Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[MattII]

That may be the reality but the British tank doctrine was that tanks fought tanks and the other tasks were the job of other arms generally artillery. This is part of what Carden is working against in this TL.

Exactly, Carden is smart enough to realise that most of what a tank needs to kill is other tanks.

On the subject of Bow MG - it seems to be a weapon added simply to provide something for the Radio operator to do - and tanks with 4 crew or less obviously did not have one.

I recall one suggestion that its greatest roll was acting as a spare MG for the Coax if it went U/S

Thats many of the Cruiser tanks, Matilda II, Valentine - hell Churchill only really had a bow BESA to fill the gap where they were going to put the 3" Howitzer.

The Cent had a single Coax (4 man crew) and while the immediate post war US tanks - M26/M46 and 47 had a bow MG (5 man crew) subsequent tanks (M48 and M103) did not - the Very late war and post war Russian ones did not either - seems the idea was falling out of favour.

That the M2 had 7/9 MGs, and the M3 and even M4 designs had the fixed forward MGs indicates that it was rather the opposite, being a radio operator was a secondary job for the bow machine-gunner.

The primary job of most Tanks in WW2 (and I exclude tankettes whose only job was to save the treasury money and be despised) was the destruction of other tanks - perhaps tanks such as the earlier short 75mm Pz IV were not but they tended to be produced in smaller numbers at the point in the war and production of the better armed versions happened mainly because the PZ III could not carry a larger gun than the 50mm

Britain thought this was the case, but were quickly proven wrong when actual combat started.

The arrival of 75mm armed Grants and later 'Windmills' (Shermans) in the western desert for example was well received because it allowed British tankers to engage German tanks at an equal / greater range as the German long 50mm on the Pz IIIs and specifically the handful of PzIV Js with their long 75mms that had out matched the British 6 pounder armed tanks.

Also because they had decent mobility and armour in the one vehicle, something British tanks of the era notably lacked.

That the 75mm also fired a useful HE round is secondary to the above (but also well received)

It was derived from a pre-tank-era artillery piece, that it proved to be pretty good at killing tanks was a happy discovery made much later on.

However if you can engage another tank effectively at range then you can pretty much engage anything else within reason.

Except, you know, something like an AT gun. Those were a thing in WW2.

I recall a Nicolas Moran video where the BuOrd was asking the US army in Europe (with regards to its development of tanks) 'Do you really need a bow MG?'

Link?

Its not the 6 pounders ability to punch holes in stuff that is the difference here - it wins, out to its realistic effective range of about 1600 meters

That runs counter to what the Americans found.

In a game of top trumps its beats the M3 75mm hands down

Only out to ~500 yards.

No argument - but its not relevant in the 2nd half of 1942 and into 1943 as the 75mm would still kill pretty much all German and Italian armour at those same ranges and beyond with a bigger shell.

The issue for British tankers until May 1942 was that the PzIII with its 50mm L/60 barrel gun was out ranging the 6 pounder armed British tanks putting them at a range disadvantage.

And also, they couldn't kill AT guns, which in itself wasa bad thing.

The introduction of the M3 Grant with its longer ranged 75mm meant that it could reliably engage Axis tanks from a much further distance and while theoretically it was not as good a hole puncher it was good enough and at those distances beyond the range of the 6 pounder it was still capable of dealing lethal damage to the estate of Pz III, Pz IVs and Italian tanks well beyond the effective range of the 6 pounder.

The M3 Grant also had a 37mm for punching holes. Also, they were just as enthusiastic about the idea of being able to kil anti-tank guns, an ability they really hadn't had until that point.

That was the appeal for British tank crews - suddenly it was they out ranging the Axis tankers and not the other way around - it was a massive morale boost for British tank crews and the reverse for the Axis tankers who were increasingly being out gunned as the British estate of M3 Grants and M4 Sherman's increased

Again, the ability to kill AT guns probably had more to do with it.

Until Tigers appeared in Tunisia (about 30 odd in total) in Nov / Dec 1942 the extra punch of the 6 pounder did not matter.

Because it was f***ing useless at killing anything that wasn't another tank.

 

[vetinari]

That might be the case today, but in WW2 it is so blatantly false as to be laughable. In WW2 a tanks is used to kill absolutely anything enemy-owned that it comes across, be it another tank, an armoured car, a bunker, a MG nest, etc. Heck, the reluctance to give up the hull MG is because it was expected, in large part, to be facing off against enemy infantry.

In WWII, the primary role of the tank was to destroy other tanks. After that, anti-tank guns/trucks/artillery pieces/infantry/civilians are all secondary targets. On a battleground you destroy what you encounter but if there are AFVs present, they are the priority, other targets are secondary.

 

[MattII]

In WWII, the primary role of the tank was to destroy other tanks. After that, anti-tank guns/trucks/artillery pieces/infantry/civilians are all secondary targets. On a battleground you destroy what you encounter but if there are AFVs present, they are the priority, other targets are secondary.

Most of what you encounter is not going to be tanks. In fact, just as dangerous to tanks as other tanks are anti-tank guns. An AP round cannot usefully destroy an AT gun without some extremely precise aiming. The HE shell of the 75mm however had a much easier time doing so.

 

[vizzer]

In WWII, the primary role of the tank was to destroy other tanks. After that, anti-tank guns/trucks/artillery pieces/infantry/civilians are all secondary targets. On a battleground you destroy what you encounter but if there are AFVs present, they are the priority, other targets are secondary.

Unless you're American in which case it is the tank destroyers which (theoretically) take on tanks while the US tanks support the infantry.
Again all change when theory meets reality.

 

[pjmidd]

In WWII, the primary role of the tank was to destroy other tanks. After that, anti-tank guns/trucks/artillery pieces/infantry/civilians are all secondary targets. On a battleground you destroy what you encounter but if there are AFVs present, they are the priority, other targets are secondary.

No, primary role was to punch holes in lines or manoeuvrer to exploit a gap or conversely counter a break in your own lines. As has been stated with most of enemy forces being infantry , the main foe for tanks was anti-tank guns ( most losses were to them not tanks )

 

[MattII]

Unless you're American in which case it is the tank destroyers which (theoretically) take on tanks while the US tanks support the infantry.
Again all change when theory meets reality.

As Nicholas Moran has pointed out 'supporting infantry' means killing anything that is currently giving the infantry trouble, up to and including enemy tanks.

 

[Gunnarnz]

As Nicholas Moran has pointed out 'supporting infantry' means killing anything that is currently giving the infantry trouble, up to and including enemy tanks.

Which is not the same thing as having a primary role of destroying other tanks. It explicitly includes non-tank-like things, in fact.

 

[MattII]

Which is not the same thing as having a primary role of destroying other tanks. It explicitly includes non-tank-like things, in fact.

I did say anything did I not? I am equally against both those who say 'tanks should not kill tanks', and those who say 'tanks should only kill tanks', because both statements are utterly imbecilic. The first was a quote taken out of context, and the latter was very real, but was held by the people who designed British tanks, so that shows how much weight it should be given.

 

[vetinari]

Most of what you encounter is not going to be tanks. In fact, just as dangerous to tanks as other tanks are anti-tank guns. An AP round cannot usefully destroy an AT gun without some extremely precise aiming. The HE shell of the 75mm however had a much easier time doing so.

I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. You are suggesting that the secondary targets are the priority whereas I am arguing that tanks are the priority target, that does not mean secondary targets are not meant to be destroyed, just that well, tanks are the priority reason why tanks exist. Using your argument, tanks should be armed with HE throwers and AT work should be basically consigned to a secondary role. This would be rather silly and would render tanks impotent when faced by other tanks. I am saying that tanks must be able to take on all foes. You understand, I hope what, "priority" and "secondary" mean?

 

[vetinari]

No, primary role was to punch holes in lines or manoeuvrer to exploit a gap or conversely counter a break in your own lines. As has been stated with most of enemy forces being infantry , the main foe for tanks was anti-tank guns ( most losses were to them not tanks )

You are think in linear terms. In WWII and in particularly, the Pacific there were no linear lines.

 

[Salamander]

You all realise that with the POD, the likelihood of the British getting any of the OTL guns is slim? The butterfly has flapped its wings, the tanks are different & already have more powerful guns and what we are used to as the typical progression has changed. It is very likely that development of British tank, so arguing over which OTL gun is better and why, while entertaining, is moot. ITTL Carden, and therefore Vickers have clearly decided that a more universal approach to tank design is the future and are taking steps in that direction. This means that they will be aiming for a gun, and ammunition range, capable of tank vs. tank and tank vs. everything else combat. As a result of this, and battlefield experience, the army is taking a deep breath, calming down and thinking properly about the future of their armoured forces. They have the time to do this properly, because:
1) the Japanese threat is being handled by existing equipment and neither they, nor the Thais, have anything that isn't a death trap. Nor can they resupply.
2) the Vichy French do not have anything that can meet existing British equipment either, especially not outside Algeria & Tunisia.
3) there is no way in hell that either Italy or Germany will try to land more forces in North Africa. Ditto to any daydreams about unmentionable sea mammals.
4) it is going to take time to build the capacity for either an Imperial, Anglo-French, or Anglo-French-US invasion of mainland Europe, so they might as well design things right.

This all means that guns like the OTL 17-, 20- & 32-pounders,and the HV-77 & 105mm aren't going to exist. Something similar, with a similar designation, yes, but not the same.

 

[MattII]

I think we are arguing at cross purposes here. You are suggesting that the secondary targets are the priority whereas I am arguing that tanks are the priority target, that does not mean secondary targets are not meant to be destroyed, just that well, tanks are the priority reason why tanks exist. Using your argument, tanks should be armed with HE throwers and AT work should be basically consigned to a secondary role. This would be rather silly and would render tanks impotent when faced by other tanks. I am saying that tanks must be able to take on all foes. You understand, I hope what, "priority" and "secondary" mean?

No, I am saying there is no 'priority', or at least, you are decided unlikely to come across a situation where you have both an enemy tank, and an enemy AT gun in the same instant, and thus, the idea of 'priority' makes little to no sense. Your 'priority target' is pretty much always going to be "the enemy position (be it a MG nest, an AT gun, a bunker, a tank, etc.) immediately in front of me".

You all realise that with the POD, the likelihood of the British getting any of the OTL guns is slim? The butterfly has flapped its wings, the tanks are different & already have more powerful guns and what we are used to as the typical progression has changed. It is very likely that development of British tank, so arguing over which OTL gun is better and why, while entertaining, is moot. ITTL Carden, and therefore Vickers have clearly decided that a more universal approach to tank design is the future and are taking steps in that direction. This means that they will be aiming for a gun, and ammunition range, capable of tank vs. tank and tank vs. everything else combat. As a result of this, and battlefield experience, the army is taking a deep breath, calming down and thinking properly about the future of their armoured forces. They have the time to do this properly, because:
1) the Japanese threat is being handled by existing equipment and neither they, nor the Thais, have anything that isn't a death trap. Nor can they resupply.
2) the Vichy French do not have anything that can meet existing British equipment either, especially not outside Algeria & Tunisia.
3) there is no way in hell that either Italy or Germany will try to land more forces in North Africa. Ditto to any daydreams about unmentionable sea mammals.
4) it is going to take time to build the capacity for either an Imperial, Anglo-French, or Anglo-French-US invasion of mainland Europe, so they might as well design things right.

This all means that guns like the OTL 17-, 20- & 32-pounders,and the HV-77 & 105mm aren't going to exist. Something similar, with a similar designation, yes, but not the same.

The 17-pounder exists, because it has been mentioned, but is for the most part outside the scope of the changes anyway. The others, yes, they're pretty much gone, though something akin to (or at least sharing a common calibre with) the 32-pounder has been mentioned as being in development for the Venom (the follow-up to the Victor).

 

[pjmidd]

You are think in linear terms. In WWII and in particularly, the Pacific there were no linear lines.

Really, are you saying, as a single example, all those defence lines Gustav, Gothic etc the Germans kept falling back to during the Italian Campaign were made up by historians and not actually things on the ground? We are talking land warfare , there were always positions to be broken or holes to be plugged. You can get pedantic over if the position is part of a line or belt etc but the reality is, its the same operationally. At no time was the main role just to engage enemy Tanks, always it was supporting an attack/defence.

 

[Salamander]

The 17-pounder exists, because it has been mentioned, but is for the most part outside the scope of the changes anyway. The others, yes, they're pretty much gone, though something akin to (or at least sharing a common calibre with) the 32-pounder has been mentioned as being in development for the Venom (the follow-up to the Victor).

But not as a tank gun, nor does it appear as if it will be ITTL with Vickers developing one based on the 3.7" which may or may not be a 32-pounder. It may receive a 94-mm designation to differentiate it from the QF 3.7" and to signify the different weights of its 94-mm ammunition types.

 

[MattII]

But not as a tank gun, nor does it appear as if it will be ITTL with Vickers developing one based on the 3.7" which may or may not be a 32-pounder. It may receive a 94-mm designation to differentiate it from the QF 3.7" and to signify the different weights of its 94-mm ammunition types.

On this we're agreed.

 

[HPM]

You all realise that with the POD, the likelihood of the British getting any of the OTL guns is slim? The butterfly has flapped its wings, the tanks are different & already have more powerful guns and what we are used to as the typical progression has changed. It is very likely that development of British tank, so arguing over which OTL gun is better and why, while entertaining, is moot. ITTL Carden, and therefore Vickers have clearly decided that a more universal approach to tank design is the future and are taking steps in that direction. This means that they will be aiming for a gun, and ammunition range, capable of tank vs. tank and tank vs. everything else combat. As a result of this, and battlefield experience, the army is taking a deep breath, calming down and thinking properly about the future of their armoured forces. They have the time to do this properly, because:
1) the Japanese threat is being handled by existing equipment and neither they, nor the Thais, have anything that isn't a death trap. Nor can they resupply.
2) the Vichy French do not have anything that can meet existing British equipment either, especially not outside Algeria & Tunisia.
3) there is no way in hell that either Italy or Germany will try to land more forces in North Africa. Ditto to any daydreams about unmentionable sea mammals.
4) it is going to take time to build the capacity for either an Imperial, Anglo-French, or Anglo-French-US invasion of mainland Europe, so they might as well design things right.

This all means that guns like the OTL 17-, 20- & 32-pounders,and the HV-77 & 105mm aren't going to exist. Something similar, with a similar designation, yes, but not the same.

Good point. even if a 76.2 or 83.4 mm high velocity gun firing APDS developed, they wil not be the same weapons as in OTL. One must beware the definite article; they will not be "The" 17pdr; or 20n pdr or even 32 pdr for that matter; they may well be "A" 17pdr. etc.

 

[MattII]

Good point. even if a 76.2 or 83.4 mm high velocity gun firing APDS developed, they wil not be the same weapons as in OTL. One must beware the definite article; they will not be "The" 17pdr; or 20n pdr or even 32 pdr for that matter; they may well be a 17pdr. etc.

The 17-pounder as a towed AT gun does actually exist ITTL, because it's been mentioned, but anything beyond that is up in the air.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

The 17-pounder as a towed AT gun does actually exist ITTL, because it's been mentioned, but anything beyond that is up in the air.

The OTL/TTL 17pr might also be used as an SP ATG. Maybe mounted on Lend-Lease US M10 or M18 as OTL was done for theM10, Achilles. Or on otherwise obsolescent tanks, as the OTL Archer and Challenger.

The Artillery Board will also be thinking of a the next generation for the RA Anti-tank role. The 32pr as a towed gun was considered and rejected OTL as being too heavy and too big a target. Maybe TTL they'll want to mount it( or similar) on the US M36 chassis or in a Jagdpather equivalent? Maybe usi g the Venom as a base. Or is that too logical?

 

[AlanL]

In WWII and in particularly, the Pacific there were no linear lines.

In the Pacific (and Burma) there were also hardly any opposing tanks worth mentioning. And yet allied tanks still played an absolutely essential role engaged in what you would define as their "secondary" functions.

 

[kelgar04]

In the Pacific (and Burma) there were also hardly any opposing tanks worth mentioning. And yet allied tanks still played an absolutely essential role engaged in what you would define as their "secondary" functions.

Aye most tanks that couldn’t be used in the west provided they were set up for the conditions got a second lease of life out east, since shot of heavy guns or that anti tank spear the Japanese didn’t have any decent counter to allied armour.