Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
I'm not so sure that the Finnish 505mm case is actually better. Pretty sure that it's a 4in diameter case, compared to the 4.5in of the British 3in 20 Cwt. That gives roughly 4% more case volume to the British shell, which being over three inches shorter, is going to be easier to manuever in the tight confines of a tank turret. It also has the major advantage of already being in production for the UK.
allanpcameron
Donor
There's a lot here, and I've written the Vickers gun update which will be posted in due course, so there's a few things here that I want to challenge your (very well thought out and argued) premises.
Anyway, that was a lot of work.
Allan
To some extent, but not that much.
As I mentioned at the time the gun department at Vickers is pretty overloaded in mid-39, so the request and work began then, but yes a pilot model is round the corner. There's plenty of work 'in throwing a gun together and getting it to work.' The 77mm HV is developed from the 3-inch 20 cwt AA gun, not the Vickers Model 1931 75mm AA gun. So comparison not quite the same.
I don't agree with your assumptions on this. As someone else mentioned this Vickers gun will be more equivalent to, hopefull slightly better than, the German L/48 7.5 cm KwK 40, so presume penetration of 100mm at 750m. It is designed to take on 4-inch armour which the Victor has.
This is where we differ.
The specification is the Churchill OTL was designed with 100mm armour. The 6-pdr can't deal with that, the same as the 2-pdr couldn't deal with the Matilda. If we are doing this, then presumably the Germans can too. Therefore we need a gun capable of dealing with 4+ inches at distance, which will need about 3000 ft/sec, which the Vickers 75mm is 2500 and is designed as a dual purpose tank gun.
They've designed the 2-pdr and 6-pdr. They're pretty good at what they do. Plus the 25-pdr and the 4.5-inch howitzer etc., etc., etc.
They are designing an anti-tank gun, which for the Royal Artillery belongs in the safe hands of gunners. Guns in tanks are odd. Vickers wants to build a gun that can both destroy tanks (anti-tank gun) and bunkers (field gun). The RA has two different kind of regiments for that kind of thing: Anti-tank Regiments with towed 2-pdrs moving to 6-pdrs, and Field Regiments with 25-pdrs. The mindset of doing both doesn't enter their minds until 1942 with the tankies crying out for a Grant 75mm gun. At which point Vickers have the temerity to take a perfectly good 6-pdr and boring it out to 75mm! Not designed by the Royal Arsenal. Their perfectly good 17-pdr isn't designed for a tank, because it is a towed weapon for anti-tank regiments. So Vickers has the temerity to take a perfectly good 3-inch 20 cwt AA gun and make it into a 77mm HV for tanks, or some idiot squeezed it into the turret of a Sherman.
Remember a long time ago in an update far far away I mentioned that the Director of Artillery hated Vickers with a vengeance? That's why. Guns belong to the RA, and the decision maker is the Director of Artillery for both towed and tank guns. What he says is actually really important. He may be persuaded to allow Vickers to have their dual purpose gun, as he did with the 75mm, but he needs a dedicated tank killer, hole puncher to deal with 4-inches of armour, in the hands of the people who know how to use it. The 2-pdr, 6-pdr and 17-pdr is a pretty neat development of anti-tank guns.
No, the A15 pilot model was sent back to correct defects, that's the point of the pilot model. The problem OTL with Covenanter, Crusader and Churchill was being ordered 'off the drawing board.' Proper pilot models being properly tested should mean that, not rushed into service, they don't have all the negative baggage of OTL as being unreliable. Compare the Crusader to the Pz III captured at St Omer, it is probably a bit better. That's the information they're working from OTL and TTL.
Yes and no. There's a dearth of tanks, which the Valiant is helping with, as the Valentine did, but as you'll see tomorrow, the British are standing up three new armoured Divisions in late 1940. 342 cruisers per division is 1026 tanks. Nuffield are winding down A13MkIV production because they've already got orders for A15. So switching leaves a lot of armoured regiments without tanks. The only advantage of the Covenanter was it was a great training tank, including learning how to fix it. I can easily see the A15 fulfilling the same role here. Build a thousand of them and let the trainees learn to use them, then ship the men out to Africa/Italy/Wherever with the Valiant/Victor, the ATL equivalent of the Grant and Sherman.
Anyway, that was a lot of work.
Allan
Last edited:
Actually, the point that three of them 'borrowed' from the proving grounds managed to break the German lines is probably going to work in Vickers' favour.
Another point.
Oh I don't know about that. Between Arras and Calais, they've definitely proven they can put up a stiff resistance, even when the Germans have an advantage. In terms of an invasion, the advantage will be on the British side.
Depends on the round. APDS or HEAT might manage that sort of penetration.
We'll have to see how the Victor turret manages for fitting in a 17-pounder.
I suppose having a dedicated training/propaganda vehicle could be a good thing in some respects. At least keeping them in Britain (as was down with the Covenanter OTL) should hopefully free up more capable tanks for actual front-line service.
It was an automatic response - in fact I don't even recall doing it!
marathag
Banned
M26 used a torque converter, and even before that, was underpowered with 500hp. It had three speeds, but relied on that torque converter for variable reduction, but that TC would create a lot of heat when in effective low range.
Easy to drive, but very inefficient, the M26 didn't have a lot of power to spare, or cooling capacity either
@allanpcameron Thanks for the reply, A few notes
I'm pretty sure the 7.5cm KwK 40 has better penetration than that, wasn't it somewhere around 120mm at 750m? 100mm at 750m is 6pdr territory i'm pretty sure. I am pretty sure you mentioned the 77mm as a comparison as well.
Not quite the same but they are relatively close so some comparisons can be made. I will admit I was mainly thinking of the case diameter's of the 3" 20cwt and M1931 Finnish and that they were where pretty similar, apparently I was wrong on that though so a large basis of my thinking was that even not loaded as hot as the 77mm the 3" HV would be able to match it given the slightly larger capacity.Although now I think about it didn't the Finnish order for M1931 AA guns use the larger 605mmR case from the Bofors M/30? I think that was the gun Finland purchased from Bofors and it would make sense for the guns Finland bought from Vickers be able to use the same ammo as the guns they already have considering how small the order was. That was a 15lb projectile at 2800ft/s want it. I feel i'm getting sidetracked.
I would never claim they weren't, they designed a lot of very high quality guns. I assumed they would have still built an AT gun just something a step above the 17pdr based on my read of the situation.
In my head it was the director of the Royal Armouries who hated Vickers, hence my thoughts that Royal Armouries may try and one up Vickers if the 3" ended up as an anti-tank gun. Though in a strange way that might help my case, assuming I am right and the KwK 40 is a 120mm at 750m weapon then the 3" will still just about match the specs. Bureaucrats do exist and could get involved, also I could see the Director of Artillery making sure the specs don't match the ability of the 3". That way it is a non issue and that again likely changes things slightly.
As a training tank a lot of my issues disappear. It is actually a very good way to make use of the investment already made in production lines etc.
Last edited:
8 November 1940. York, England.
allanpcameron
Donor
8 November 1940. York, England.
General Ronald Adams and newly promoted to Acting Major-General, John Crocker, sipped their tea while getting to know one another better. Crocker had commanded 3rd Armoured Brigade at the Somme until they were lifted off by the Royal Navy at Dieppe. He was now commander of the newly created 6th Armoured Division. The two men swapped war stories of their experience in France and Flanders, with the question of what would have happened if Crocker and the rest of 1st Armoured Division had been with the main BEF before 10 May being debated.
The strange fact was that naming British Armoured Divisions had started with the 1st, then the 7th was created in Egypt, followed by the 2nd who had just shipped off to Egypt. Presumably someone in the War Office thought that calling the new Division 6th Armoured would confuse the Germans into thinking there were more Divisions than actually existed. However, 6th Armoured Division was the name and Crocker was appointed the General Officer Commanding. The 8th Armoured Division’s HQ had also been formed just a few days ago, and there was talk of a 9th being formed before the end of the year.
The problem for 6th Armoured Division, not unlike the 3rd, 4th and 5th Divisions, was it was at this point little more than a name. Its War Establishment was the third iteration of the form of organisation of an Armoured Division. It should have an Armoured Car Regiment for reconnaissance. Two Armoured Brigades, each made up of three Regiments and one Motorised Infantry Battalion. The Support Group should have one RHA Regiment, one anti-tank regiment, a Light Anti-Air Regiment and an Infantry Battalion. The Divisional Royal Engineers would be two field squadrons and a Field Park Squadron.
As of that day the only formations actually under Crocker’s command were the 20th Armoured Brigade and 6th Support Group, itself just formed 2 November. 20th Armoured Brigade was made up of the 1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars, 1st and 2nd Northamptonshire Yeomanry, with the 2nd Battalion, The Rangers providing the Motorised Battalion. The Support Group had just the 12th RHA and 72nd Anti-Tank Regiment appointed so far, regiments of men awaiting their guns.
Crocker had been reliably informed that a second Armoured Brigade would be attached shortly, probably the 26th Armoured Brigade (16/5 Lancers, 17/21 Lancers and 2nd Lothian and Border Horse). Regrettably, all three of these Armoured Regiments, as with the three in 20th Armoured Brigade, were so far below their establishment of tanks that it was almost laughable. Those tanks they did have for the most part were various Light Tanks, and the 1st RGH were next on the list to receive Vickers Valiant Mark I*, and that was the tank was promised for the whole Division: 312 cruiser tanks, with another 28 Light Tanks. Metro-Cammell's factory had been bombed in September, so their production of Valiant I* had been reduced. Thankfully Leyland was now in full production, so Crocker thought that he'd have his full allocation of tanks by around spring. This would mean that his Division would be fully equipped, and hopefully trained, to repel any German invasion from then on.
General Adam, as General Officer Commanding Northern Command was well aware of the problems of trying to both re-equip the army after Dunkirk and equip all the Territorial units that had been established just before the war. Crocker knew that his Division, along with the 8th, whose HQ had just been formed on 4 November and 9th Armoured Division, which was believed to be about to be formed in December would probably have some time to train and equip before they were called into action, unless the Germans managed to invade at some point. The 8th and 9th Division would likely be getting the new A15 Cruiser tank when production began. The Nuffield organisation were promising that they'd be producing 60 of these tanks per week, but realistically the army was expecting about a regiment's worth (52 tanks) per month, which, at that rate, would take about a year to equip two divisions.
Crocker told Adam that he'd met his two Brigadiers Evelyn Fanshawe (20th Armd Bde) and Tristram Lyon-Smith (6th Sp Gp) and he had high hopes for both of them. If he was correct about 26th Armd Bde, then he also knew Alex Richardson by reputation. Richardson had been brought out of retirement, but he knew something about tanks, he’d commanded 4th Battalion Royal Tank Corps back in the early 1930s. Whether what he knew from then would be of much help now remained to be seen.
The War Office had assured Crocker that the rest of the Divisional assets would be attached in due course. Equipping the men was only one part of the equation before 6th Armoured Division was anything more than a name. The other crucial element was training. General Adam was happy to help with that. He’d done the same for 2nd Armoured Division when they’d been part of Northern Command. If there was one thing Adam had learned from Flanders was the importance of training. Once the tea cups had been put down, some of their staff joined them to work out where, when and with whom 6th Armoured Division could train to fighting effectiveness.
NB Text in Italic differs from OTL. Obviously whether this meeting took place or not is mute. The 6th Armoured Division was under Northern Command at this point and on 8 November that was the state of affairs as it stood (working from Orders of Battle, HF Jolson HMSO, reprinted 1990, Naval & Military Press, East Sussex, England). The 6th, 8th, 9th, Guards, 11th and 42nd Armoured Divisions were all formed in the UK between 12 Sept 1940 and 1 November 1941, plus the 10th in Palestine from the Cavalry Division. These 7 Divisions needed 2184 cruiser tanks, plus 194 Light tanks. In addition to this, 5 more Tank Brigades were created in 1941, doubling the previous number to 10 (@ 240 tanks apiece: 2400 primarily Infantry Tanks). All in addition to the numbers of tanks needed for 1st, 2nd and 7th Armoured Divisions (another 1020 tanks to say nothing of training establishments and battle replacements).
General Ronald Adams and newly promoted to Acting Major-General, John Crocker, sipped their tea while getting to know one another better. Crocker had commanded 3rd Armoured Brigade at the Somme until they were lifted off by the Royal Navy at Dieppe. He was now commander of the newly created 6th Armoured Division. The two men swapped war stories of their experience in France and Flanders, with the question of what would have happened if Crocker and the rest of 1st Armoured Division had been with the main BEF before 10 May being debated.
The strange fact was that naming British Armoured Divisions had started with the 1st, then the 7th was created in Egypt, followed by the 2nd who had just shipped off to Egypt. Presumably someone in the War Office thought that calling the new Division 6th Armoured would confuse the Germans into thinking there were more Divisions than actually existed. However, 6th Armoured Division was the name and Crocker was appointed the General Officer Commanding. The 8th Armoured Division’s HQ had also been formed just a few days ago, and there was talk of a 9th being formed before the end of the year.
The problem for 6th Armoured Division, not unlike the 3rd, 4th and 5th Divisions, was it was at this point little more than a name. Its War Establishment was the third iteration of the form of organisation of an Armoured Division. It should have an Armoured Car Regiment for reconnaissance. Two Armoured Brigades, each made up of three Regiments and one Motorised Infantry Battalion. The Support Group should have one RHA Regiment, one anti-tank regiment, a Light Anti-Air Regiment and an Infantry Battalion. The Divisional Royal Engineers would be two field squadrons and a Field Park Squadron.
As of that day the only formations actually under Crocker’s command were the 20th Armoured Brigade and 6th Support Group, itself just formed 2 November. 20th Armoured Brigade was made up of the 1st Royal Gloucestershire Hussars, 1st and 2nd Northamptonshire Yeomanry, with the 2nd Battalion, The Rangers providing the Motorised Battalion. The Support Group had just the 12th RHA and 72nd Anti-Tank Regiment appointed so far, regiments of men awaiting their guns.
Crocker had been reliably informed that a second Armoured Brigade would be attached shortly, probably the 26th Armoured Brigade (16/5 Lancers, 17/21 Lancers and 2nd Lothian and Border Horse). Regrettably, all three of these Armoured Regiments, as with the three in 20th Armoured Brigade, were so far below their establishment of tanks that it was almost laughable. Those tanks they did have for the most part were various Light Tanks, and the 1st RGH were next on the list to receive Vickers Valiant Mark I*, and that was the tank was promised for the whole Division: 312 cruiser tanks, with another 28 Light Tanks. Metro-Cammell's factory had been bombed in September, so their production of Valiant I* had been reduced. Thankfully Leyland was now in full production, so Crocker thought that he'd have his full allocation of tanks by around spring. This would mean that his Division would be fully equipped, and hopefully trained, to repel any German invasion from then on.
General Adam, as General Officer Commanding Northern Command was well aware of the problems of trying to both re-equip the army after Dunkirk and equip all the Territorial units that had been established just before the war. Crocker knew that his Division, along with the 8th, whose HQ had just been formed on 4 November and 9th Armoured Division, which was believed to be about to be formed in December would probably have some time to train and equip before they were called into action, unless the Germans managed to invade at some point. The 8th and 9th Division would likely be getting the new A15 Cruiser tank when production began. The Nuffield organisation were promising that they'd be producing 60 of these tanks per week, but realistically the army was expecting about a regiment's worth (52 tanks) per month, which, at that rate, would take about a year to equip two divisions.
Crocker told Adam that he'd met his two Brigadiers Evelyn Fanshawe (20th Armd Bde) and Tristram Lyon-Smith (6th Sp Gp) and he had high hopes for both of them. If he was correct about 26th Armd Bde, then he also knew Alex Richardson by reputation. Richardson had been brought out of retirement, but he knew something about tanks, he’d commanded 4th Battalion Royal Tank Corps back in the early 1930s. Whether what he knew from then would be of much help now remained to be seen.
The War Office had assured Crocker that the rest of the Divisional assets would be attached in due course. Equipping the men was only one part of the equation before 6th Armoured Division was anything more than a name. The other crucial element was training. General Adam was happy to help with that. He’d done the same for 2nd Armoured Division when they’d been part of Northern Command. If there was one thing Adam had learned from Flanders was the importance of training. Once the tea cups had been put down, some of their staff joined them to work out where, when and with whom 6th Armoured Division could train to fighting effectiveness.
NB Text in Italic differs from OTL. Obviously whether this meeting took place or not is mute. The 6th Armoured Division was under Northern Command at this point and on 8 November that was the state of affairs as it stood (working from Orders of Battle, HF Jolson HMSO, reprinted 1990, Naval & Military Press, East Sussex, England). The 6th, 8th, 9th, Guards, 11th and 42nd Armoured Divisions were all formed in the UK between 12 Sept 1940 and 1 November 1941, plus the 10th in Palestine from the Cavalry Division. These 7 Divisions needed 2184 cruiser tanks, plus 194 Light tanks. In addition to this, 5 more Tank Brigades were created in 1941, doubling the previous number to 10 (@ 240 tanks apiece: 2400 primarily Infantry Tanks). All in addition to the numbers of tanks needed for 1st, 2nd and 7th Armoured Divisions (another 1020 tanks to say nothing of training establishments and battle replacements).
If the Brits REALLY went berzerk they could do that 'super' 3.7 that was used on some ground installations. They took the 4.5-inch gun, sleeved it down to 3.7-inches but kept the larger powder chamber, meaning it fired the 3.7-inch shell with the 4.5 inch powder charge with a muzzle velocity of 1040ms with a 13kg shell 
Of course this would be a rather large weapon to say the least but it would be the ultimate form of
[Commander] Gunner do you see that tank?
[Gunner] On! Yep got him
[Commander] I don't want to.
[Gunner] Right-oh!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
Of course this would be a rather large weapon to say the least
but it would be the ultimate form of [Commander] Gunner do you see that tank?
[Gunner] On! Yep got him
[Commander] I don't want to.
[Gunner] Right-oh!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
Post-war, the British Army experimented for a while with a 7.2inch gun on a tank. Their first version was mounted on a Centurion but it was a bit light for the recoil and the one that was proposed was to be on the Conqueror. Admittedly this is post-war but what is interesting that it actually made it into the hardware stage.If the Brits REALLY went berzerk they could do that 'super' 3.7 that was used on some ground installations. They took the 4.5-inch gun, sleeved it down to 3.7-inches but kept the larger powder chamber, meaning it fired the 3.7-inch shell with the 4.5 inch powder charge with a muzzle velocity of 1040ms with a 13kg shell
Of course this would be a rather large weapon to say the least
[Commander] Gunner do you see that tank?
[Gunner] On! Yep got him
[Commander] I don't want to.
[Gunner] Right-oh!
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.
The late FV 201 program included a variant with a 4.5" gun firing APDS. Pretty impressive but not enough to counter the IS-3 they thought but it was only later that the idea was revived as the Conqueror, with an Anglo-American 120mm standard gun.
Derek Pullem
Donor
When something really needs to be erased you need the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L9
marathag
Banned
rather than building worthless tanks, just use the old Vickers Light tanks.
They are combat ineffective, and have already been built. Even with Covenanter, crews didn't spend much effort in actually firing the guns. Gunners arriving in the Desert some might have only fired a 2 pdr a couple of time, so they were getting trained on the job anyway on Stuarts or Crusaders
allanpcameron
Donor
The problem is that the majority of the Mark VI were left behind in France, and aren't being built anymore. The problem then and here was the total absence of tanks, and the (we know remote) threat of the unmentionable sea mammal. Having three or four divisions at home training was thought necessary. Eventually more of these went off to war in North Africa and then Europe, but there literally aren't enough tanks to train them all, even using all the outdated hulks laying around, until the Covenanter came along.
Allan
Good to hear there's an update on the Vickers 75mm/3" gun in the pipeline.
With all the speculation about 25pdr and 32pdr guns, it's worth remembering that with all the OTL drivers to get better tanks in the field no production Centurions were available until post-war and the first two marks were still equipped with the 17pdr.
Just to compare performance -
So if the Vickers gun is somewhere between the KwK40 and the 77mm, this should serve for most purposes until war's end. If not, the 17pdr - which will probably still be developed independantly as an antitank gun - is pretty close to the Kwk42 on paper and the Germans managed to fit this into a Panther with a turret ring diameter of 1675mm/66". And if the Victor has a comparable turret...
With all the speculation about 25pdr and 32pdr guns, it's worth remembering that with all the OTL drivers to get better tanks in the field no production Centurions were available until post-war and the first two marks were still equipped with the 17pdr.
Just to compare performance -
So if the Vickers gun is somewhere between the KwK40 and the 77mm, this should serve for most purposes until war's end. If not, the 17pdr - which will probably still be developed independantly as an antitank gun - is pretty close to the Kwk42 on paper and the Germans managed to fit this into a Panther with a turret ring diameter of 1675mm/66". And if the Victor has a comparable turret...
Last edited:
I don’t quite understand this logic so I must be missing one of the factors. It would make more sense to me to maximise production of your best tank. If some of these get used solely for training that’s fine, it allows recruits to train on what they’ll actually use. It also allows you greater flexibility. Major defeat in North Africa leaving your armoured forced depleted? Ship out a bunch of the training tanks. Yes your training schedule will go to hell, but at least you avoid losing suez due to lack of decent armour.
now I’m guessing relative usage of resources is a factor, but I don’t think that outweighs the additional until it of building tanks that CAN fight if they need to, rather than just tanks that are so crap they can only be used for training.
now I’m guessing relative usage of resources is a factor, but I don’t think that outweighs the additional until it of building tanks that CAN fight if they need to, rather than just tanks that are so crap they can only be used for training.
But if they are just going to be for training, no point in using up precious armour plate or even giving most turrets and/or guns ( as these were the expensive/time consuming bits ) . So you end up with a mild steel vehicle which due to weight saving should be more reliable. You still will need some Valliant's to do final type training so its not a total win.
marathag
Banned
Thing was, while they built 3 divisions worth of Covenanters, the training grounds was not set to operate 3 full divisions at the same time for field exercises.
So had an excess of capacity of truly terrible AFVs.
If you need cheap training tanks, buy American.
They weren't going to be fighting in what they trained on, in any case. ITTL, the M2/M3 would fit, since they wouldn't be seen as combat worthy as what the UK were building in the Valiant line, but were mechanically sound and reliable. OTL, if determined to build training tanks, keep doing the Vickers. Over in Germany, they kept the Panzer I for training right up to wars end.
- Status