Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

[allanpcameron]

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

Thanks, but Ricardo wrapped them in sleeves for the diesel land speed records. I took it from here.

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...

Thanks, I follow @fester 's excellent TL. Also, if you don't know about: April 1942 Alternate Indian Ocean by @Zheng He then perhaps you might want to.

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.

I'm trying very hard not to butterfly too much by Carden living. The chances of the War Office, which never bought the 6 tonners, doing so in preference to the Mark VIC is unlikely, unless you go down the line of a Peerless War Office type TL.

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

As you mentioned in your first contribution to this. I suppose part of my worry about just taking them over as they are is how to make sure that we just don't end up with another Liberty, good idea in 1937 but really struggling five years later.

 

[allanpcameron]

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 problem is the way in which the War Office thinks about tanks: they have to used against other tanks (maybe Fuller and Liddell-Hart etc to blame for that). The decision was made to replace the 3-pdr with the new, much more powerful 2-pdr in all new tanks. So putting the old gun into new tanks would be a bit like old wine in new wineskins.

 

[allanpcameron]

1 April 1938. 10:00hrs. War Office. London, England.

The hand-over was a formality, Major General Lewis was being replaced by Colonel Campbell Clarke as Director of Artillery. The two men had worked closely together, Clarke having been on the Ordnance Committee since 1936. In all that time he had been urging for a design to eventually replace the 2-pdr anti-tank gun which was now in full production. With the advent of the A11 and A12 infantry tanks with 60-80mm of armour, the 2-pdr was going to struggle to penetrate that kind of armour thickness on any equivalent enemy tank. However, it had appeared that he was a voice crying in the wilderness. Maj General Lewis however on handing over the reins was able to say to him ‘now you can get on with your gun.’

One of the problems that Clarke faced was that the design department at Woolwich was understaffed and busy with other designs, and a replacement for a gun just entering service was low on the list of priorities. The only other design department with the experience and staff for designing a gun was Vickers-Armstrong. Within days of taking office Clarke had written to them asking them to begin exploratory work on an anti-tank gun, ‘following generally the specification which governs the production of the 2-pdr.’ Getting the funding for such development work wasn’t going to be easy. It was noted that in the Vickers alternative to the A12 specification that the turret would be designed to take a bigger gun when it became available. This gave Clarke the grounds for making funds available to Vickers to begin the exploratory work for an improved gun for a tank. He added that it would have to be capable of penetrating tanks with armour of up to 90mm (3.5 inches), which would be about as thick as could be imagined. As Director of Artillery, he was primarily concerned with a ground mounted anti-tank gun, as with the 2-pdr. It made sense to him that just as the 2-pdr had proven capable of being mounted on a tank, so a gun designed for tank use could as easily be adapted for use in the ground mounted role.

 

[allanpcameron]

I have to confess taking a bit of a liberty with this. Clarke is the man who gets the 6-pdr into production (eventually) and the problems with Woolwich are OTL, which is why it takes too long.
Writing to Vickers is made up by me. I could have written it from the point of view of Carden wanting to make the Valentine (calling it this for convenience) capable of expansion and so asking the design department to look at bigger guns. But how would he persuade the Board to part with the funds to do that, when they are already making the Valentine on spec. A bit of a butterfly, but caused by the A12 variant specification written by Carden mentioning room for expansion.
Allan.

 

[andys]

The UK went into WW2 with large number of Mk VI light tanks. What, if anything, could be done to them to make them more combat effective?

Could a 2 pounder be fitted to them, perhaps not in the turret but could a Stug-type vehicle be possible? The Germans managed it (sort of) with captured examples.

With a superstructure of that sort, I also wonder if a primitive APC might also be possible. A conversion programme of existing vehicles might give the BEF a better armoured force than OTL?

10.5 cm leFH 16 Geschützwagen Mk VI 736 (e) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[allanpcameron]

The UK went into WW2 with large number of Mk VI light tanks. What, if anything, could be done to them to make them more combat effective?

Could a 2 pounder be fitted to them, perhaps not in the turret but could a Stug-type vehicle be possible?

Does anyone happen to know what size the turret ring was on a Mark VI? I can't find it in any book or website. I was thinking of trying to put a Tetrarch turret (50 inch ring) onto a Mark VI.

 

[andys]

Does anyone happen to know what size the turret ring was on a Mark VI? I can't find it in any book or website. I was thinking of trying to put a Tetrarch turret (50 inch ring) onto a Mark VI.

Surely it would be possible to modify (widen) the top part of the hull to accommodate the Tetrarch turret ring? Alternatively, just get the Mark VII into production pre-war, it was trialled in the summer of '38, so putting it into production should be possible.

 

[Merrick]

The UK went into WW2 with large number of Mk VI light tanks. What, if anything, could be done to them to make them more combat effective?

Could a 2 pounder be fitted to them, perhaps not in the turret but could a Stug-type vehicle be possible? The Germans managed it (sort of) with captured examples.

<picture snipped>

With a superstructure of that sort, I also wonder if a primitive APC might also be possible. A conversion programme of existing vehicles might give the BEF a better armoured force than OTL?

The Germans were masters of the lash-up , and their ability to re-purpose obsolete chassis as SPGs, TDs, assault guns etc is something the Allies could usefully learn from.

But in the short run, the best thing that can be done about the Light Mark VI is getting more cruiser tanks into service, thus allowing the Lights to be transferred to the recon and training units, where they belong. The Light Mark VI was a decent recon vehicle which OTL was forced into the cruiser/medium tank role (which it did badly) for lack of anything better. There's not much point in converting light tank chassis when there's nothing to replace them in the cavalry regiments except more Lights, and the War Office is unlikely to release them until a replacement is available.

If you ever get to the point where there are obsolete/surplus Light tanks cluttering up the depots, then by all means start working on conversions, but I fear the British are still some years away from that point.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

The UK went into WW2 with large number of Mk VI light tanks. What, if anything, could be done to them to make them more combat effective?

Could a 2 pounder be fitted to them, perhaps not in the turret but could a Stug-type vehicle be possible? The Germans managed it (sort of) with captured examples.

View attachment 591403

With a superstructure of that sort, I also wonder if a primitive APC might also be possible. A conversion programme of existing vehicles might give the BEF a better armoured force than OTL?

10.5 cm leFH 16 Geschützwagen Mk VI 736 (e) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pretty certain that when the gun was fired, the vehicle did a back flip.

 

[andys]

Pretty certain that when the gun was fired, the vehicle did a back flip.

The German conversion was fitted with spades to prevent that. It sounds like it was a very well thought out and competent conversion.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

The German conversion was fitted with spades to prevent that. It sounds like it was a very well thought out and competent conversion.

I'd want an anchor myself!

 

[diestormlie]

You're probably better off turning the old light tanks into ATTs (All Terrain Tractors AKA Artillery Luggers.) I would suggest SPGs but I don't imagine they're big enough to take a 25 pdr, and I don't think the Brits would go for a Mortar carrier, somehow.

I don't hold out any hope for a STuG like vehicle. The Assault Gun just doesn't seem to fit in with British Doctrine.

Actually, one thing they might be good for would be Airbase Security. Especially given how German Paratroopers dropped with just small arms.

 

[MarcH]

Does anyone happen to know what size the turret ring was on a Mark VI? I can't find it in any book or website. I was thinking of trying to put a Tetrarch turret (50 inch ring) onto a Mark VI.

As andys pointed out the light tank MkVII should be being looked at right now. The tank that comes out though will be quite different from Tetrarch as Carden is still alive to lead it's development.
I'd imagine you get a better and more conventional Light tank than Tetrarch.

 

[andys]

As andys pointed out the light tank MkVII should be being looked at right now. The tank that comes out though will be quite different from Tetrarch as Carden is still alive to lead it's development.
I'd imagine you get a better and more conventional Light tank than Tetrarch.

Providing the resulting tank is fitted with something more than a machine gun, the BEF will be better off. A 2-pdr would be good, with a Boys coming in a poor second.

 

[Unknown]

Thanks, I follow @fester 's excellent TL. Also, if you don't know about: April 1942 Alternate Indian Ocean by @Zheng He then perhaps you might want to.

I'm a fan of that TL, too...

 

[brazen]

How well would an RN quad .5" mount fit on a Mk VI if you cut the rear super structure down, a mobile AA tank even lacking real punch may well help the BEF as much as a harder hitting light tank?

Even double .5" VGOs on a Scarff ring mount after removing the turret would mean that you have doubled the armament and made it a better reece vehicle.

 

[Glyndwr01]

How well would an RN quad .5" mount fit on a Mk VI if you cut the rear super structure down, a mobile AA tank even lacking real punch may well help the BEF as much as a harder hitting light tank?

Even double .5" VGOs on a Scarff ring mount after removing the turret would mean that you have doubled the armament and made it a better reece vehicle.

 

[brazen]

That looks like it would be a nightmare to aquire a fast moving aerial target and aim the guns at it?

I was think of something a more open sit down mount on it to make it easier to use effectively.

Looking at the Mk VI its got some real scope for a number of uses with the engine forward design, maybe Carden could offer a version with an extra bogie and a open rear structure as an improvement over the bren carrier?

 

[yulzari]

You're probably better off turning the old light tanks into ATTs (All Terrain Tractors AKA Artillery Luggers.) I would suggest SPGs but I don't imagine they're big enough to take a 25 pdr, and I don't think the Brits would go for a Mortar carrier, somehow.

I don't hold out any hope for a STuG like vehicle. The Assault Gun just doesn't seem to fit in with British Doctrine.

Actually, one thing they might be good for would be Airbase Security. Especially given how German Paratroopers dropped with just small arms.

That would be the Carrier as used IOTL and the Crusader Gun Tractor for the 17 Pounder later on.

 

[MarcH]

Providing the resulting tank is fitted with something more than a machine gun, the BEF will be better off. A 2-pdr would be good, with a Boys coming in a poor second.

The whole design premise of the MkVII was to put a 2pdr in a light tank. Design and development stated mid 37 if I recall correctly.