Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Glyndwr01

Banned
Ordnance 75mm QF is basically a 6pdr bored out to 75mm and fitted with a muzzle break so just use that ( basically just speed ~OTL up )
Only pursued after a number of Churchill tanks were converted with Sherman guns in North Africa and performed better than the 6pdr version!
 
Ordnance 75mm QF is basically a 6pdr bored out to 75mm and fitted with a muzzle break so just use that ( basically just speed ~OTL up )
Yes although, pedantically, theROF QF 75mm was a new barrel on new production 6 Pounder type actions not a rebore of existing 57mm 6 Pounder barrels. There was no reason for it not to have been chosen instead of the 6 Pounder from the beginning so, absent the post BoF pressure to keep churning out 2 Pounders, British tanks could have been QF 75mm from 1940 onwards.
 
Only pursued after a number of Churchill tanks were converted with Sherman guns in North Africa and performed better than the 6pdr version!
The plan preceded Captain Morrell's NA75 conversions. ROF QF 75mm production was reserved for Cromwells for Overlord so Italy was not receiving any when he did his excellent work. The change to 75mm not only improved the infantry support capability by a decent HE round but also allowed common ammunition with the American arm. Not a minor matter in terms of Overlord logistics.

One wonders about what tactical use could have been made of infantry 6 Pounders were they 75mm with their HE. Poorer hole punchers though. British 6 Pounder HE was a valuable informal exchange item between British units with HE and US ones who had none I am told.
 
Last edited:

marathag

Banned
A narrow turret ring as needed to accommodate the Christie suspension simply doesn't allow a three man crew with a very large gun.
T-34/76 had a turret ring diameter of 1420mm (76mm of 31 then 41 caliber)
T-34/85 had a diameter of 1590mm (85mm of 54 caliber)
Crusader III 1410mm
Cromwell 1448mm
Valentine Mk XI had a ring diameter of 1466mm (75mmL40)
all Christie suspension

Churchill 1378mm
Matilda 1378mm
A9/A10 1384mm
Valentine Mk XI 1466mm
Not Christie

And because the US brainstormed everything
M4 with semi-Christie(springs outside of armor)
1600441442806.png

but never built, as it was thought to make the tank too wide, but in reality, no different than the later E8 HVSS
 
No they're not, neither has a decent HE round, which is a serious flaw for any tank.

Nothing in that gun calibre range in that period has a decent HE round - a 37-40mm round literally has a hand grenade amount of explosive filler

The first US tanks in action on the Philippines (M3 Stuarts) didn't have any and had to MacGyver up their own after the initial battles.

This is why we see early war tanks with long barrel 37-40mm weapons firing AP (as well as very small HE in some cases) and some tanks mounting short 75mm for the Germans (MKIV) and French (Char B) and 3.7 in (94 mm) Howitzer in the British CS tanks.

The M3 Lee was an attempt to 'emulate' and dare I say it massively improve upon the CHAR B as well as leverage early British development of the Churchill (which originally was going to mount a hull gun) in order to deliver a medium tank with a useful 75mm gun ASAP (In action @ Gazalla May 42).
 
Nothing in that gun calibre range in that period has a decent HE round - a 37-40mm round literally has a hand grenade amount of explosive filler

The first US tanks in action on the Philippines (M3 Stuarts) didn't have any and had to MacGyver up their own after the initial battles.

This is why we see early war tanks with long barrel 37-40mm weapons firing AP (as well as very small HE in some cases) and some tanks mounting short 75mm for the Germans (MKIV) and French (Char B) and 3.7 in (94 mm) Howitzer in the British CS tanks.

The M3 Lee was an attempt to 'emulate' and dare I say it massively improve upon the CHAR B as well as leverage early British development of the Churchill (which originally was going to mount a hull gun) in order to deliver a medium tank with a useful 75mm gun ASAP (In action @ Gazalla May 42).
I still maintain that the US would have had the Sherman from the start if the funding taps had opened a year earlier. As for the M3 well orginally the Army only wanted 350 and then switch over production to the Sherman but between lend lease and the need for tanks now the retooling of the factory occured after just over 5,000 were made
 

Glyndwr01

Banned
I still maintain that the US would have had the Sherman from the start if the funding taps had opened a year earlier. As for the M3 well orginally the Army only wanted 350 and then switch over production to the Sherman but between lend lease and the need for tanks now the retooling of the factory occured after just over 5,000 were made
They became useful CDL tanks later in the war.
M3 Lee
In the long run, the M3 Grant was always the intended mount for the Canal Defense Light. It was quicker, able to keep up with its compatriots, and retained its 75mm tank gun allowing it to defend itself much more effectively. Like the Matilda, the M3 Grant was largely considered obsolete, so there was quite a surplus of the tanks.
The CDL replaced the secondary armament turret atop the M3. The M3s, originally, were also fitted with the Type B turret of the Matilda. Later, the turret was changed to the Type D. This welded up some of the ports and openings, but also saw the addition of a dummy gun next to the beam slit to give it the appearance of a normal gun tank. The Americans also tested the M3, known as the Lee in their service, as a CDL tank. The tanks used were mostly of the M3A1 type with the cast super-structure. The turret was mostly identical to the British pattern, the major differences being a ball mount for a Browning M1919 .30 Cal. as opposed to the British BESA.
 
Only slightly, as no-one sits behind the gun anyway, they sit beside it. A narrow turret ring as needed to accommodate the Christie suspension simply doesn't allow a three man crew with a very large gun.

No they're not, neither has a decent HE round, which is a serious flaw for any tank.

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.
 
Here's a thought. Lets say our man puts a good, reliable and powerful engine in his new tank how likely is it that it ends up in the Churchill if that gets made? Think of it, a Churchill with 500-600hp instead of the 350 of OTL.
 
Here's a thought. Lets say our man puts a good, reliable and powerful engine in his new tank how likely is it that it ends up in the Churchill if that gets made? Think of it, a Churchill with 500-600hp instead of the 350 of OTL.
Even 450 hp would be an improvement.

At this point, if you want a powerful engine for a tank you could do a lot worse than looking at the Napier Lion.
 
Last edited:
What is the hardest "disposable" metal available ITTL.
Disposable in that you could tip a 2lb AP round with it?
This might not give any advantage over a 6lb AP round, but why not use a 2lb AP round in a sabot in a 6lb gun?
One gun, excellent hole punching through armour and excellent HE?

There are probably a lot of flaws with that idea unfortunately.
 
What is the hardest "disposable" metal available ITTL.
Disposable in that you could tip a 2lb AP round with it?
This might not give any advantage over a 6lb AP round, but why not use a 2lb AP round in a sabot in a 6lb gun?
One gun, excellent hole punching through armour and excellent HE?

There are probably a lot of flaws with that idea unfortunately.
You can absolutely use a steel core in sabot rounds but you won't be getting anywhere near the performance tungsten cored ammo had, and tungsten is better used as a core than as a cap (just use steel). I frankly doubt it will improve anything over 6lb full bore ammo, something better, but worse than APDS wouldn't really change what targets can be defeated or the range they are defeated at.
The only case where steel as a subcaliber core is good is as APFSDS because steel rods had pretty damn good angled performance compared to tungsten carbide, before tungsten alloy became possible.
 
Question, is there a non-reactive filling that can be added to a charge to reduce the active filling, and that won't foul up the barrel after multiple uses? Because if you can cut down the active charge a bit you can make a more effective HE round.
 
1 October 1936. 11:00hrs. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. England.
1 October 1936. 11:00hrs. Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. England.

The Vickers-Armstrong Design Department had plenty of experience in designing tanks, and their latest work, the Mark VIB Light Tank, had just entered into production. The order book was looking quite full, and with the A9, A10 and A11 being designed, the Design Department, headed by Sir John Carden, was extremely busy.

Carden had just arrived back from Rolls-Royce. The fact that the Phantom engine had proven unsuitable for the A9 had led him back to the manufacturer in his search for a more powerful alternative. Rolls-Royce were clear that this particular engine was the most powerful engine they had, outside of their aero-engines. That had led to a discussion about the use of Rolls-Royce engines in land speed records. George Eyston’s Speed of the Wind and Malcolm Campbell’s Blue Bird had both used Rolls-Royce engines to break records. The Blue Bird’s R V12 engine, providing about 2300hp was something the Rolls-Royce was particularly proud of. What Speed of the Wind was using, an un-supercharged Kestrel, provided the car with just under 500hp, and had shown itself well suited for the endurance records. Harry Ricardo had also made a diesel version of the Kestrel, providing 340hp, allowing Eyston’s team to make create diesel land speed records just a few months earlier that year.

Carden’s friend, Giffard Martel, had shared his experience of seeing Russian tanks being powered by aero-engines that had made a mighty difference in the light tank to its speed, and as able to drive a heavier tank at a good pace. His company, Vickers-Armstrong, wanted to replace the Phantom engine in the A9 with an AEC bus engine producing 110hp. Carden wasn’t convinced that the power needed to drive a double-decker bus around London’s road was the same that a tank needed. The size of the Soviet T-28, at 25 tons, was more likely to be future of tanks, rather than the 16 ton limitations that were currently placed on tanks. Having an engine providing more like 500hp really had to be the future, a tank would need something in the region of 20hp per ton to be truly mobile. He noted that the 70hp Ford V8 that was going into the A11 infantry tank was fundamentally the same engine that was in the Universal carrier, and the difference was between pushing 11 tons at 8mph or 3 tons at 30mph.

The problem that the Rolls-Royce people identified was that the price per engine might be a problem for the treasury. After all, if they were only ordering a few hundred tanks for a tank brigade, then there wouldn’t be much profit in setting up a production line for an engine that would have such a limited run. Roy Robotham had suggested some of the older V12 engines might be worth looking at, there were some old Eagles lying around doing nothing, and the Rolls-Royce Condor had also been produced in a diesel form, if Carden was interested in using that rather than petrol. He knew there were some other manufacturers who had V12s that weren’t bad. Napier’s Lion had been used by John Cobb’s Napier-Railton which had done well the previous year in land speed records. If he remembered correctly that provided the kind of horsepower that Carden was talking about.

Bringing all this together at the Design Team meeting, it was clear that the company weren’t keen on looking at aero-engines, which were just so much more expensive than bus engines. The War Office hadn’t designated the kind of horsepower that Carden was talking about. Management were persuaded to allow Carden to test putting the Meadows six cylinder engine used in the Mark VIB light tank into the A11E1 prototype. It was only an extra 18hp over the Ford, but it might give the tank a slightly better performance and shouldn’t change the price too much. As for the A9E2, the AEC Type A179 6-Cylinder Petrol, providing 150hp would be used instead of the Rolls-Royce Phantom, as planned. Carden insisted that the A10E1, which would be much heavier than the A9, would need something nearer 300hp if it was expected to carry the 30mm armour at a cruiser’s speed. Rolls-Royce had offered Carden a couple of second-hand Eagle IX engines for experimentation. They were long in the tooth, but he reckoned the time spent figuring out how to turn an aero-engine into a tank-engine would be time well spent. It would at least either prove or disprove his theory that future tanks would need more powerful engines.
 
Incidentally, 20hp/ton was a requirement seen in the specifications for the Pz III (but weight grew a lot from the originally specified 12 tonnes) and the Panther, and US light tanks usually had that or more, so it wasn't uncommon for mobile tanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top