Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
AZrailwhale
Banned
The British narrow turret ring was a self-inflicted wound. The British required the ring to be inside the tracks, other nations expanded it over the tracks.
Is using the petrol, instead of diesel engines really that big of an issue? Logistical advantages of using only petrol should not be underestimated, since it would require only one type of fuel, instead of having to deal with headaches of shipping diesel fuel as well.
Also, what is the chance if British actually using HE shell for the 2pdr? Its HE filling is going to be small, that point still stands, but other AT guns of the similar caliber did have HE shells nevertheless. I mean, it is still better then not having it, and having to use AP or MG fire as a poor substitute.
Also, what is the chance if British actually using HE shell for the 2pdr? Its HE filling is going to be small, that point still stands, but other AT guns of the similar caliber did have HE shells nevertheless. I mean, it is still better then not having it, and having to use AP or MG fire as a poor substitute.
Pretty unlikely, in fact I would say nearly no chance. It will take more than a decent tank for the British to start using a decent HE round. If you have a decent tank and a decent upgrade path for it then you may see the 6 pounder in service sooner with (hopefully) a HE round on the way so why develop one for the 2 pounder.
marathag
Banned
less propellant burning, less need when the breech is opened.
That said, early tanks had poor ventilation when buttoned up.
The Panzer IV was one of the first to have decent ventilation fans
Valiant was the first British Tank I'm aware of that the turret ring was wider than the Hull.
Back to the Panzer IV again, it had nearly identical lower hull width as the Mk III, but had the superstrucre built out to make sponsons wide enough for its 100mm wider turring ring that allowed upgunning to the larger 75mm claas cannons. It's 1650mm was a hair wider than the 1945 British Comet, that still didn't have that sort of upper hull sponson
Having a more powerful HE round can be as simple as reducing the propellant charge thus enabling a thinner shell wall and more explosive payload. The problem with this is that it then leaves you with two types of rounds each with its own ballistic properties. You then need to establish the sighting, targeting and range parameters of each, update your fire control and sighting systems and train the gunners appropriately and trust that under the stress of battle they use the correct shell/range combo.
I believe the 2pdr did have a HE shell, it just wasn't very good (it was no worse than anyone else's HE shell for a gun that size, but that's not saying much) and it was only issued to the infantry 2pdrs in the Royal Artillery anti-tank regiments and was not on standard issue to the tank units. That was a doctrine and turf-war cockup more than anything else, so sadly is probably unchanged by a designer living.
marathag
Banned
Because many nations, like the US and UK, were unwilling to 'confuse' gunners with multiple scales on the sight for ammunition with different points of impact between AP and HE. Shell and shot of different weight, even at similar velocity, will be different
The Soviets thought their guys right off the collective farm could be trained, and not be confused by different ammunition performance
Glyndwr01
Banned
I don't know about older weapons but you could not fight the Scorpion FV101 buttoned up, the fumes would asphyxiate the crew!
My Yeomanry predecessors had 2 Pounder HE in their Daimler Armoured Cars but a problem was that they were longer than AP in the bins. HE for soft targets. Smoke when surprised but more usually to mark targets. AP for light armour. Smoke projectors and run away from tanks, adding in co axial for AT guns. Little John rounds for AP but without the tapered barrel extension so all types of ammunition could be used.
British tanks were restricted in width by the requirement to fit in the rail loading gauge.
In Horstmann vs Christie, Horstmann is more easily maintained, and takes up less of the width of the tank.
Thus allowing a wider turret ring within the allowed width, and giving more internal space.
marathag
Banned
M4A3 was 8' 7"
Churchill was 9' 5"
Crusader 9' 1"
T34/76 9'10 but that was with 19.7" wide tracks, unlikely for US or UK to go with such wide tracks, with 16.5" of the M4, would be around 9' 3" with narrow tracks
but Gauge was relaxed, to allow Centurions that were 11' wide
I's sure there were some places where Centurions could not be transported by rail, but I feel the Britis could have gone to a 10' gauge without the world ending in 1940
A wild thought, but have we considered Sir John coming up with the idea of fitting a Ranging Gun?
Unlikely as its not really needed at this time. Any tank he designs now is going to start out with a 2 pounder, that has a lower effective range than later tank guns and can fire pretty fast so follow up shots aren't an issue. As guns get bigger, particularly 17 pounder sized and above (think German 88 or American 90) then ranging guns become useful but if that size of gun fit's in this tank then their wont be much space for anything else.
What if ITTL Sir John convinces Vickers into designing a private venture tank based loosely on the Matilda 2 spec. By the looks of things Sir John has made the leap to aircraft engines in tanks (thanks to the Red Army). So the resulting tank could be heavily armoured reasonably fast.
This tank would also need to be versatile enough to appeal to potential foreign customers (in case the British turn their noses up at it) so could be designed to accommodate various larger guns than the 2 pounder. (I wonder if any thought was given to the T28’s 7.62mm main gun when it was shown off to Q Martel?). It could also bend the rail gage restrictions. The usual Alt guns mooted are the naval 6 pounder or ageing But always popular 13 pounder AA gun, My favourite is to chuck in a 25 pounder!
Post Munich the British are less fussy and just need more of everything so the new tank gets ordered with the 2 pounder. As soon as they get some real battle field experience the British have a tank they can up arm so do so ASAP.
This new tank also has the benefit of killing off earlier the Covenanter and Crusader. Fast tanks being good but not as good as tanks that work and don’t get knocked out by a German sneezing on them from 200m.
less appealing is that the OTL Valentine and Churchill tanks are less likely to be produced with a genuine medium tank Available that is competitive with the Panzer 4. Hopefully it leads to a better medium tank mid war to replace it. However this is the British Army so I think I’m hoping for far to much sanity on this.
I look forward to see in which direction Alan takes this TL in.
This tank would also need to be versatile enough to appeal to potential foreign customers (in case the British turn their noses up at it) so could be designed to accommodate various larger guns than the 2 pounder. (I wonder if any thought was given to the T28’s 7.62mm main gun when it was shown off to Q Martel?). It could also bend the rail gage restrictions. The usual Alt guns mooted are the naval 6 pounder or ageing But always popular 13 pounder AA gun, My favourite is to chuck in a 25 pounder!
Post Munich the British are less fussy and just need more of everything so the new tank gets ordered with the 2 pounder. As soon as they get some real battle field experience the British have a tank they can up arm so do so ASAP.
This new tank also has the benefit of killing off earlier the Covenanter and Crusader. Fast tanks being good but not as good as tanks that work and don’t get knocked out by a German sneezing on them from 200m.
less appealing is that the OTL Valentine and Churchill tanks are less likely to be produced with a genuine medium tank Available that is competitive with the Panzer 4. Hopefully it leads to a better medium tank mid war to replace it. However this is the British Army so I think I’m hoping for far to much sanity on this.
I look forward to see in which direction Alan takes this TL in.
Well turret ring sizes - I would note that:-
Matilda II is 1379mm
Valentine (all variants) is 1460mm
Churchill (all variants except Black Prince) is 1378mm
Cromwell is 1452mm,
Comet is 1625mm,
Centurion is 1880mm,
T-34-85 is 1600mm,
T-34-76 is 1425mm,
Sherman (all variants) is 1750mm.
Panzer III: 1520mm or 1560mm (during initial design it was expected that a larger upto 50mm gun might need to be installed)
Pz IV is 1600mm,
Panther is 1650mm,
Tiger is 1830mm,
IS-2 is 1800mm,
So we can see that the early tanks did not have turret rings really any smaller than the other tank makers of the day
It was other issues that reduced gun sizes which took a couple of years to address once the deficiencies were learned on the battlefield.
1 November 1936. 14:00hrs. The War Office. London, England.
allanpcameron
Donor
1 November 1936. 14:00hrs. The War Office. London, England.
The report from the MEE in Farnborough had arrived on the desk of General Sir Hugh Elles, the Master General of the Ordnance. The A11E1 had been put through its paces and found satisfactory, but only just. Mechanically it was fine, there were a few small details that were easy fixes, such as the exhaust pipe heating up the oil engine oil and so it would need to be rerouted. The four sets of Vicker’s double sprung bogies on each side gave the impression of length, and some tinkering would need to be done to sort out the problem of stones getting stuck in the drive sockets. The original Ford engine’s replacement with the Meadows had provided a little extra power, as suspected, giving the tank a top speed of 10mph.
The reasons it was found wanting by the MEE personnel was that the tank commander was overwhelmed with too many duties. Originally conceived, the idea of this infantry tank was to be a mobile pillbox. The idea was to have a swarm of these machine gun armed vehicles that would cover the infantry while they got their weapons onto the flanks and into the rear of an enemy. Because they would be working in large numbers over small distances, radios would be superfluous. There was no copula on the turret because there would be no need for a look-out, all that the machine-gunner would need to do was man his weapon. The two-man tank went against all that Vickers-Armstrong had been preaching about in developing the Light Tanks. The MEE agreed that the commander, having to also work the gun, would be overloaded with responsibility. Now that a radio was considered necessary, Carden had had to squeeze one in to the hull at the rear of the turret, which involved the commander having to do strange contortions to be able to work it properly, all the while taking his eyes off what was going on around him.
The report of the MEE to the War Office suggested that the original concept, with the need to keep the price of the tank down, had resulted in a tank that, certainly was well enough armoured, but seemed to have made no progress from the 1918 Mark V tank. Therefore, the question was whether something was better than nothing, especially as it didn’t look as if the War Office was likely to build enough of these to perform the “swarm” attack previously envisaged.
An addendum to the report from the tank’s designer, Sir John Carden, noted that he had provided a working model based on the price and requirements originally given him. Having worked on it, he noted that it would be possible, with the length of the machine, to increase the turret ring from the current 34.1 inches to something that would enable it to take a larger turret, at least providing something that two men, commander and gunner, could act in their separate roles. The nature of the armament as a single machine gun was simply a cheaper alternative. In the original specification that Colonel Studd (Martel’s predecessor as Assistant Director of Mechanisation) had signed off on in 1935 he had agreed to look at using Vicker’s semi-automatic 40mm gun, the basis of the Navy’s anti-aircraft pom-pom. It wasn’t as powerful as the 2-pdr anti-tank gun, but would provide the infantry with a more powerful, and quick firing High Explosive round, in addition to co-axial machine gun fire. In fact, he noted, that the Latvians has bought six Vickers light tanks armed with this weapon, so up-armouring a turret already designed to take it would be eminently feasible. The 40mm gun would also be able to fire an anti-tank round, giving the tank some degree of protection from enemy tanks, which it currently lacked.
Carden noted that the problem with the changes he suggested would be that the price of the individual tank would increase, but so would the capability of the tank. The basics were all there, the suspension, gearing and engine were all tried and tested. If this was to be considered, putting some extra armour over the exposed tracks would allow increase the size of the turret ring, and also allow a larger engine to be fitted, providing greater power. This was necessary so that the extra weight would not unduly tax the machinery and therefore the mobility of the tank. All of this would mean that the army could have something that was more like a tank than a mobile pillbox.
General Elles called in Colonel Martel, who had also read the report. The Soviet T-28, as reported by Martel, had set the cat among the pigeons of the Royal Tank Corps. When Hobart had originally described his swarm of infantry supporting tanks, he had also suggested that there would need to be a bigger version, with a gun, to see off enemy tanks. The thought of having two separate tanks, one smaller and one larger would inevitably mean that there would be situations where the wrong tanks were in the wrong places at the wrong times. Having one well-armoured tank, with a gun that would be able to support the infantry against fixed positions (this would need the capacity to fire HE shells), and also be able to take on enemy tanks, would be closer to ideal. The problem was that the ideologues like Hobart and Fuller, saw different tanks for different roles as being the way forward.
Martel was working hard to get a copy of the Christie suspension for examination, his contacts with Lord Nuffield had paid off and a version of the tank (called a convertible tractor to enable it to be exported to the UK) was due later in the month. Having seen the Soviet system, and knowing that French had gone down the road of defining the roles of tanks as Cavalry and Infantry, Martel’s idea was forming into a similar focus. The Light and Mediums currently being used by the RTC would have to be replaced. Carden’s notions for an improved A11 certainly fitted with the idea of replacing the Mediums as infantry support tanks. If the Cavalry regiments when they were mechanised had something more like the BT-2 rather than the Vickers Mark VIB, it would give them a much better capability. The A9 was a step in that direction, but Martel firmly believed that a Christie suspension would be much better. The A10 came out of the same place as the Mediums, and unless Vickers could do something exceptional, it wasn’t clear to Martel where it would fit into the scheme of things. General Elles did note that with the arrival of new anti-tank guns, such as the Boys Rifle that had been demonstrated, the armour on all tanks would have to be increased.
Elles was keen on trying to get more companies involved in tank design and manufacture. While the idea of an improved A11 was acceptable, the basic idea of a heavily armoured gun tank designed as such from the start was desirable. Perhaps Vulcan Foundry might be approached with a specification, which would be A12 in the normal scheme. Martel noted that they may need help from the Department of Tank Design at Woolwich Arsenal to get them started. Martel noted that Lord Nuffield was keen to get involved in tank production too, and the Christie system might be a route into that.
The plan over the next few years was to mechanise a couple of cavalry regiments per year, equipping them with Vickers Mark VIBs and other reconnaissance vehicles. If that process took place over a slightly longer time period, then they might be able to be equipped with better tanks. In the meantime, three battalions of the Royal Tank Corps currently using Medium tanks could be equipped with the up-graded specification A11 infantry tanks. This might be able to get past the Treasury, even if the price per tank was a bit higher than originally specified. It would also please some of the Cavalry Colonels that they would have longer with their horses. The specification for an A11E2 was written and sent off to Vickers-Armstrong, while a new specification, A12E1, would be written and offered to Vulcan Foundry at Newton-Le-Willows.
The report from the MEE in Farnborough had arrived on the desk of General Sir Hugh Elles, the Master General of the Ordnance. The A11E1 had been put through its paces and found satisfactory, but only just. Mechanically it was fine, there were a few small details that were easy fixes, such as the exhaust pipe heating up the oil engine oil and so it would need to be rerouted. The four sets of Vicker’s double sprung bogies on each side gave the impression of length, and some tinkering would need to be done to sort out the problem of stones getting stuck in the drive sockets. The original Ford engine’s replacement with the Meadows had provided a little extra power, as suspected, giving the tank a top speed of 10mph.
The reasons it was found wanting by the MEE personnel was that the tank commander was overwhelmed with too many duties. Originally conceived, the idea of this infantry tank was to be a mobile pillbox. The idea was to have a swarm of these machine gun armed vehicles that would cover the infantry while they got their weapons onto the flanks and into the rear of an enemy. Because they would be working in large numbers over small distances, radios would be superfluous. There was no copula on the turret because there would be no need for a look-out, all that the machine-gunner would need to do was man his weapon. The two-man tank went against all that Vickers-Armstrong had been preaching about in developing the Light Tanks. The MEE agreed that the commander, having to also work the gun, would be overloaded with responsibility. Now that a radio was considered necessary, Carden had had to squeeze one in to the hull at the rear of the turret, which involved the commander having to do strange contortions to be able to work it properly, all the while taking his eyes off what was going on around him.
The report of the MEE to the War Office suggested that the original concept, with the need to keep the price of the tank down, had resulted in a tank that, certainly was well enough armoured, but seemed to have made no progress from the 1918 Mark V tank. Therefore, the question was whether something was better than nothing, especially as it didn’t look as if the War Office was likely to build enough of these to perform the “swarm” attack previously envisaged.
An addendum to the report from the tank’s designer, Sir John Carden, noted that he had provided a working model based on the price and requirements originally given him. Having worked on it, he noted that it would be possible, with the length of the machine, to increase the turret ring from the current 34.1 inches to something that would enable it to take a larger turret, at least providing something that two men, commander and gunner, could act in their separate roles. The nature of the armament as a single machine gun was simply a cheaper alternative. In the original specification that Colonel Studd (Martel’s predecessor as Assistant Director of Mechanisation) had signed off on in 1935 he had agreed to look at using Vicker’s semi-automatic 40mm gun, the basis of the Navy’s anti-aircraft pom-pom. It wasn’t as powerful as the 2-pdr anti-tank gun, but would provide the infantry with a more powerful, and quick firing High Explosive round, in addition to co-axial machine gun fire. In fact, he noted, that the Latvians has bought six Vickers light tanks armed with this weapon, so up-armouring a turret already designed to take it would be eminently feasible. The 40mm gun would also be able to fire an anti-tank round, giving the tank some degree of protection from enemy tanks, which it currently lacked.
Carden noted that the problem with the changes he suggested would be that the price of the individual tank would increase, but so would the capability of the tank. The basics were all there, the suspension, gearing and engine were all tried and tested. If this was to be considered, putting some extra armour over the exposed tracks would allow increase the size of the turret ring, and also allow a larger engine to be fitted, providing greater power. This was necessary so that the extra weight would not unduly tax the machinery and therefore the mobility of the tank. All of this would mean that the army could have something that was more like a tank than a mobile pillbox.
General Elles called in Colonel Martel, who had also read the report. The Soviet T-28, as reported by Martel, had set the cat among the pigeons of the Royal Tank Corps. When Hobart had originally described his swarm of infantry supporting tanks, he had also suggested that there would need to be a bigger version, with a gun, to see off enemy tanks. The thought of having two separate tanks, one smaller and one larger would inevitably mean that there would be situations where the wrong tanks were in the wrong places at the wrong times. Having one well-armoured tank, with a gun that would be able to support the infantry against fixed positions (this would need the capacity to fire HE shells), and also be able to take on enemy tanks, would be closer to ideal. The problem was that the ideologues like Hobart and Fuller, saw different tanks for different roles as being the way forward.
Martel was working hard to get a copy of the Christie suspension for examination, his contacts with Lord Nuffield had paid off and a version of the tank (called a convertible tractor to enable it to be exported to the UK) was due later in the month. Having seen the Soviet system, and knowing that French had gone down the road of defining the roles of tanks as Cavalry and Infantry, Martel’s idea was forming into a similar focus. The Light and Mediums currently being used by the RTC would have to be replaced. Carden’s notions for an improved A11 certainly fitted with the idea of replacing the Mediums as infantry support tanks. If the Cavalry regiments when they were mechanised had something more like the BT-2 rather than the Vickers Mark VIB, it would give them a much better capability. The A9 was a step in that direction, but Martel firmly believed that a Christie suspension would be much better. The A10 came out of the same place as the Mediums, and unless Vickers could do something exceptional, it wasn’t clear to Martel where it would fit into the scheme of things. General Elles did note that with the arrival of new anti-tank guns, such as the Boys Rifle that had been demonstrated, the armour on all tanks would have to be increased.
Elles was keen on trying to get more companies involved in tank design and manufacture. While the idea of an improved A11 was acceptable, the basic idea of a heavily armoured gun tank designed as such from the start was desirable. Perhaps Vulcan Foundry might be approached with a specification, which would be A12 in the normal scheme. Martel noted that they may need help from the Department of Tank Design at Woolwich Arsenal to get them started. Martel noted that Lord Nuffield was keen to get involved in tank production too, and the Christie system might be a route into that.
The plan over the next few years was to mechanise a couple of cavalry regiments per year, equipping them with Vickers Mark VIBs and other reconnaissance vehicles. If that process took place over a slightly longer time period, then they might be able to be equipped with better tanks. In the meantime, three battalions of the Royal Tank Corps currently using Medium tanks could be equipped with the up-graded specification A11 infantry tanks. This might be able to get past the Treasury, even if the price per tank was a bit higher than originally specified. It would also please some of the Cavalry Colonels that they would have longer with their horses. The specification for an A11E2 was written and sent off to Vickers-Armstrong, while a new specification, A12E1, would be written and offered to Vulcan Foundry at Newton-Le-Willows.
- Status