More British light Armor in early WWII

[tomo pauk]

Well 72 casualties in total including those from british artillery is hardly massive numbers ( though a proportion of troops engages its high). But the basic thesis is that having HE rounds for small calibre guns would have enabled the british to successfully engage At guns. Snipe is a case study of what happens when a combined arms ( it was a combined arms force but the effect is on the german armour because its the German armour that is destroyed is disproportionate numbers and the account is largely from the perspective of the AT gunners who are bothered about tanks not say the riflemen who would be concerned with accompanying infantry - who could not advance until the MG had been suppressed by the tanks.)

Again, I have no problems with the idea that British have HE shells on their tanks, even if those are 2pdrs.

The fact is an AT engagement is invariably won by the side who fires first - they have sighted on the target and even if the first round misses they can correct, the engagee has to ID the target bring weapons to bear and fire before the second or third engagers round hits. The sane thing is to bug out.

No problem with that, too.

Not in 35 which is the year the concept is defined. Again the idea is to fly a formation into position outside the arc of fire of bombers defensive armament, and indulge in a sustained engagement with MG ( no cannon available at the time) to compensate for the lack of damage caused by rifle calibre MG. Its a bad concept but not a stupid one in 1935 when the prospect of intercepting a bomber force is minimal and having the 1.7 hour endurance may be seen as a bonus for standing patrols.

Defiant Mk.I was with 104 imp gals, Hurricane I carried 94, also being lighter and a bit more streamlined, thus it will use up less fuel to arrive at station, cancelling out any advantage the extra 10 gals the Defiant carried.
If the concept was bad, then why advocate for it.

By 1939 thats changed, but by 1939 500 of the 700 total produced is delivered. Again the last 300 are produced for economic reasons, its better to have the workforce doing something than unemployed or redeployed to another industry you cannot flip a switch and retool and retrain an entire assmbly line. and the RAF does need 1000s of air gunners. Its going to bomb people.

Let's check out these numbers. Looking here, Defiant production was, per year:
Sept-Dec 1939: 16
1940: 366
1941: 452
1942: 86
for a total of 920 per that surce.

Having Defiants swanning around without the gunner does not sound like a very good idea.

Only go into production in 1939 so are not available in 1936 like the 2 lb. The 6 lb design cycle starts in 38.

The 3pdr Vickers was produced in 1905.

See Yulzaris post.

His post will not turn those two tank types from PoS into war winners, even not into passable tanks.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

Let's check out these numbers. Looking here, Defiant production was, per year:
Sept-Dec 1939: 16
1940: 366
1941: 452
1942: 86
for a total of 920 per that surce.

Having Defiants swanning around without the gunner does not sound like a very good idea.

I suspect the difference is between order date and delivery date/ In squadron service but there are discrepancies Bowyer for example the initial - off the drawing board batch of 87 Bowyer lists and completed by Jan 40 ( 43/44 a/c) with further orders and part completion thereof in, 38/39 orders are placed for a further 280 or so with another 140 later in 1940. But in 1940 orders in the original role cease and subsequent orders and conversions are as night fighter, air sea rescue, ECM aircraft and high speed gunnery trainer, later target tug. In which role it serves until post war.

So Defiants swanning around without a gunner is handy as an ECM jammer until Beaus are available (43). I am sure if they had not been there something else would have been found but it was there and very useful in those roles. Especially as the gunnery trainer and target tug.

And I am not defending it I am explaining the rationale for the decision.

Defiant Mk.I was with 104 imp gals, Hurricane I carried 94, also being lighter and a bit more streamlined, thus it will use up less fuel to arrive at station, cancelling out any advantage the extra 10 gals the Defiant carried.
If the concept was bad, then why advocate for it.

The issue is not tankage, its endurance so to compare it would be tankage vs consumption to get to the engagement, and people attempting to do the impossible, intercept a fast bomber without radar warning. Unless you can look at the data ( and I can't) on the expected effect of sound detection devices in the late 30s. wih an approach over the North Sea whether it makes sense is impossible As soon as you have a radar based GCI then a high performance fighter able to sit on the ground an intercept in a dash to a known point with certainty and without regard to fuel consumption, makes sense. Again you have to see that in the context of the war being fought with bombers dropping chemical weapons on civilian populations in which any defence is better than none and any defence is a standing patrol hoping to be close enough to engage.

The 3pdr Vickers was produced in 1905.

designed in 1903 with production ceasing in 1936 with 600 units in total made ( thats actually the naval version but may include total production) So the idea is to go to war with a Gun designed to meet the requirements of the Navy, manufactured according to the method of the day, from the time of the Boer war. Very forward thinking

No the A15 in no configuration would be a war winner or world beater, but in 1940 and 41 they are comparable or superior to the P2, P3 and Pz38t which are the main german armoured force and those remain in series production and on the battlefield in large numbers until 43. In 41- 42 ( in fact the trident conference in may 43 specifically sets overlord for 44) no British tank is going to be seriously engaged against the main body of german armour so production can focus on getting ashore in the first place, U boats, training, more training and bombing people rather than making a world beating tank.

 

[tomo pauk]

I suspect the difference is between order date and delivery date/ In squadron service but there are discrepancies Bowyer for example the initial - off the drawing board batch of 87 Bowyer lists and completed by Jan 40 ( 43/44 a/c) with further orders and part completion thereof in, 38/39 orders are placed for a further 280 or so with another 140 later in 1940. But in 1940 orders in the original role cease and subsequent orders and conversions are as night fighter, air sea rescue, ECM aircraft and high speed gunnery trainer, later target tug. In which role it serves until post war.

So Defiants swanning around without a gunner is handy as an ECM jammer until Beaus are available (43). I am sure if they had not been there something else would have been found but it was there and very useful in those roles. Especially as the gunnery trainer and target tug.

And I am not defending it I am explaining the rationale for the decision.

English is not my 1st language, yet even I understand the difference between "by 1939 500 of the 700 total produced is delivered" and "off the drawing board batch of 87 Bowyer lists and completed by Jan 40 ( 43/44 a/c)". In other words, your statement that Defiant production in 1939 was order of magnitude greater than it it was historically is misleading.
Defiant was conceived and mostly produced as a turret fighter, turret containing a gunner, and RAF was to pay for training the gunner. Yet we're to jump from the defense vs. threat of chemical weapon attack of 1935 into the ECM Defiants of 1940s that never were, as it was the actual plan. Amazing.

The issue is not tankage, its endurance so to compare it would be tankage vs consumption to get to the engagement, and people attempting to do the impossible, intercept a fast bomber without radar warning. Unless you can look at the data ( and I can't) on the expected effect of sound detection devices in the late 30s. wih an approach over the North Sea whether it makes sense is impossible As soon as you have a radar based GCI then a high performance fighter able to sit on the ground an intercept in a dash to a known point with certainty and without regard to fuel consumption, makes sense. Again you have to see that in the context of the war being fought with bombers dropping chemical weapons on civilian populations in which any defence is better than none and any defence is a standing patrol hoping to be close enough to engage.

Tankage is the issue, engines don't run without fuel. Both Hurricane I and Defiant I were outfitted with identical eninge, were of similar shape, size and basic layout, difference being Hurrincance carrying 10 gals less, while being lighter. Hurricane can every bit do the 'loiter-then-attack' task as Defiant.

designed in 1903 with production ceasing in 1936 with 600 units in total made ( thats actually the naval version but may include total production) So the idea is to go to war with a Gun designed to meet the requirements of the Navy, manufactured according to the method of the day, from the time of the Boer war. Very forward thinking

Far more forward thinking than idea that downsizing from 57mm cannon used in ww1 to 40mm cannon for the upcoming Big War is a good idea. All while not issuing the HE shell for those 2pdrs.

No the A15 in no configuration would be a war winner or world beater, but in 1940 and 41 they are comparable or superior to the P2, P3 and Pz38t which are the main german armoured force and those remain in series production and on the battlefield in large numbers until 43. In 41- 42 ( in fact the trident conference in may 43 specifically sets overlord for 44) no British tank is going to be seriously engaged against the main body of german armour so production can focus on getting ashore in the first place, U boats, training, more training and bombing people rather than making a world beating tank.

British industry have had no problems to design & manufacture the Matilda II, probably a world-beating tank during the 1st two years of production (that it did not received HE shell until too late was no fault of the tank's design). Or the very good 6 ton tank, or Valentine, or Churchill, or Cromwell, or the excellent Comet or Centurion. Methinks it is cruel to think that British tankers operating in 1941-42 do not deserve the best tank UK can produce & deploy.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Again this would interrupt production and during the invasion panic period which arguably lasted for 12 months - ain't happening

I don't see the problem when I'm talking about designing new tanks to be able to take either gun when they are available. Lines on paper aren't going to delay the production of existing vehicles. Delays would only happen if you were altering the design of vehicles already in production.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Actually its not. The 1897 design is a more modern design than the 13lb ( or 18lb) in that its based on a hydro pneumatic system not a a hydro spring - which is slower, more complex and more likely to be damaged and in the M2 version has an entirely different breech. More to the point it is the main US artillery piece of the interwar period and continually refurbed and has ammunition developed for it. Any 18 or 13 lb are leftover from ww1 manufacture and because the RA does not intend to use it ( or the 4.5) the design process having started in 1924 and from 1934 18lb guns are converted to 25lb.

Using the 13lb as a basis suffers because a) its bad gun in the first place an b) there were only 300 or so ever made.

I use the 13 pounder 9 cwt gun as an example of the size and weight of gun that could be built in this late 30s environment with the assumption that a better, lighter weapon could be built.

I was not suggesting that they build exactly the same weapon or sand off the rust of the existing weapons from 1916 and then shoe horn them in to a tank but a modern version of a 3" gun primarily due to its ability to fire a decent HE or smoke round and a high velocity AT round verses the 2 pounder.

Initially when casting around for a suitable larger calibre weapon the weight of the 3" guns I found was prohibitive vs the 2 pounder (as mounted) with many of them nearing a ton in weight but the 9 cwt weapon (about 500 KGs) was only about 2ish times the weight of the 2 pounder as mounted.

And this gave me hope!

One of the reasons for the 2 pounder, was to have a weapon that could be easily elevated and depressed by the gunner for fast engagements on the move but testing at Lulworth Cove in Dorset very early in the war showed that very little was gained from firing on the move as opposed to stopping to fire which was far more accurate (and negated the need for the 2 pounder setup) and hitting a moving tank was not much more difficult than hitting a stationary one so very little was lost by stopping to fire before moving positions. In addition while pre war long service regulars might be a dead eye shot with such a setup - 'for the duration' citizen soldiers....not so much. So the concept was abandoned.

Excellent post by the way - I would add that the I tank is often sneeringly dismissed as a 'crazy British idea' - but I wonder how often a troop or squadron of Churchills supporting a given infantry attack seriously reduced losses among the PBI? I guess it's just not Hollywood enough for some people

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

One of the reasons for the 2 pounder, was to have a weapon that could be easily elevated and depressed by the gunner for fast engagements on the move but testing at Lulworth Cove in Dorset very early in the war showed that very little was gained from firing on the move as opposed to stopping to fire which was far more accurate

You're about to be haunted by the ghosts of the entire interwar officer corps of the Royal Tank Regiment expressing their disagreement with that thought. Violently.

 

[marathag]

I was not suggesting that they build exactly the same weapon or sand off the rust of the existing weapons from 1916 and then shoe horn them in to a tank but a modern version of a 3" gun primarily due to its ability to fire a decent HE or smoke round and a high velocity AT round verses the 2 pounder.

the US M1 76mm cannon was mad to duplicate the ballistics of the WWI era M7 AAA tube.
For the same performance, the weight of tube and breech was roughly 700 pounds less. And yes, they didn't use the same exact cartridge.

That just goes to show the difference in Steel and construction methods near 25 years apart

 

[Gannt the chartist]

it it was historically is misleading.
Defiant was conceived and mostly produced as a turret fighter, turret containing a gunner, and RAF was to pay for training the gunner. Yet we're to jump from the defense vs. threat of chemical weapon attack of 1935 into the ECM Defiants of 1940s that never were, as it was the actual plan. Amazing.

Misleading but not entirely so. Once the order is placed the company mobilises for production. allocating space, tools people, buying components with the same etc etc. The cost is sunk at some point between order and final delivery and stopping production does not mean the production of anything else on the same timescale. As it is around 1/3 of orders are placed after it is withdrawn from service as a day fighter.

So of course you make the jump. The original concept is standing patrol interceptions of unescorted bombers coming over the north sea and the actual mission becomes GCI interception of escorted aircraft coming from a totally unexpected direction. At that point you have the plane. You can ( and the RAF did) reroll the pilots, air gunners and ground crews but you still have the plane. as far as I can tell only 264 and 141 Squadron ever use this in the intended role and its withdrawn from that, bar one emergency in May 40. 141 is almost immediately redesignated night fighter after formation.

Tankage is the issue, engines don't run without fuel. Both Hurricane I and Defiant I were outfitted with identical eninge, were of similar shape, size and basic layout, difference being Hurrincance carrying 10 gals less, while being lighter. Hurricane can every bit do the 'loiter-then-attack' task as Defiant.

And the Hurricane cruises around 50mph faster than the Defiant, so what does that do for endurance? The other issue for the intended role or night fighter ops is the engagement time of a Hurricane is much less than that of a Defiant flying in sync but out of the weapon arcs of the unescorted bomber ather using forward firing MG.

Far more forward thinking than idea that downsizing from 57mm cannon used in ww1 to 40mm cannon for the upcoming Big War is a good idea. All while not issuing the HE shell for those 2pdrs.

Not sure of your point, both the 2 and 6lb AT guns of WW2 are entirely new designs of gun, carriage and ammo they have no relationship to the 2pdr QF or 6lb 10cwt both of which are naval use.

British industry have had no problems to design & manufacture the Matilda II, probably a world-beating tank during the 1st two years of production

But there are only 2 in sept 39, 24 whole year, 356 in 1940. in late 40 and Jan 41 ( so 40 shipping date) 7 and 4 RTR are in Egypt and East Africa. 1038 produced in 41 with 238 going to Egypt in TIGER 466 tanks Matildas and Valentines go to Russia in 41 - between 30 and 40% of the total available armoured force for the defence of Moscow btw. June 42 and the Matilda is declared obsolete in European service.

The British were supplying the best they had to engaged units, the ones at home got what was left over. And some those engaged units were Russian.

But as I have repeatedly described possession of a 2lb shell makes no tactical difference.

You're about to be haunted by the ghosts of the entire interwar officer corps of the Royal Tank Regiment expressing their disagreement with that thought. Violently.

But not Martel who runs procurement. He specifically rejects firing on the move and the protection from mobility the cruiser allegedly has. On the other hand the mount allows the gun to get onto target quickly when stationary, so not a bad thing.

For sure the British could have developed an entirely new gun. But thats what it would be with the same development cycle as the 2, 6, 17,25 5.5 etc etc and the same for ammo.

The others ( US, Russia, Germany) actually have a useable 75 and its ammo in service already because they operate infantry guns which are compact and lightweight ( well the US just starts much later when its clear that a 75 is needed but its been using the M1897 all the interwar period and upgraded the ammo significantly.

There is nothing comparable in the UK inventory, the closest is the much heavier 25lb which is really a howitzer with gunish bits and intended to replace both the 3'' calibre range and the 4.5'' range. And its very good at it.

The longer 75, and note as an AT weapon the 6lb and russian 57 are both superior to the 75 on early model T34/KV, is a mid war development at which point the british have access to US ammunition production so its a bit daft to develop a new gun to fire US ammo, when you can get the gun and the tank for free with a .50 cal thrown in. Developing a better AT weapon in the range is the another matter.

 

[tomo pauk]

Misleading but not entirely so. Once the order is placed the company mobilises for production. allocating space, tools people, buying components with the same etc etc. The cost is sunk at some point between order and final delivery and stopping production does not mean the production of anything else on the same timescale. As it is around 1/3 of orders are placed after it is withdrawn from service as a day fighter.

So of course you make the jump. The original concept is standing patrol interceptions of unescorted bombers coming over the north sea and the actual mission becomes GCI interception of escorted aircraft coming from a totally unexpected direction. At that point you have the plane. You can ( and the RAF did) reroll the pilots, air gunners and ground crews but you still have the plane. as far as I can tell only 264 and 141 Squadron ever use this in the intended role and its withdrawn from that, bar one emergency in May 40. 141 is almost immediately redesignated night fighter after formation.

Hurricane can do both - loiter and engage, and take off in short notice, climb and engage. Defiant can do #1 and maybe #2, Hurricane is better in both. Reliably chase & kill a bomber, that Germans unsportingly developed, that does 280-300 mph? Not Defiant, for him even the Henley is a handful.
The 1st five Chain Home stations, covering London, were installed in 1937 and in full function in 1938 (link), a year beforee the 1st production model of the Defiant is made.
As for the 'from the totally unexpected direction' qualifier - yes, it can be a problem if the enemy is not behaving in gentleman manner, and does not act as we've planned.
I don't make a jump, it was not me that suggested that ECM Defiant was an actual piece of hardware.

And the Hurricane cruises around 50mph faster than the Defiant, so what does that do for endurance? The other issue for the intended role or night fighter ops is the engagement time of a Hurricane is much less than that of a Defiant flying in sync but out of the weapon arcs of the unescorted bomber ather using forward firing MG.

Let's not pull the figures from the thin air. Defiant I cruises at 259 mph at 15000 ft per Boywer, Hurricane I cruises at 273 mph in max weak mixture setting, but also at 212 mph at most economical speed (link). Hurricane being more streamlined will cruise a bit faster at same RPM/boost settig. RPM/boost setting defining consumption.

BTW - quite a few posts advocating what you admitted was a bad idea.

Not sure of your point, both the 2 and 6lb AT guns of WW2 are entirely new designs of gun, carriage and ammo they have no relationship to the 2pdr QF or 6lb 10cwt both of which are naval use.

The point was that in ww1 British tanks have had 57mm cannons. Those were derivatives of naval cannons - outrageous, I know.
A step back was inter-war 3pdr OQF (that was weaker than the 3pdr Vickers), and, like that was not enough, another step back was 2 pdr.

But there are only 2 in sept 39, 24 whole year, 356 in 1940. in late 40 and Jan 41 ( so 40 shipping date) 7 and 4 RTR are in Egypt and East Africa. 1038 produced in 41 with 238 going to Egypt in TIGER 466 tanks Matildas and Valentines go to Russia in 41 - between 30 and 40% of the total available armoured force for the defence of Moscow btw. June 42 and the Matilda is declared obsolete in European service.

The British were supplying the best they had to engaged units, the ones at home got what was left over. And some those engaged units were Russian.

But as I have repeatedly described possession of a 2lb shell makes no tactical difference.

British were also supplying obsolete Vickers light tanks to N. Africa, since the production of Matildas and Valentines was insuficcient in 1939-1942, while different cruiser tanks were either flops, or almost flops, or were too late. Your statement that lack of 2lb (HE?) shells makes no tactical difference is in stark contrast with what actual users & plethora of books said, Australians going so far to design & manufacture their own HE ammo for the Matildas.
I'm not sure that there was a single Matilda in European service already in late 1940 by British army, apart from what is held in the UK.

With all of this said, I stand by notion that a) there was a lot to axe in the British aircraft and tank production to the benefit of the UK (and thus Allied) war effort, and b) that lack of HE shell for the 2pdr was detrimental for the effectiveness and health of the British and Allied tankers. I will not reply further in this thread.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What would really make a difference in British tank design would be moving to the use of tank transporters instead of being limited by the loading gauge on Britain's railways in the thirties. This would allow larger turret rings making it easier to up gun existing tanks, as the German's were able to do with the Panzer III's and IV's. Combine this with adopting a powerful engine (kestrel) and the Valentine could have had a three man turret from the start and been Britain's Panzer IV.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

What would really make a difference in British tank design would be moving to the use of tank transporters instead of being limited by the loading gauge on Britain's railways in the thirties. This would allow larger turret rings making it easier to up gun existing tanks, as the German's were able to do with the Panzer III's and IV's. Combine this with adopting a powerful engine (kestrel) and the Valentine could have had a three man turret from the start and been Britain's Panzer IV.

Tank transporters were introduced in the early 30s but in woefully small numbers - and not increased until just before the war due to the treasury not opening the purse strings

But I agree - such a move earlier away from UK rail tunnel size limiting tanks size is sensible.

 

[marathag]

The others ( US, Russia, Germany) actually have a useable 75 and its ammo in service already because they operate infantry guns which are compact and lightweight ( well the US just starts much later when its clear that a 75 is needed but its been using the M1897 all the interwar period and upgraded the ammo significantly.

There is nothing comparable in the UK inventory, the closest is the much heavier 25lb which is really a howitzer with gunish bits and intended to replace both the 3'' calibre range and the 4.5'' range. And its very good at it.

The 3.3"/ 84x295mm 18pdr was overbuilt for what it did, but the cartridge, esp. when necked down for the 3" 9cwt gun, was a good place to start

 

[Cryhavoc101]

You're about to be haunted by the ghosts of the entire interwar officer corps of the Royal Tank Regiment expressing their disagreement with that thought. Violently.

Its okay I'll beat them over the head with a history book of WW2.

 

[riggerrob]

You can still install a larger turret ring - without changing overall width - by widening the hull above the tracks. These new sponsons only have to be thick enough to support the turret ring.
The “Big Turret” Valentine would still fit British Rail tunnels, etc.

Depending upon tank transported trucks is a bit naive.
First off, trucks are more expensive than rail (for all types of cargo).
Secondly, they consume the same petrol and rations as tanks.
Thirdly, trucks require hard-surfaced, wide roads with gentle turn radii.

 

[Dorknought]

Secondly, they consume the same petrol and rations as tanks.

But lower track maintenance and engine maintenance. IIRC T34s taking spare transmission on their decks for long transits.

 

[ramtank2]

Didn't the Vickers 77mm HV use the breech of 3" 20 cwt, mated to 17 pounder barrel? Australian Sentinel also used the 3" 20cwt breech.
The Churchill at the very least should have been designed to take a HV 75mm from the start, picture a Comet turret on Churchill chassis.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

You mean like this?

There's no technological reason they couldn't have done it from the start either, they could have used now redundant 3" AA guns to start with and either built new ones or advanced the 17 pdr when existing stocks of the gun ran out. They really should have given the Churchill a more powerful engine though, despite it being an Infantry Tank. More speed is always good to have, if only to get out of trouble quicker than you got into it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Prince_(tank)

 

[RodentRevolution]

You mean like this?

There's no technological reason they couldn't have done it from the start either, they could have used now redundant 3" AA guns to start with and either built new ones or advanced the 17 pdr when existing stocks of the gun ran out. They really should have given the Churchill a more powerful engine though, despite it being an Infantry Tank. More speed is always good to have, if only to get out of trouble quicker than you got into it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Prince_(tank)

I have actually always wondered how the Black Prince would have performed with the Meteor engine.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I have actually always wondered how the Black Prince would have performed with the Meteor engine.

I think it would ahve been closer to the performace of the slightly heavier Centurion (51 tons) although it was using a less efficient running gear so probably not the 22 mph road speed of the Cent but with about 13 HP / Ton over the OTL BPs 7 HP / Ton it would have almost twice the muscle - so I would expect its top speed to be north of 15 mph and likely closer to 20 mph.

 

[ramtank2]

I believe Black Prince had a turret ring of 72", I was suggesting a Comet type turret with 64" turret ring weight, total weight closer to Churchill VII.