Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

[MarcH]

I have to admit because pretty much all I've done on this forum is ASB that writing something without too much hindsight, handwavium is problematic. But I'm hoping that the decisions being made by Carden are consistent with the times and situation he was in. If not, I'll banish myself back to ASB.
Allan.

Everything I have read so far has seemed entirely logical and consistent with the world as we know it was pre war.

I have been very impressed and cant wait for the next update.


Edit; didn't have to wait long.

 

[marathag]

I have to admit because pretty much all I've done on this forum is ASB that writing something without too much hindsight, handwavium is problematic. But I'm hoping that the decisions being made by Carden are consistent with the times and situation he was in. If not, I'll banish myself back to ASB.

You are doing great with your story layout, it's just other nit-picking by others, and myself.
Keep on doing what youre doing

But Kestrels were poppet valve motors

 

[Unknown]

So far, it looks good, and plausible--can't wait to see what World War II looks like. This is going to have similarities with another timeline, Keynes' Cruisers by @fester (BTW, @allanpcameron, read that sometime), where the butterflies are small, at first, but, as the TL goes on, more of World War II is impacted...

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What British military intelligence made of this was that the Vickers Mark VI light tanks, which were similar to the Panzer I in armour and armament, would suffer from the same problems. An enemy armed with anything more that a rifle cartridge would be a serious threat to the light tanks. It was believed that the Panzer II was armed with a 20mm cannon, and the standard German anti-tank gun was fired a 37mm round. And since the light tanks were only armed with machine guns, though the Vickers .5-inch machine gun might be a bit better than the .303, they too would be unable to deal with any enemy machines.

There is a quick, risk free stopgap solution for the light tank problem. Vickers are still building 6 tonners for export, they just need to put a better gun in the turret. (Britain seized 4 destined for Siam after Dunkirk to use for training). These could be built instead of the Mk VI C's. Not great but they would at least be able to fight back.

 

[brazen]

Good update and well reasoned thought processes for the tech, I wouldn't mistake a bit of banter between posters on here for any actual malice.

Harry Ricardo was a Phillips V2000 man, by far the most elegant technical solution, sadly misunderstood by the foreigners and septics

 

[Cryhavoc101]

There is a quick, risk free stopgap solution for the light tank problem. Vickers are still building 6 tonners for export, they just need to put a better gun in the turret. (Britain seized 4 destined for Siam after Dunkirk to use for training). These could be built instead of the Mk VI C's. Not great but they would at least be able to fight back.

And be relatively cheap

A lot of tanks in the late 30s were either direct copys of the 6 Tonner (which was heavier than 6 tons) or where heavily influenced by them

A 9 ton version mounting the 2 pounder and a coax with a CS version mounting a 3.7" howitzer mountain gun - each with a 3 man crew would serve admirably IMO.

 

[duckie]

And be relatively cheap

A lot of tanks in the late 30s were either direct copys of the 6 Tonner (which was heavier than 6 tons) or where heavily influenced by them

A 9 ton version mounting the 2 pounder and a coax with a CS version mounting a 3.7" howitzer mountain gun - each with a 3 man crew would serve admirably IMO.

Or just buy enough to equip an troop in each light tank unit., aka the "big brother" that takes care of "problems" they run in to.....

 

[Merrick]

Speaking as someone who likes their AH fairly plausible and knows nothing about sleeve valves, I'm enjoying this.
Yes, converting a petrol aero-engine to diesel sounds a pretty silly idea, but then it's been driven by a pretty silly War Office requirement. And the whole thing being driven by Treasury penny-pinching over engine costs feels entirely realistic.

I suspect that OTL designers were probably besieged by enthusiasts claiming that their pet engine design was so much better than everyone else's pet design that obviously the whole tank should be re-worked to use it...

What was becoming clear from the Spanish Civil War was that tankettes and light tanks had very limited value.

The penny is beginning to drop. On paper - and as long as you assume that the opposition will consist of infantry without heavy weapons - the MG-armed tankettes look great. In practice, they suffer badly from being big enough to attract attention from tanks, AT guns or artillery, and too small to survive it.
Have the observers also noticed that it's very hard for a tank to effectively suppress AT guns/artillery with MG fire without getting dangerously close to them?

And be relatively cheap

A lot of tanks in the late 30s were either direct copys of the 6 Tonner (which was heavier than 6 tons) or where heavily influenced by them

A 9 ton version mounting the 2 pounder and a coax with a CS version mounting a 3.7" howitzer mountain gun - each with a 3 man crew would serve admirably IMO.

The T-26 was the best tank of the Spanish Civil War because it was the one with a decent gun. Problem was, it had the same tinfoil armour (~15mm) as all the others, so while it was largely immune to MG-armed German and Italian tanks it was still vulnerable to AT and artillery fire.
And upgrading the armour is hard, because the weight kills the performance quickly and there's no room in the chassis to upgrade the engine.

It comes down to what you want your light tank to do:
- Do you want a pure recon vehicle that isn't meant to get stuck in? Then mobility is essential (especially off-road) and something like the OTL Light Mark VI is probably effective
- Do you want what is essentially a light tank-destroyer, with a good AT gun and decent mobility, forget the armour? Then something like the Tetrarch
- Do you want a cheap stand-in tank that will hold the line in 1939-41? Then an enlarged 6-tonner derivative will fill the same sort of role as the T-26 or Pz38t (both around 10 tons), just don't expect it to be viable after mid-war.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

War is coming and they need a stopgap and training tool to hold the line in the new divisions until the real combat tanks are available. Otl they used the Vickers Mk VI light tanks because they were available in large numbers.

 

[marathag]

Yes, converting a petrol aero-engine to diesel sounds a pretty silly idea, but then it's been driven by a pretty silly War Office requirement. And the whole thing being driven by Treasury penny-pinching over engine costs feels entirely realistic.

you can squint at a Soviet V-2 Diesel, and see the BMW VI aero engine it was based on. Not copy, but 'very inspired'

OTL the plans to get every Napier Lion that the RAF had in warehouses, with spares, for Tank use wasn't accepted, even though it was only £500

 

[Glyndwr01]

you can squint at a Soviet V-2 Diesel, and see the BMW VI aero engine it was based on. Not copy, but 'very inspired'

OTL the plans to get every Napier Lion that the RAF had in warehouses, with spares, for Tank use wasn't accepted, even though it was only £500

That money was needed for the House of Lords to have a jolly!

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

you can squint at a Soviet V-2 Diesel, and see the BMW VI aero engine it was based on. Not copy, but 'very inspired'

OTL the plans to get every Napier Lion that the RAF had in warehouses, with spares, for Tank use wasn't accepted, even though it was only £500

Was that £500 for all the engines or £500 for each and how much work did they need to be usable?

 

[marathag]

Was that £500 for all the engines or £500 for each and how much work did they need to be usable?

it was for 600 engines in 1936, far less that scrap value, even

Generally the same as Lord Nuffield did with the WWI surplus Liberty to go from aero engine to stationary

 

[Derwit]

Yet this outdated, complex and apparently useless technology produced reliable, quiet and smooth running engines when it was used well, producing power that was usually only available from larger capacity engines.

The facts are that in the world of the high power piston engine neither Poppet valves or sleeve valves held sway over one another in the timeframe we are discussing, both were viable in AERO engines though sleeve valves are never going to be used in lower end auto engines as poppet valves are cheap and easy to fix and people don't like change.

The valve arrangement of top fuel dragsters has about as much bearing on this story as finding out what kind of cheese Harry Ricardo prefered on his Toast before the meeting with Sir John Carden.

Only the best time line forums digress onto food! But this early in a time line has got to be a record

 

[Astrodragon]

How about fitting the existing 3-pdr in the light tank? It's familiar to the Army, and avoids any shortage of the new 2-pdr

 

[marathag]

How about fitting the existing 3-pdr in the light tank? It's familiar to the Army, and avoids any shortage of the new 2-pdr

The Vicker QF 3 pdr 2 CWT L/40 using a 47x315R cartridge with 1840fps performance for its APHE for 25mm@30 degrees penetration at 1000 yards, so is a credible weapon for the start of the War, even if is half the performance of the later QF 2 pdr

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Speaking as someone who likes their AH fairly plausible and knows nothing about sleeve valves, I'm enjoying this.
Yes, converting a petrol aero-engine to diesel sounds a pretty silly idea, but then it's been driven by a pretty silly War Office requirement. And the whole thing being driven by Treasury penny-pinching over engine costs feels entirely realistic.

I suspect that OTL designers were probably besieged by enthusiasts claiming that their pet engine design was so much better than everyone else's pet design that obviously the whole tank should be re-worked to use it...

The penny is beginning to drop. On paper - and as long as you assume that the opposition will consist of infantry without heavy weapons - the MG-armed tankettes look great. In practice, they suffer badly from being big enough to attract attention from tanks, AT guns or artillery, and too small to survive it.
Have the observers also noticed that it's very hard for a tank to effectively suppress AT guns/artillery with MG fire without getting dangerously close to them?

The T-26 was the best tank of the Spanish Civil War because it was the one with a decent gun. Problem was, it had the same tinfoil armour (~15mm) as all the others, so while it was largely immune to MG-armed German and Italian tanks it was still vulnerable to AT and artillery fire.
And upgrading the armour is hard, because the weight kills the performance quickly and there's no room in the chassis to upgrade the engine.

It comes down to what you want your light tank to do:
- Do you want a pure recon vehicle that isn't meant to get stuck in? Then mobility is essential (especially off-road) and something like the OTL Light Mark VI is probably effective
- Do you want what is essentially a light tank-destroyer, with a good AT gun and decent mobility, forget the armour? Then something like the Tetrarch
- Do you want a cheap stand-in tank that will hold the line in 1939-41? Then an enlarged 6-tonner derivative will fill the same sort of role as the T-26 or Pz38t (both around 10 tons), just don't expect it to be viable after mid-war.

The early PzIII Aust A-C (35 in total built) had 15mm armour all round and from 1938-41 the D-G models had 30mm all round - so its not too bad!

I would hope that very few if any would ever see combat

 

[perfectgeneral]

The valve arrangement of top fuel dragsters has about as much bearing on this story as finding out what kind of cheese Harry Ricardo preferred on his Toast before the meeting with Sir John Carden.

From a standing start, I would have to think about that answer very Caerphilly.
I fear that debate among the masses has gone one step too far away from topic. I'm enjoying the way this story is unfolding and don't want to see it bogged down in the detail. Perhaps we need wider tracks for a lower ground pressure? Sometimes driving a point home just digs you in deeper.

 

[Glyndwr01]

From a standing start, I would have to think about that answer very Caerphilly.
I fear that debate among the masses has gone one step too far away from topic. I'm enjoying the way this story is unfolding and don't want to see it bogged down in the detail. Perhaps we need wider tracks for a lower ground pressure? Sometimes driving a point home just digs you in deeper.

Bit of a cheesy comment?

 

[Rickshaw]

90% of the world's P.C's run on Microsoft does that make Apple PC's useless crap then?

Well, there are Linux PCs as well. Quite few flavours of that particular OS. Of course you then also run into FreeBSD, Solaris, and so on as well... All far superior to anything Microsoft has dallied in.