Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

If static you could have a land line?
That runs the risk of being cut in bombardment if not set deep enough or has enough redundancy.

TBH with the salvage German tanks would be better to send some of them back to the Delta for testing and some back to the UK for testing. Same with the 88s and the PAK gives you an idea of what the enemy is doing with their armour and AT.
 
The M3 Lights are pretty credible in their own right, they're reliable, they have a better multi-purpose gun than the QF 2pdr and they're tanks. It doesn't really matter if everyone thinks they're worse than Valiants in every measurable way if you've equipped an extra armoured division with them, because the comparison isn't against Valiant, it's against an empty patch of desert. M3/M5 Lights were also historically used in British armoured division's recce attachments in 1944-45, because they're better protected than a UC and available. Especially effective in Kangaroo/Jalopy variants with the turret pulled off to reduce profile.
 
That runs the risk of being cut in bombardment if not set deep enough or has enough redundancy.

TBH with the salvage German tanks would be better to send some of them back to the Delta for testing and some back to the UK for testing. Same with the 88s and the PAK gives you an idea of what the enemy is doing with their armour and AT.
Well at this stage of the war it was the way in which most static positions would have communicated with each other

In fact for most of the war - it was static lines and runners
 
I don't see how an armoured vehicle which can take a hit from an 8.8 would be made in reasonable time, unless one were to make some ridiculous super-heavy which primarily acts as a shell magnet. The best defense against an 8.8 Flak is identifying the big, hard to move and rather delicate gun and bombarding it with one's artillery until it stops firing, and then some just to be safe.

As for the M3 Stuarts, giving at least half of them to the Dutch and the Australians at this point would be the sensible thing to do. Unlike the dismal M3 medium, the M3 light would have a niche it might fill in the British OoB, but at this point it can successfully be argued that the forces in-theatre can probably finish up the African campaign before any units which are getting the new American tankettes have finished familiarizing and practicing with them.

That the M3 Stuart would be quite a useful thing to have for any Dutch or Australian formations in South-East Asia in good time is a happy accident.
 
You know it gets confusing when you talk to people about the M3 if you don't specify since they never know if you are talking about the M3 Lee, the M3 Stuart, the M3 Amphibious Rig, the M3 Submachine gun or the 37 mm gun M3.

The US use the M3 designation in a lot of things.
 
Ethier those M3s are getting sold to Free French or Greek Forces or they are heading out East from Africa because given the performance of British Tanks in TTL I can see them being downright disdainful of them given how much more reliable and better British Tanks are in TTL.
OTL they liked them for being very reliable, and very fast
This ATL the British Armor is far more reliable(like at late 1942 levels, vs 1941 when they were still poor OTL), but still not up to the US standard for reliability and ease of maintenance.
So they will be slightly impressed at the reliability, think the tools sent along were great(that hasn't changed from OTL), the 37mm is roughly as good as the 2pdr(as OTL) but be even more impressed with the speed over OTL, since more of the Brit battleline is slower
 
OTL they liked them for being very reliable, and very fast
This ATL the British Armor is far more reliable(like at late 1942 levels, vs 1941 when they were still poor OTL), but still not up to the US standard for reliability and ease of maintenance.
So they will be slightly impressed at the reliability, think the tools sent along were great(that hasn't changed from OTL), the 37mm is roughly as good as the 2pdr(as OTL) but be even more impressed with the speed over OTL, since more of the Brit battleline is slower
The official names may have been M3 in American service and Stuart in British service but to the 8th Army they were always known as Honeys.
 
Last edited:
The Official names may have been M3 in American service and Stuart in British service but to the 8th Army they were always known as Honeys.
I assume that's the American 8th Army you're referring too? It's highly unlikely the British would name it that, given that 'honey' to them was a sweet, sticky, viscous liquid.
 
I've read it in memoirs from 8th Army veterans.


From Tanks-encyclopedia.com

The M3 (Stuart Mk.I and Mk.II – Honey tank)​

The M3 was the first production model. Most of these were provided to the British and Commonwealth forces through Lend-Lease. Some were immediately thrown into action in Northern Africa, where they immediately became popular for their speed, sturdiness and reliability. Although the official British designation was “Stuart”, paying homage to Civil War Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart, they found themselves affectionately dubbed “Honey”, because of their smooth ride. Some authors say that it was not called the ‘Honey’ during the war but military historian Ed Webster has found official British wartime documents in the archives that use the name ‘Honey’. He also found a number of wartime newspaper entries where the reporters used the name ‘Honey’ when talking about the M3 Stuart: The Scotsman, Wednesday 26 August 1942, ‘Leaving the desert track he swept over the desert in a Honey tank, with brigade pennant flying…’; Yorkshire Post and Leeds Intelligencer Wednesday 26 August 1942, Same text ‘Leaving the desert track he swept over the desert in a Honey tank, with brigade pennant flying…’: Daily Herald Monday 07 September 1942, ‘Here is a United States built Honey Tank speeding at the foot of this insignificant-looking but coveted hill….’; Belfast News-Letter, Wednesday 26 August 1942, ‘Mr Churchill swept over the desert in a Honey tank, with brigade pennant flying…’; Perthshire Advertiser, Wednesday 28 April 1943, ‘I was just wondering what to do with this party when one of our gunner observation posts came up in a Honey Tank….’ The ‘Honey’ nickname never stuck with the US Military. Despite this, all following tanks provided to the British received a Secession War general name and the tradition stuck up to 1945, finally being adopted by the US army itself.
 
Last edited:
I must admit i thought it was pretty common knowledge that the General Stuart was allso called Honey .
As i understand it she was a Honey of a tank. And much appreciated by it's crews.
 
It seems that the second convoy carries the same number of tanks as the first one. In total, 315 Stuarts are expected until late October.

It should be mentioned that the British owe the Dutch 49 tanks to be delivered to the KNIL. The Dutch at this time were desperate for tanks and in OTL they ordered Marmon-Herrington tanketters since there were no other tanks avaliable.

The other government that was frustrated over the lack of tanks was the australian one. The lack of tanks was delaying the the formation of their 1st Armoured Brigade.

Other than teasing us by making us doing the math you so kindly shared, I quite enjoy the author's keeping us in suspense about their final destinations.

Looking at a map, I think all the usual suspect recipients have been identified by fellow posters except for Iraq. At this time, both Iran and the Soviet Union are potential threats to the UK Persian Gulf nations and creating a large deterrent force there not only makes good sense defensively, but strategically puts further pressure on the Vichy French in Syria. In an ideal world the UK would love to be able to put such overwhelming force on the Syrian Borders as to ensure capitulation (in an acceptable form) without having to fire a shot and inflict any further casualties on Frenchmen they'd much prefer to have as allies.
 
Top