So, bored and desperate for something to do…what about an improved British tank for early-mid WWII? This is partly prompted by discussions in –
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/british-army-create-a-universal-tank-class.464269/
and also The Chieftain’s walk around the A10 Cruiser -
and
Arguably the best overall early war tank is the German Pzkpfw III. The now (then) standard five man crew, reasonably well armoured and armed, particularly with the later 50mm KwK38 and 39.
In comparison, and leaving aside the light tanks and Matilda A11, the British had a mix of Infantry and Cruiser tanks armed with either the OQF 2pdr with AP shot or the 3”/3.7” howitzer for close support, but with smoke only. Could this have been changed and what would be the butterflies?
The 2pdr was adopted for tank and antitank use in 1935. At about the same time the British army was also looking at the Czech ZB53 and ZB26/ZGB30/33 machineguns, which were adopted as the BESA and Bren. But in 1936, design started on the Skoda 4.7cm KPUV vz.38. As an anti-tank gun, the vz.38 was lighter than the 2pdr, although I don’t know how this would translate to a tank gun. It had better penetration than the 2pdr, at least with the original AP shot, and also had an HE shell. It was adopted by Czechoslovakia and later also used by the Heer as the PaK38t and on the Panzerjager I. What if design and development began earlier – the Czechs were working on several tank and anti-tank guns in the thirties – and this caught the eye of the British and was put into service instead of the 2pdr?
Would this mean no requirement for separate fighting and close support tanks? What difference might this make to doctrine in the lead up to and in the early war period? The problem with the A10 heavy cruiser – similar armour to the Pzkpfw III – seems to have been reliability, but basically the same running gear was used for the Valentine, which was regarded as one of the most reliable British tanks in 1940-42, despite being heavier. The only difference I can see is that the Valentine has wider tracks.
I doubt that we would see much difference in the Battle of France, but could this have more impact in North Africa? And how would this influence British tank development?
DISCLAIMER - The only references I have are British and American Tanks of World War Two (Chamberlain and Ellis) and what I can scrounge off the Weird Wild Web. Any errors are mine and any better information appreciated.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/british-army-create-a-universal-tank-class.464269/
and also The Chieftain’s walk around the A10 Cruiser -
Arguably the best overall early war tank is the German Pzkpfw III. The now (then) standard five man crew, reasonably well armoured and armed, particularly with the later 50mm KwK38 and 39.
In comparison, and leaving aside the light tanks and Matilda A11, the British had a mix of Infantry and Cruiser tanks armed with either the OQF 2pdr with AP shot or the 3”/3.7” howitzer for close support, but with smoke only. Could this have been changed and what would be the butterflies?
The 2pdr was adopted for tank and antitank use in 1935. At about the same time the British army was also looking at the Czech ZB53 and ZB26/ZGB30/33 machineguns, which were adopted as the BESA and Bren. But in 1936, design started on the Skoda 4.7cm KPUV vz.38. As an anti-tank gun, the vz.38 was lighter than the 2pdr, although I don’t know how this would translate to a tank gun. It had better penetration than the 2pdr, at least with the original AP shot, and also had an HE shell. It was adopted by Czechoslovakia and later also used by the Heer as the PaK38t and on the Panzerjager I. What if design and development began earlier – the Czechs were working on several tank and anti-tank guns in the thirties – and this caught the eye of the British and was put into service instead of the 2pdr?
Would this mean no requirement for separate fighting and close support tanks? What difference might this make to doctrine in the lead up to and in the early war period? The problem with the A10 heavy cruiser – similar armour to the Pzkpfw III – seems to have been reliability, but basically the same running gear was used for the Valentine, which was regarded as one of the most reliable British tanks in 1940-42, despite being heavier. The only difference I can see is that the Valentine has wider tracks.
I doubt that we would see much difference in the Battle of France, but could this have more impact in North Africa? And how would this influence British tank development?
DISCLAIMER - The only references I have are British and American Tanks of World War Two (Chamberlain and Ellis) and what I can scrounge off the Weird Wild Web. Any errors are mine and any better information appreciated.