Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well it was noted in the last post that the German Paratroopers had to stop and get their weapons out of separately dropped cannisters, so I see a push to make sure that a paratrooper can carry everything that they would need to fight for at least a day before getting reinforcements or resupply.
That was due to the parachutes the Germans and Italians used

The Germans copied an Italian design that was popular in the early 30s - its only advantage it appears is that it could be used at lower altitudes than the four riser parachutes but due to the landing method (a forward roll) no equipment could be carried about the person.

There is a great critique on why the Germans used the RZ by a lady called Susanna Viljanen on Quora on why the RZ rig (Rückfallschirm, Zwangablösung or “Backpack Parachute, Static Line Deployment”) was used by the Germans and then goes onto explain why it was a really stupid choice (given that Pilots and Aircrew in the Luftwaffe used a more conventional four riser parachutes that the Allies used) despite the advantage of being able to deployed from a low flying plane not outweighing the many disadvantages.
 

marathag

Banned
That was due to the parachutes the Germans and Italians used

The Germans copied an Italian design that was popular in the early 30s - its only advantage it appears is that it could be used at lower altitudes than the four riser parachutes but due to the landing method (a forward roll) no equipment could be carried about the person.

There is a great critique on why the Germans used the RZ by a lady called Susanna Viljanen on Quora on why the RZ rig (Rückfallschirm, Zwangablösung or “Backpack Parachute, Static Line Deployment”) was used by the Germans and then goes onto explain why it was a really stupid choice (given that Pilots and Aircrew in the Luftwaffe used a more conventional four riser parachutes that the Allies used) despite the advantage of being able to deployed from a low flying plane not outweighing the many disadvantages.
Also, given the outcome, how does word get back to Berlin about the total equipment failure of both containers and chutes?
 
Also, given the outcome, how does word get back to Berlin about the total equipment failure of both containers and chutes?
Likely got back to Berlin following the disaster on the mainland. There just hasn't been enough time to remedy the situation yet. It could be interesting if the Greek operations got Germany looking at upgraded parachutes etc. If they were pre Crete then Crete might become a reason to continue with the modernisation rather than a reason to scrap dropping troops altogether.
 
Also, given the outcome, how does word get back to Berlin about the total equipment failure of both containers and chutes?
I was mainly concerned with the development of the British and US Airborne units

While there has been some amazing successes by Fallschirmjeager units in Belgium and Norway etc - there have been 3 disasters in the Netherlands (Battle for the Hague with the Brigade only avoiding complete destruction by the capitulation of the Dutch government ending fighting along with the loss of 184 Transports), Greece (Corinth Canal) and now Crete.

With regards to the Germans I suspect that they would extrapolate intel from survivors from Corinth and observers from the air over Crete
 
I wonder how the massacre of the Fallshirmjeager (twice now ITTL) will have on the development of Allied Airborne formations?
Probably something along the lines of "don't use airborne forces as the main force in heavily defended areas" and use them like how they were used in D-Day, I would bet.
 
Well it was noted in the last post that the German Paratroopers had to stop and get their weapons out of separately dropped cannisters, so I see a push to make sure that a paratrooper can carry everything that they would need to fight for at least a day before getting reinforcements or resupply.
That seems rather generous of the Germans, knowing the Cretans are poorly armed they drop weapon containers to them to make it a more even fight.
 
I thought I'd try an eyewitness report as well as the usual style of update. I hope that's okay and I'm aware that some of the language which was commonly used during WW2 is no longer acceptable.
I personally find this style - a zoomed-in look at an individual eyewitness account followed by a general description - to be a superb way of both being engaging and providing a superb overview of events. I enjoyed the characters and detailed account of battle in Henry Durrant's account, as well as appreciated the overall course of events.

Regarding the battle of Crete and individuals, how is one Philip Mountbatten doing? He had been taking part of the naval actions in the Mediterranean as a junior officer on HMS Valiant during this time OTL, as I understand.
 
Think we can have a post that complies all of the images of the ATL tanks: Valiant, Victor, Vampire, etc. into a single post to make it easier to find the images of the tanks so we know what they look like and can refresh our memories easier?
 
I personally find this style - a zoomed-in look at an individual eyewitness account followed by a general description - to be a superb way of both being engaging and providing a superb overview of events. I enjoyed the characters and detailed account of battle in Henry Durrant's account, as well as appreciated the overall course of events.

Regarding the battle of Crete and individuals, how is one Philip Mountbatten doing? He had been taking part of the naval actions in the Mediterranean as a junior officer on HMS Valiant during this time OTL, as I understand.
Thanks. I believe he was mentioned in dispatches for his actions at Cape Matapan, as OTL. As I'm trying to concentrate on tank design with the survival of Carden, if not said otherwise, the rest of OTL is presumed.
Allan
 
Think we can have a post that complies all of the images of the ATL tanks: Valiant, Victor, Vampire, etc. into a single post to make it easier to find the images of the tanks so we know what they look like and can refresh our memories easier?
Just to throw out a suggestion: Is there any way that the very first post could be edited to add those? So it's kind of like a appendix reference, but as we can't "pin" it to the back of the story, we "pin" it to the front?
 
22 May 1941. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. England.
22 May 1941. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. England.

The factory’s machine tools were working flat out, and all manner of guns and other equipment was being produced as fast as humanly possible. In one corner of the factory the barrels for the new 6-pdr guns for the Valiant II were being bored out, and there were teams working on putting together all the elements of the gun so that they could be married to the tank turrets. Progress was still limited by the availability of machine tools, but the company was able to report that completion of the initial order for 200 guns had been achieved, and were now producing the next order for 500. Pre-production models of both the Valiant II and II* were undergoing their testing requirements, and was going well. The Vickers’ management team hoped that the work they had done in helping to set up the new Royal Ordnance Factory, with machine tools for the 57mm gun, would add their capacity to Vickers’ own later in the autumn. This would allow production of the Valiant to the II and II* model to happen quickly.

The quest for a replacement gun for the follow-on Victor tank had been going on for some time, and the intervention of Director of Artillery, Colonel Campbell Clarke, the previous May, had led to a re-assessment of their progress. Originally using a Finnish 76.2mm x 505R shell, coupled with the Model 1931 75mm AA gun, as the basis for trials, progress had been slow. Clarke’s insistence that for the ease of production they should use the 76.2mm x 420R instead, currently the only shell of that calibre being produced, had helped enormously. Necking the case down to 75mm, the 12.5lb shell, fired at 2550 fps, provided adequate penetration in the AP version. The shell was also very suitable for providing an effective HE capacity. There had been an argument for just keeping the whole gun and ammunition as 7.62mm (3-inch), but time was pressing on. Prototypes of the Victor needed to be armed with the planned gun for testing, so prototypes of the Vickers 75mm HV had been ordered for testing, delivered, and the initial reports were very encouraging. As before, Vickers was one of the few companies that had the tooling for a 75mm gun, and had been working on the principle of developing the gun so that it would not interfere with other capacity that was already over-stretched.

When word of the success of the new gun reached the Royal Ordnance at Woolwich, Clarke looked again at the progress being made to the towed anti-tank gun that was under development. By taking the shell size up to 17lbs, and keeping the 3-inch bore, which, with the muzzle velocity of 2900 fps, it would defeat the Victor’s planned 4-inch armour, and even 4.5-inches at a decent range. The problem that his designers were finding was that the gun was likely to weigh about three tons, and adapting that, with the length of the recoil, into a tank, would be something of a challenge. As Director of Artillery, he really didn’t want Vickers to make their own tank gun. Realistically, there wasn’t yet an alternative, and wouldn’t be until 1943 probably. Since the Vickers 75mm HV provided the requested dual-purpose capacity required in tanks, he had no choice but to sign off on it and recommend to the Ministry of Supply that production for the required number of tanks should go ahead.
 
22 May 1941. Newcastle-upon-Tyne. England.

The factory’s machine tools were working flat out, and all manner of guns and other equipment was being produced as fast as humanly possible. In one corner of the factory the barrels for the new 6-pdr guns for the Valiant II were being bored out, and there were teams working on putting together all the elements of the gun so that they could be married to the tank turrets. Progress was still limited by the availability of machine tools, but the company was able to report that completion of the initial order for 200 guns had been achieved, and were now producing the next order for 500. Pre-production models of both the Valiant II and II* were undergoing their testing requirements, and was going well. The Vickers’ management team hoped that the work they had done in helping to set up the new Royal Ordnance Factory, with machine tools for the 57mm gun, would add their capacity to Vickers’ own later in the autumn. This would allow production of the Valiant to the II and II* model to happen quickly.

The quest for a replacement gun for the follow-on Victor tank had been going on for some time, and the intervention of Director of Artillery, Colonel Campbell Clarke, the previous May, had led to a re-assessment of their progress. Originally using a Finnish 76.2mm x 505R shell, coupled with the Model 1931 75mm AA gun, as the basis for trials, progress had been slow. Clarke’s insistence that for the ease of production they should use the 76.2mm x 420R instead, currently the only shell of that calibre being produced, had helped enormously. Necking the case down to 75mm, the 12.5lb shell, fired at 2550 fps, provided adequate penetration in the AP version. The shell was also very suitable for providing an effective HE capacity. There had been an argument for just keeping the whole gun and ammunition as 7.62mm (3-inch), but time was pressing on. Prototypes of the Victor needed to be armed with the planned gun for testing, so prototypes of the Vickers 75mm HV had been ordered for testing, delivered, and the initial reports were very encouraging. As before, Vickers was one of the few companies that had the tooling for a 75mm gun, and had been working on the principle of developing the gun so that it would not interfere with other capacity that was already over-stretched.

When word of the success of the new gun reached the Royal Ordnance at Woolwich, Clarke looked again at the progress being made to the towed anti-tank gun that was under development. By taking the shell size up to 17lbs, and keeping the 3-inch bore, which, with the muzzle velocity of 2900 fps, it would defeat the Victor’s planned 4-inch armour, and even 4.5-inches at a decent range. The problem that his designers were finding was that the gun was likely to weigh about three tons, and adapting that, with the length of the recoil, into a tank, would be something of a challenge. As Director of Artillery, he really didn’t want Vickers to make their own tank gun. Realistically, there wasn’t yet an alternative, and wouldn’t be until 1943 probably. Since the Vickers 75mm HV provided the requested dual-purpose capacity required in tanks, he had no choice but to sign off on it and recommend to the Ministry of Supply that production for the required number of tanks should go ahead.
In your face Clarke!
 
Knowing all you gun nuts are going to tear through this, I accept all criticism in advance. I've gone done what is basically OTL, using this as my main starting point:
The history of what actually happened next is a catalogue of planning errors and more or less happy improvisation. After considering an 8 pdr gun (which offered insufficient advantage over the 6 pdr) Vickers developed plans for a 75 mm L/50 High Velocity (HV), based on the 3 inch 20 cwt AA gun cartridge (76.2x420R) which entered British service in WW1 and was still very much in use early in WW2 (the AA gun was much lighter than the new 3.7 inch AA, so was preferred for mobile use). Vickers slightly modified the case by necking it down from 76.2mm to 75mm in order to take the US Army's M61 APCBC and M48 HE shells used in the M2 and M3 tank guns which armed their M3 (Lee and Grant in British service) and M4 (Sherman) tanks. The M61 weighed 6.77 kg and was fired at 808 m/s from the Vickers HV for a muzzle energy of 2,200 kJ, compared with 620 m/s from the US tank guns (1,300 kJ). As a result, penetration went up from about 60mm to an estimated 87mm - not a huge amount more than the 6 pdr 7 cwt, but with a vastly more effective HE shell. The M48 was downloaded to only 457 m/s since the thin-walled shell could not take the same high chamber pressures as the M61. It is worth noting here that both the 17 pdr (initially) and the US 76mm tank guns fired HE shells at the same high velocity as the AP shot, which simplified gunlaying but meant that they had to have very thick shell walls and therefore much less HE, considerably reducing their effectiveness (the 76mm M42 HE shell contained only 390g TNT compared with 667g for the 75mm M48).

The Vickers 75mm HV was supposed to fit in the new Cromwell tank, but it was discovered rather late in the day that the Cromwell's turret was too small, causing a major crisis. Fortunately, this was partly resolved since it was realised that, by a happy coincidence, the diameter of the 75x350R US case was pretty well exactly the same as that of the 6 pdr 7 cwt, so it was a relatively simple job to redesign the 6 pdr gun to take the US 75mm ammunition. This was duly done, to the benefit of HE performance but with some loss of penetration. The other improvisation was to fit the formidable 17 pdr anti-tank gun into the M4 tank, to create the Sherman Firefly. Meanwhile, Vickers persevered with their 75mm HV and the next tank, the Comet, was designed around it to make certain that it would fit this time! Before it could enter service, it was decided to take the calibre back up to the original 76.2mm so that the new gun could use the same projectiles as the 17 pdr, and the gun was then renamed the 77mm (presumably to distinguish it from the US 76mm). The Comet turned out to be a very good all-round tank and although it did see action in 1945, it arrived too late to make much difference.​
So the proposed Vickers 75mm HV that should have gone into the Cromwell will in fact go into the Victor,
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
On the question of how the various members of the British Empire/Commonwealth, though about Britains entry into WWII, and their part in it. The first thing to remember is that the past is a very different place, to the world as we now understand it. The second thing is that the Empire/Commonwealth, wasn’t a unitary entreaty, and that there was different opinions throughout the Empire/Commonwealth, and even within the various nations within it. And the third, is that there were various forms of nations, which had different relationships, and obligations to the “mother country.” A good example of this is Southern Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Isles of Man, in theory, Northern Ireland was a part of the the British Isles and subject to the same laws and regulations as was the main land, however while this was mostly true, in one particular area it differed. To prevent internal conflict,Northern Island didn’t have conscription, and less Northern Irish, who had to volunteer to join the British Armed Forces, volunteered per head of population, than Southern Irish. Southern Ireland while at the time was a part of the British Commonwealth, elected to remain neutral, and even enacted laws to prevent it citizens from volunteering to serve in the British forces. The Isles of Man were are a Self Governing Crown Dependancy, which while it looked to Britain for defence and foreign relations, its own government decided all other matters. During the war it allowed the British Government to deport a large number of enemy aliens to be interred on the island, and for the British to establish air bases and naval bases in and on the island.

Then you have the “white” dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland, all four announced that they were too at war with Germany, and allocated parts of their military forces to the British to control. However all three placed various restrictions on just how much control the British government, military establishment had over their forces. After the Breaker Morant court marshal during the Boer War, the Australian Government, which had supported the result at the time, decided that in future all Australian military could only be tried by an Australian Court Marshal from then on, and by the time of WWII, this was true of all the Dominions. Canada had problems with the Franco third of their population, who were not as motivated to fight in Britains war as the Anglos were. While both of Australia and New Zealand were far more enthusiastic to aid the “Mother Land,” which given just how meany of their citizens were recent immigrants or the sons or daughters of immigrants, was understandable. Then there were the two white dominated but largely indigenous, areas, South Africa and Rhodesia. One South Africa, had a troubled relationship with Britain, as it had two dominant white cultures, Anglo and Boer, with the Boers not being as sportive of Britain as the Anglo community was. South Africa brought in regulation that prevented South African troops from serving outside the African continent. Rhodesia, whose white population was predominantly made up of former temporary officers from WWI, and were mostly middle class ex grammar school boys, was far more enthusiastic about Rhodesian involvement in the war.

Many of the smaller colonies, were proud to make a what they saw as a contribution towards the cause. And it should always be remembered that the worlds largest all volunteer army, was dedicated to the British cause, with over two million members. And that was the Indian Army, which went trough major changes during the war, which included a reduction in the level of British control, and an increase in the status of the Indian troops and officers. Then there is the major contribution by the young men of Nepal, who crossed into British India from a neutral country to volunteer to fight in the Indian Army for Britain. Thousand of young man from Africa volunteered to fight or serve in secondary roles, and ended up slogging through the jungles of Burma, or climbing the hills and mountains of Italy, in British service. Yes there were internal issues in India, and even bigger issues in Burma, were there was and is to this day conflict between the lowland Burmese and the various hill tribes. But other than one peculiar situation, it was only in the “white” dominions and among the white population of the white dominated dominion and colony, that conscription took place. And that one peculiar situation, the Anglo Indian population of the western frontier region, asked for conscription to be introduced for the Anglo Indians, after the fall of Burma in 1942. So was the general perception that the old boys in London had blundered their way into another war with Germany, I seriously doubt so.

RR.
 
So the proposed Vickers 75mm HV that should have gone into the Cromwell will in fact go into the Victor,
Huzzah for historical precedent! Isn't it nice when you can just wave your hands and say 'yeah, I'll just do what they did/almost did OTL. They knew what they were doing'?
 
Considering that the 3in 20cwt gun is still in service with the British Army AA divisions and the RN, wouldn't it have been simpler to just stay with the 3in shell, which will allow them to use the 17pdr round when it became available?
 
There's no point in reinforcing a failed operation. I'm surprised they didn't try at least a token evacuation though.

Presumably somebody had an outbreak of sense upon realising that to evacuate any of the forces they dropped onto Crete, they'd need to run the Royal Navy Gauntlet to get there, then keep the fleet elements covering the reinforcement wave who have become an invasion wave there, because otherwise the RN says hello to their evacuation force and then hope that the few survivors on Crete can make it to the area that the reinforcements would have to have secured, load them all back onto the ships and then escape.

It's... If the RN committed, then all the forces that would have had to be deployed to take the landing area to then allow an evacuation would be stuck in the same circumstances as those they came to evacuate and some of the precious few surface ships available to the Italians and Germans would be sitting at the bottom of the Aegean.

If by some miracle, from their perspective, that the RN don't commit then they still have to seize landing areas and hold them while they try to get any of the Paratroops that may have survived and not been captured back there and onto the boats.

Basically, any ability to evacuate anyone would have been relying entirely on the landings and evacuations being unopposed.

So as shocking as it seems, it looks like sanity won the day somewhere in the Italian and German commands.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top