And yet from the introduction of the Mk V they had anti armour weapons in the form of either the Vickers .50 or the Besa 15mm.
SwampTiger
Banned
Note that both are machine guns with anti-armor capability, not dedicated anti-armor weapons. They attempted to straddle the fence without stressing the chassis too far.
Vickers should have enlarged the entire vehicle if they desired to include a true anti-armor weapon. Again, check out the LT vz. 34. If they had increased the Mark V to this size, a 2 lbr would be a natural fit. It just lengthens and strengthens the chassis and allows a larger turret. Either way, these are still scouts, not intended to face true tanks. That mission would require improved armor, more weight and more powerful engines. Not a light tank. The Germans and Italians used smaller tanks and tankettes because that was what they had available.
What you are looking for is the Tetrarch A17/Mark VII light tank.
A) I don't see why there is opposition to it's restoration. Maybe to the way it was carried out and the pattern it was restored too but I don't see the point in letting an aircraft lay in ruins in a museum.
B) Why was it the legal property of Egypt? With ships at least no matter where they sink they are considered the legal property of the nation who's navy they served in.
Because of international agreements sinked navy ships are considered war graves.
There are not such an agreements regarding airplanes or armor. Did you noticed how many were digged out in former USSR and Eastern block countries and they either ended up un national museums or on market. But in this case everything depends on national lawas where they were found. In some countries they may end up on market in some they are considered archeological artifacts.
Try the Soviet Light Tank crewmen, they didn't get a firewall even
My god it's a fucking marvel. It looks like it was designed to create a Soviet Super Race of one armed Tankers.
I mean seriously the crew moves half a centimeter and they get something important ripped off them.
Driftless
Donor
Or Britain could have bought the Vickers E 6 ton light tank instead of the machinegun armed light takes.
The Poles, Finns and Soviets used them, and the Soviets loved the things so much they built 11 to 12 thousand copies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_6-Ton
The best historic option. It was available in the early 30's and as PLP notes, it was produced in great numbers and served into the early 40's. Another point in it's favor, it could have served as a better path to more useful successor tanks than the dead-ends that were chosen, thereby advancing British armor technology by years.
Stupidest thing the Army ever did, rejecting what was arguably the best tank in the world at the time in favor of turreted tankettes with delusions of grandeur. The only thing they had going for them was that they were cheap. The Soviets were still using their T26's when they invaded Manchuria in 1945.
The Italians almost exclusively used 6 ton derivatives, and in a purely technical sense they were good tanks.
Last edited:
Possible idea for you.
The UK accepts the Vickers light tank but converts them over to Christie Suspension fairly early on. We know it could be done as the Soviets did it to make the T-46
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-46_(tank)
This could well allow it to act like a scout and as a cruiser. Of course the gun would probably be the 2lber but this gun's perfectly fine up until 1941, so imagine a British army equipped with a large number of *insert tank name here* that is basically a T-46 analogue as the Cruiser/scout tank acting in support of slower infantry tanks.
Yes its got thin armour but then again, so did the Vickers, but you could start with the Vickers then move onto the UK-46 and then have a different mark of it later on coming out as the War kicks off in 1939.
For the late 30's the thin skin wouldn't be thought important by the British Army in a cruiser or light tank. The A9 Cruiser Mk 1 only had 15mm of armour. The Vickers E had 19 to 25mm.
What always makes me look on with bemusment is the British Armys offical reason for not adopting the Vickers 6 ton/E when they had the opportunity - they did not think the Suspension was robust enough..............................
I suspect that they had supped from the Cup of Christie and had become intoxicated
I suspect it was really a combination of the Treasury being reluctant and the cavalry not wanting to give up their horses.
The Cavalry in the late 30's can have some of these. Remember cavalry's main role was scouting not just the glamorous charges of legend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Armoured_Car
The treasury would probably demand they got these though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Beaverette
The treasury would probably demand they got these though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Beaverette
Nah, even that's too nice, they'll get that truck covered in cement that the UK gave to the Home Guard in WWII.The treasury would probably demand they got these though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Beaverette
marathag
Banned
UK Armor development is one of the few times you really think that snacking on lead paint chips with their biscuits and tea each morning, was at play.
Going from the 6 Tonner leaf Spring to the semi-Horstmann of the 'Slow-Motion' of the A9 should have been a no-brainer
SwampTiger
Banned
Reviewing the direction the thread has headed, the Vickers 6-ton is actually a medium, front-line tank for the 1930's. The British Army was moving toward a cruiser/infantry tank split. The light tanks would be replaced with armored/scout cars for most reconnaissance duties. If anything, the light tank from the interwar period was dying. The world's armies kept buying them because of their low cost, not because of their effectiveness. Combat power started with the smaller mediums; Vickers 6-ton, LT vz. 35 and 38, T-26, M 11/39 and TP-7. Even these tanks were in the process of replacement with larger tanks.
The Japanese were the only power to utilize the lighter tank/tankette types for more than two years after introduction to combat. The Chinese morass was the only useful combat zone for the smaller light tanks. They faced few anti-tank weapons. The Chinese had almost no armored capability. They were very useful against foot mobile light infantry forces.
Thus, the British use as colonial patrol tanks. The British had no practical reason to add anything larger than the BESA 15mm. A 20mm, low-velocity 1 or 2 lbr or a breech loaded mortar may have been useful, but were not necessary. The Vickers light tanks were faster than anything they were likely to face, and armored against rifle fire. Ideally, the British Army should have dropped anything smaller than 12 tons after 1935. Concentrate on Matilda II and Valentine for infantry support, and Cruiser Mark III development for fast tanks. The British would have done better to work on a dual purpose main tank gun and a reliable/powerful tank engine.
The Japanese were the only power to utilize the lighter tank/tankette types for more than two years after introduction to combat. The Chinese morass was the only useful combat zone for the smaller light tanks. They faced few anti-tank weapons. The Chinese had almost no armored capability. They were very useful against foot mobile light infantry forces.
Thus, the British use as colonial patrol tanks. The British had no practical reason to add anything larger than the BESA 15mm. A 20mm, low-velocity 1 or 2 lbr or a breech loaded mortar may have been useful, but were not necessary. The Vickers light tanks were faster than anything they were likely to face, and armored against rifle fire. Ideally, the British Army should have dropped anything smaller than 12 tons after 1935. Concentrate on Matilda II and Valentine for infantry support, and Cruiser Mark III development for fast tanks. The British would have done better to work on a dual purpose main tank gun and a reliable/powerful tank engine.
marathag
Banned
The Cavalry in the late 30's can have some of these. Remember cavalry's main role was scouting not just the glamorous charges of legend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Armoured_Car
The treasury would probably demand they got these though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Beaverette
Because the US Cav couldn't have tanks- by Law, they got 'Combat Cars'
Instead.
marathag
Banned
for the time period in question, use the 18 or 25 pdr field gun, that would have enough AP performance on all interwar tanks, and use a Napier Lion for power
All off the shelf, other than the field gun to have a updated recoil/recuperator system, unless you want to get ugly, like on the Super Pershing
when the new cannon and mantlet was a bit too much for the old setup
