Radical Thinking:Britain's Universal tanks and Troop Carriers in 1940s

[Some Bloke]

Rommel wouldn't have been a Field Marshal at this point, but, interesting start.

 

[Some Bloke]

Maybe the Americans come up with a common hull that can be used to build tanks, APCs and SPGs?

 

[steamboy]

Maybe the Americans come up with a common hull that can be used to build tanks, APCs and SPGs?

They basically did, the M3/M4 hull lead to the Saxon/Priest and Kangaroo, and M-10. But there wasn't the doctrinal leap to deploy them at the same time save outside of as part of a larger battle, and the Americans never used the Kangaroo afaik.

 

[Killer in]

They key issues using the US tanks as a basis for an APC is the engine is in the way of a rear door so you'd need to fit side doors, or expect infantry to climb out the top.

 

[Driftless]

Throughout the war the normal source of mobility for the German Army was the horse or a mans legs.

Didn't that play a role in the order to Guderian and company to halt after the breakout? The tanks were so far in front of the main bulk of the infantry that OKH was in a tizzy that the armored columns were very vulnerable to flank attacks (which they were, but the Allies were so discombobulated they couldn't sufficiently respond.)

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Yes they were supposed to wait for the Infantry and Artillery to catch up. Arras showed OKH were right, but the lack of Anglo-French co-ordination showed Guderian was right to ignore them.

 

[TonyA]

Apart from the 'testing' site said to be North Wales, the nearest thing to a rocket testing site is - https://www.secret-bases.co.uk/wiki/RAE_Aberporth - which in South-West Wales - not far down the coast from Newquay.

Damn! Tough crowd...

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

North Wales, South Wales pah. It's only a couple of hours flying time in 1940 no big deal. It's not like the guy who set off from New York to fly to California (officially) and landed in Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Corrigan

 

[L4a1]

Maybe the Americans come up with a common hull that can be used to build tanks, APCs and SPGs?

Really a common hull probably isn’t the best idea.
Rather do a tank hull with a rear engine, and give APCs and SPGs a forward engine.
But use common components such as engine, transmission, tracks, suspension ect.

 

[Derwit]

Germany unleashed the blitzkrieg slicing into Poland and most of the countries Belgium falling within 18 days. The British forces in Norway were thrown out, France was invaded so after. The German army used bypassed the Maginot Line through belgium and the low countries, through the Ardennes forest and across the River Meuse encircling the allies.

The arras counter attack was aimed at reliving the garrison and capturing the area south of the River. It was combine French British origination, there was one problem however was utter lack of true planning among the French and British forces which meant neither side knew what the other was planning.

As soon as the operation began things went wrong a friendly fire incident occurred due to the aforementioned lack of cohesiveness, the French forces were not aware of the timing and direction of the British attack resulting in several S 35 tanks destroyed by British A.T guns.

The Left and Right Column
The Frank force was the most advanced force assembled 100 vehicles, from the A9 cruiser, to the new MK I, bishop self propelled guns, AT-1 deacon assault guns and A14 vanguard troop carriers. Tanks were to go first, artillery and troops brought up the rear to consolidate holds. There little time to such strategy to be practised and this was the greatest test.
The right column was somewhat hampered by the refugees packing the road, meaning there was very little time for mechanized infantry to get into order let alone reconnaissance. The columns came under fire from German forces the bishops proved invaluble in pinning down and discouraging the Germans as the column took Warlus and then Berneville facing stiff resistance from SS- Totenkopf Division here the AT-1 deacon and bishops proved very useful knocking out tanks and infantry with no damage the force then went for Wailly again the deacons were useful but were now taking losses from the Luftwaffe and heavy resistance stopped the mechanized forces. The column withdrew back to Berneville, but prevented the road from being cut.
The left column met the most success practically savaged the 7th panzer division and overrunning S.S deaths head headquarters. The deacon was near untouched by the fighting being impervious to artillery fire even 75mm and mechanized infantry caused more surprise to the Germans than anything else. The column was forced to stop when confronted by 88mm Flak guns, by this point the British force was exhausted and new attacks by the Luftwaffe. What ever reserves were used to consolidate the gains. The Luftwaffe forced the British to call a withdrawal field Marshall Erwin Rommel counter attack was hamstrung by French tank and 6 pounder fire after break through ran into the British column, the French attack was also forced to withdraw the British had lost 40 vehicles with many more damaged with the exchange of 400 prisoners.

The Germans counter attacked hard the limited ground consolidated held until the order was given for a fighting withdrawal, by this point panzer crews were wary of British heavy tanks and advanced medium tanks. By Dunkirk there were at least 125 tanks still in service giving their most in the attempt to bleed the Germans for every inch.

Unable to take their tanks and self propelled guns the BEF had been given strict orders to destroy their own vehicles lest the Germans capture them intact. Dunkirk was a bittersweet moment for both sides for the allied forces they had lost substantial amount of equipment to the Germans they had been depleted by the constant battles.

The battle had also proven the universal tank and mechanized infantry worth.

Post Dunkirk and the battle of Britain saw the British army scramble to rebuild their army. The A11 heavy cruiser MK I had indeed proven its worth, there were flaws too the kestrel falcon engine developed 240 horsepower could drive the A11 to 45 kph but the tracks kept snapping, the silhouette was too high, rivets and the flat turret were weaknesses. A new universal tank was drawn up just as fast in the form of the Valentine...

Across the channel and the Atlantic Britain's actions in France sent ripples, for the Germans were very much unhappy and having severe case of inferiority complex as they poured over every scrap, captured or destroyed hulks of British tank. The Germans had been aware of the A11 but had come to the conclusion that the economy had forced them to adopt one tank and thus ignored it, the second was the AT-1 deacon assault gun, which was terrifying for panzer crews, bishop SPG and the final nail the A14 vanguard troop carrier which through the German army off by a degree. Since in 1939 to 1940, trucks, half tracks and towed artillery was the norm. The British out did everyone by a large degree leading to increased production of the halftracks.

In the United States a large discussion was at hand, the German blitzkrieg needed counter a Lt. Gen Leslie McNair proposed the tank destroyer doctrine, the British military's universal tank was intriguing on its own why create several tank classes when one can do the job?

Hi Scout

Really enjoying this time line. I'd been hoping you would attempt this after your resent threads on British armour on the board.

Just a few quibles about the last story post. At Arras OTL the attack was halted by Rommel and some of 7 Panzers 88's operating in the anti tank role (a big surprise to the British tankers). This was largely due to the OTL British tanks after the opening attack being largely unsupported and therefore had no answer to ATG screens. Here they have Mech Infantry and close support SPG's. It's possible that they are therefore able to overcome the 88's and continue. Alternately there could very likely be a coordination breakdown between the composit parts of the force which would probably leed to better training post battle.

OTL Rommel stated that the British attach had been made up of hundreds of heavy tanks that OKW had no idea where there. It led for calls to halt the tanks until the infantry fought up and was a contributing factor in the famous halt orders. Here the British have done better and have lots of new toys. I would suspect that this would cause considerably more panic bain the high command especially Hitler who unlike later in the war did little to effect the overal battle of France. I suspect that an order to halt the panzers would be given and would be less likely to be ignored. This could alter the battle for France considerably. For an excellent example see PDF 's A Blunted Sickle.

Further 1st Armoured was OTL back in the U.K. awaiting tanks. It was thrown into the battle soon after Arras with its infantry and some tanks being sent to help out in the defence of Calais. With better tanks and support how do they fair ITTL? The remaining elements of the division where sent to help the French after Dunkirk and where largely destroyed taking the Somme bridges due to lack of supporting infantry and artillery. Again does this have a happier outcome here. I even wonder if the Germans would make it that far as quickly as OTL.

 

[Dorknought]

Rather do a tank hull with a rear engine, and give APCs and SPGs a forward engine.

or just point the gun backwards.

same chassis for AT Gun, Artillery and troop carrier, - shoot and scoot. Just turn the tank around to let the infantry out the front. Also makes a good transport/supply carrier.

Based on a 25ton 'Universal tank' rather than the A9/A10/Valentine 16 ton.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Hi Scout

Really enjoying this time line. I'd been hoping you would attempt this after your resent threads on British armour on the board.

Just a few quibles about the last story post. At Arras OTL the attack was halted by Rommel and some of 7 Panzers 88's operating in the anti tank role (a big surprise to the British tankers). This was largely due to the OTL British tanks after the opening attack being largely unsupported and therefore had no answer to ATG screens. Here they have Mech Infantry and close support SPG's. It's possible that they are therefore able to overcome the 88's and continue. Alternately there could very likely be a coordination breakdown between the composit parts of the force which would probably leed to better training post battle.

OTL Rommel stated that the British attach had been made up of hundreds of heavy tanks that OKW had no idea where there. It led for calls to halt the tanks until the infantry fought up and was a contributing factor in the famous halt orders. Here the British have done better and have lots of new toys. I would suspect that this would cause considerably more panic bain the high command especially Hitler who unlike later in the war did little to effect the overal battle of France. I suspect that an order to halt the panzers would be given and would be less likely to be ignored. This could alter the battle for France considerably. For an excellent example see PDF 's A Blunted Sickle.

Further 1st Armoured was OTL back in the U.K. awaiting tanks. It was thrown into the battle soon after Arras with its infantry and some tanks being sent to help out in the defence of Calais. With better tanks and support how do they fair ITTL? The remaining elements of the division where sent to help the French after Dunkirk and where largely destroyed taking the Somme bridges due to lack of supporting infantry and artillery. Again does this have a happier outcome here. I even wonder if the Germans would make it that far as quickly as OTL.

Indeed - the 2 Tank Battalions involved @ Arras - the 4th and 7th RTR had just 20 odd Matilda IIs (spread between both units) the rest of the tanks involved were Matilda Is

The Infantry used was 2 good 'TA' Battalions IIRC the 6th and 8th Durham Light Infantry who as far as I know had not conducted training with those units

The rest of the Tank Brigade and its Supporting units were sent to Calais as you say and defended the port for several vital days.

When it came to pulling them out Churchill decided to leave them there simply to show the French that the British were not abandoning them - not the last of his more idiotic suggestions.

As General Ironsides retorted "A corpse cannot feel"

A lot of the British army's combined arms 'knowledge' was lost with them - it was a decision only exceeded in its criminality by the decision to fit small tank hatches to British tanks

 

[L4a1]

or just point the gun backwards.

same chassis for AT Gun, Artillery and troop carrier, - shoot and scoot. Just turn the tank around to let the infantry out the front. Also makes a good transport/supply carrier.

Based on a 25ton 'Universal tank' rather than the A9/A10/Valentine 16 ton.

I aren’t sure how that would work, it sounds like the Infantry would be dismounting through the drivers compartment??? So either they dismount to the front of the APC which would be normally facing towards the enemy leaving them exposed, or the APC pivots 180 degrees before dismounting the Infantry exposing the usually thinner side armour, and signaling to the enemy that they are about to dismount.
Having both the engine and drivers compartment at the front of a SPG means you can have big doors at the back of the fighting compartment which makes loading ammo into the SPG much easier and quicker.
If you are having a universal tank do you need a Self Propeled Anti Tank Gun?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I aren’t sure how that would work, it sounds like the Infantry would be dismounting through the drivers compartment??? So either they dismount to the front of the APC which would be normally facing towards the enemy leaving them exposed, or the APC pivots 180 degrees before dismounting the Infantry exposing the usually thinner side armour, and signaling to the enemy that they are about to dismount.
Having both the engine and drivers compartment at the front of a SPG means you can have big doors at the back of the fighting compartment which makes loading ammo into the SPG much easier and quicker.
If you are having a universal tank do you need a Self Propeled Anti Tank Gun?

No what is being suggested is that the APC effectively drives backwards with the drivers position facing the rear. The infantry are located at the front of the tank (now the rear) and can dismount without being impeded by either the driver or engine etc.

 

[Dorknought]

I aren’t sure how that would work, it sounds like the Infantry would be dismounting through the drivers compartment???

Perhaps a smaller engine offset to one side and with driver position next to it and drive them backwards.

 

[Dorknought]

If you are having a universal tank do you need a Self Propeled Anti Tank Gun?

or fit a universal gun: 3.7" 32 pdr for artillery and SPG, same weapon as the AA just don't have an 'AA tank'.

 

[L4a1]

No what is being suggested is that the APC effectively drives backwards with the drivers position facing the rear. The infantry are located at the front of the tank (now the rear) and can dismount without being impeded by either the driver or engine etc.

In other words what I suggested have the engine at the front.
But the armour layout would also need to be redesigned. Tanks have the most armour on the front less on the sides, and even less on the rear. This is done to keep the weight down while having thicker armour where it is needed the most.
Also the engine cooling system and exhaust system will probably need to be redesigned since the air flow will be reversed.
Now you have what I suggested, two hull designs. One with a forward mounted engine, and one with a rear mounted engine. Both using as many common components as possible, but without the design compromises of using a common hull.

 

[marathag]

They key issues using the US tanks as a basis for an APC is the engine is in the way of a rear door so you'd need to fit side doors, or expect infantry to climb out the top.

The M12 with the 155mm howitzer was mid engined

 

[marathag]

No what is being suggested is that the APC effectively drives backwards with the drivers position facing the rear. The infantry are located at the front of the tank (now the rear) and can dismount without being impeded by either the driver or engine etc.

More than a few armored cars were made with dual driving positions,so reverse could be forward.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

In other words what I suggested have the engine at the front.
But the armour layout would also need to be redesigned. Tanks have the most armour on the front less on the sides, and even less on the rear. This is done to keep the weight down while having thicker armour where it is needed the most.
Also the engine cooling system and exhaust system will probably need to be redesigned since the air flow will be reversed.
Now you have what I suggested, two hull designs. One with a forward mounted engine, and one with a rear mounted engine. Both using as many common components as possible, but without the design compromises of using a common hull.

That would work - obviously the armour can go where ever the designers want within reason