As ever armour development was in a context of it's time. Motor transport had only become serious just as WW1 began in the most industrialised world. Even in the 1970's I can recall the old rag and bone man coming around with his horse and cart in a London suburb. Roads and bridges were being constantly surfaced, enlarged and bridges strengthened to take these new motor lorries and their high axle weights. A light tank made tactical sense away from the most developed parts of the industrialised world and even the medium tanks of the day were tactically restricted in the routes they could use. The Italians stuck with light tanks for use on tight narrow alpine roads. The Japanese had to cross lightweight Chinese bridges. It made sense just then. The light tank was not only a budget choice. When even the anti tank rifle could take on a lightly armoured light tank it's day was over so some tasks went over to lighter better ranged and more reliable armoured cars. Generally improvements in roads and in military engineering allowed the use of medium tanks for the same role and the medium tank could win a fire fight rather than just lay down fire to cover a withdrawal. Whilst one could put a better gun on a light tank and make it a mobile anti tank defensive gun it could not mount the weight of armour to live under increasingly powerful opposition. Mount that level of armour to survive and you just have a bad medium tank.
With the North African modified Churchill turret, IIRC it was not just a matter of cutting a hole and welding on the Sherman's external mantlet, they also had to turn the American Built 75mm gun upside down to get the breach block to open the other way so that it would work in the British turret! Now that to me is real field expedient engineering.
I never noticed that the side machine gun looks limp and flaccid.
They couldn't even design that monstrosity to look anything but pathetic.
It's a tractor with boiler plate added to it, of course it's pathetic. The Japanese tanks would have made mincemeat of it. New Zealand's other design, the Schofield was a much more realistic design an would have made a reasonable light tank or armoured car.
It's a tractor with boiler plate added to it, of course it's pathetic. The Japanese tanks would have made mincemeat of it. New Zealand's other design, the Schofield was a much more realistic design an would have made a reasonable light tank or armoured car.
The fact that they worked without blueprints while making it is pretty hilarious. The builders evidently worked off of a postcard that showed a drawing of an American design using a caterpillar tractor with bolted on armor.
I mean literally their blueprints were a fucking postcard.
That actually makes the Bob Sempil tank seam like an impressive achievement. Talk about making something out of nothing. Why they bothered though escapes me. New Zealand was already making the Universal Carrier so they could have done what the Australians did and make a light tank destroyer.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
How about (and this is a darling of mine) the experimental Armoured force is not abandoned at the beginning of the 30s but persisted with. Experimentation and improved experience during the mid 30s leads to an appreciation that having 3 types of tanks (light/infantry/Cruiser) is the wrong approach and that a universal tank design is the best idea. Otl the British had already recognised that light tanks and tankettes were a dead end. Hopefully the love affair that pre war armoured types had with Christie’s suspension designs is abandoned on Salisbury plains through hard won experience and the slower but far more reliable Horstmann type design is adopted. You might have guessed that I am not a champion of the Christie design. The Vickers 6 ton/type E to my mind in the mid 30s represents the best possible universal tank design. I can see it leading to a heavier 10-12 ton design by the late 30s. And Then have a castle Bromwich equivalent tank factory using Albert Kahn methodology spamming them out by the 1000s then the Brits are in a far better place come 1939.
SwampTiger
Banned
I agree with Cryhavoc101, except for the Vickers 6 ton. John Carden at Vickers was working on the replacement for the Medium Mark II by 1934. It entered service in 1938. It needed more armor, a better engine and a turret design concept allowing a larger gun than the 2 pounder. The British Army accepted it as the Cruiser Mark I, A9. This design started as a 13 ton, 150 horsepower vehicle running 25 mph with 2 pounder and a maximum of 14mm of armor. By 1943, it had become a 19 ton, 210 horsepower vehicle running 15 mph with an Ordnance QF 75mm gun and 65mm of armor, as the Valentine, A15. Imagine a slightly bigger chassis with 300 horsepower.
Better yet someone gets the idea to use RR Kestrels and 18pdr guns in a new tank with the same armour thickness as the Matilda I. Highly secret of course but a hell of a shock to the Panzer divisions in 1940.
SwampTiger
Banned
I think you are reaching too far for the British Army. Start with the A9/Valentine, add a 6 pdr 8 cwt ala Anthony Williams' concept, and Kestrel engine. You can build a Large turret ring Churchill with Merlin for the heavy tank mission in 1940.
6pdr's not in production yet, and the Army is replacing the 18pdr so they're available for reuse. Another option would be to make all tanks with the 3.7 howitzer and issue either H.E.S.H or H.E.A.T rounds for them.
I sort of wondered if anyone ever saw light tanks and tankettes sort of like the modern Future Soldier programs we have. Worth throwing some dollars at to try developing tanks smaller/cheaper rather than bigger just in case the future of warfare was one where every single infantryman would be using a personal tankette.
I suppose I tend to take a bit more a muted view of the potential of the EMF to arrive at the "right" conclusions about tank designs and armoured warfare in the shape of a proto-universal tank.
Rather than the EMF continuing, I think an earlier return to the primacy of the 'continental commitment' policy would probably be of more use in bringing about the realisation that, as you say the light tanks and tankettes were a dead end in that context.
SwampTiger
Banned
Check for General GLQ Martel and his one man tank. Developed further into the Carden-Loyd One Man Tankette.
Cryhavoc101
Donor
As I said the idea is a Darling of mine and therefore should probably be murdered - however even without the EMF and the continental Commitment OTL the British still had already concluded that Light tanks and Tankettes were a dead end when rearmament started and were trying to replace all of them with Infantry or Cruisers depending on unit role but penny pinching from the treasury ensured that the British Armament industry was not able to replace them and so they soldiered on with the MkVIs and Matilda Is which were machine gun armed light tank/tankettes and paid the penalty of having near useless AFVs when it came to a proper fight.
Both a return to a Continental commitment and continuing the EMF of course require treasure to be expended and the treasury could not see the difference between a Matilda I and a Matilda II (you could probably afford half a dozen Matilda Is for each Matilda II).
But all that said and done I am happy to include an Earlier Continental Commitment to my Continued EMF POD
They didn't mind, it's damn cold in Russia and they neglected to put a heater in the tank.Try the Soviet Light Tank crewmen, they didn't get a firewall even
