Well yes, but if Italy doesn't start anything in North Africa, that gives the British time to build up, especially in Malaya. Imagine what the Japanese will make of the Valiant when they try to invade.
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
And after deliveries commenced in April/May 1940, the OTL Valentine entered service in ... June 1941. And that was with with the tank being "rushed into production" with no pilot models required. Hence my 2-year rule of thumb.
It's not practical to grab the first few dozen tanks off the line and call them an armoured regiment. You have to put them through shakedown testing, deliver them to the unit, train the crews and maintenance personnel, sort out the logistics system for supplying them with everything from fuel and ammo to engine grease and replacement track pins, integrate them with the support arms and finally deploy them to the front (and if the front is in Egypt, remember you're deploying by sea, via the Cape of Good Hope), . Trying to cut corners on all this is setting yourself up for failure. Witness the Crusader OTL, which was rushed to the front so fast that the first batch arrived without spare parts, toolkits or maintenance manuals.
That said, the year between "first deliveries" and "in service" for the Valentine does seem rather long - unless the first deliveries were effectively a pre-production batch intended for trials, with full production not starting until later. It could be done faster if the system was set up for it - the OTL Sherman design was finalised in April 1941, with the prototype completed in September, production started in February 1942 and the first tanks (intended for US army familiarization trials) rushed to Egypt in September 1942 and going into action in October. But that was Detroit showing what it could do with an off-the-drawing board order, which TTL's Valiant isn't getting.
If Sir John and his team can go from a mock-up to a running prototype in 6 months, and the War Office can test it and process the paperwork in another 3, the Valiant can be ordered in March 1939 for delivery in spring 1940. Cut the OTL delivery-to-deployment time in half, and the first units are equipped with them around October 1940 - which means a few might get to Egypt in time for Compass. But France is right out., unless the War Office changes its mind and orders full production off the drawing board.
The improved Matilda I may well stay in production a little longer while the Valiant design is being worked on. While at best a barely adequate stop gap it does at least have actual offensive capability unlike the original.
Mayby they can go to the Far East in 1941, after replacement by newer designs.....
It'd certainly give the Japanese a nasty surprise, given that, like the Germans, they'd have nothing capable of penetrating its armour.
Isn't this effectively much an up-gunned Light Tank Mk VI with less crew protection?
Only 140 built OTL and the 77 sent to France were all lost
Granted even a few dozen might have made a difference - but given the need for AFVs in the places the British were actually fighting (including East Africa where only 6 Matilda II were sent) I would imagine that they would be sent to those regions.
And with such a small fleet it would not be easy to maintain them if sent so far from the UK?
True, and that will also be the case here, but now they'll be armed with 2-pounders, and so a much more significant threat to the German forces.
Well if Britain hurts Germany badly enough in France, isn't it possible that Mussolini's officers are able to stop him from starting anything in North Africa?
Meh, I think the Australians could do it, with a little time to prepare. Certainly the 70 hp engine should be within their ability to maintain.
Oh if the Pod is Italy makes the only winning move then fine - that's a massive game changer - perhaps they get sent to the Greeks with some um volunteers to fight the Italians (assuming they still go for the Greeks)
That being said no North Africa/East Africa campaign, no Verdun of the Med very likely butterfly's the Pacific war altogether with the British Commonwealth far less distracted and able to send a larger fleet and far more aircraft to the Far East
Also that was the only place where the British Empire was conducting large scale combat during 1941
1 September 1938. 14:00hrs. London, England.
allanpcameron
Donor
1 September 1938. 14:00hrs. London, England.
Colonel Giffard Martel finished off turning his notes into a report. The General Staff specifications A14 and A16 specifications had been taken up by various companies and Martel had travelling around the country inspecting progress on these and the other tanks being designed and produced. In each case the specifications for A14 and A16 were for what might be described as a ‘battlecruiser’ tank. The origin of these was Martel’s visit to Russia where the T28 had given him the idea of something between the fast Christie style BT2 and the heavy infantry tanks. Nuffield’s A13 was progressing looking much like the BT2, while Vulcan Foundry’s A12 would be a slow but heavily armoured infantry tank. The Soviet T28 tank's armour was between 20-30mm, but it weighed over 25 tons; but since it had a 500hp engine it moved at a reasonable 20mph.
In 1936 the A6, Vickers 18 tonner, had been similar to what the Soviets had, a Medium tank, but was deemed too expensive. So, in 1937 London, Midland & Scottish had been approached to take on a specification A15 that would be an updated but cheaper A6. Like the earlier machine it would be well armed, with two machine gun sub-turrets in addition to the main turret. This would be designed to carry both a 2-pdr and a close support howitzer together. In addition to having two main guns, it would also have both a co-axial machine gun and another machine gun positioned to protect against air attack. Unsurprisingly the problem with the specification was that not matter however long and high the design went to fit in all that was required, it couldn’t be kept within the width of the railway loading gauge. That had led to a discussion within the War Office whether to give permission to build the A15 to suit the continental loading gauge which would give another ten inches width to play with. The idea of British tanks being used on the continent however couldn’t be imagined, so the idea, along with the specification had been shelved back in December 1937.
The notion of a fast but heavily armoured cruiser as a replacement for the Mediums hadn’t gone away, which is why the A10 specification had been issued to Vickers. The War Office however still wanted to explore the idea so LMS and Vulcan had been approached with the A14 specification. This specification, not unlike the Vickers A10, was for a tank with 30mm of armour, but like the original A6 and A9, it would have a crew of six, three in the turret with a 2-pdr and two sub-turrets with machine guns. LMS picked up the idea, using the A6E3 as a basis, with Horstmann suspension, a Thornycroft RY12 marine diesel, and a new form of Wilson steering that offered a choice of seven speeds for each track, on a preselector basis. This made it heavy and complicated, but as a steering system it was considered an improvement over skid steering because it did not waste power.
LMS had no experience of designing or building tanks, it was first and foremost in the railway engine and rolling stock business. Looking at the design and their progress so far, Martel estimated that the prototype wouldn’t be ready at least until mid-1939, and he was of the firm conviction that it would be much heavier than expected or desired. The process of learning to build a tank from scratch was slowing the company down. What he did note was that what LMS was proposing was capable of expansion to meet future GS requirements, but he reaffirmed his suspicion that the company would struggle to actually produce a tank that would be suitable for entry into service.
The second company working on the idea of a heavy cruiser was Nuffield. When they had been approached with the requirement, they offered a heavier version of the A13. This had been given the GS specification A16. Again, it was designed with a crew of six, the same turret as the A14, in fact this would be made by LMS, along with the two machine gun sub-turrets. It would also have 30mm armour and a stronger version of the Christie suspension. It would use the same Liberty engine as the A13 and initially the same steering and transmission. Martel noted that they were also looking at a more sophisticated system, based on a controlled differential linked to a Maybach constant mesh gearbox designed by Thompson and Taylor of Brooklands. In his report Martel noted that this design also had the potential of being upgraded in the future, though he questioned whether the Liberty engine would be capable of increased power. Martel noted that the company, based on Morris Motors, was in a better position than LMS to producing tanks. Their work on the A13 was progressing well, but whether they could produce both designs in a timely manner was debatable.
Which brought him Vickers. Progress on the A9, and A10 cruisers as well as the A11 infantry tank were all noted as good. While the A14 and A16 kept the two forward machine gun turrets in addition to the main turret, Martel noted that the Vickers A9 had deleted these, which Martel regretted in his report. It had led to a slight increase in armour thickness while not impacting on its speed. Compared with the Christie suspension on the Nuffield A13, the speed of the A9 wasn’t that impressive. The same could be said of the A10, which with the 30mm armour specification was, despite the use of welding to lighten it, just a bit too heavy for the AEC bus engine. The alternative and experimental A10E2, with the Rolls Royce Eagle aero-engine, had been much more impressive. The greater power it provided made sense when compared to the Soviet T28’s 500hp engine that gave a heavier tank greater speed. The A10, like the A9, Martel noted, suffered from the suspension limiting the speed, even with the Eagle engine. Martel noted that at about 16 tons fully laden, the A10 was about ten tons lighter than the T28, but not that much faster cross-country.
The A11, for which the Vickers codename was Matilda, wasn’t far from the first production models being delivered. Martel had previously noted the limitations of the A11 which he judged was underpowered. The use of the Vickers own 40mm pompom gun meant that the turret looked top-heavy to Martel, but he judged it a reasonable tank for the Army Tank Brigades, even if in his own mind this was only on the principle that something was better than nothing. Martel noted that orders for 100 each of both the A9 and A10 had been made, and delivery would take a year at least.
Martel had also looked over the A17, Vickers Mark VII light tank. When it had been shown, with Little’s warp steering, someone in the War Office had wondered whether it could be expanded, and so specification A18 had been issued. This basically was to use Little’s suspension system in place of the Christie suspension in a tank like the A13. It was obvious to Martel that there was no enthusiasm in the Vickers team for the work on this specification. The warp suspension worked very well in the much smaller bren carriers, and just about well enough in the Mark VII light tank; but putting it under something in the 14 ton range was likely to asking too much of it. Once more the two sub-turrets for machine guns had been part of the specification and Martel had had a hard time from Carden about the War Office’s fascination with this requirement.
The last matter in Martel’s report was the alternative A12 design, called Valiant by Vickers. He had had a number of conversations with Sir John Carden and knew and understood what it was he was trying to do. The Vulcan Foundry’s A12 was a very good tank, but Martel could see Carden’s point that it would be slow to build, and didn’t have any potential to be upgraded. The Valiant was already going to be faster that Vulcan’s product, but with the powerful diesel engine and bigger turret ring meant that it had room for improvement. Should the Valiant prototype pass the MEE tests, it may well be available from mid-1940. With all that was going on at the border between Germany and Czechoslovakia, Martel couldn’t help but note that mid-1940 might be later than the tank would actually be needed.
Colonel Giffard Martel finished off turning his notes into a report. The General Staff specifications A14 and A16 specifications had been taken up by various companies and Martel had travelling around the country inspecting progress on these and the other tanks being designed and produced. In each case the specifications for A14 and A16 were for what might be described as a ‘battlecruiser’ tank. The origin of these was Martel’s visit to Russia where the T28 had given him the idea of something between the fast Christie style BT2 and the heavy infantry tanks. Nuffield’s A13 was progressing looking much like the BT2, while Vulcan Foundry’s A12 would be a slow but heavily armoured infantry tank. The Soviet T28 tank's armour was between 20-30mm, but it weighed over 25 tons; but since it had a 500hp engine it moved at a reasonable 20mph.
In 1936 the A6, Vickers 18 tonner, had been similar to what the Soviets had, a Medium tank, but was deemed too expensive. So, in 1937 London, Midland & Scottish had been approached to take on a specification A15 that would be an updated but cheaper A6. Like the earlier machine it would be well armed, with two machine gun sub-turrets in addition to the main turret. This would be designed to carry both a 2-pdr and a close support howitzer together. In addition to having two main guns, it would also have both a co-axial machine gun and another machine gun positioned to protect against air attack. Unsurprisingly the problem with the specification was that not matter however long and high the design went to fit in all that was required, it couldn’t be kept within the width of the railway loading gauge. That had led to a discussion within the War Office whether to give permission to build the A15 to suit the continental loading gauge which would give another ten inches width to play with. The idea of British tanks being used on the continent however couldn’t be imagined, so the idea, along with the specification had been shelved back in December 1937.
The notion of a fast but heavily armoured cruiser as a replacement for the Mediums hadn’t gone away, which is why the A10 specification had been issued to Vickers. The War Office however still wanted to explore the idea so LMS and Vulcan had been approached with the A14 specification. This specification, not unlike the Vickers A10, was for a tank with 30mm of armour, but like the original A6 and A9, it would have a crew of six, three in the turret with a 2-pdr and two sub-turrets with machine guns. LMS picked up the idea, using the A6E3 as a basis, with Horstmann suspension, a Thornycroft RY12 marine diesel, and a new form of Wilson steering that offered a choice of seven speeds for each track, on a preselector basis. This made it heavy and complicated, but as a steering system it was considered an improvement over skid steering because it did not waste power.
LMS had no experience of designing or building tanks, it was first and foremost in the railway engine and rolling stock business. Looking at the design and their progress so far, Martel estimated that the prototype wouldn’t be ready at least until mid-1939, and he was of the firm conviction that it would be much heavier than expected or desired. The process of learning to build a tank from scratch was slowing the company down. What he did note was that what LMS was proposing was capable of expansion to meet future GS requirements, but he reaffirmed his suspicion that the company would struggle to actually produce a tank that would be suitable for entry into service.
The second company working on the idea of a heavy cruiser was Nuffield. When they had been approached with the requirement, they offered a heavier version of the A13. This had been given the GS specification A16. Again, it was designed with a crew of six, the same turret as the A14, in fact this would be made by LMS, along with the two machine gun sub-turrets. It would also have 30mm armour and a stronger version of the Christie suspension. It would use the same Liberty engine as the A13 and initially the same steering and transmission. Martel noted that they were also looking at a more sophisticated system, based on a controlled differential linked to a Maybach constant mesh gearbox designed by Thompson and Taylor of Brooklands. In his report Martel noted that this design also had the potential of being upgraded in the future, though he questioned whether the Liberty engine would be capable of increased power. Martel noted that the company, based on Morris Motors, was in a better position than LMS to producing tanks. Their work on the A13 was progressing well, but whether they could produce both designs in a timely manner was debatable.
Which brought him Vickers. Progress on the A9, and A10 cruisers as well as the A11 infantry tank were all noted as good. While the A14 and A16 kept the two forward machine gun turrets in addition to the main turret, Martel noted that the Vickers A9 had deleted these, which Martel regretted in his report. It had led to a slight increase in armour thickness while not impacting on its speed. Compared with the Christie suspension on the Nuffield A13, the speed of the A9 wasn’t that impressive. The same could be said of the A10, which with the 30mm armour specification was, despite the use of welding to lighten it, just a bit too heavy for the AEC bus engine. The alternative and experimental A10E2, with the Rolls Royce Eagle aero-engine, had been much more impressive. The greater power it provided made sense when compared to the Soviet T28’s 500hp engine that gave a heavier tank greater speed. The A10, like the A9, Martel noted, suffered from the suspension limiting the speed, even with the Eagle engine. Martel noted that at about 16 tons fully laden, the A10 was about ten tons lighter than the T28, but not that much faster cross-country.
The A11, for which the Vickers codename was Matilda, wasn’t far from the first production models being delivered. Martel had previously noted the limitations of the A11 which he judged was underpowered. The use of the Vickers own 40mm pompom gun meant that the turret looked top-heavy to Martel, but he judged it a reasonable tank for the Army Tank Brigades, even if in his own mind this was only on the principle that something was better than nothing. Martel noted that orders for 100 each of both the A9 and A10 had been made, and delivery would take a year at least.
Martel had also looked over the A17, Vickers Mark VII light tank. When it had been shown, with Little’s warp steering, someone in the War Office had wondered whether it could be expanded, and so specification A18 had been issued. This basically was to use Little’s suspension system in place of the Christie suspension in a tank like the A13. It was obvious to Martel that there was no enthusiasm in the Vickers team for the work on this specification. The warp suspension worked very well in the much smaller bren carriers, and just about well enough in the Mark VII light tank; but putting it under something in the 14 ton range was likely to asking too much of it. Once more the two sub-turrets for machine guns had been part of the specification and Martel had had a hard time from Carden about the War Office’s fascination with this requirement.
The last matter in Martel’s report was the alternative A12 design, called Valiant by Vickers. He had had a number of conversations with Sir John Carden and knew and understood what it was he was trying to do. The Vulcan Foundry’s A12 was a very good tank, but Martel could see Carden’s point that it would be slow to build, and didn’t have any potential to be upgraded. The Valiant was already going to be faster that Vulcan’s product, but with the powerful diesel engine and bigger turret ring meant that it had room for improvement. Should the Valiant prototype pass the MEE tests, it may well be available from mid-1940. With all that was going on at the border between Germany and Czechoslovakia, Martel couldn’t help but note that mid-1940 might be later than the tank would actually be needed.
I'm not sure about the army's obsession with multiple auxiliary turrets this late in the day, the penny was dropping about how well they didn't work by then.
It was only the 125 odd A9 Cruiser Mk1s - that sported the twin mini turrets - the heavier 175 odd A10 Cruiser Mk2 did not - so it had as you say seen its day
Sub-turrets are by definition going to be more lightly armoured than a single, glacis plate. The navy discovered the use such structures in their ship hulls for tertiary armament produced all sorts of problems, being rather "wet" and making the hull armour weaker than a unitary structure would. The use of sub-turrets on armoured vehicles would, after experience also be ended because they made the armour around them weaker.
allanpcameron
Donor
As far as I can see it was the A6 which was the source of these. I suppose the men thinking about tanks in the mid-to late-30's were still thinking being able to fire along trenches to the side of the tank as it crossed. The original specification for the A9 was that the guns had to provide 120 degrees coverage from the front. But even the early Crusaders were stuck with them. It gets to be something of a fetish I guess.
allanpcameron
Donor
Thanks again to @Claymore on the alternative history AFV thread for another visualisation of the Valiant. This one has the more extended rear compartment for the bigger engine. Again he'd given it the full infantry tank side armour protection like the Vulcan A12 Matilda II.
Or you could look at it as a support vehicle, acting in concert with the light tanks, given that they have no anti-tank capability themselves. I'd want a bit of armour added to the sides of the gunshield to make it slightly more survivable.
Edit: You have to wonder if this vehicle couldn't take a 2 pdr? It would add some mobile A/T capability to the BEF quite quickly and cheaply.
Guy armoured car - Wikipedia
Last edited:
- Status