I was under the impression that TTL's Ricardo Lion would be capable of the lower end of that. There might be a bit of scope to improve on the engines while in production which would put it exactly where your talking about.
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
I was under the impression that TTL's Ricardo Lion would be capable of the lower end of that. There might be a bit of scope to improve on the engines while in production which would put it exactly where your talking about.
I was having a moment. I like to call this thinking but my wife thinks I look like I'm having a mild stroke. ITTL the Valiant should be head and shoulders better than any other tank in the British stable. It would make sence (so best chance of it happening are less than 50/50) for the British to concentrate on producing Valiants at the expense of the other models available or planned for the near future. If this is the case could it be a case of converting some of the other tanks out there into specialist/support tanks instead of the Valiant? I think the A13 would potentially be a good bet for things like tracked AAA and APC (not sure it's big enough for SPG).
This would mean the work Vickers are currently doing in the story would be more proof of concept than future production prototypes.
This would mean the work Vickers are currently doing in the story would be more proof of concept than future production prototypes.
Nice work so far!
British get a tank that can be upgraded and which should be adequate for their needs, even in the latter stages of WW2. It will also be interesting to see just how many of them they will be able to produce, if their OTL production of various tanks is replaced by Valiant ITTL. I mean, if it becomes the standard (Heavy) Cruiser tank of the war, it replaces things like Crusader, Covenanter and Cromwell, in addition to taking the place of Valentine and perhaps Matilda II production as well!
I have taken this from Wiki so be warned, but if we look at these numbers, British are in a rather good position numbers wise IMHO. Valentine (8,275), Covenanter (1,711), Crusader (5,300) Cromwell (4,016), in addition to at least partially replacing the production of Matilda IIs (2,987) and early Cruiser Marks (roughly 1,300 or so). With concentration on just a single type, British are certainly going to be able to pump out quite a number of them, in essence becoming something similar to German Pz.IV, at least as I see it, something that is around from almost the very beginning of the war, and while certainly showing its age by 1945, still being competitive enough, able to handle most duties required of it.
OFC, it is going to be hitting its upgrade limits sooner or later, but that is going to be inescapable TBH, and by then I think we are likely to see British manage to get a decent enough tank developed and mass produced, if only because they are not going to be constantly lagging behind everyone else in that regard. Though, if they suddenly need a Quick&Dirty way to get a 17pdr armed AFV into service, at worst we are likely to see something like OTL Archer TD, or maybe some sort of arrangement as was done with Challenger (A30), if possible.
I personally would like to see Centurions on D-Day, but that is certainly a bit too optimistic from me... Maybe Black Prince comes in earlier? One can dream, especially if they manage to jam something like 20pdr in it, making it a proper British Tiger?
British get a tank that can be upgraded and which should be adequate for their needs, even in the latter stages of WW2. It will also be interesting to see just how many of them they will be able to produce, if their OTL production of various tanks is replaced by Valiant ITTL. I mean, if it becomes the standard (Heavy) Cruiser tank of the war, it replaces things like Crusader, Covenanter and Cromwell, in addition to taking the place of Valentine and perhaps Matilda II production as well!
I have taken this from Wiki so be warned, but if we look at these numbers, British are in a rather good position numbers wise IMHO. Valentine (8,275), Covenanter (1,711), Crusader (5,300) Cromwell (4,016), in addition to at least partially replacing the production of Matilda IIs (2,987) and early Cruiser Marks (roughly 1,300 or so). With concentration on just a single type, British are certainly going to be able to pump out quite a number of them, in essence becoming something similar to German Pz.IV, at least as I see it, something that is around from almost the very beginning of the war, and while certainly showing its age by 1945, still being competitive enough, able to handle most duties required of it.
OFC, it is going to be hitting its upgrade limits sooner or later, but that is going to be inescapable TBH, and by then I think we are likely to see British manage to get a decent enough tank developed and mass produced, if only because they are not going to be constantly lagging behind everyone else in that regard. Though, if they suddenly need a Quick&Dirty way to get a 17pdr armed AFV into service, at worst we are likely to see something like OTL Archer TD, or maybe some sort of arrangement as was done with Challenger (A30), if possible.
I personally would like to see Centurions on D-Day, but that is certainly a bit too optimistic from me... Maybe Black Prince comes in earlier? One can dream, especially if they manage to jam something like 20pdr in it, making it a proper British Tiger?
I wouldn't bother with the Black Prince, even if given a powerful enough engine it's a dead end. Push for a true universal tank.
That is true, but will they do that without the benefit of hindsight? I mean, the British Tank lineup is likely to be substantially different then IOTL, and maybe the drivers that ended up with British Developing Centurion MBT are not there anymore? It is just the thought that has been on my mind for some time, does the sum of British WW2 tank experience must conclude in Centurion tank or is something else possible? If we are talking about WW2 period, we could see British going for Heavy Cruiser (ITTL Valiant) tanks, and then the arguments could be made that Churchill tank does have to be a definite improvement on the Infantry Tank concept, especially in areas like Armour and Firepower, which could then result in TTL Churchill becoming something more along the lines of Black Prince in its latter variants, especially if Engines are sorted out somewhat earlier. I dare to think that without the need to design several different cruiser tanks, we could see more effort being spent on improving the Churchill and resulting design being somewhat more successful.
I really have no idea just how the British Tank design may go ITTL, and I am more then ready to admit that I am far from expert, but maybe there is a another way for them? And TBH, there is something about Churchill tank (and derviatives) design that I always liked, especially the way it looked, it simply looks solid, uncomplicated, "slow&steady wins the race" sort of look...
The obvious step up from the Valiant is something around 35 tons mounting the 77mm or the 17-pdr. 3-4" of well sloped front armour.
Basically a British panther
Basically a British panther
Agreed. It's quite amusing how for all the work put into the BP, by the time it was nearly ready to have its kinks worked out the Centurion had already arrived and set the new global standard for tanks.
That is indeed optimistic. I don't think it unreasonable for a Centurion-equivalent to enter service before VE day however, the prototypes were deployed to Belgium in May 1945 for real-world testing OTL.
Quite reasonable.
My prediction for this timeline is for there to be a Valliant 2 entering service around 1943-44, taking all the best qualities of the Valiant (which will be coming up against the limits of its growth potential) and putting them on a bigger chassis so you could mount a large turret ring or casement with your choice of gun depending on role, essentially making a tank halfway between OTL's Cromwell and Churchill. From this "Churchwell" you get a more direct line of development to the post-war Centurion rather than via Cromwell and Comet.
As an aside, I hope the Comet's turret makes an appearance in this timeline, I think it's one of the better British wartime turrets and would be a shame to have butterflied out.
EDIT; This was meant to be a look at how many Valiant's Britain may be able to build in 1940 and sort of escalated, a lot. Enjoy.
Talking potential production numbers of Valliant's is interesting.
If we take the hoped for order of 300 as a given and a time frame for delivery of 12 months that gives 25 per month by Vickers. This is something Vickers should be able to meet without much difficulty. That is obviously a pre war number and as soon as war is declared I would expect orders to be increased along with the number expected per month.
That should make it possible for around 1 month's production to be sent to France before it's fall.
If we assume Vickers can increase production to between 30 and 40 a month on average in 1940 that makes 250 to 350 total Valiant's built by Vickers by the time Compass comes around. Again some number of those should be able to find their way to Egypt. Not a lot, say 50 to 100 but enough to make a contribution.
now we come to the interesting little butterflies. OTL after France fell officers in the British army were saying Britain needs better tanks with more armour and a bigger gun. TTL I expect the call to be more that Britain needs more Valiant's, just with a bigger gun please. That may well have knock on effects so that extra production for Valiant's is sourced quickly. Possibly one will be Harland and Wolf that may add another 50-150 Valiant's produced by Compass but not many more will likely end up in Egypt in 1940.
As for total Numbers of possible Valiant's produced well that's more up for debate.
OTL Britain produced on average 150 Valentines a month (ignoring Canadian production for a moment) and roughly 400-450 tanks a month for the whole of the war.
If we only assume the same 150 tanks a month as the Valiant but for the whole of the war (40-45 so 6 years total production) then that's 11000 made just in Britain.
If you go to the other extreme and say 450 Valiant's a month for the same period (roughly OTL Britain's total domestic tank production) that's 32500.
Now the real number is possibly going to be in the middle somewhere and my not last the full 5 years. If we assume roughly 300 a month only ending at the end of 44 that's 18-20000 Valiant's of various Marks.
The ending point before the end of the war is because I suspect Britain would have a superior follow on tank taking over production by that point.
Add to that the potential of Canada adding another 50-100 a month for the same period plus any other production sources, Australia perhaps then numbers may reach to around 25000 total produced say.
I would not be surprised however if the actual number produced would be higher than 300 a month average in Britain. Their have been hints of a dedicated Tank factory and that along with traditional production centres not having to retool to make new models may well up production numbers in terms of economies of scale.
A total production number for the whole Empire of 33-36000 for the duration of the war would not be entirely fanciful that's 470-500 a month total from 40-45.
To put that into some context that is pretty much the same number of Tanks Britain alone produced between 36 and 45. Obviously that number is skewed by the low production numbers pre 39-40. Also Britain's constant stop start nature of putting a tank into production then stopping and retooling to something else also limits numbers. TTL their is scope for a few firms to do little more than build Valiant's in differing marks for the majority of the war. the only changes being detail ones like thicker armour, new guns and suspension etc. comparatively small changes from what happened OTL.
Another Comparison is the M4 Sherman, America was making around 1200 of those a month.
As for Britain actually using that many tanks, well a not insignificant number will be sent to Russia, and also Britain will likely rely far less heavily on Sherman's.
Talking potential production numbers of Valliant's is interesting.
If we take the hoped for order of 300 as a given and a time frame for delivery of 12 months that gives 25 per month by Vickers. This is something Vickers should be able to meet without much difficulty. That is obviously a pre war number and as soon as war is declared I would expect orders to be increased along with the number expected per month.
That should make it possible for around 1 month's production to be sent to France before it's fall.
If we assume Vickers can increase production to between 30 and 40 a month on average in 1940 that makes 250 to 350 total Valiant's built by Vickers by the time Compass comes around. Again some number of those should be able to find their way to Egypt. Not a lot, say 50 to 100 but enough to make a contribution.
now we come to the interesting little butterflies. OTL after France fell officers in the British army were saying Britain needs better tanks with more armour and a bigger gun. TTL I expect the call to be more that Britain needs more Valiant's, just with a bigger gun please. That may well have knock on effects so that extra production for Valiant's is sourced quickly. Possibly one will be Harland and Wolf that may add another 50-150 Valiant's produced by Compass but not many more will likely end up in Egypt in 1940.
As for total Numbers of possible Valiant's produced well that's more up for debate.
OTL Britain produced on average 150 Valentines a month (ignoring Canadian production for a moment) and roughly 400-450 tanks a month for the whole of the war.
If we only assume the same 150 tanks a month as the Valiant but for the whole of the war (40-45 so 6 years total production) then that's 11000 made just in Britain.
If you go to the other extreme and say 450 Valiant's a month for the same period (roughly OTL Britain's total domestic tank production) that's 32500.
Now the real number is possibly going to be in the middle somewhere and my not last the full 5 years. If we assume roughly 300 a month only ending at the end of 44 that's 18-20000 Valiant's of various Marks.
The ending point before the end of the war is because I suspect Britain would have a superior follow on tank taking over production by that point.
Add to that the potential of Canada adding another 50-100 a month for the same period plus any other production sources, Australia perhaps then numbers may reach to around 25000 total produced say.
I would not be surprised however if the actual number produced would be higher than 300 a month average in Britain. Their have been hints of a dedicated Tank factory and that along with traditional production centres not having to retool to make new models may well up production numbers in terms of economies of scale.
A total production number for the whole Empire of 33-36000 for the duration of the war would not be entirely fanciful that's 470-500 a month total from 40-45.
To put that into some context that is pretty much the same number of Tanks Britain alone produced between 36 and 45. Obviously that number is skewed by the low production numbers pre 39-40. Also Britain's constant stop start nature of putting a tank into production then stopping and retooling to something else also limits numbers. TTL their is scope for a few firms to do little more than build Valiant's in differing marks for the majority of the war. the only changes being detail ones like thicker armour, new guns and suspension etc. comparatively small changes from what happened OTL.
Another Comparison is the M4 Sherman, America was making around 1200 of those a month.
As for Britain actually using that many tanks, well a not insignificant number will be sent to Russia, and also Britain will likely rely far less heavily on Sherman's.
Last edited:
Of course, the Panther was 45 tons, so something's going to have to give if you want to keep it down to medium tank size.
It's @allanpcameron 's timeline, but I wouldn't expect a Valiant with a 17-pdr. It's just a little bit smaller than the Sherman, both in overall size and in the turret ring, and getting the 17-pdr into the Sherman was an exercise in shoehorn ingenuity. A 77mm might just be possible.
One thing I will venture is that if the Valiant is a success there won't be a Churchill. The design work for the A22 will be quietly shelved once it's clear that they have a decent infantry tank with a viable upgrade path and there's no obvious requirement for a WW1-style trench-crosser.
All this means that there will be a perceived need for a new-generation tank starting when the Valiant II approaches its limits around the end of 1942 (which is also when the British first meet the Tiger). It could be an enlarged Valiant-type, or a super-cruiser with a 17-pdr, or both. Sure, with OTL hindsight we can see that the Valiant offers a route to the Universal Tank in 1943 instead of 1946, but if the TTL British Army have a decent infantry tank and a decent cruiser tank that seem to work with their doctrine - and less dependence on lend-lease Shermans - will they feel the push to change things? After all, the British WW2 tank doctrine comes in for a lot of flak, but it's not too far away from the contemporary American doctrine of fast turreted TDs to engage tanks, while the tanks are seen as infantry support vehicles.
What interests me is just how much criticism Americans level at the British Army because of their division of tanks into Cruisers and Infantry tanks, yet they accept quite happily the US Army's division of tanks into tanks and tank destroyers while ignoring that the German Army had a similar division between "support" or "breakthrough" tanks and well, just tanks. Just as the Soviets did as well.
The British Army lead the world in armoured doctrine between the wars. They created their Mechanised Force and played with it in what, three? Significant exercises which demonstrated just what a mechanised force could do. Guderian based his initial theories on the training pamphlets that the British Army produced, paying for the translation for his own officers. The British ideas of cruiser and infantry tanks are today dismissed but at the time made a lot of sense. Too many people apply hindsight to this issue IMO. While a "universal tank" is desirable, it has to overcome a lot of friction to occur, something Montgomery the coiner of the term had to do to get it accepted amongst his contemporaries and even then, it wasn't until about 1950 that it becomes evident in the Centurion Mk.III. Sir John Carden can make a start but his views have to be accepted by the military before they can be adopted.
The British Army lead the world in armoured doctrine between the wars. They created their Mechanised Force and played with it in what, three? Significant exercises which demonstrated just what a mechanised force could do. Guderian based his initial theories on the training pamphlets that the British Army produced, paying for the translation for his own officers. The British ideas of cruiser and infantry tanks are today dismissed but at the time made a lot of sense. Too many people apply hindsight to this issue IMO. While a "universal tank" is desirable, it has to overcome a lot of friction to occur, something Montgomery the coiner of the term had to do to get it accepted amongst his contemporaries and even then, it wasn't until about 1950 that it becomes evident in the Centurion Mk.III. Sir John Carden can make a start but his views have to be accepted by the military before they can be adopted.
The initial German division wasn't between 'support' and 'breakthrough' tanks, but between tanks designed to deal with other tanks (Panzer III) and tanks designed to deal with bunkers and other defences (Panzer IV), as neither had significantly thick armour. The Soviets did have something of the same doctrine as the British, but had already realised the error by the start of the war, and even then, the KV-1 was faster than any of the British infantry tanks.
EMF ended in 1934, and thereafter, the concepts were mostly forgotten in Britain, even if they were picked up elsewhere.
The EMF may have ended in 1934 but it's effects lasted a whole lot longer. It formed the basis on which the British Army developed it's tanks. The division between cruisers and infantry tanks was similar to that of the Soviet and German Armies. The infantry tank was designed to sustain breakthroughs and the cruisers were designed to exploit that. One was meant to command and survive on the battlefield in direct contact with the enemy and the other was meant to go out, beyond that and run rampage on the enemy's rear echelons. The Germans had similar as did the Russians. The major difference was that the British were quite willing to accept the slower speed of infantry tanks, something neither of the other combatants did. Yet, when infantry tanks were used, they didn't actually hinder operations all that much. In the Western Desert, in Tunisia, in Italy and in NW Europe. Indeed, when Churchills were used as just tanks in NW Europe, they found that the Germans couldn't stop them, despite their slower speeds.
I would agree and add that the Churchill and heavy Churchill while proving to be good tanks and more importantly 'useful' tanks got the extra lease of life and extra production due to delays in the other tanks of the day such as the Cromwell and later Comet (partially delayed OTL as extra Cromwell's were needed after losses in Normandy and by that stage in the war the now very experienced British AFV workforces could be relatively easily shifted around between factory's etc).
With better tanks earlier I can easily see Churchill not being seen as good 'relative' to the OPs tank designs and therefore having a more limited and shorter run with the workforces and factory's that OTL produced them used on the subsequent designs that occur in TTL.
So definitely no Black Prince ITTL IMO
A 35 ton Valiant II with thicker armour and a 77mm gun is hardly an impossible aim, its basically a Comet, Hopefully with better armour shape and no Cristie suspension. Similar in weight to the Sherman. 30-35 tons was about the norm for middle-late war medium tanks, iirc going over around 35 tons started causing issue on moving them around the country.
The British learned some of the lessons of the EMF, but the Germans learned more, as noted by their building of the Sd.Kfz. 251. Britain learned that the infantry needs tank support to be effective, while the Germans learned that tanks need infantry support to be effective. They also learned that air-power significantly increases the effectiveness of any attack. It was when the British finally started learning these lessons that they started cleaning the Germans' clocks.
Last edited:
My understanding of the British Cruiser/Infantry split was the lack of suitably powerful engines for tanks. In the 30's they could either go fast but have light armour or go slow and have heavy armour but the engines where not there to make a fast well armoured tank. This had a number of causes not as evident in other countries, which is why the Germans and Soviets didn't feel this issue as keenly as the British. It was only when they started using aircraft engines the problem was solved, which forms a key ingreadient ITTL's Valiant tank.
As to the Germans using armoured half tracks the British did make considerable use of the fully tracked Bren Gun Carrier/Universal Carrier. How're neither of these was really what the infantry needed as in both cases they had to dismount 500+ meters away from the enemy and then advance (taking casualties all the way) much like their fathers had done in the first world war. Had anyone really studied the lessons learnt from the EMF then a reasonably well armoured APC would have been developed and deployed so the infantry could be transported right up to their objectives before dismounting. This didn't happen OTL until late in the war with the Kangaroos. In this time line Allan has indicated it might happen a bit sooner.
Which as ever I look forward to the next instalment.
As to the Germans using armoured half tracks the British did make considerable use of the fully tracked Bren Gun Carrier/Universal Carrier. How're neither of these was really what the infantry needed as in both cases they had to dismount 500+ meters away from the enemy and then advance (taking casualties all the way) much like their fathers had done in the first world war. Had anyone really studied the lessons learnt from the EMF then a reasonably well armoured APC would have been developed and deployed so the infantry could be transported right up to their objectives before dismounting. This didn't happen OTL until late in the war with the Kangaroos. In this time line Allan has indicated it might happen a bit sooner.
Which as ever I look forward to the next instalment.
20 February 1939. Lulworth Camp, Dorset, England.
allanpcameron
Donor
20 February 1939. Lulworth Camp, Dorset, England.
Armoured Fighting Vehicle School of Gunnery played host to the first two completed A9 cruiser tanks (T3492 and T3493) to enter service. Manufactured in the Elswick plant by Vickers-Armstrong, the newest tanks in the army had come to be put through their paces as gun platforms. Almost everybody from the various Royal Tank Corps units had found excuses to make their way to Dorset to have a look over the new tank.
Having been used to nursing the obsolete Medium Mark IIs through exercises, the fact that brand new tanks were coming along was a relief. All things considered the A9 was clearly a new generation of tank compared to the Mediums. The AEC Type A179 6-Cylinder Petrol, providing 150 hp, moved the tank along at a healthy 25mph on the road, while the ‘slow motion’ suspension kept the tank as a reasonably good gun platform at 15mph. Compared to the Medium Mark II, which had a 90hp engine, whose top speed was once 18mph on the road and 10mph off it, the new tank felt quick. It had been quite a while since the Mediums had managed to get up to those speeds since their engines and suspension were worn out.
For the gunners the 2-pdr gun provided them with something that the old QFSA 3-pdr didn’t, the ability to actually penetrate armour plate targets at a thousand yards. The old gun fired a round at 1,840 ft/s, this had now been replaced with one that fired at 2,600 ft/s and the gunners were going to need a lot of practice time to get used to the gun and its new sights. Hitting a target on the move, when your tank is moving faster than you are used to, wasn’t going to be easy. The instructors were familiarising themselves with the tanks to the point where they could properly instruct the rank and file of the RTC and Cavalry regiments that would need to be trained on the gun.
There were all sorts of other innovations and improvements over the old Mediums in the A9. The hydraulic power turret traverse made keeping the gun on target while moving a good deal easier, though the instructors soon discovered that for final fine tuning they preferred to use the manual controls. The armour protection for the crew had increased from a third of an inch to three-quarters of an inch. Having only a co-axial and hull mounted machine gun provided the tank with less fire power than the Medium Mark II had. The three machine guns in that tank had provided a wider field of fire, but the instructors at Lulworth were happier that there were fewer jobs for the crew to carry out. The idea of using the hull gunner as the wireless operator had initially been resisted, but once again the intercom borrowed from the Wellington bomber had eased their concerns. The tank commander was in a much better position to command the tank, while the positioning of the radio in the hull gave more space to carry ammunition for the guns.
The balancing of the gun, without the radio in the rear of the turret, had been achieved by Vickers in a satisfactory way, and the Royal Tank Corps instructors were overall very happy with the A9. A few of the men based at Lulworth had taken part in the trials of the Medium Mark III (A6 and A7)prototypes, and could see that Sir John Carden’s design of the A9 had given them a tank that fulfilled the potential they had seen in those prototypes. Once the first Close Support versions started arriving from Harland and Wolff, the RTC would be in a position to properly equip itself. The delivery of the first tanks from Belfast wasn’t expected until June. There was a lack of armoured plate and so some had had to be ordered from Böhler in what had been Austria. It was somewhat embarrassing that tanks that were designed to counter the rising threat of fascism were being built with steel from the Greater German Reich!
Armoured Fighting Vehicle School of Gunnery played host to the first two completed A9 cruiser tanks (T3492 and T3493) to enter service. Manufactured in the Elswick plant by Vickers-Armstrong, the newest tanks in the army had come to be put through their paces as gun platforms. Almost everybody from the various Royal Tank Corps units had found excuses to make their way to Dorset to have a look over the new tank.
Having been used to nursing the obsolete Medium Mark IIs through exercises, the fact that brand new tanks were coming along was a relief. All things considered the A9 was clearly a new generation of tank compared to the Mediums. The AEC Type A179 6-Cylinder Petrol, providing 150 hp, moved the tank along at a healthy 25mph on the road, while the ‘slow motion’ suspension kept the tank as a reasonably good gun platform at 15mph. Compared to the Medium Mark II, which had a 90hp engine, whose top speed was once 18mph on the road and 10mph off it, the new tank felt quick. It had been quite a while since the Mediums had managed to get up to those speeds since their engines and suspension were worn out.
For the gunners the 2-pdr gun provided them with something that the old QFSA 3-pdr didn’t, the ability to actually penetrate armour plate targets at a thousand yards. The old gun fired a round at 1,840 ft/s, this had now been replaced with one that fired at 2,600 ft/s and the gunners were going to need a lot of practice time to get used to the gun and its new sights. Hitting a target on the move, when your tank is moving faster than you are used to, wasn’t going to be easy. The instructors were familiarising themselves with the tanks to the point where they could properly instruct the rank and file of the RTC and Cavalry regiments that would need to be trained on the gun.
There were all sorts of other innovations and improvements over the old Mediums in the A9. The hydraulic power turret traverse made keeping the gun on target while moving a good deal easier, though the instructors soon discovered that for final fine tuning they preferred to use the manual controls. The armour protection for the crew had increased from a third of an inch to three-quarters of an inch. Having only a co-axial and hull mounted machine gun provided the tank with less fire power than the Medium Mark II had. The three machine guns in that tank had provided a wider field of fire, but the instructors at Lulworth were happier that there were fewer jobs for the crew to carry out. The idea of using the hull gunner as the wireless operator had initially been resisted, but once again the intercom borrowed from the Wellington bomber had eased their concerns. The tank commander was in a much better position to command the tank, while the positioning of the radio in the hull gave more space to carry ammunition for the guns.
The balancing of the gun, without the radio in the rear of the turret, had been achieved by Vickers in a satisfactory way, and the Royal Tank Corps instructors were overall very happy with the A9. A few of the men based at Lulworth had taken part in the trials of the Medium Mark III (A6 and A7)prototypes, and could see that Sir John Carden’s design of the A9 had given them a tank that fulfilled the potential they had seen in those prototypes. Once the first Close Support versions started arriving from Harland and Wolff, the RTC would be in a position to properly equip itself. The delivery of the first tanks from Belfast wasn’t expected until June. There was a lack of armoured plate and so some had had to be ordered from Böhler in what had been Austria. It was somewhat embarrassing that tanks that were designed to counter the rising threat of fascism were being built with steel from the Greater German Reich!
28 February 1939. Lulworth Camp, Dorset, England.
allanpcameron
Donor
28 February 1939. Lulworth Camp, Dorset, England.
It seemed to the Royal Tank Corps that tanks were like buses, you waited for ages for one to come along and then three arrived at the same time. Having had the first couple of A9s to get used to for a week, the first of Nuffield Mechanisation and Aero’s production of A13s had been delivered. If the A9 felt fast after the experience of the Medium Mark II, the A13 was positively speedy. The Liberty engine had had to be governed to keep the top speed on the road down to 30mph. What had really rattled the teeth of the instructors at both Lulworth and Bovington was doing up to 24mph cross country. The turret on the A13 differed from the A9 only in having the wireless set in the rear. Otherwise the gunner and loader positions were much the same, though there were some differences in the stowage of ammunition. For the gunnery instructors this was a blessing because they could use either turret for training. Delivery of the A9 and A13 would be relatively slow, so having a similar arrangement on both tanks simplified the job of the instructors. A number of training stands for the 2-pdr gun had been delivered so the initial training could be carried out before letting the new gunners loose in a tank turret.
What the speed of the A13 gave the crew was a sense of protection. Although the armour was only half an inch thick, an enemy would be hard pressed to hit a target moving at more than 20mph. For the gunnery instructors however, hitting a stationary target from a vehicle moving at more than 20mph would take some doing. Even worse would be trying to hit another tank that was also moving from a fast-moving position. The idea of stopping to shoot was anathema to the instructors, though they were beginning to see the value in at least slowing down. From that point of view the A9 was a slightly better gunnery platform, its slower speed over the cross-country parts of the range gave it an advantage in hitting another target. On the other hand, the A13’s top speed made it a firm favourite of tank commanders.
The third production tank to arrive was the new infantry tank, A11, from Vickers whose code name for it, ‘Matilda’, had been adopted by the RTC men. It was nice to call a tank by a name rather than a designation. Compared to the A13, the Matilda was a tortoise compared to a hare. With a crew of only three it was a good deal smaller than either the A9 or A13 and felt cramped in comparison. Vickers had somehow managed to shoehorn into the turret both a 2-pdr pompom gun and a .303 machine gun. Once the Besa air-cooled machine gun was available, this would make life a little easier as it would take up less room.
The pompom gun was designed primarily for the Royal Navy as an anti-aircraft weapon, its muzzle velocity was considerably less than the 2-pdr anti-tank gun. The gunnery instructors found the magazine for the semi-automatic gun slightly difficult to load in the cramped confines of the turret. In trials the advantage of the HE round against soft targets was clear, and, since it also had an AP round, even against armoured plate it fared quite well.
This led to a lively debate in the Sergeant Mess later in the evening about the merits of a gun that could take on both soft and hard targets. An HE shell for the 2-pdr tank gun was available in small numbers, but the explosive charge was little better than a hand grenade. Therefore, it needed to be fired every bit as accurately as an armour piercing round. The pompom gun’s HE round’s explosive charge wasn’t that much more powerful, but the faster rate of fire meant that it could put a few HE rounds in and around a target, destroying it effectively. The debate got a bit heated when considering what would happen if the infantry tank had to take on well protected bunkers. There were those who would prefer having a tank equipped with something more like a howitzer to be able to take on such a target. Others argued that that was the role of the artillery and that tanks shouldn’t be used as a solution to something that wasn’t their problem.
The Meadows 88hp engine, the same one used in the Mark VI light tanks, just about pushed the much heavier A11 along a road with a top speed of 11mph, though downhill, with a following wind, it might just make 13mph. Cross country, 8mph was about as much as it could muster. With 2.3 inches of armour the crew felt very protected, even the 2-pdr gun would have problems penetrating this thickness from anything more than point-blank range. Once again, this led to a debate in the Sergeant’s Mess about what kind of gun would be needed as an enemy began producing tanks with the same kind of armour thickness.
Since the Matilda would be going to the Army Tank Brigades rather than the Armoured Brigades, its slower speed compared to the A13, and even the A9, wasn’t an issue. Its pompom gun was considered adequate, and although it was different from the 2-pdr, instructing gunners on it wouldn’t be too difficult. Once the bigger A12, with the standard 2-pdr, started arriving from Vulcan Foundry the Tank Brigades would be better off, but as an interim tank, the Matilda was very welcome.
It seemed to the Royal Tank Corps that tanks were like buses, you waited for ages for one to come along and then three arrived at the same time. Having had the first couple of A9s to get used to for a week, the first of Nuffield Mechanisation and Aero’s production of A13s had been delivered. If the A9 felt fast after the experience of the Medium Mark II, the A13 was positively speedy. The Liberty engine had had to be governed to keep the top speed on the road down to 30mph. What had really rattled the teeth of the instructors at both Lulworth and Bovington was doing up to 24mph cross country. The turret on the A13 differed from the A9 only in having the wireless set in the rear. Otherwise the gunner and loader positions were much the same, though there were some differences in the stowage of ammunition. For the gunnery instructors this was a blessing because they could use either turret for training. Delivery of the A9 and A13 would be relatively slow, so having a similar arrangement on both tanks simplified the job of the instructors. A number of training stands for the 2-pdr gun had been delivered so the initial training could be carried out before letting the new gunners loose in a tank turret.
What the speed of the A13 gave the crew was a sense of protection. Although the armour was only half an inch thick, an enemy would be hard pressed to hit a target moving at more than 20mph. For the gunnery instructors however, hitting a stationary target from a vehicle moving at more than 20mph would take some doing. Even worse would be trying to hit another tank that was also moving from a fast-moving position. The idea of stopping to shoot was anathema to the instructors, though they were beginning to see the value in at least slowing down. From that point of view the A9 was a slightly better gunnery platform, its slower speed over the cross-country parts of the range gave it an advantage in hitting another target. On the other hand, the A13’s top speed made it a firm favourite of tank commanders.
The third production tank to arrive was the new infantry tank, A11, from Vickers whose code name for it, ‘Matilda’, had been adopted by the RTC men. It was nice to call a tank by a name rather than a designation. Compared to the A13, the Matilda was a tortoise compared to a hare. With a crew of only three it was a good deal smaller than either the A9 or A13 and felt cramped in comparison. Vickers had somehow managed to shoehorn into the turret both a 2-pdr pompom gun and a .303 machine gun. Once the Besa air-cooled machine gun was available, this would make life a little easier as it would take up less room.
The pompom gun was designed primarily for the Royal Navy as an anti-aircraft weapon, its muzzle velocity was considerably less than the 2-pdr anti-tank gun. The gunnery instructors found the magazine for the semi-automatic gun slightly difficult to load in the cramped confines of the turret. In trials the advantage of the HE round against soft targets was clear, and, since it also had an AP round, even against armoured plate it fared quite well.
This led to a lively debate in the Sergeant Mess later in the evening about the merits of a gun that could take on both soft and hard targets. An HE shell for the 2-pdr tank gun was available in small numbers, but the explosive charge was little better than a hand grenade. Therefore, it needed to be fired every bit as accurately as an armour piercing round. The pompom gun’s HE round’s explosive charge wasn’t that much more powerful, but the faster rate of fire meant that it could put a few HE rounds in and around a target, destroying it effectively. The debate got a bit heated when considering what would happen if the infantry tank had to take on well protected bunkers. There were those who would prefer having a tank equipped with something more like a howitzer to be able to take on such a target. Others argued that that was the role of the artillery and that tanks shouldn’t be used as a solution to something that wasn’t their problem.
The Meadows 88hp engine, the same one used in the Mark VI light tanks, just about pushed the much heavier A11 along a road with a top speed of 11mph, though downhill, with a following wind, it might just make 13mph. Cross country, 8mph was about as much as it could muster. With 2.3 inches of armour the crew felt very protected, even the 2-pdr gun would have problems penetrating this thickness from anything more than point-blank range. Once again, this led to a debate in the Sergeant’s Mess about what kind of gun would be needed as an enemy began producing tanks with the same kind of armour thickness.
Since the Matilda would be going to the Army Tank Brigades rather than the Armoured Brigades, its slower speed compared to the A13, and even the A9, wasn’t an issue. Its pompom gun was considered adequate, and although it was different from the 2-pdr, instructing gunners on it wouldn’t be too difficult. Once the bigger A12, with the standard 2-pdr, started arriving from Vulcan Foundry the Tank Brigades would be better off, but as an interim tank, the Matilda was very welcome.
allanpcameron
Donor
Sorry, those two updates should really have just been one, OTL the A9, A11 and A13 production models all started deliveries in early 1939.
I've attached @Claymore's visualisation of the alterative A11. The differences here are many. The turret is a version of the Vicker's Commercial that was sold to Latvia with a 2pdr Vickers gun, better known as the pompom. The suspension is a version of the A9, A10 and OTL Valentine, 'Slow Motion'. I've handwaviumed this as Horstmann was involved with the development. The OTL version had the same suspension used on the Dragon gun tractor. Instead of the Ford V8 in the OTL A11, this has the Meadows 88hp, just a bit more powerful than the Ford, giving a better top speed.
Allan
I've attached @Claymore's visualisation of the alterative A11. The differences here are many. The turret is a version of the Vicker's Commercial that was sold to Latvia with a 2pdr Vickers gun, better known as the pompom. The suspension is a version of the A9, A10 and OTL Valentine, 'Slow Motion'. I've handwaviumed this as Horstmann was involved with the development. The OTL version had the same suspension used on the Dragon gun tractor. Instead of the Ford V8 in the OTL A11, this has the Meadows 88hp, just a bit more powerful than the Ford, giving a better top speed.
Allan
Last edited:
- Status