Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

The question is, is it the same case? It's certainly a different shell (75 x 495 mm for the Model 1931, 76.2 x 420 mmR for the 3" 20cwt), so it might not be the same case.
It was mentioned in an earlier post that the original prototype was used the 75x495mm round but this was rejected. Vickers were asked to use the 420mm round instead as the shorter length makes it easier to handle in a tank. I am also pretty sure the latest update mentioned that it was the 420mm case from the 3" 20cwt necked down to 75mm.
 
is this still 75mm madness still going on?
Yes it is.

It was mentioned in an earlier post that the original prototype was used the 75x495mm round but this was rejected. Vickers were asked to use the 420mm round instead as the shorter length makes it easier to handle in a tank. I am also pretty sure the latest update mentioned that it was the 420mm case from the 3" 20cwt necked down to 75mm.
Okay, yeah, that makes no sense. Why go for a 75mm calibre, when the ammo you'll be using will all be based on 76.2mm calibre ammo?
 
Apparently the only thing people get more worked up about is rifle cartridges. I'm expecting that to go off the next time OP is incautious enough to mention small arms of any sort.
Clearly, the Cartridge that the British should adopt Post-War is...

You know what? People, you can all fill in the blanks yourselves.
 
As far as guns go, my take is that these discussions are all very fun, but really it doesn't matter a whole lot. Whether it's 75mm HV, reworked 3" AA, reworked 3" Finnish or new-design 3" AT, its performance will be much the same. It'll have a similar HE round to the OTL OQF or US 75mm while hitting harder with AP - not up to the level of the OTL 17pdr or the German 75L70 but small enough to fit in a mid-war tank. An extra 1.2mm here or a few more fps there won't get you a Tiger-cracker on a Victor I. That decision was made when the Victor's size, engine and turret ring were decided.

Not that the British would really see any need for a Tiger-cracker TTL. It's May 1941, the Tiger is a rumour a year off, the Valiant I/I* has proven more than adequate in service and the new Valiant II with the 6pdr is capable of handling the latest PzIII and PzIV. The 75mm HV is planned to arm the next-gen tank when they have the time and resources to upgrade from the Valiant. No-one at the front, TTL, is screaming for a heavy HE shell or better AP performance.

It's important to remember how much better the British have been doing TTL, not just at the strategic level but at the tactical one as well. There have been no infantry defences overrun by panzers, no cases where a British armoured brigade with 150 tanks took on a depleted Panzer division with maybe 50 and ended up withdrawing to laager, leaving 50 or 60 wrecks on the battlefield and 40 surviving panzers to maul the Commonwealth infantry the next day. The doctrine looks to be working, the tanks themselves are as good as the best of the opposition. Montgomery may have his reservations, but I suspect the bulk of the British army thinks they have the whole "armoured warfare" thing pretty much sorted.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the Victor and its gun become a victim of the Valiant's success. Think about the strategic situation - what are the British going to be using tank formations for in 1942? Once the Italians are driven out of Libya (sure, the Germans are an issue, but they're present in low strength and have terrible logistics), any serious invasion of Italy or Greece - never mind France - is going to need amphibious capacity and a logistic train the the British simply don't have, and without the Americans in the war, are not going to have before mid-1943 at the earliest. Winston no doubt will come up with some wizard plan for Pantellaria or Rhodes or Norway or somewhere, but none of those need tanks. The Japanese are making threatening noises, but they're hip-deep in China and surely not ready to start another war. And anyway the defence of Singapore is the Navy's job. And meanwhile the Navy always needs more steel for more new escorts and more AA guns to put on them, and the RAF is reminding everyone that the bomber offensive is going to be the only way to take the war to the Germans for maybe the next two or three years.

So - back-burner the Victor and all those wild plans for a 1944 tank in 1942; the Valiant II can do what's needed until the Second Front finally becomes a possibility, maybe in Spring 1944. It's not like the Germans have a supertank on the drawing board that will be starting volume production in a year's time, and if they do - so what? The Panzers will be doing the same thing as the Armoured Divisions - sitting around waiting for the RAF, RN and British industry to do the necessary to make D-Day a practical proposition.
 
The question is, is it the same case? It's certainly a different shell (75 x 495 mm for the Model 1931, 76.2 x 420 mmR for the 3" 20cwt), so it might not be the same case.
To put a spanner in the works , when the Finnish bought some Model 1931's they were chambered for 3 inch not 75mm so Vickers could modify the gun
 
As far as guns go, my take is that these discussions are all very fun, but really it doesn't matter a whole lot. Whether it's 75mm HV, reworked 3" AA, reworked 3" Finnish or new-design 3" AT, its performance will be much the same. It'll have a similar HE round to the OTL OQF or US 75mm while hitting harder with AP - not up to the level of the OTL 17pdr or the German 75L70 but small enough to fit in a mid-war tank. An extra 1.2mm here or a few more fps there won't get you a Tiger-cracker on a Victor I. That decision was made when the Victor's size, engine and turret ring were decided.

Not that the British would really see any need for a Tiger-cracker TTL. It's May 1941, the Tiger is a rumour a year off, the Valiant I/I* has proven more than adequate in service and the new Valiant II with the 6pdr is capable of handling the latest PzIII and PzIV. The 75mm HV is planned to arm the next-gen tank when they have the time and resources to upgrade from the Valiant. No-one at the front, TTL, is screaming for a heavy HE shell or better AP performance.

It's important to remember how much better the British have been doing TTL, not just at the strategic level but at the tactical one as well. There have been no infantry defences overrun by panzers, no cases where a British armoured brigade with 150 tanks took on a depleted Panzer division with maybe 50 and ended up withdrawing to laager, leaving 50 or 60 wrecks on the battlefield and 40 surviving panzers to maul the Commonwealth infantry the next day. The doctrine looks to be working, the tanks themselves are as good as the best of the opposition. Montgomery may have his reservations, but I suspect the bulk of the British army thinks they have the whole "armoured warfare" thing pretty much sorted.

It wouldn't surprise me to see the Victor and its gun become a victim of the Valiant's success. Think about the strategic situation - what are the British going to be using tank formations for in 1942? Once the Italians are driven out of Libya (sure, the Germans are an issue, but they're present in low strength and have terrible logistics), any serious invasion of Italy or Greece - never mind France - is going to need amphibious capacity and a logistic train the the British simply don't have, and without the Americans in the war, are not going to have before mid-1943 at the earliest. Winston no doubt will come up with some wizard plan for Pantellaria or Rhodes or Norway or somewhere, but none of those need tanks. The Japanese are making threatening noises, but they're hip-deep in China and surely not ready to start another war. And anyway the defence of Singapore is the Navy's job. And meanwhile the Navy always needs more steel for more new escorts and more AA guns to put on them, and the RAF is reminding everyone that the bomber offensive is going to be the only way to take the war to the Germans for maybe the next two or three years.

So - back-burner the Victor and all those wild plans for a 1944 tank in 1942; the Valiant II can do what's needed until the Second Front finally becomes a possibility, maybe in Spring 1944. It's not like the Germans have a supertank on the drawing board that will be starting volume production in a year's time, and if they do - so what? The Panzers will be doing the same thing as the Armoured Divisions - sitting around waiting for the RAF, RN and British industry to do the necessary to make D-Day a practical proposition.
Britain isn't stupid enough to be reactionary. Design work on the 17-pounder started in late 1940, before the 6-pounder was even in service. The same will be true for tanks, Britain knows Germany will eventually build something that can outmatch the Valiant, so they'd better have their own tank to match the new German one. Also, the sooner you start, the more time you have to test the prototypes to work out the bugs. This will have been demonstrated to the British by the comparison of the Valiant to the Crusader.
 
Last edited:
It'll be interesting to see the german tank developments, as presumably the Valiant has managed to give the Germans a bit of a jolt and the Tiger/Panther won't be exact duplicates of their OTL counterparts (I apologise in advance Allan for the inevitable german 75/88mm cannon arguments).
 
It'll be interesting to see the german tank developments, as presumably the Valiant has managed to give the Germans a bit of a jolt and the Tiger/Panther won't be exact duplicates of their OTL counterparts (I apologise in advance Allan for the inevitable german 75/88mm cannon arguments).
I think the major question there is, have the Germans actually managed to capture any Valiants. If not, all they know is that Britain has a tough new tank.
 
It wouldn't surprise me to see the Victor and its gun become a victim of the Valiant's success. Think about the strategic situation - what are the British going to be using tank formations for in 1942? Once the Italians are driven out of Libya (sure, the Germans are an issue, but they're present in low strength and have terrible logistics), any serious invasion of Italy or Greece - never mind France - is going to need amphibious capacity and a logistic train the the British simply don't have, and without the Americans in the war, are not going to have before mid-1943 at the earliest. Winston no doubt will come up with some wizard plan for Pantellaria or Rhodes or Norway or somewhere, but none of those need tanks. The Japanese are making threatening noises, but they're hip-deep in China and surely not ready to start another war. And anyway the defence of Singapore is the Navy's job. And meanwhile the Navy always needs more steel for more new escorts and more AA guns to put on them, and the RAF is reminding everyone that the bomber offensive is going to be the only way to take the war to the Germans for maybe the next two or three years.

So - back-burner the Victor and all those wild plans for a 1944 tank in 1942; the Valiant II can do what's needed until the Second Front finally becomes a possibility, maybe in Spring 1944. It's not like the Germans have a supertank on the drawing board that will be starting volume production in a year's time, and if they do - so what? The Panzers will be doing the same thing as the Armoured Divisions - sitting around waiting for the RAF, RN and British industry to do the necessary to make D-Day a practical proposition.
Except Britain will be sending tanks to the Soviets where they will come up against improved Panzer III's and IV's, Panthers and Tigers so will know they need to keep improving what they have to stay ahead of the development curve.
 
Except Britain will be sending tanks to the Soviets where they will come up against improved Panzer III's and IV's, Panthers and Tigers so will know they need to keep improving what they have to stay ahead of the development curve.
That's a point. Ought to get them worried, when the British tanks are still better theirs.
 
What are the listed improvement to the PzIII and IV, again?

I think I remember it was thicker armor and a better 50mm gun? They would still probably tear the T-26 and BT series apart just slightly faster. Maybe put up more of a fight against a T-34?
 
Soviets would rather bite their tongues off than to say that.
I was thinking of the Germans realising that, not the Soviets.

What are the listed improvement to the PzIII and IV, again?

I think I remember it was thicker armor and a better 50mm gun? They would still probably tear the T-26 and BT series apart just slightly faster. Maybe put up more of a fight against a T-34?
The German shock at the existence of the T-34 is a bit overblown to be frank.
 
Last edited:
These were done by @Claymore . Again many thanks to him.
Firstly the A11 Matilda with the 2-pdr pompom.
AH Matilda A11.png

This is the Valiant I, Infantry Tank Mark III (OTL Matilda II was Infantry Tank Mark II)
Claymore'sValiant3.png

This is the Valiant I*, cruiser variant:
ClaymoresValiant1.png

This is the Valiant Mark II with the 6-pdr gun:
Valentine Mk II A.png

The Vampire 25-pdr SPG:
Vampire I SPG.png

This is an early concept of the Victor.
Valiant Mk III Proposal A.png
 
Top