Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

The Fairey Prince V12 is an option, it's run for 500 hours at 420hp in 1934 according to Lumsdens British aero engines, as it's a relatively modenr design it should be easier to set up for production.


Could you get talk to Rolls Royce and get the Kestrel or Buzzard set up as a proto Meteor?
 
1938 for first production. GM bought Vauxhall to get into the UK market in 1925, so that's the way in that way
Part of my thought was the GM twin 6 could be used for both the Valiant and the Vulcan Matilda II. The twin 6 rated for 375 hp, it should improve the Matilda's performance even if you limit top speed.
 
and regardless it's such an old design that you're probably better off starting from scratch
Very little could interchange between Packard Merlins and Rolls Royce Merlins
Ford is certainly a good option but if I recall they outright refused to make the Merlin under license OTL
Edsel had a deal with the Merlin to be built in _France_, but after 1940, Henry wanted nothing to do with making them for the British
 
Last edited:
Part of my thought was the GM twin 6 could be used for both the Valiant and the Vulcan Matilda II. The twin 6 rated for 375 hp, it should improve the Matilda's performance even if you limit top speed.
OTL Matilda has 1200kg in the engine package for 190hp, a single 6-71 is 185 HP for 725kg, a dual 6-71 was 2040kg- that overloads the chassis

A ground Lion with gasoline would be under 500kg
 
OTL Matilda has 1200kg in the engine package for 190hp, a single 6-71 is 185 HP for 725kg, a dual 6-71 was 2040kg- that overloads the chassis

A ground Lion with gasoline would be under 500kg
A single 6-71 should also be much more compact than the Matilda's twin-engines, so you could keep the tank balanced if need be by either improving other components at the back for reliability, or increasing the fuel load for some truly impressive range. That said, even though at least there won't be a Valentine to use that engine I doubt that the British were interested in modernizing the Matilda when the original engine worked well enough.

Maybe they could fit the smaller Bedford Twin-Six in it if it is still developped, but I'm afraid that's too much work to modernize a tank that may not be mass-produced anyway as it wold require some substantial changes to the final drives, steering, transmission, entire engine compartment and the suspension can't handle much greater speeds anyway.

What did Vulcan work on after their run of Matilda IIs?
 
Maybe they could fit the smaller Bedford Twin-Six in it if it is still developped, but I'm afraid that's too much work to modernize a tank that may not be mass-produced anyway as it wold require some substantial changes to the final drives, steering, transmission, entire engine compartment and the suspension can't handle much greater speeds anyway.

single 6-71 package in ValentineMatilda 2x LelandChurchill BedfordM4A2 dual 6-71Meteor in Cromwell
Length12001450132016601470
Width820147012201500983
Height9009507501157970

Now a Lion will be shorter than the Meteor(and probably the 6-71), but slightly taller and wider, but far less than any of the twin setups
 
Going for an American design has the interesting result that it means that the USA is producing a ~400 hp V-engine prior to the M2 medium entering service, which may have the knock-on effect of the M3 Lee and M4 Sherman also going with that engine, thus giving those tanks a lower profile.
 
Going for an American design has the interesting result that it means that the USA is producing a ~400 hp V-engine prior to the M2 medium entering service, which may have the knock-on effect of the M3 Lee and M4 Sherman also going with that engine, thus giving those tanks a lower profile.
sadly, it's already baked in from the Radial powered M2 of 1939. the M3 and M4 was pretty much an M2 chassis with different upperworks
 
single 6-71 package in ValentineMatilda 2x LelandChurchill BedfordM4A2 dual 6-71Meteor in Cromwell
Length12001450132016601470
Width820147012201500983
Height9009507501157970

Now a Lion will be shorter than the Meteor(and probably the 6-71), but slightly taller and wider, but far less than any of the twin setups
Not an engine junkie but what about doing a meteor on the Kestrel?
 
The M4 used a variety of differnet engines though, some of which required modifying the hull to accept.
But still kept the oversized volume. Hull was large enough to fit the Wright R-1820 with slight modification.
It's totally possible to put a smaller engine in the M4 hull, but Armored Force wanted options to use all engines, large and small, even if was inefficient use of volume. Upthread I posted Israeli Shermans with cut down upper superstructure to lower the tank.
US could have done it, but didn't want to interfere with production, despite having way too many vendors making Shermans.
 
The Fairey Prince V12 is an option, it's run for 500 hours at 420hp in 1934 according to Lumsdens British aero engines, as it's a relatively modenr design it should be easier to set up for production.


Could you get talk to Rolls Royce and get the Kestrel or Buzzard set up as a proto Meteor?

Not an engine junkie but what about doing a meteor on the Kestrel?
But with the tools already available then would it not be a candidate for a shadow factory
Someone earlier in the thread provided a source that the machine tools used on the Kestrel production line were used on the merlin engine after production for the Kestrel finished up. So you need a new production line to start up with new machine tools.

It's entirely possible that a shadow factory could be set up somewhere but if it needs new machine parts another option may be preferred. It needs Rolls Royce to make a protype and try and sell it.

It's important to remember that converting an engine into a tank engine needs some R&D as the converted engine is somewhat adjusted and down rated usually. Rolls Royce had a lot of R&D commitments at this time. They only had spare R&D resources after the cancellation of the EXE and Peregrine engines.
 
But still kept the oversized volume. Hull was large enough to fit the Wright R-1820 with slight modification.
It's totally possible to put a smaller engine in the M4 hull, but Armored Force wanted options to use all engines, large and small, even if was inefficient use of volume. Upthread I posted Israeli Shermans with cut down upper superstructure to lower the tank.
US could have done it, but didn't want to interfere with production, despite having way too many vendors making Shermans.
The original models used a radial engine, but if they have a viable alternative before the M3 is even in the design phase... Hells, depending on how much is known about the Valiant while the M2 design is going on we might not even see the OTL M3, as the desners might take some tips from the Valiant, and just install the main gun in the turret, rather than having a it casemated in the hull.

Someone earlier in the thread provided a source that the machine tools used on the Kestrel production line were used on the merlin engine after production for the Kestrel finished up. So you need a new production line to start up with new machine tools.

It's entirely possible that a shadow factory could be set up somewhere but if it needs new machine parts another option may be preferred. It needs Rolls Royce to make a protype and try and sell it.

It's important to remember that converting an engine into a tank engine needs some R&D as the converted engine is somewhat adjusted and down rated usually. Rolls Royce had a lot of R&D commitments at this time. They only had spare R&D resources after the cancellation of the EXE and Peregrine engines.
Maybe Ford of Britain could do it?
 
Last edited:
depending on how much is known about the Valiant while the M2 design is going on we might not even see the OTL M3, as the desners might take some tips from the Valiant, and just install the main gun in the turret, rather than having a it casemated in the hull.
It wasn't that the US couldn't do larger turret rings, but that they could mass produce them with castings in the desired numbers.
Had the Armored Board given the greenlight for welded turrets, the US could have avoided the M3.
Well, my idea is to have something like the M3, but a MG turret and a 105mm howitzer in the side sponson for an interim support tank, till the 105mm could be placed in a M4 turret in 1942. Would have also had the M9 Tank Destroyer with 3" gun get built in numbers. Far more useful than the M6 wheeled TD with a 37mm in Tunisia
 
It wasn't that the US couldn't do larger turret rings, but that they could mass produce them with castings in the desired numbers.
Had the Armored Board given the greenlight for welded turrets, the US could have avoided the M3.
Well, my idea is to have something like the M3, but a MG turret and a 105mm howitzer in the side sponson for an interim support tank, till the 105mm could be placed in a M4 turret in 1942. Would have also had the M9 Tank Destroyer with 3" gun get built in numbers. Far more useful than the M6 wheeled TD with a 37mm in Tunisia
Well if the Valiant has a welded turret, might that not lead to the Armoured Board being at least fractionally more accepting of the idea?
 
Top