No British Cruiser/Infantry Tank Split?

Moglwi

Monthly Donor
And tracks are better for traction on ice.
Tracks are not better on Ice trust me I drove a 432 in the army while in germany and during an ex in winter the Polizi banned all tracked movment as icy roads and fields + tracked vehicles mean 70ton tanks going sking :D
 
Advantage over what?

With 6x6 or 8x8 training is even easier. My proposal is that in the 40s armies should have gone straight for a mix of fully tracked and fully wheeled vehicles in two separate families rather then try to combine both into a single half tracked vehicle. Take the Germans. Replace the SdKfz 251 with a 8x8 APC for general use. Build a Pz38 based fully tracked APC. Use it like the russian BTR/BMP mix in the seventies.
The SdKfz251, with it's unpowered front axle, was very difficult to drive. The US half tracks were easier to drive, having powered front axles and shorter tracks, but were never good off or on roads vehicles. Halftracks got dumped really fast when the war ended because they were a bad idea taken to far.
 
Reverse Matilda Squadron organization

To use the Matilda as a breakthrough tank, troops could have 3 platoons of 4 CS tanks, with 1 platoon with the 2pdr. The main role would be AT defences suppression with the 2 pdr tanks ready to deal with counter attacking tanks.The crusader units could have the reverse mix, being primarily expected to engage other tanks, but be trained to bring the CS tanks forward to deal with AT guns when the german tanks pulled their usual trick of retreating behind their PAK friends when outnumbered.
 

Hoist40

Banned
There were two types of half track.

The US and most of the unarmored German ones were based on regular 4 wheel drive trucks with the rear wheels replaced by tracks. They were simple and not much more expensive then regular trucks.

The German armored and the large unarmored half tracks which are sometimes called 3/4 track since they had tracks which could be clutched and braked like tanks. These were more expensive because of the expensive of the special transmission and final drive needed.

The reason why these half tracks were built was because of the expense of fully tracked vehicles. Not just in construction but in operation because every time a fully tracked vehicle turns even small changes in direction this requires operating brakes, clutches. fluid drives which cause wear and tear. Fully tracked vehicles need special transmissions and final drives which range from cheap but inefficient to expensive and efficient so you either pay in lack of efficiency or pay in manufacturing.

Half tracks on the other hand use a simple wheel steering taken from trucks to either steer all the time (1/2 track) or most of the time (3/4 track). So you get the simplicity of wheel steering combined with the traction of tracks.

The reason why half tracks disappeared is because trucks got better and tracked vehicles got cheaper. During WW2 when every country had trouble fielding enough fully tracked tanks and SP guns the half track was the cheap alternative to give better cross country capability .
 
Aples with aples

Since we don't have APC versions we can use to asses the merits of wheels, tracks and halftracks, let's use what we have. There is a tank hunter of each type, with the same weapon and in the same weight class. So let's take a look at the SdKfz 251/22, the SdKfz 234/4 and the Marder III ausf M. The only thing the SdKfz has going for it is compability with the rest of the vehicles in the PzG regiment. I maintain that an whole family of vehicles could have been built, based either on the earlier 231 8x8 chassis or on the cheap and reliable Pz 38(t) chassis, and I would need to see some very convincing hard data to make me believe that for the same role, a 251 would be cheaper than a 38(t).
The 234/4 has way more speed, three times the range, and probably better all around off road capability than the 251/22.

Regarding tractors, only the german relied on half-tracks for towing stuff. The US, the other major half track user, used both fully tracked and wheeled tractors, discarding the halftracks for logistic roles and artillery roles.
 
From David Fletcher's 'Mechanised Force'

Regarding what became the Matilta II

'Inevitably the question of a suitable power unit arose, and one suggestion involved a Napier-built version of the Junkers Jumo engine, although this was rejected in favour of an AEC unit'.

Any idea what Jumo engine was in mind with this suggestion?

This occurred quite early on in the process by the looks of it, just after the prototype A11 had appeared, its effectiveness was being questioned and a faster gun armed 3 crew 14 ton version was considered which gradually morphed into the A12.


This from another board i've posted on

I've just had a look in David Fletcher's Osprey book on the Matildas; it looks from that that there was three months of stumbling/arguing over the engine fitment...amongst other issues...in the three months after the new tank was proposed in September 1936 - but by the time the prototype and first contract was issued to the Vulcan Foundry, engine fitment had indeed been settled on. So this discussion on a Napier-built Jumo variant must date to the September-December 1937 period.
 

NothingNow

Banned
From David Fletcher's 'Mechanised Force'

Regarding what became the Matilta II

'Inevitably the question of a suitable power unit arose, and one suggestion involved a Napier-built version of the Junkers Jumo engine, although this was rejected in favour of an AEC unit'.

Any idea what Jumo engine was in mind with this suggestion?

It was the Jumo 204/Napier Culverin, the parent engine of the Deltic and Baby deltic (which unfortunately won't fit in a tank.)

The things were pretty big too, being opposed-piston diesels, about 28.5L displacement for a 6-cylinder, filling a 1,260x510x1,510mm (LxWxH) space, for about 750-850bhp. But they're pretty simple and fairly efficient for something nice and torquey, so if you designed the tank around them you'd be able to get a good vehicle, and if you need more power, slap another bank of cylinders onto the old one, and gear it accordingly.

Of course, if this also leads to an engine like the Deltic or Jumo 224 earlier, you'd get a pretty good MTB/MGB engine as well. (Although the Culverin would probably do well there too.)
 

Sior

Banned
B11E5-1.jpg



B11E5.jpg



An interesting British pre war carrier described in 'Mechanised Force'.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/s...lter[themeString][0]="British Army 1919-1939"

List of inter-war British tracked and half-track transport
 
Wow, that is both impressive and depressing. You can see the potential of some of those late 20's/early 30's vehicles. That Dragon model in particular seems very promising. A great pity that this wasn't continued.
 
Top