2-pounder (40 mm) Mk VIII–X: QF 6-pounder (57 mm) Mk XI: QF 75 mm Mk IIICS QF 3-inch (76 mm)
Secondary armament	Mk I–VII, X, XI: 7.92 mm BESA machine-gun with 3,150 rounds
Engine	Mk I: AEC A189 9.6 litre petrol Mk II, III, VI: AEC A190 diesel Mk IV, V, VII–XI: GMC 6004 diesel 131–210 hp (97–157 kW)
Power/weight	12.4 hp (9.2 kW) / tonne
Transmission	Meadows Type 22 (5 speed and reverse)
Suspension	modified three-wheel Horstmann suspension "Slow Motion"
Fuel capacity	36 gallons internal
Operational range	90 mi (140 km) on roads
Maximum speed	15 mph (24 km/h) on roads
Steering system	clutch and brake

If I did not make it clear before, this is a "small" tank. At 18 tonnes with the QF 75 mm gun in the Type XI, it is maxed out as to what its suspension can do as far as weight. It is also a "slow" tank due to that same suspension. Those truck bogeys cannot take much more speed.

I wish it were different, but this tank was never intended to be a true medium cruiser like a Sherman or a Comet.

 

[TheLastSterling]

Sherman has the benefit of being higher and having the hull extend over the tracks giving more space inside an room for a larger turret.

Hard not to like the Valentine as recce, small enough to hide and avoid a hit, and armoured enough to take a hit and escape.

 

[Llewwyy]

Specifications
Mass	about 16 long tons (16 t)
Length	hull: 17 ft 9 in (5.41 m)
Width	8 ft 7.5 in (2.629 m)
Height	7 ft 5.5 in (2.273 m)
Crew	Mk I, II, IV, VI–XI: 3 (Commander, gunner, driver) Mk III, V: 4 (+ loader)
Armour	0.31–2.56 in (8–65 mm)
Main armament	Mk I–VII: QF 2-pounder (40 mm) Mk VIII–X: QF 6-pounder (57 mm) Mk XI: QF 75 mm Mk IIICS QF 3-inch (76 mm)
Secondary armament	Mk I–VII, X, XI: 7.92 mm BESA machine-gun with 3,150 rounds
Engine	Mk I: AEC A189 9.6 litre petrol Mk II, III, VI: AEC A190 diesel Mk IV, V, VII–XI: GMC 6004 diesel 131–210 hp (97–157 kW)
Power/weight	12.4 hp (9.2 kW) / tonne
Transmission	Meadows Type 22 (5 speed and reverse)
Suspension	modified three-wheel Horstmann suspension "Slow Motion"
Fuel capacity	36 gallons internal
Operational range	90 mi (140 km) on roads
Maximum speed	15 mph (24 km/h) on roads
Steering system	clutch and brake

If I did not make it clear before, this is a "small" tank. At 18 tonnes with the QF 75 mm gun in the Type XI, it is maxed out as to what its suspension can do as far as weight. It is also a "slow" tank due to that same suspension. Those truck bogeys cannot take much more speed.

I wish it were different, but this tank was never intended to be a true medium cruiser like a Sherman or a Comet.

If the suspension is the limiting factor, how hard would it be to put either a proper Horstmann suspension or bolt an American, Sherman type on. My thought is that Canadian production begins earlier and they use more U.S. parts.

 

[McPherson]

If the suspension is the limiting factor, how hard would it be to put either a proper Horstmann suspension or bolt an American, Sherman type on. My thought is that Canadian production begins earlier and they use more U.S. parts.

Shrug. Line up the traction (sprockets) as given and bolt on whatever rest Horstmann suspension you want. I think a 2-2-1 common diameter roadwheel setup would work, but you have to adjust for vertical wheel travel and probably go to a wider uncommon British track to take added mass of both the suspension and of the tank sitting on it.

 

[marathag]

If the suspension is the limiting factor, how hard would it be to put either a proper Horstmann suspension or bolt an American, Sherman type on. My thought is that Canadian production begins earlier and they use more U.S. parts.

Then you end up with a M7 Light tank, after too many redesigns and goal shifting, turned out to be a slightly lighter, smaller Sherman with less armor
US decided to make more Shermans instead, and restarted with the M24 Tank in the goal to update the Stuart Tank

Heavier tank require more track length and width to keep the ground pressure the same, that increases weight,which means stronger suspension is needed, that also adds weight, and more HP from the engine is needed to move that extra weight, so a larger engine that needs a enlarged engine compartment, that means more armor to cover, and that leads to more weight again

 

[TheLastSterling]

If the suspension is the limiting factor, how hard would it be to put either a proper Horstmann suspension or bolt an American, Sherman type on. My thought is that Canadian production begins earlier and they use more U.S. parts.

You might as well design a whole new tank because there is so much you can add on or change on such a small tank to keep competitive.

 

[Paul_Sussex]

Going round in circles a bit, but it all comes back to tactics in the end?

Early war, both the German and British armies had separate gun and support tanks - either Pzkpfw III/IV or 2pdr/CS tanks. But the Pzkpfw IV had (more) HE shells and decent range - 6000 metres against 2000 or so for the 3" Howitzer. The later 95mm Howitzer had better range, but with nearly four times the weight. So fitting a better gun to existing tanks may be a non starter?

But it appears that this gap in capability became more apparent in the Western Desert campaign. The Bishop development was requested in June 1941, but apparently after some months of discussion. As built, too tall and too late, But looking over-engineered for the job - possibly designed by an artilleryman for maximum protection with no concern for concealment? Meanwhile, the Germans managed to fit a 150mm gun into this -

Now, this also raises the question of organisation. But could a lower "interim Bishop" be designed earlier? And with a different gun? The 18pdr was about, with a range of 6000 metres at 16 degrees elevation. So maybee wouldn't have needed the towering Bishop casemate?

 

[TheLastSterling]

Going round in circles a bit, but it all comes back to tactics in the end?

Early war, both the German and British armies had separate gun and support tanks - either Pzkpfw III/IV or 2pdr/CS tanks. But the Pzkpfw IV had (more) HE shells and decent range - 6000 metres against 2000 or so for the 3" Howitzer. The later 95mm Howitzer had better range, but with nearly four times the weight. So fitting a better gun to existing tanks may be a non starter?

But it appears that this gap in capability became more apparent in the Western Desert campaign. The Bishop development was requested in June 1941, but apparently after some months of discussion. As built, too tall and too late, But looking over-engineered for the job - possibly designed by an artilleryman for maximum protection with no concern for concealment? Meanwhile, the Germans managed to fit a 150mm gun into this -

Now, this also raises the question of organisation. But could a lower "interim Bishop" be designed earlier? And with a different gun? The 18pdr was about, with a range of 6000 metres at 16 degrees elevation. So maybee wouldn't have needed the towering Bishop casemate?

Well your best bet would be any cruiser Mk I, Mk II hulls still lying about that you could salvage for the role. Should be far easier to make it not look like it has a turret with thinner armor to cut. have the open top box structure extend over the driver's position should make things easier.

terrible edit.

 

[Rickshaw]

Was a better design on the Panzer II. It all depends on what you want it to be. A quick and dirty conversion or a purposed built one. The Sexton was quick and dirty and placed the gun carrier on the upper surface of the hull. It they had instead cut into the hull front plate (glacis ) the vehicle would have had a greater elevation.

 

[TheLastSterling]

Well if you're really desperate for a SPG even a armoured car is something at least.

Or En Portee