Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode

allanpcameron

Donor
So this is @Claymore's picture of the Carden designed A11 with the turret from a Vickers Commercial with the 2-pdr exported to Latvia.
AH Matilda A11.png

The questions that arise for me are:
The question is whether that suspension would be adequate for a tank of about 12 tons? I wonder if that was why Leslie Little changed from the Horstmann bogies to the Vickers 6 ton or Dragon suspension, did he believe that the bogies wouldn't cope with the weight?
I'm also wondering because this alternative A11 has the same Meadows engine as the Vickers Mark VIB providing 88hp, rather than the Ford 70hp used OTL, giving about three or four more mph that OTL's 8mph. I'm also saying that the Mark II will have the same AEC engine as the A9 and A10 providing 150hp. Going by my poor maths, that could give the A11 more than 15mph, would that suspension take it do you think?
The other thing looking at it is there's no co-axial machine gun which would probably rule it out as an infantry support tank. Do you think there would be room in the turret for a Vickers followed by a Besa?
Allan
 

Peg Leg Pom

The suspension should hold, but I wouldn't want to push it above 10mph unless it's a dire emergency. As it's an infantry tank they'll definitely squeeze in an mg.
 
Last edited:
GrahamB

GrahamB

That jaunty crew of krauts trundling along in the Mk VI/105mm LeFH16 look like they belong on the start line of the Wacky Races. I shall dub it a Hamstern (German for Hamster) because of its proportions.

"Is the parking brake on, Klaus?"
"Parking brake is on, Gunter!"
"Firing!"
[Gun fires, Hamstern does a back flip]
"Did we hit anything?"
"I'll let you know when the world stops spinning!"
[Dick Dastardly, in a recently exploded bush] "Yes, yes you did!"
 

MattII

marathag said:
84mm, 18.5 pound round, at 1625 fps
Unlike the 25 pdr, is a fixed round, the case 84x295R with a 101mm rim with a 64mm calculated penetration.
It seems to have used 36,000 pound chamber pressure

the US 75mm was 75x350 with an 87mm rim, 38,000psi pressure
Click to expand...
So, decently powerful then? Good. If they can squeeze an 18-pounder in, that has several advantages:
1) The 18-pounder is a reasonable gun at this stage in the war.
2) If your turret can take an 18-pounder, it can take other larger-than-currently-in-service weapons.
3) You might just drum up some interest from the RA.
 
Last edited:
marathag

marathag

Banned
MattII said:
So, decently powerful then? Good. If they can squeeze an 18-pounder in, that has several advantages:
1) The 18-pounder is a reasonable gun at this stage in the war.
2) If your turret can take an 18-pounder, it can take other larger-than-currently-in-service weapons.
3) you might just drum up some interest from the RA.
Click to expand...
Also, with a new liner, the 18 pdr became the QF 13 Pounder 9 cwt AA gun in WWI, 9cwt =1008 pounds for tube and breech
76mm 12.5 pound shell with the 18 pdr cartridge case. 2150 fps, 67mm calculated performance for AP

This is slightly heavier tube than the US 75mm M3, lighter projectile at higher velocity
 

Atrophied

following this since i finally found this . Really should check before and after 1900 forums more often for those good topics to follow.
 

Cryhavoc101

allanpcameron said:
So this is @Claymore's picture of the Carden designed A11 with the turret from a Vickers Commercial with the 2-pdr exported to Latvia.
View attachment 596167
The questions that arise for me are:
The question is whether that suspension would be adequate for a tank of about 12 tons? I wonder if that was why Leslie Little changed from the Horstmann bogies to the Vickers 6 ton or Dragon suspension, did he believe that the bogies wouldn't cope with the weight?
I'm also wondering because this alternative A11 has the same Meadows engine as the Vickers Mark VIB providing 88hp, rather than the Ford 70hp used OTL, giving about three or four more mph that OTL's 8mph. I'm also saying that the Mark II will have the same AEC engine as the A9 and A10 providing 150hp. Going by my poor maths, that could give the A11 more than 15mph, would that suspension take it do you think?
The other thing looking at it is there's no co-axial machine gun which would probably rule it out as an infantry support tank. Do you think there would be room in the turret for a Vickers followed by a Besa?
Allan
Click to expand...

If it could mount a 2 pounder could it mount a 3.7" Howitzer mountain gun?
 

Peg Leg Pom

allanpcameron said:
So this is @Claymore's picture of the Carden designed A11 with the turret from a Vickers Commercial with the 2-pdr exported to Latvia.
View attachment 596167
The questions that arise for me are:
The question is whether that suspension would be adequate for a tank of about 12 tons? I wonder if that was why Leslie Little changed from the Horstmann bogies to the Vickers 6 ton or Dragon suspension, did he believe that the bogies wouldn't cope with the weight?
I'm also wondering because this alternative A11 has the same Meadows engine as the Vickers Mark VIB providing 88hp, rather than the Ford 70hp used OTL, giving about three or four more mph that OTL's 8mph. I'm also saying that the Mark II will have the same AEC engine as the A9 and A10 providing 150hp. Going by my poor maths, that could give the A11 more than 15mph, would that suspension take it do you think?
The other thing looking at it is there's no co-axial machine gun which would probably rule it out as an infantry support tank. Do you think there would be room in the turret for a Vickers followed by a Besa?
Allan
Click to expand...
I wonder if for the Mk II it might be better to have a scaled down version of the Slow Motion Suspension system. Perhaps with one full sized three wheel bogie and a two wheel bogie.
 

andys

On the illustration above, wouldn't it be better for the longitudinal hull armour above the trackguard to be sloped out over the trackguards, like on the T-34?
That would increase the protection in that area as well as giving a little more space within the crew compartment.
Some bazooka plates, like on the Centurion, covering the running gear and lower hull side would help as well.
 
Last edited:
marathag

marathag

Banned
andys said:
That would increase the protection in that area as well as giving a little more space within the crew compartment
Click to expand...
Upthread I put a interior shot of the T34, that extra volume really wasn't of too much use, and the sloped plate adds more weight, and then that means wider tracks, that need wider wheels, and thats more weight, meaning a bigger engine that's heavier, that means a longer hull that's more weight.........
 
Orry

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
Do bazooka plates work early on against HEAT rounds anyway?

I remember watching a youtube video with the chieftan and others saying that earlt HEAT was sub optiomal due to fuzing issues.

Early plates actually caused the HEAT warhead to work more efficiently.
 

duckie

Orry said:
Do bazooka plates work early on against HEAT rounds anyway?

I remember watching a youtube video with the chieftan and others saying that earlt HEAT was sub optiomal due to fuzing issues.

Early plates actually caused the HEAT warhead to work more efficiently.
Click to expand...
Or as the Italian HEAT rounds in North Africa, the fuzes didn't work correctly at all, They where so bad that the HEAT rounds functioned as HESH rounds, which did al lot of damage ..
 

allanpcameron

Donor
perfectgeneral said:
I thought the extra weight and engine size might require a full third two wheel bogie.

View attachment 596383
Click to expand...
How much did you have to lengthen it to get the extra wheel? OTL length is either 15'11" or 16'4" depending on source, Wiki has managed to make 4.85m into 18'5"! It looks like you've added about 2' to the engine compartment. Certainly looks better, but not sure that is the same tank at that point.
 

Peg Leg Pom

allanpcameron said:
How much did you have to lengthen it to get the extra wheel? OTL length is either 15'11" or 16'4" depending on source, Wiki has managed to make 4.85m into 18'5"! It looks like you've added about 2' to the engine compartment. Certainly looks better, but not sure that is the same tank at that point.
Click to expand...
At that point it's a Valentine in all but name.
 
1 November 1938. 10:00hrs. Birmingham, England.
  • Index

    • allanpcameron

    Donor
    1 November 1938. 10:00hrs. Birmingham, England.

    The Birmingham Small Arms factory had acquired the rights to build the Czechoslovakian ZB 53 machine gun at the behest of the War Office. With the situation in Czechoslovakia the company were worried that the German takeover would complicate matters.

    The company had therefore sent one of its engineers to the Zbrodovka Works in Brno to get the all the paperwork and blueprints that the agreement had promised. It was all a bit cloak and dagger, but he successfully returned to Birmingham with all the company needed.

    The problem now was getting everything translated and transferred from the metric to imperial measurements. The original plan had been to adapt the gun to accept the rimmed .303 round, but the Royal Tank Corps agreed to accept the belt-fed version provided that it remained in its original form with the 7.92mm round.

    A team was convened at Small Heath and work began to try to put in place the work that would be needed to prepare to put the gun into production. Once the blueprints had been translated the company would need to work out what machine tools would be needed, the training of workers and the sub-assemblies and raw materials that would need to be ordered. The army was keen to get the guns as soon a possible, but the managers reckoned it would be at least six months before the first guns would be available. Realistically to get to full production, about 200 per month, might take another year, depending on how many problems had to be resolved.
     
  • Index
    • Reader mode
    Top
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top