I think a lot of the small SPGs with big guns didn't carry all the crew they followed in the ammunition vehicle
Still faster than unlimbering both a towed 25pdr and its ammo trailer, then relimbering once things got too dangerous.I would imagine that turning through 180 degrees would not add much to the time it would take to get the battery into action - unless we are talking some sort of emergency 'direct fire' at which point we have to remember that it 'ain't an AFV'
The Loyd should stil be able to carry the crew even with the gun taking up some room. Plus you could have the crew all share driving reponsibilties as to not need a dedicated driver. As for the ammo, well it should have enough power to still tow the 25pdr ammo trailer even with the gun on it since the Morris C8 has a weaker engine iirc.I think a lot of the small SPGs with big guns didn't carry all the crew they followed in the ammunition vehicle
That image is too small to read the text. It won't enlarge with enough detail to make out the design. Do you really need that huge title text and border?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 -
View attachment 546285
*My copy of Matilda Infantry Tank 1938-45 has arrived
But on the good side. The Valentine will fit into it. Perhaps slung on davits at the back?Sadly it will probably will not fit in a Valentine...
But on the good side. The Valentine will fit into it. Perhaps slung on davits at the back?
probably will not fit in A Valentine...
Yep, made perfect sense for the Archer, which was never meant to be a tank destroyer, just a mobile antitank gun. With room for the crew and less of a problem with the length of the 17pdr. But would a "normal" layout be better for a self propelled gun that might have to move forward with tanks and infantry, rather than having to turn through 180 degrees? I don't know the answer to that one, but the number of such vehicles based on even smaller hulls than the Valentine makes me think there was at least a perceived preference for the gun forward layout.
Source:That image is too small to read the text. It won't enlarge with enough detail to make out the design. Do you really need that huge title text and border?View attachment 549310
The curve on the track edges stops them spreading weight unless in bogged down conditions?
It seems that the hatches (narrow) for driver and radioman are blocked from opening by the turret.
The turret ring is within the tracks. Not clear where the commander would go/sit.
The design drawing for the A38 Valiant. Photo: The Tank Museum Archives
The design was armed with the proven 6 Pounder (57mm) gun, with a 7.92mm BESA machine gun mounted coaxially. The 6pdr was a preferred weapon to the more commonly available 2 pounder (40mm) due to its wider range of ammunition and ability to perform outside of an anti-tank role. Two 2 inch (51mm) smoke mortars were to be included, with 18 smoke bombs being provided. Frontal hull armor was listed at 4 ½ inches (114mm) thick, with the sides having 4 inches (102mm) and the rear 3 inches (76mm). This gave the vehicle very impressive protection for the time, especially in comparison with early war designs such as A.11. The design also featured a pike nose design, utilising two plates that were ‘pre-angled’ to give greater armor obliquity angles. This shows a level of forward-thinking that would not be seen on a tank until the reveal of the Soviet IS-3 heavy tank in 1945. The turret was a small design, bearing in mind that it was meant only to accommodate 2 crewmen. It bore a resemblance to the Valentine MK. X turret, however, its design had some variance in features. It featured a large single door hatch in the left side, as to allow for a quick escape in the case of the tank being knocked out, as well as allowing for easier loading of the proposed 55 rounds of 6pdr ammunition to be carried. The top of the turret featured a single split-door hatch for the commander, as well as two periscopes for vision under closed-down position and two antenna mounts.
That image is too small to read the text. It won't enlarge with enough detail to make out the design. Do you really need that huge title text and border?
The curve on the track edges stops them spreading weight unless in bogged down conditions?
It seems that the hatches (narrow) for driver and radioman are blocked from opening by the turret.
The turret ring is within the tracks. Not clear where the commander would go/sit.
I suggest that this "prototype" for the Valiant, was a minimalist attempt to cram as much fighting power into the smallest tank, based on Valentine IX, that Vickers could, and they screwed it up further when they ginned it into the subsequent Valiant. You have to give the crew elbow room and a chance. By the OMG, the tank is on fire test: the driver dies, the radio man dies, the tank commander dies and maybe the loader gets out through that ammo hatch to be shot as he bails out the side. It is a terrible human factors engineering prelude to arguably the worst tank design of WW II.
Note the M4 Sherman had prefilters on the upper rear hull,above and to the side of the access doors. Photos will show them as boxes or cans, depending on year and manufacturer, and more filters insidemuch lower than the previous cruiser designs there wasn't room for internal air intake filters so they got put on the rear track guard just where all the muck and dust is
Well when OTL you have Panzer Is and IIs going Tour de France, the gun argument sounds kinda irrelevant.Well, this seems to have covered all the issues impacting on the development of British tanks in the early war period. Just to wrap everything up, the OP requirement for an improved tank (and antitank) gun may have been a red herring. The main points seem to be that –
The tactics were flawed and that insufficient attention was paid to liaison with other arms.
The QF 2 Pounder was acceptable until perhaps mid 1942 but tank units didn’t see any need to request HE shells, which were available.
There was insufficient support provided for tanks in the attack.
The army provided Army Training Instructions, etc, but these could have been better disseminated.
Yes they do - see belowAs always, YMMV.
AgreedJust to wrap everything up, the OP requirement for an improved tank (and antitank) gun may have been a red herring.
Yes, but this is true of other armies as well, including the Germans in 1939The tactics were flawed and that insufficient attention was paid to liaison with other arms.
And the correct response to this is better combined arms - more infantry and artillery in armoured divisions.After the Battle of France, there is still a delay in introducing the QF 6 pounder; however, a review of tank actions in France – in particular at Arras – and in North Africa show that a major danger in the advance is emplaced antitank guns and artillery.
AgreedAt the same time, production of A12 Matilda tanks is tailed off, being replaced with ramped up production of Infantry Tank Mk III Valentine. Vickers are also instructed to provide a three man turret to accommodate a separate commander’s position.
Unnecessary - the correct response is more towed 25pdr guns and OP tanks. Flexible divisional artillery firepower is more useful than dispersed direct HE - 11th Armoured used 10 times more 25pdr ammunition than tank gun ammunition.An Urgent Operational Requirement (or the current equivalent) is also placed with Vickers to develop a self propelled gun, based on the Valentine chassis. This will result in a lightly armoured casemate similar to the later Archer, and be armed with a QF 18 pounder gun, as these were being replaced in Artillery units with the new 25 pounder.
No. Tank brigades support of infantry divisions worked well. What is needed is an early publication of The Armoured Division in Battle, which is pretty well foreshadowed by 7th Armoured Divisions notes on experience in Italy.An Army Training Instruction is issued for The Employment of Army Tanks in Co-operation with Infantry. This will concentrate on improved support of tanks by infantry and the support of organic artillery units using the new self propelled guns which come into service from mid 1941. Tank units are also to draw HE shells, to provide for short range suppression of infantry, soft skin and antitank targets.
Not sure about deletion of hull machine guns - it caused issues with FirefliesIn parallel with the above, development of cruiser tanks has continued through the A10 and A13, with increases in armour, culminating in the A15 Crusader; however, there has been an emphasis on better sloped armour, at the expense of a bow gunner’s position.
OKAs a result, by mid 1941, the army has in place –
Valentine - Equivalent to Valentine III with three man turret, 2 pounder gun
Crusader - Equivalent to Covenantor with better engine and cooling choice, three man turret, no bow gunner, 2 pounder gun
Bishop - Equivalent to Archer, armed with 18 pounder gun
OKAlong with the above, improved tactics that are starting to emphasise combined arms, which is starting to drive development of better infantry transport.