They can, and did sell Fords in Australia. It was just done under the auspices of Ford of Canada, which neatly got around the Imperial Preference rules.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
17 February 1942. Kazan. CCCP
allanpcameron
Donor
17 February 1942. Kazan. CCCP
By the end of January fifty-seven ships had arrived directly from the United States bringing 21700 tons of cargo. Among the total was a variety of vehicles, including some Valiant tanks from Canada. The First Protocol signed with the Soviets by Britain and the USA, had promised some 500 tanks per month (half British, half American). Due to the continuing production bottlenecks in America, the British (with Canadian help) had been supplying more than their half of tanks, in the hope that by the end of June the Americans would be in a position to make good their shortfall.
If the Red Army was disappointed with the Matilda II, and just about satisfied with the Valiant II, regarding the American tanks they had been somewhat bemused. The M3 Light Tank, which the British called the Stuart, and the M3 Medium Tank, called the Grant by the British, were still only in small numbers. Only 28 Mediums and 31 Lights had been delivered by the end of January.
While most of the American tanks, like the British were moved from the ports to the Gorkiy training centre, the Kazan Armoured Vehicle Research Institute (NIIBT) had received one of each for full testing.
The M3 Light was the first to be trialled on both mobility and gunnery. The tank, over ten days, was driven 225km on a road, 132km on dirt roads and 63km off road. Speed trials measured a maximum of 58kph, with averages of 37.5kph on the road, 22kph on the dirt road and 17kph off road. It was found to be thirsty, using 347 litres per 100km off road. The trial confirmed the problem that the tank consumed higher octane petrol than Soviet tanks, and the fuel tank only took 200 litres. These two issues made the tank’s range problematical. The mobility tests also showed up problems with the rubber-metallic tracks, there wasn’t enough traction to climb even a 25 degree of slope, even though the engine had the power. Driving at an angle the tracks were found to slip off, and the engine had a tendency to overheat. Positively, the report noted that the tank was otherwise easy to control and the driver had good visibility. The gunnery trial found that the 37mm M5 gun was powerful enough to penetrate 50mm from 100 meters. Overall, the design of the tank’s hull didn’t impress, there were many riveted connections that were prone of failure if hit by the enemy.
The tests on the M3 Light were followed by the M3 Medium. The first things that the testers noted was the size of the fighting compartment, which could fit ten infantrymen with submachine guns, and the crew could still fire all the weapons! The hull dimensions and layout were described as ‘not modern’, the excessive height and generally flat armour made the tank vulnerable to enemy artillery fire.
The engine’s design and fuel requirement, like that of the M3 Light was criticised, generally the Soviets didn’t have 91 octane petrol available for tanks. A diesel engine would be preferred for both American tanks, but would need to be tested. On the other hand, the transmission and cooling system, the VVSS suspension were all deemed good, though the return rollers were poor as they quickly clogged up.
The armament was satisfactory, though the twin fixed machine guns in the hull couldn’t be aimed. The 75mm M2 had a good periscopic sight, but only had markings for AP shell, which hadn’t been sent with the tank. The 37mm gun in the turret suffered from the same problem, only this time lacking markings for HE, though as noted with the M3 Light there wasn’t any HE shells for it. The ammunition received so far for the 75mm was only HE, which made the lack of AP shells problematic, and raised the question of the 75mm was for infantry support and the 37mm for anti-tank work.
The mobility trials in snow noted that when grousers were attached to the tracks, the speed dropped, but the off-road performance was better, but the fuel consumption also increased, from 582 L per 100km on road, to 985 L per 100km off road. With grousers, the maximum grade climbed was 16 degrees. The tank could deal with a maximum of 80cm of snow (the same as the KV heavy tank), and could drive through 30-50cm of snow in second gear. The tank was deemed satisfactory in winter conditions, no worse that the other imported tanks. Generally, the reliability of the tank was considered good, but that was only achieved by correct and timely maintenance, which meant that it was recommended not to send it to units using Soviet vehicles as the difference in type of fuel and servicing methodology would be too great.
According to the Protocol the Americans would be supplying roughly 1725 of each of these two types of tank, which the Soviets weren’t too highly impressed by. There was talk of the follow on M4 tank, with a diesel engine, and that was something the Red Army was keen on getting hold of for testing. As for the M3 Light, they weren’t impressed and would be keen to just have one type, preferably, like the Valiant, a diesel engine, with a reasonable gun, which the 75mm could possibly be.
The sources for this update come from here:
Tank Archives: The American Highrise & Tank Archives: An American Yankee in GABTU's Court
By the end of January fifty-seven ships had arrived directly from the United States bringing 21700 tons of cargo. Among the total was a variety of vehicles, including some Valiant tanks from Canada. The First Protocol signed with the Soviets by Britain and the USA, had promised some 500 tanks per month (half British, half American). Due to the continuing production bottlenecks in America, the British (with Canadian help) had been supplying more than their half of tanks, in the hope that by the end of June the Americans would be in a position to make good their shortfall.
If the Red Army was disappointed with the Matilda II, and just about satisfied with the Valiant II, regarding the American tanks they had been somewhat bemused. The M3 Light Tank, which the British called the Stuart, and the M3 Medium Tank, called the Grant by the British, were still only in small numbers. Only 28 Mediums and 31 Lights had been delivered by the end of January.
While most of the American tanks, like the British were moved from the ports to the Gorkiy training centre, the Kazan Armoured Vehicle Research Institute (NIIBT) had received one of each for full testing.
The M3 Light was the first to be trialled on both mobility and gunnery. The tank, over ten days, was driven 225km on a road, 132km on dirt roads and 63km off road. Speed trials measured a maximum of 58kph, with averages of 37.5kph on the road, 22kph on the dirt road and 17kph off road. It was found to be thirsty, using 347 litres per 100km off road. The trial confirmed the problem that the tank consumed higher octane petrol than Soviet tanks, and the fuel tank only took 200 litres. These two issues made the tank’s range problematical. The mobility tests also showed up problems with the rubber-metallic tracks, there wasn’t enough traction to climb even a 25 degree of slope, even though the engine had the power. Driving at an angle the tracks were found to slip off, and the engine had a tendency to overheat. Positively, the report noted that the tank was otherwise easy to control and the driver had good visibility. The gunnery trial found that the 37mm M5 gun was powerful enough to penetrate 50mm from 100 meters. Overall, the design of the tank’s hull didn’t impress, there were many riveted connections that were prone of failure if hit by the enemy.
The tests on the M3 Light were followed by the M3 Medium. The first things that the testers noted was the size of the fighting compartment, which could fit ten infantrymen with submachine guns, and the crew could still fire all the weapons! The hull dimensions and layout were described as ‘not modern’, the excessive height and generally flat armour made the tank vulnerable to enemy artillery fire.
The engine’s design and fuel requirement, like that of the M3 Light was criticised, generally the Soviets didn’t have 91 octane petrol available for tanks. A diesel engine would be preferred for both American tanks, but would need to be tested. On the other hand, the transmission and cooling system, the VVSS suspension were all deemed good, though the return rollers were poor as they quickly clogged up.
The armament was satisfactory, though the twin fixed machine guns in the hull couldn’t be aimed. The 75mm M2 had a good periscopic sight, but only had markings for AP shell, which hadn’t been sent with the tank. The 37mm gun in the turret suffered from the same problem, only this time lacking markings for HE, though as noted with the M3 Light there wasn’t any HE shells for it. The ammunition received so far for the 75mm was only HE, which made the lack of AP shells problematic, and raised the question of the 75mm was for infantry support and the 37mm for anti-tank work.
The mobility trials in snow noted that when grousers were attached to the tracks, the speed dropped, but the off-road performance was better, but the fuel consumption also increased, from 582 L per 100km on road, to 985 L per 100km off road. With grousers, the maximum grade climbed was 16 degrees. The tank could deal with a maximum of 80cm of snow (the same as the KV heavy tank), and could drive through 30-50cm of snow in second gear. The tank was deemed satisfactory in winter conditions, no worse that the other imported tanks. Generally, the reliability of the tank was considered good, but that was only achieved by correct and timely maintenance, which meant that it was recommended not to send it to units using Soviet vehicles as the difference in type of fuel and servicing methodology would be too great.
According to the Protocol the Americans would be supplying roughly 1725 of each of these two types of tank, which the Soviets weren’t too highly impressed by. There was talk of the follow on M4 tank, with a diesel engine, and that was something the Red Army was keen on getting hold of for testing. As for the M3 Light, they weren’t impressed and would be keen to just have one type, preferably, like the Valiant, a diesel engine, with a reasonable gun, which the 75mm could possibly be.
The sources for this update come from here:
Tank Archives: The American Highrise & Tank Archives: An American Yankee in GABTU's Court
allanpcameron
Donor
I feel I've taken a couple of liberties with the above update. The actual testing of the Stuart and Grant was later than suggested here. The reasons for the delay are explained in the articles, but handwavium is a powerful thing.
Nothing has changed from OTL, but it seemed reasonable to note the Soviet response at this point.
Also, wanted to give the Australians a rest. That got pretty intense there! Who knew railway gauge was such a big thing in Australian history! Interesting.
Allan
Nothing has changed from OTL, but it seemed reasonable to note the Soviet response at this point.
Also, wanted to give the Australians a rest. That got pretty intense there! Who knew railway gauge was such a big thing in Australian history! Interesting.
Allan
Well you could argue that railways in the Australian colonies (and NZ) were one of the most important jobs and challenges of colonial government. If just because railways were very expensive and colonial goverments generally were both poor and lacked capability (being new and growing)
Last edited:
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
The political situation in Britain, Anglo American relations, and the Imperial Preference system.
IOTL, Winston was in a very difficult position in 1942, Britain had suffered a number of serious defeats, and was not doing well. The combination of the loss of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece including Crete, recent successes by the German/Italian forces in North Africa along with the Japanese successes in the Far East, DEI. And the subsequent threat to Australia, with in addition the increasing losses in the Atlantic, as a result of the American declaration of war against Germany. There were serious questions being raised in Parliament, the establishment and the press, about his Premiership and the conduct of the war. While there was little chance of him being removed, he had to tread carefully, especially in his dealings with Parliament. ITTL, the situation is very different, yes Britain has suffered much the same losses as IOTL, however there have been significant changes, while Winston is to an extent responsible for the debacle in Norway, Poland, Denmark, Holland and Belgium are nothing to do with him. Not only is he not responsible for the failure in France, the slightly better result, and the ability to divert resources to the Middle East. Have provided him with a much better result in the Middle East, where the Italian attack on Egypt and British East Africa, has been a complete failure. And while Yugoslavia and Greece have fallen, they retention of Crete and thanks to British success in North Africa, the lifting of the serge of Malta. Has avoided the major losses of men and equipment that were seen IOTL, which has had the advantage that there were resources available to defend Burma and Malaysia. In contrast to OTL Britain is reasonably secure, and is beginning to enjoy a number of successes. Note the leadership in Spain and Turkey, are looking at Britain with far different eyes now than they were IOTL, and the general attitude is to be far more cooperative than it was.
Anglo American relations are now on a very different situation than they were IOTL, Britain is not the weak apparently on the ropes nation, that it was to American eyes in 1942, desperate for the Americans to ride over the hill and save them from defeat. ITTL, Britain is a strong nation that has weathered the initial onslaught of the war in Europe, and is beginning to punch back in a significant way. In the conflict against Japan, the British have in comparison to the Americans enjoyed success, suffering far less losses in men and materials than the Americans have. While the Americans are still reeling from the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the loss of a significant portion of their fleet, which has pushed them into third place in regards to capital units for a time. Britain is now number one, and the Japanese are number two, and this situation will only change once the Americans have recovered and repaired the battleships sunk and damaged at Pearl. And American industry has produced the stream of warships that it did IOTL, but it’s going to be mid 43 before America is once again equal to Britain. Note that the British are not going to be asking the Americans for the loan of an aircraft carrier to help them fly in fighters to Malta, as they did. It’s more likely that the Americans will be requesting the British to loan them two as apposed to one carrier to support their Pacific Fleet, during 42/43. Without boots on the ground in Europe, the British will be able to very much set the agenda up until mid 43, and in the Far East until late 44. The relationship will be far more equal, and Britain more likely to have things their way. Britains desire to liberate Greece and be involved in the Balkans, is going to be virtually impossible for the Americans to resist. All that they can do is decline to be directly involved, which is a political mistake, though the Americans will not realise it until post war. Yes Britain will be financially strapped by the end of the war, but no where as near to bankruptcy as she was, and thus able to get a far better deal in the post war settlement than she did.
Imperial Preference was complex, and the attitude of American corporations to it was varied, some liked it, a lot were indifferent, and others hated it with a passion. Companies like Ford, GMC and Hover, liked it and used it to their advantage. They were able to operate in a closed market, that restricted foreign competition, and used a clear set of rules, that all were obliged to follow. They could own their business outright, with no requirement to have local investors, and they were able to remit their profits to America without having to pay a tax on such remittance. The system of law was close to their own, and the language similar, with just differences in some spelling and meaning, ie a rubber in England wasn’t the same thing as a rubber in America. Because of the stable political system, it was virtually impossible for a British company to buy a politician and gain an advantage. Such companies once they had grown used to operating in Britain or the Dominions, quickly learned to take advantage of the situation. Others like the Nowherevill Ice-cream corporation, didn’t care on way or another, they weren’t exporting ice-cream to Britain, nor were British ice-cream companies exporting to America. However there were some like the United Fruit Company that absolutely hated it, as it servilely cramped their stile, and effectively excluded them from markets that they thought should be theirs. Unlike in Central America, where they could buy a government, ignore any local laws, have their own heavily armed militias, and if the worst happens and their was a revolution, get the American government to send in the marines, and put things back to just the way they liked them. However they couldn’t buy a government in any British Caribbean nation, nor could their ignore what primitive labour, tax and land rights, were in place. The police were owned by the government, and took a very dim view of anyone trying to usurp their power, and if you tried to play the big man game, the RN and Army would come knocking. Asking the US Government to send in the marines, to enable you to get your own way, was going to result in a resounding NO. Yes Ford and others had problems with the strength of both the labour laws and unions in Britain and the Dominions, but as their competitors were affected just the same, they learned to live with them. The biggest problem for any American executive sent overseas, was the lack of a decent cup of Joe, and the all prevailing tea culture. They thought that the had eliminated this in Boston in 1773, and tea and the British attitude as to how to conduct business, came as a major shock to some American businessmen.
RR.
IOTL, Winston was in a very difficult position in 1942, Britain had suffered a number of serious defeats, and was not doing well. The combination of the loss of Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece including Crete, recent successes by the German/Italian forces in North Africa along with the Japanese successes in the Far East, DEI. And the subsequent threat to Australia, with in addition the increasing losses in the Atlantic, as a result of the American declaration of war against Germany. There were serious questions being raised in Parliament, the establishment and the press, about his Premiership and the conduct of the war. While there was little chance of him being removed, he had to tread carefully, especially in his dealings with Parliament. ITTL, the situation is very different, yes Britain has suffered much the same losses as IOTL, however there have been significant changes, while Winston is to an extent responsible for the debacle in Norway, Poland, Denmark, Holland and Belgium are nothing to do with him. Not only is he not responsible for the failure in France, the slightly better result, and the ability to divert resources to the Middle East. Have provided him with a much better result in the Middle East, where the Italian attack on Egypt and British East Africa, has been a complete failure. And while Yugoslavia and Greece have fallen, they retention of Crete and thanks to British success in North Africa, the lifting of the serge of Malta. Has avoided the major losses of men and equipment that were seen IOTL, which has had the advantage that there were resources available to defend Burma and Malaysia. In contrast to OTL Britain is reasonably secure, and is beginning to enjoy a number of successes. Note the leadership in Spain and Turkey, are looking at Britain with far different eyes now than they were IOTL, and the general attitude is to be far more cooperative than it was.
Anglo American relations are now on a very different situation than they were IOTL, Britain is not the weak apparently on the ropes nation, that it was to American eyes in 1942, desperate for the Americans to ride over the hill and save them from defeat. ITTL, Britain is a strong nation that has weathered the initial onslaught of the war in Europe, and is beginning to punch back in a significant way. In the conflict against Japan, the British have in comparison to the Americans enjoyed success, suffering far less losses in men and materials than the Americans have. While the Americans are still reeling from the attack on Pearl Harbour, and the loss of a significant portion of their fleet, which has pushed them into third place in regards to capital units for a time. Britain is now number one, and the Japanese are number two, and this situation will only change once the Americans have recovered and repaired the battleships sunk and damaged at Pearl. And American industry has produced the stream of warships that it did IOTL, but it’s going to be mid 43 before America is once again equal to Britain. Note that the British are not going to be asking the Americans for the loan of an aircraft carrier to help them fly in fighters to Malta, as they did. It’s more likely that the Americans will be requesting the British to loan them two as apposed to one carrier to support their Pacific Fleet, during 42/43. Without boots on the ground in Europe, the British will be able to very much set the agenda up until mid 43, and in the Far East until late 44. The relationship will be far more equal, and Britain more likely to have things their way. Britains desire to liberate Greece and be involved in the Balkans, is going to be virtually impossible for the Americans to resist. All that they can do is decline to be directly involved, which is a political mistake, though the Americans will not realise it until post war. Yes Britain will be financially strapped by the end of the war, but no where as near to bankruptcy as she was, and thus able to get a far better deal in the post war settlement than she did.
Imperial Preference was complex, and the attitude of American corporations to it was varied, some liked it, a lot were indifferent, and others hated it with a passion. Companies like Ford, GMC and Hover, liked it and used it to their advantage. They were able to operate in a closed market, that restricted foreign competition, and used a clear set of rules, that all were obliged to follow. They could own their business outright, with no requirement to have local investors, and they were able to remit their profits to America without having to pay a tax on such remittance. The system of law was close to their own, and the language similar, with just differences in some spelling and meaning, ie a rubber in England wasn’t the same thing as a rubber in America. Because of the stable political system, it was virtually impossible for a British company to buy a politician and gain an advantage. Such companies once they had grown used to operating in Britain or the Dominions, quickly learned to take advantage of the situation. Others like the Nowherevill Ice-cream corporation, didn’t care on way or another, they weren’t exporting ice-cream to Britain, nor were British ice-cream companies exporting to America. However there were some like the United Fruit Company that absolutely hated it, as it servilely cramped their stile, and effectively excluded them from markets that they thought should be theirs. Unlike in Central America, where they could buy a government, ignore any local laws, have their own heavily armed militias, and if the worst happens and their was a revolution, get the American government to send in the marines, and put things back to just the way they liked them. However they couldn’t buy a government in any British Caribbean nation, nor could their ignore what primitive labour, tax and land rights, were in place. The police were owned by the government, and took a very dim view of anyone trying to usurp their power, and if you tried to play the big man game, the RN and Army would come knocking. Asking the US Government to send in the marines, to enable you to get your own way, was going to result in a resounding NO. Yes Ford and others had problems with the strength of both the labour laws and unions in Britain and the Dominions, but as their competitors were affected just the same, they learned to live with them. The biggest problem for any American executive sent overseas, was the lack of a decent cup of Joe, and the all prevailing tea culture. They thought that the had eliminated this in Boston in 1773, and tea and the British attitude as to how to conduct business, came as a major shock to some American businessmen.
RR.
@allanpcameron
Will there be a Madagascar operation in 1942 in this timeline, or will it be considered not necessary if Imperial Japan is still blocked from the Indian Ocean by Malaya and Sumatra holding out? I think some of the shipping resources it needed in the OTL may have been earmarked for Mediterranean adventures which the British are presumably keen to go ahead with in this timeline, and possibly if Smuts (a big advocate as I understand it, for the OTL operation) wants Madagascar badly enough on the Allied side, 'just in case', they could put de Gaulle ashore with a small honour guard to talk to the local Vichy and point to the Allied successes in this timeline in North Africa and in holding Crete...
Will there be a Madagascar operation in 1942 in this timeline, or will it be considered not necessary if Imperial Japan is still blocked from the Indian Ocean by Malaya and Sumatra holding out? I think some of the shipping resources it needed in the OTL may have been earmarked for Mediterranean adventures which the British are presumably keen to go ahead with in this timeline, and possibly if Smuts (a big advocate as I understand it, for the OTL operation) wants Madagascar badly enough on the Allied side, 'just in case', they could put de Gaulle ashore with a small honour guard to talk to the local Vichy and point to the Allied successes in this timeline in North Africa and in holding Crete...
You want to send de Gaulle to negotiate?!? Do you want a war?
Reading those sources it seems to have been 50% Menzies absence and 50% that after leaving the country for months on end to get the British to defend Singapore he came back empty handed and then when he went off again it all fell apart. Here Singapore is properly defended as can been seen from other updates, meaning that Australian sentiment to Menzies' London trips is probably much better.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
While I for one agree that the reduction in the necessity of provide escorts for the Malta run, especially out of Gibraltar, should increase the number of escorts available for use in the Atlantic. Unfortunately the soon to be switch of the French forces in North Africa from Vichy to Free French, and the subsequent opening up of the Mediterranean to through convoys. Will require more anti submarine escorts, to guard against German and Italian submarine attacks against the convoys. Plus additional escorts are required for the American East Coast, as with the German declaration of war against America, German submarines which had up until now not operated in American coastal waters, are now free to do so. And have the advantage that there are no effective defensive systems in place at present, and they are able to target the American coastal shipping. Which was especially vital at this time for the movement of oil from Texas to the East Coast cities. The major gain will come from the availability of merchant ships to transport goods, that the opening up of the Mediterranean to through movements will bring. A cargo destined for Malta from Britain, can now depart Liverpool and head south before turning to port at Gibraltar and heading directly to Malta. Where as previously it had had to continue south after Gibraltar until it got to the Cape, and then having rounded it head north until it had transited the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, then turn port and head for Malta. Without the demands for shipping to the Mediterranean, Middle East and all ports East of Arabia, to take the long route around the Cape, there will be a greater tonnage available. And it will be this that cause the greatest improvement in the availability of shipping to the Allied cause.
RR.
There is a hidden benefit.
Convoys to/from french north africa have a shorter distance to travel than transatlantic ones.
And can carry some of the same goods, e.g. iron ore and foodstuffs.
Thus reducing overall shipping needs, by replacing transatlantic shipping with north african.
In addition north african cargoes can be paid for in sterling rather than dollars.
Given De Gaulle’s rep with the various French leaders outside of his Free French followers, they would probably arrest him as a traitor.
@ArtosStark @kelgar04
As far as I can determine, original timeline de Gaulle did play a part in bringing 'French Equatorial Africa' over to the Allied cause - based on which it seems to me that he likely had some ability in negotiations, at least when dealing with some French ruled places and their administrations.
As far as I can determine, original timeline de Gaulle did play a part in bringing 'French Equatorial Africa' over to the Allied cause - based on which it seems to me that he likely had some ability in negotiations, at least when dealing with some French ruled places and their administrations.
So crap tanks, and seen to be crap due to all the good one's coming from the UK. Oh well guess the Soviet's will have to ake the best they can of the situation.