Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can I just note that Carden's death meant that his original sketch for the A11 was turned into OTL A11 designed by Leslie Little. He used the tracks from the Dragon artillery tractor rather than the double sprung bogies envisioned by Carden. So there is room by Carden's survival to make the A11 a bit better. The idea for the gun is from Carden's handwritten note that says "we can try our idea of M/C gun but this is not so urgent." Not sure what M/C actually stands for, but I went for Machine/Cannon, which took me to the pompom gun. Am prepared to be corrected.
Allan
 
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.


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. 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.
Is the idea of improving the A11 something that was considered but abandonned OTL in favor of just making the A12 or just a "Carden butterfly"?

Edit: Oh, it's pretty damn neat nod to Carden's thoughts then. Do you have a picture of Carden's original A11 sketch and suspension?
 
Last edited:
Edit: Oh, it's pretty damn neat nod to Carden's thoughts then. Do you have a picture of Carden's original A11 sketch and suspension?
Sorry, but best I can do is this: a photo of the page from the book, Mechanised Force by David Fletcher.
A11sketch.jpg
 

NotBigBrother

Monthly Donor
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.
Vickers_lv.jpg
 
What about an infantry telephone? If you're working with the infantry you really should be able to talk to them buttoned-up. Also, can some tests be organised to see if HE or AP is more effective against bunkers? Because that's going to be one thing they're up against.
 
Last edited:
27 November 1936. 14:00hrs. Birmingham, England.
27 November 1936. 14:00hrs. Birmingham, England.

Nuffield Mechanisation and Aero was Lord Nuffield’s response to the Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin’s request to bring up to date the mechanisation of the British army and the ground echelon of the RAF. Having seen the Christie tank going through its paces at Farnborough, Lord Nuffield was enthusiastic about getting that kind of fast tank into the hands of the army. He had brought together all the people that would be needed to work out the process of getting the idea of a tank put into reality.

Morris Motors had no experience of the kind of heavy engineering that building tanks demanded. The Tank Design Team from Woolwich had offered help and that was much appreciated. The discussion went through the various elements of a tank. The engineers had had a good look at the Christie suspension and were well on the way to sorting out how they would go about copying it. The gearbox and transmission were likewise straightforward enough to be copied. The tracks had come in for some criticism from the MEE, so a team was delegated to have a look at what could be done to make a system that would work properly. Getting armour plate and working out how to build it was another task that would have to be dealt with. There was a little discussion about the advantages of using welding over riveting the new tank. Welding was a growing capability, but within the group it was felt that adding yet another innovation to building tanks for the first time, was a step too far. It was bad enough that the riveters would have to learn how to deal with armour plate without having to sort out welders too.

The main issue that Lord Nuffield would have to deal with personally was trying to sort out the engine. The Christie tank was powered by a Liberty V12 engine, so his Lordship would use his contacts to acquire more engines, and seek to gain a license to build it locally. Wolseley Motors, that Morris had bought over, would be in a good position to actually build them once the license was acquired. Colonel Martel had discovered that the RAF had stocks of an equivalent British engine, the Napier Lion. It had been tested and was powerful enough, though its use of higher-octane petrol would have to be dealt with. The War Office decided not to acquire them for tank production, so Nuffield would have to get the American engine.

The team were upbeat about their task, but also conscious they were at the beginning of a great endeavour. They were aware of the complexity of doing something completely new, but as a company they were confident of their ability. Nuffield wanted the prototype of the A13E2 (the original Christie tank is designated A13E1) to be ready within a year. There were a few raised eyebrows among the team, but he was the boss, and if that was what he wanted, then the team would do what they could to deliver.
 
This is all showing up rather neatly what the British tank designers were up against. It's three years until the balloon goes up , and the currently have no satisfactory engine, no satisfactory suspension, a severely compromised main gun and no very clear idea of what an effective tank should look like.

There are plenty of good ideas (and a good few bad ones) flying around, but with War Office spamming out endless flawed specifications and the Treasury keeping the purse strings firmly closed there is a very serious risk that the available resources are going to be spread over too many teams and projects for anything functional to emerge in time to be useful.

And then there's the problem that all the planning for how tanks are going to be organised, deployed and used in the field is strictly theoretical at this point and influential people from Martel to Fuller to Hobart all have their own ideas about what a tank needs to do.

The proposed improvements to the A11 show what could go wrong. Yes, a 3-man version with a radio and a machine-cannon will be less useless than the Matilda I, but it's still too small, too slow and has zero potential for expansion. If the Treasury grabs onto it and decides that it doesn't have to spend money on the A12, then the British Army is liable to find itself in 1940 with an infantry-support tank that is sliding rapidly from marginal to hopeless and no replacement in sight.

What Sir John needs to do is realise that the small tanks are a dead end, deep-six the A11 (and the A9/10) and focus on getting a viable 20-25-ton design out the door in time for it to be tested, fixed, built in quantity and people trained to use it. The details of whether it's a cruiser or infantry tank and which gun/engine/suspension it uses matter less than getting the mk3 (Most major bugs fixed) version into volume service before everything dissolves in Invasion Panic.

For reference, the first pre-production PzIIIs will be coming off the line in 1937, giving the Germans two years to tweak the design before full mass production starts in 1939.
 

marathag

Banned
small tanks are a dead end, deep-six the A11 (and the A9/10) and focus on getting a viable 20-25-ton design out the door in time for it to be tested, fixed, built in quantity and people trained to use it

L x W x H
A10 Tank
18ft 4" x 8ft 4" x 8ft 8"
Mk III ausf. E
17ft 8" x 9ft 6" x 8ft 2"

Not that different in size, but the Mk III is 19.5 tons to the 14.5 of the A10, with only 150 hp and 30mm armor over less of the vehicle, and 265hp in the III
 
There's nothing wrong with the A10 that a better engine won't cure. Get it back up to the speed of the A9 and you've a tank that's good until late 1941 and if up gunned and armoured for another year.
 
Yes the 2 pounder has no real HE capacity but was a really good hole puncher early war. The 6 pounder could have had a decent HE round, if you make it lower velocity you can reduce the shell wall thickness for more HE. No, it's mot going to be as good as a 75 but will get you by.
Both the 2 and 6 pounder will be good. The 2 pounders biggest issue OTL was the 6+ month delay in getting the 6 pounder in service caused by Dunkirk. Had the 6 pounder been ready and in service in early to mid 41 it would have been seen as a very good weapon, still was as an AT gun until the Tiger and panther came about or against the Japanese. The 6 pounder was a perfectly good tank gun until early 44 and was a very good AT gun until the end of the war.

The 2 Pdr did have a HE capability. However, because of a dispute between the Armoured and Artillery corps, it was not issued to tanks. In 1943 the Australian Army, seeking an answer to Japanese log bunkers developed their own base fused HE round and trialed it against the British nose fused round. The base fuse round was superior to the nose fused round and adopted being issued from mid-1944 onwards. In the meantime, the British Army issued their HE rounds to their armoured car regiments where it was found with the Little John adapter mounted, they could not fire it. So, one vehicle in each troop of cars had the Little John squeeze bore adapter removed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top