Derek Pullem
Donor
You might find a Sherman situation where multiple different engines get used for same base tank model
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Not according to the Russian reports (Propaganda) I have seen
The Western stuff was rubbish - bearly better than nothing at all.......
/s
They’re rubbish. Barely better than nothing- BUT SEND MORE AT ONCE, evil capitalists!
Garrison
Donor
'In fact if you could just keep that one particular model in production, well we can probably find something for it to do'.
well no, because then people will get the idea to put US 75mm shells in it (since Carden is already thinking about what will become the OQF 75mm); it's the same reason the British called the 77mm HV the 77mm HV when it was in 76.2mm to avoid confusion with other 3-inch tank guns like the OQF 3-inch howitzer and the 17pdr.
And why, quite sensibly, the Russian s called there 120mm a 122mm to avoid confusion with the similarly sized artillery piece & it's ammunition supply.
Last edited:
The American 75mm has Canister and White Phosphorous, in addition to a decent HE round. Going larger, you can probably use either round, provided you adjust the driving bands of the 75mm shells.
Last edited:
What artillery piece are you talking about? Russian 122 mm pieces have always had a 4.8 inch (48-line) bore diameter. The only large-caliber weapons I know of that are intentionally marked with the wrong caliber to prevent confusion are the 77 mm HV and the 106 mm M40 recoilless rifle.
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is if the Victor will have a CS version as well. I cannot remember any mention of something like the QF 95mm being in development for it. As it stands the existing CS Howitzers don't offer much given the HV gun in whatever calibre it ends up does as good a job while also knocking out tanks at great distance.
I'm also going to make a bold claim here. I think that the Victor could make claim to being the worlds first MBT when it enters service. It will have the armour needed to take hits 4" up front and 3" at the side if memory serves. The gun will be good enough to mean no specialist variants are actually needed. Finally the tank will be fast and manoeuvrable enough to get to where it needs to in reasonable time.
If that isn't an MBT I don't know what is. We are already seeing the Valiant killing off competing tanks and the Victor is doing the same with the Churchill looking like it is on borrowed time at best, the Crusader becoming a bed for Funnies and the Cromwell family still born.
Edit because I think I recall some mention of the 95mm actually but nothing for the Victor.
I'm also going to make a bold claim here. I think that the Victor could make claim to being the worlds first MBT when it enters service. It will have the armour needed to take hits 4" up front and 3" at the side if memory serves. The gun will be good enough to mean no specialist variants are actually needed. Finally the tank will be fast and manoeuvrable enough to get to where it needs to in reasonable time.
If that isn't an MBT I don't know what is. We are already seeing the Valiant killing off competing tanks and the Victor is doing the same with the Churchill looking like it is on borrowed time at best, the Crusader becoming a bed for Funnies and the Cromwell family still born.
Edit because I think I recall some mention of the 95mm actually but nothing for the Victor.
Looks like I was mistaken, it's just something I recall reading some years ago.
Could go for a short 25-pounder as a 'CS' variant, if such is even needed.
No, I'm saying that if it's called 75mm, people will get the idea to put unmodified 75mm shells case and all into the gun just because "it's a 75mm gun so it uses 75mm shells" even though they're (when unmodified) the wrong kind and are too small. Calling it 77mm solves that problem, just like what they did IOTL.
That's the thing. Is it really needed? I'd say no but doctrinally Britain will probably still want one.
The 25pdr is a reasonable shout as an alternative however I'm not convinced. The 95mm also has a 25 pound shell so won't really offer much more capability. The logistics benefit of reducing the types of shells being produced might make the development worthwhile but given the fact the 3.7" mountain howitzer already exists and is in service with ammo being produced limits that benefit really.
If I was going to make a shout at an improved CS variant weapon I would go for the 4.5" howitzer as the base. The extra shell weight should enable quite the successful gun. The only issue would be ammo stocks will likely be running low by now given the increased fighting in the far east. Whether the situation out their will prompt the possibility of setting up some ammo storage or not is debateable either way.
Also simplifies the job of the logies. Cases marked 75mm go to this unit, cases marked 77mm go to that unit. Keep things as simple as possible and you start to approach idiot-proof.
Derek Pullem
Donor
You are correct but.......... there is a well known example where large stocks of German APCBC 75mm ammunition was field modified in a few weeks to fit a Grant 75mm gun.
Mark1878
Donor
That is totally different.
Pre modification the German shells would not have been in the British logistics train, after modification they were 75mm shells that fitted a 75mm gun.
Derek Pullem
Donor
But it may mean that large supplies of 75mm HE from US may be adapted for the 75mm HV if there is a shortage of UK HE shells (as there always seemed to be for UK tank guns - until the QF75 mm was built to use them). The point is not that you can plug and play with different shells but that if you have a surfeit of shells in broadly similar calibre they can and sometimes were adapted to fit.
you know... if the victor tank design batterfly away flat front armor plate in British tank design... the Churchill tank (if made to VII spec) will have tiger 2 level of front armor (which is 150mm angle at 40degree. The Churchill VII have 152mm vertical armor OTL, which is actuall thicker than the tiger 2 actual plate thickness. Meaning that, if the Churchill plate is angle at 40degree+ it will have thicker armor than the Tiger 2).
And i think even if the British is in with the "heavy cruiser" concept(aka the victor and venom), the attractiveness of a Tiger 2 like armor on a decently reliable tank would be hard to ignore, and with the extra capacity in maunfacting (because the Britsh have less tank to produce, more time to tool up factories, and less tank lose due to no late NA campagin),and doctrines i can imagine they would still like the concept of infantry tank which have Mega amount of armor, so much so that idt the standard long 88 AP round could pen.
a source on the long 88 inability to penetrate angle 6 inch(152mm) plate.
And i think even if the British is in with the "heavy cruiser" concept(aka the victor and venom), the attractiveness of a Tiger 2 like armor on a decently reliable tank would be hard to ignore, and with the extra capacity in maunfacting (because the Britsh have less tank to produce, more time to tool up factories, and less tank lose due to no late NA campagin),and doctrines i can imagine they would still like the concept of infantry tank which have Mega amount of armor, so much so that idt the standard long 88 AP round could pen.
a source on the long 88 inability to penetrate angle 6 inch(152mm) plate.
Last edited:
When it comes to non Victor and Venom tanks there is one simple question that has to be asked and answered if they are to be built. Does this tank do something that the Victor or Venom can't do?
That does not mean that the Victor or Venom have to do it as well as the other tank, just that they can do it. When you start looking at some sort of Mk VII Churchill the question is, what does it do that the other tanks can't? The Heavy Churchill can take a hit sure but has less firepower and a lot less speed. It's also not as though the Victor and Venom can't take hits, they should be able to take a few actually.
So for an increase of survivability you get to introduce a second tank with the resulting logistical burden into the supply chain. ITTL I can't see Britain wanting to do that honestly. Historically Britain (as well as everyone else) needed different types of tanks as they lacked a tank that could be truly considered universal. The closest the Western Allies came is the Sherman but it lacked the gun and the armour was lacking towards the end of the war. Next best was the Comet but was too late really and still lightly armoured.
The Victor and definitely the Venom are really MBT's they have the armour to take a hit, the speed and manoeuvrability to get around and a gun to take on whatever they come across. Once you have an MBT the logistical burdens of other types of tank, particularly heavies becomes less beneficial.
Last edited: