Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

Status
Not open for further replies.
It wasn't in a turret, or even a casemate.
It was in a turret (using the traditional, Naval definition of the word). It was on a revolving platform, which allowed the gun to be trained easily to either side or forwards... I think you mean "it wasn't in a tank turret or even a tank casement." Which was true but it could have been, as the pictures have shown...

WNBR_6pounder_m2a_Rear_pic.jpg
 
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the definition of 'turret' (from what I can see, the definition includes protection for the crew, abseent on the RN's Molins mount). Regardless, looking at it, it wouldn't work in the Valiant turret, not without a significant counterweight forward.
 
It wasn't an enclosed turret containing the gunner, loader, vehicle commander, wireless set and dozens of rounds of ammunition. The gun crew has all the room it needs, the magazine is separate, the vehicle commander is in a different location as is the wireless set and operator. Yes you could fit the above set up into a tank turret but you either need a huge tank (for the time) or to leave out 80% of your ammunition supply and the Tank Commnder.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't an enclosed turret containing the gunner, loader, vehicle commander, wireless set and dozens of rounds of ammunition. The gun crew has all the room it needs, the magazine is separate, the vehicle commander is in a different location as is the wireless set and operator. Yes you could fit the above set up into a tank turret but you either need a huge tank (for the time) or to leave out 80% of your ammunition supply and the Tank Commnder.
I'd be more worried about balancing the thing, the tray and autoloader would add a lot of weight to the back of the gun.
 
With only 18 rounds to feed the autoloader I doubt you'd be in action long enough to worry about the turret jamming, and a barrel counter weight would lessen the issue anyway.
 
It was in a turret (using the traditional, Naval definition of the word). It was on a revolving platform, which allowed the gun to be trained easily to either side or forwards... I think you mean "it wasn't in a tank turret or even a tank casement." Which was true but it could have been, as the pictures have shown...
By definition, a gun turret is an armored, rotating housing for the gun and its crew. This gun mount is on an unarmored deck mount. The use of the word "turret" has, from its French and architectural origins, always included the connotation of a position providing protection to its occupants.
 
I would say turrets are protected, but not necessarily armoured, as in protects against weather and shell fragments but doesn’t necessarily stop ap rounds. When does a gun shield become a turret?
 
I take it from the date that HMS Terror is still afloat, given that she was scuttled 24/02/41 OTL. That will be a potential game changer for assisting with holding Crete.
 
2 March 1941. Pembrokeshire, Wales
2 March 1941. Pembrokeshire, Wales

In the summer after Dunkirk, when there was a dearth of tanks, three Motor-Machine Gun Brigades had been formed. One of these was made up of three Cavalry Regiments (5th Dragoon Guards, 15/19th Hussars, 1st Fife and Forfar Yeomanry) which, as the 2nd Light Armoured Reconnaissance Brigade, had played such an important role in the fighting in France and Flanders. The other two MMG Brigades had been created from other Cavalry Regiments and Battalions of the Royal Tank Regiment which lacked tanks. The Motor-Machine Gun Brigades had been equipped with a variety of cars and lorries for mobility. As the invasion scare had reduced, two MMG Brigades had been reformed as 26th and 28th Armoured Brigades, the third (made up of Royal Tank Regiment battalions) as 25th Army Tank Brigade. 26th Armoured Brigade had been attached to 6th Armoured Division, while 28th Armoured Brigade was now part of 9th Armoured Division.

The Castlemartin training area had been acquired just before the war and was one of the few places where tanks could exercise and have live fire drills. More land throughout the country was being acquired by the War Office, but in the meantime, tank units found a place in Wales where they could hone their skills. All they needed were the tanks to do so.

28th Armoured Brigade, were the first Brigade to receive early production models of the A15 Cruiser Mark VI. So far each of the regiments had only received a handful for training purposes. The fixing of defects was still going on in the factories, so the men of the 28th Armoured Brigade were having to get used to a new tank, without having enough of them to go around. It was expected that once the problems had been resolved, then production would ramp up very quickly, the Commanding Officer Brigadier Herbert Lumsden, had been promised that he would have 150 A15s by June at the latest.

Having spoken to his opposite number in 27th Armoured Brigade, Brigadier Charles Norman, and the GOC 9th Armoured Division, Montagu Burrows, the idea that the whole Division would be fully equipped and trained by the summer on the new cruiser tank was overly optimistic. Having visited the main Nuffield factory, the three officers knew that if they were lucky, the Division might receive thirty tanks per month from the end of March. Production levels would probably rise fairly rapidly from June forward, but the problems at the moment stemmed from all the changes that were having to be made due to the testing of the prototypes.

What was particularly worrying was that they would likely be receiving tanks designed for, but not equipped with, 2-pdr guns. Burrows had been assured that the Ministry of Supply was working very hard to bring the numbers of 2-pdr guns being built up to the level needed for the expanding army anti-tank regiments and the new Armoured Divisions, but there was no doubt going to be a short-fall. Burrows had suggested to the civil servant who informed him of this that having an Armoured Division counterattacking a German invasion, with the gunners shouting ‘BANG’ while aiming broomsticks, wasn’t going to be much help in defending the country.

The A15 tanks that had been delivered so far, were asking a lot of the crews and the Light Aid Detachments. The design of the tank had meant that the Liberty engine needed to have its height reduced and the new Mark III engine’s installation was described, politely, as ‘compact’. Instead of the old 30-inch eight-bladed cooling fan, there was now a pair of 19-inch six bladed fans, which were chain driven from a sprocket mounted on the crankshaft output. The half-inch chain was meant to be maintenance free for 1000 miles, except when it required tensioning, for which an adjustable jockey sprocket was attached. Already the tanks being used by 28th Armoured Brigade were finding that if there was going to be a problem, it was likely to do with the cooling system, and the root cause was almost always in the cooling fan chain. The Light Aid Detachments were writing almost daily reports of the difficulties they were having trying to fix something that was just simply badly designed.

If the problem wasn’t with the cooling fan chain, then it was likely to be caused by various issues with oil. The new engine’s oil pump had been redesigned to reduce the depth of the sump, and its filter was now on the front of the engine. Making the sump, the lower half of the crankcase, shallower, meant that the crankshaft main bearing oil feed was now an external gallery pipe, mounted on the right-hand side. Already problems were being identified with the shallower sump, which was found to be inhibiting oil scavenging, and the external pipe had seven interfaces with the sump, which was a recipe for oil leaks. The mechanics and fitters found that the engine had a tendency to oil up when the tank was going uphill, and that could only be put down to inadequate oil scavenging. This had been noted in trials at Farnborough in the previous summer, and the fact that they weren’t resolved in the early production models of the tank was worrying.

Bringing the new A15 tanks to Wales to give the men of 28th Armoured Brigade experience of working with them in the field was throwing up a lot of concerns. Some of the older, and more cynical, hands weren’t overly worried. Having tanks that weren’t entirely reliable meant that the training of the men to take proper care of the tanks would be taken very seriously. Being stuck out in a field in Wales on a cold winter’s night while waiting for a recovery vehicle was an important learning experience. No one would take anything for granted before setting off in their tanks. Every check would be done at least twice. Crews would be looking out for potential problems to get them fixed before they became the cause of a break down. Men who had had little or no experience with machinery would become adept with the use of spanners and wrenches. Those who were less cynical wondered if having to worry less about their tank being reliable, would mean that they would be more concerned with how to use it as the fighting machine for which it was designed.
 
Which AFV's did Britain capture before the Dunkirk evacuation. We know about the panzer 2, 3 and 4 and now a Sd.Kfz. 231/2, if Britain has also got an Sd.Kfz. 222then they have a pretty good idea of Germanys armoured vehicles.
I ask because I think depending on what Britain has knowledge of will determine their priorities for future vehicles.
When looking at the Panzer 3 and 4 Britain will see the Valiant as superior in either version. Yes Germany can increase the armour of the tanks but it will be a big leap to surpass the armour on either Valiant. In addition the gun on the tanks is worse* than on the Valiant's and while again an upgrade is possible the 5cm Pak 38 wasn't used during the fall of France I believe so Britain will not see an easy or quick fix to the issue. My point being that Britain will look at the tank situation and see that they have the edge and anything Germany can do short term to remedy the situation likely at best gives them parity and that is before the 6pdr is put on the Valiant. The Valiant with the 6pdr also gives Britain some cover against any leap the Germans might spring on them so all in all a fairly comfortable place to be, except for the small number of tanks Britain has.
Now when looking at the German reconnaissance vehicles the British are at a disadvantage right now. The 2cm cannon on the German vehicles gives the Germans a significant advantage over the .50 guns at best on the current British vehicles. Yes Britain has the 15mm BESA on the way but that isn't really comparable to the 2cm. There is some light though with 2pdr armed vehicles like the Tetrarch, flawed as it is in production and the Daimler is on the way but is still some months off.
Basically my point is that at this point Britain would be far more concerned about improving it's reconnaissance elements than it's tanks. Yes it needs more tanks so building more is important but new designs can take a back seat of a while. What is really needed is a look at the armoured cars and possible light tanks in the short term to get them on par and ahead of the Germans and then go back to the tanks.
 
Well things don't look good for the A15 in that update do they, still having reliability issues even after being given time to correct them. The maintenance training aside the problems this tank are having will reflect very badly on Nuffield ITTL in part due to the performance of the Vickers tanks. In addition the production numbers being as low as they are will likely see the Vickers tanks vastly outpacing the A15 in terms pure numbers and percentage of tanks.

I have to wonder how this whole affair will impact the prospect of Nuffield producing new tank designs going forward.
 
It wasn't an enclosed turret containing the gunner, loader, vehicle commander, wireless set and dozens of rounds of ammunition. The gun crew has all the room it needs, the magazine is separate, the vehicle commander is in a different location as is the wireless set and operator. Yes you could fit the above set up into a tank turret but you either need a huge tank (for the time) or to leave out 80% of your ammunition supply and the Tank Commnder.
Years ago for a World of Tanks competition I designed a Crusader chassis based TD using the Molins auto loading 6 pounder - with the weapon based in a open turret (like an earlier M10) - that I called a Claymore.

Additional ammo is carried stowed below the mounting and not really intended to be assessable during battle - the tank would have to fall back - to reload the hopper and accessible rounds - note that this was not an unfamiliar issue with tanks - the Firefly carried a number of rounds in what would be the Bow gunners position that were only accessible from that positions hatch and not from the turret - and in the case of the 'Claymore' I envisioned that it would often fallback on its supply vehicles and relaod the hopper and ready use supply directly from that source and leave the hull ammo for emergencies where it cannot access the supply units.

I envisioned it being a 'McNair Doctrine' like rapid response Tank destroyer used by the Royal Artillery Anti Tank Regiments that would 'rush' to the point of a Blitzkrieg breakthrough and rapidly engage the leading concentrations of Panzers.

I quite liked it, even if several keyboard ninjas called me an idiot as WOT did not then have autoloading tanks - a few months later tanks like the AMX13 came out for the game!

But I agree the system is too large to fit in a tank turret of the day
Well things don't look good for the A15 in that update do they, still having reliability issues even after being given time to correct them. The maintenance training aside the problems this tank are having will reflect very badly on Nuffield ITTL in part due to the performance of the Vickers tanks. In addition the production numbers being as low as they are will likely see the Vickers tanks vastly outpacing the A15 in terms pure numbers and percentage of tanks.

I have to wonder how this whole affair will impact the prospect of Nuffield producing new tank designs going forward.
I suspect that we might see the A15 being the Covenanter of the day and mostly being used for equipping UK based Garrison/training forces and potentially secondary theatres as with the '2' Valiant designs being ultimately preffered

While the Crusader was not 'all that' their Nuffield's A24 design would eventually become the Cromwell - which was in OTL arguably along with the later Churchill the first quality British tank of the war.

Like the rest of the British AFV industry they 'matured' and got a lot better as the war progressed.

Having Vickers developing a better tank and produced in greater numbers earlier under Carden's leadership ITTL does not change this - it simply makes everything better than OTL and with the OTL Crusader which was more readily accepted, not being accepted as readily ITTL I suspect the Nuffield Org will be obliged to up its game earlier and produce a better tank and this might very well have a knock on effect regarding TTLs Cromwell allowing for its introduction earlier?
 
Last edited:
If the British Engineers were willing to copy a German Submachine Gun, then the Viewing Cupolas and Aiming Sights, any chance they would also consider copying a complete tank engine?

Just thinking out loud that if in this predicament, someone at the Ministry of Supply 'could' give Nuffield the exclusive contract to develop the Maybach HL120 (including larger displacement versions) for British use, so he had something else that was "his" to work on.
 
I have to wonder how this whole affair will impact the prospect of Nuffield producing new tank designs going forward.

I forsee that Nuffield will build a lot of tanks, but will be kept well away from designing them as they cannot get out of the Automotive design mindset vs military quality mindset.

The design of the Crank oil feed sounds like the death knell for the liberty for me, if Meadows have got the Peregrine derived engine working then I can see Nuffield being forced into fitting that into the A15 hull, with Nuffield being forced to make the Peregrine based engine.

I doubt the A15 will ever be made in numbers for use as a main battle tank, the Hull could be useful for SPGs, SPAAGs and as stores vehicles, Nuffield will probably offer a A24 Cavalier type tank quite soon in an effort to update the Crusader design into something that can use a 6pdr, it will still probably be a bit of a dog.
 
<snip{
Basically my point is that at this point Britain would be far more concerned about improving it's reconnaissance elements than it's tanks. Yes it needs more tanks so building more is important but new designs can take a back seat of a while. What is really needed is a look at the armoured cars and possible light tanks in the short term to get them on par and ahead of the Germans and then go back to the tanks.
Putting these good points together with the problems with the A15 makes me wonder about a "fix" for both issues.

Use the A15 as a heavy element with Armoured car/reconnaissance units. Say 1 squadron (company) per regiment (battalion). Like a cruiser supporting a destroyer flotilla? Or whatever analogy makes sense to the erstwhile Cavalry and Yeomanry regiments of the British army.

Leave tank warfare to the RTC/RTR guys.
 

marathag

Banned
If the British Engineers were willing to copy a German Submachine Gun, then the Viewing Cupolas and Aiming Sights, any chance they would also consider copying a complete tank engine?
They were typically lower displacement, high RPM engines, a bad way to go to get HP, when more torque is really what is desired to move heavy vehicles effectively

British should have used the RR Buzzard as a base for a tank engine, 2239 cubic inches and 1140 pounds, 800 hp in aero form, easy 600 detuned lower RPM use in tanks
 
They were typically lower displacement, high RPM engines, a bad way to go to get HP, when more torque is really what is desired to move heavy vehicles effectively

British should have used the RR Buzzard as a base for a tank engine, 2239 cubic inches and 1140 pounds, 800 hp in aero form, easy 600 detuned lower RPM use in tanks
Why would you use something even larger than a Meteor yet not much more powerful? Or are you talking about prewar?
 
They were typically lower displacement, high RPM engines, a bad way to go to get HP, when more torque is really what is desired to move heavy vehicles effectively

British should have used the RR Buzzard as a base for a tank engine, 2239 cubic inches and 1140 pounds, 800 hp in aero form, easy 600 detuned lower RPM use in tanks
OTL a Merlin Mk. III downgraded for ground use was tested at Aldershot on April 6th 1941 mounted in a Crusader which clocked 'an estimated' 50 MPH plus (80+ KPH for you hard of Imperial Types).

This trail led to an immediate order for 1000 Meteor

Given the established infrastructure and knowledge and treasure already spent on the RR Merlin - Meteor makes perfect sense.

By comparison only 100 buzzards were ever made!
 

marathag

Banned
Why would you use something even larger than a Meteor yet not much more powerful? Or are you talking about prewar?
Prewar.
And with low 5.5 compression ratio, will run on the crap Pool Petrol the Army expected Tanks to use.
Size
BuzzardMerlin
Length75.7"88" (larger supercharger section)
Width30.6"30.8"
Height44.4"40"
Weight15401640

No need to buy the license for a Maybach when RR owns everything Buzzard was an upscaled Kestrel

825HP at 2000 rpm, and 955hp at 2300
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top