I recall reading about one unit during the Falklands war when stopping over at the Ascension Islands, they fired off what would have been the equivalent to their yearly peacetime allocation of training ammunition in an afternoon.
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
A Draconian BBQ seems harsh for impractically cut medieval fashion statements.
June - September 1940. Maryland. United States of America.
allanpcameron
Donor
June - September 1940. Maryland. United States of America.
The French Mission to the United States had been trying to organise a production group, headed by the Baldwin Locomotive Company, to assemble 12,000 Char B1-bis tanks, at an eventual rate of 50 vehicles per day. The American firms thought that this rate of output was impracticable due to the lack of capacity for moulded armour plate, the production of 10 tanks per day was considered viable from the end of 1940, assuming the U.S. authorities gave priority for the necessary machine tools. A complete Char B1-Bis and a couple of specialists from France arrived in the United States, so that the characteristics of the tank could be demonstrated. There were some in the British Purchasing Committee in New York who demonstrated a clear interest in the project. The War Office however were less keen on the French tank, which although in some ways equivalent to the Vulcan Matilda II, wasn’t judged to be the best tank, if one was to be made in the United States, for the British army.
In the light of the defeat of France, the United States was unlikely to commit production capacity towards any tank design that did not equally fulfil the requirements of the U.S. Army. A British Mission to the United States under Major-General Ridley Pakenham-Walsh was therefore dispatched to investigate the possibility of placing orders for American firms to build the Valiant, both models of the Vickers Valiant were shipped over to America, along with two crews of the Valiants that had taken part in the fighting between Calais and Dunkirk. The purpose of the Mission was to see if production of large quantities of tanks, similar to the French proposal, could be organised. If the British Mission couldn’t persuade the Americans to build a British tank, they were ordered to consider making a limited order for the M3 Medium tank, which was still only in the design phase.
One problem in relation to the direct purchase of tanks designed in the United States was that official policy prohibited the release of information, unless a sizeable order was made beforehand. The difficulty for the British was that they could not reasonably be expected to place a large cash order without first knowing what the tanks were like. During May 1940 President Roosevelt's representative Henry Morgenthau agreed that this information could be obtained by an army officer, via an examination of the tank during manufacturing and testing. This gave the British authorities the opportunity to scrutinise the equipment before making an outlay in dollars or gold.
Lieutenant-Colonel Blowey from the Royal Tank Regiment inspected the M2A1 Medium tank during June, raising concerns about the 32mm of armour and 37mm gun. The fact that was also emphasised was that mass production would take time to achieve, production wasn’t due to reach its optimum rate until September 1941. Getting a tank designed, tested and then the production facilities and workforce ready would normally take at least two years, and as the M2 had started life in June 1939, full production by September 1941 was reasonable. However, Blowey judged that it was already obsolete, and not worth considering.
When the new M3 design was discussed, it was noted the tank, with both a 75mm gun and 37mm gun, not unlike the French B1-Bis, had greater firepower than the Valiant. Concerns were raised by Blowey and the British Mission regarding the height of the vehicle, the main armament not being in the main turret, and its proposed armour still being only 30mm on the front and less on the sides. The Americans had designed it with the need a crew of seven, which the British felt excessive. The question of how long it would take to go into production was worrying, it was wasn’t available until mid-1942, a lot could happen by then.
When the American army got their hands on the two versions of the Valiant at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, they were in two minds, some things they liked, others they didn’t. The 3-inch armour on the Mark I and the 2.3-inch armour on the Mark I* wasn’t entirely surprising. The Char B1-bis had similar 60mm armour to the Mark I*, but it was still a lot more than the M2 and M3 tanks that were being designed, which both were around 30mm. The fact that Infantry Tank was welded, but the Cruiser Tank was riveted was noted. The Lion engine, both diesel and petrol pushed the heavy tanks along at a good pace, the Mark I* was about the same speed as the M2 of around 26mph, the Mark I was obviously slower, but still had a reasonable sprint of 22mph when pushed. The Americans were used to using radial engines in their tanks, and they weren’t convinced about the diesel Lion, and wondered in the petrol version was robust enough. The Horstman suspension was familiar, and judged well able to deal with the weight of the tanks, and provided a reasonable ride, though the Americans considered the British tanks very loud on their tracks.
The 2-pdr gun and the Besa co-axial machine gun seemed under-gunned to American eyes. The French Char B1-Bis with the 75mm and 47mm cannons, along with two machine guns, seemed a much more reasonable arsenal to take into battle, something that the M3 would be emulating. In terms of crew comfort and layout inside the tank, the turret was thought roomy, and it was clear that it had been designed with the ability to take a bigger gun. The various periscopes and viewing blocks were substandard for the Americans, when the tank was closed down, visibility wasn’t considered very good. The sight on the 2-pdr gun was also thought of as limited. Overall, the Mark I* was rated as a good tank, and the Infantry version was satisfactory for the role it was to take, with the exception of the gun.
The crews of the two British tanks were of greater interest, and so were the photographs and details of the German Panzer III and IVs that were handed over. The story of three Valiant tanks breaking through a German position and covering the convoy of rations was almost the stuff of legend. Likewise, the surprise and capture of the German forces at St Omer. Amongst the officers in the British Mission was Brigadier Pratt who had commanded the First Army Tank Brigade at Arras. Soldier to soldier, the experience of war was shared, the British keen on helping the Americans understand that some lessons had been hard won in blood, which they hoped the Americans might avoid.
The fall of France had come as a terrible shock, that a country with such a powerful army could be defeated in such a short campaign had made the Germans look masterful. The British felt that they’d managed to go toe to toe with the Germans and when they had, they felt they’d been more than a match for them. There were strategic reasons for the Dunkirk evacuation beyond the British army’s control, and for the fall of France generally. The German tanks weren’t any better than the British or French, or indeed the proposed American tanks. Their soldiers were well trained and led, but they weren’t supermen, as Goebbel’s propaganda suggested, they would bleed the same as anyone.
The British Mission thought it would take some time for the American evaluation to be considered, but Pakenham-Walsh was informed by the Defense Advisory Committee that the British would only be allowed to buy American tanks, which they would need to pay for in dollars, with a large deposit in advance. The Vice-Chief of the Imperial General Staff General Robert Haining confirmed to Pakenham-Walsh during August 1940, that, should the Americans choose not to build the Valiant, then the War Office were prepared to make an initial order for M3 tanks, under the terms that they would have certain modifications made for British use, and be available in a timely matter. A contract was signed in September with the Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Company for 500 M3 tanks, which was in some ways a bet against the A15 Cruiser tank being late or unsatisfactory.
The Americans did ask if they could keep hold of the Valiant I* as there were lots of things that they liked and thought would help speed up their own medium tank, especially the way the turret worked. They also wondered if they could have permission to continue experimenting on it, they were particularly interested in how the 75mm gun they were planning to use on the M3 might be fitted to the British turret. The British were happy to leave the tank with them at Aberdeen Proving Ground, and were keen to know how the Americans got on with it. One of the tank crews was also left, the US Army were interested to see if there was anything about how the Royal Tank Regiment’s training and experience could be applied to their own training.
NB text in italic differs from OTL. The French did propose sending a Char B1-bis, but as far as I know it didn't arrive. The British did send a Matilda II, but the American view of it was negative, see @marathag's post which was very helpful in writing this. I've tried to be fair about what would be seen as good and bad on the Valiants, hopefully it rings close enough to what would have been true. There was a crew who'd been at Arras, again mentioned in the quote in marathag's post. I'm guessing the British would pass on the details of the captured German panzers, I wouldn't be surprised if the Americans would want them shipped to Maryland at some point too. The order for 500 M3s from Pullman was in fact the first of far greater orders, again see the quote in marathag's post. The idea of putting the 75mm gun into the Valiant turret is a bit of a gimmick, which I'm going to use as a butterfly.
The French Mission to the United States had been trying to organise a production group, headed by the Baldwin Locomotive Company, to assemble 12,000 Char B1-bis tanks, at an eventual rate of 50 vehicles per day. The American firms thought that this rate of output was impracticable due to the lack of capacity for moulded armour plate, the production of 10 tanks per day was considered viable from the end of 1940, assuming the U.S. authorities gave priority for the necessary machine tools. A complete Char B1-Bis and a couple of specialists from France arrived in the United States, so that the characteristics of the tank could be demonstrated. There were some in the British Purchasing Committee in New York who demonstrated a clear interest in the project. The War Office however were less keen on the French tank, which although in some ways equivalent to the Vulcan Matilda II, wasn’t judged to be the best tank, if one was to be made in the United States, for the British army.
In the light of the defeat of France, the United States was unlikely to commit production capacity towards any tank design that did not equally fulfil the requirements of the U.S. Army. A British Mission to the United States under Major-General Ridley Pakenham-Walsh was therefore dispatched to investigate the possibility of placing orders for American firms to build the Valiant, both models of the Vickers Valiant were shipped over to America, along with two crews of the Valiants that had taken part in the fighting between Calais and Dunkirk. The purpose of the Mission was to see if production of large quantities of tanks, similar to the French proposal, could be organised. If the British Mission couldn’t persuade the Americans to build a British tank, they were ordered to consider making a limited order for the M3 Medium tank, which was still only in the design phase.
One problem in relation to the direct purchase of tanks designed in the United States was that official policy prohibited the release of information, unless a sizeable order was made beforehand. The difficulty for the British was that they could not reasonably be expected to place a large cash order without first knowing what the tanks were like. During May 1940 President Roosevelt's representative Henry Morgenthau agreed that this information could be obtained by an army officer, via an examination of the tank during manufacturing and testing. This gave the British authorities the opportunity to scrutinise the equipment before making an outlay in dollars or gold.
Lieutenant-Colonel Blowey from the Royal Tank Regiment inspected the M2A1 Medium tank during June, raising concerns about the 32mm of armour and 37mm gun. The fact that was also emphasised was that mass production would take time to achieve, production wasn’t due to reach its optimum rate until September 1941. Getting a tank designed, tested and then the production facilities and workforce ready would normally take at least two years, and as the M2 had started life in June 1939, full production by September 1941 was reasonable. However, Blowey judged that it was already obsolete, and not worth considering.
When the new M3 design was discussed, it was noted the tank, with both a 75mm gun and 37mm gun, not unlike the French B1-Bis, had greater firepower than the Valiant. Concerns were raised by Blowey and the British Mission regarding the height of the vehicle, the main armament not being in the main turret, and its proposed armour still being only 30mm on the front and less on the sides. The Americans had designed it with the need a crew of seven, which the British felt excessive. The question of how long it would take to go into production was worrying, it was wasn’t available until mid-1942, a lot could happen by then.
When the American army got their hands on the two versions of the Valiant at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, they were in two minds, some things they liked, others they didn’t. The 3-inch armour on the Mark I and the 2.3-inch armour on the Mark I* wasn’t entirely surprising. The Char B1-bis had similar 60mm armour to the Mark I*, but it was still a lot more than the M2 and M3 tanks that were being designed, which both were around 30mm. The fact that Infantry Tank was welded, but the Cruiser Tank was riveted was noted. The Lion engine, both diesel and petrol pushed the heavy tanks along at a good pace, the Mark I* was about the same speed as the M2 of around 26mph, the Mark I was obviously slower, but still had a reasonable sprint of 22mph when pushed. The Americans were used to using radial engines in their tanks, and they weren’t convinced about the diesel Lion, and wondered in the petrol version was robust enough. The Horstman suspension was familiar, and judged well able to deal with the weight of the tanks, and provided a reasonable ride, though the Americans considered the British tanks very loud on their tracks.
The 2-pdr gun and the Besa co-axial machine gun seemed under-gunned to American eyes. The French Char B1-Bis with the 75mm and 47mm cannons, along with two machine guns, seemed a much more reasonable arsenal to take into battle, something that the M3 would be emulating. In terms of crew comfort and layout inside the tank, the turret was thought roomy, and it was clear that it had been designed with the ability to take a bigger gun. The various periscopes and viewing blocks were substandard for the Americans, when the tank was closed down, visibility wasn’t considered very good. The sight on the 2-pdr gun was also thought of as limited. Overall, the Mark I* was rated as a good tank, and the Infantry version was satisfactory for the role it was to take, with the exception of the gun.
The crews of the two British tanks were of greater interest, and so were the photographs and details of the German Panzer III and IVs that were handed over. The story of three Valiant tanks breaking through a German position and covering the convoy of rations was almost the stuff of legend. Likewise, the surprise and capture of the German forces at St Omer. Amongst the officers in the British Mission was Brigadier Pratt who had commanded the First Army Tank Brigade at Arras. Soldier to soldier, the experience of war was shared, the British keen on helping the Americans understand that some lessons had been hard won in blood, which they hoped the Americans might avoid.
The fall of France had come as a terrible shock, that a country with such a powerful army could be defeated in such a short campaign had made the Germans look masterful. The British felt that they’d managed to go toe to toe with the Germans and when they had, they felt they’d been more than a match for them. There were strategic reasons for the Dunkirk evacuation beyond the British army’s control, and for the fall of France generally. The German tanks weren’t any better than the British or French, or indeed the proposed American tanks. Their soldiers were well trained and led, but they weren’t supermen, as Goebbel’s propaganda suggested, they would bleed the same as anyone.
The British Mission thought it would take some time for the American evaluation to be considered, but Pakenham-Walsh was informed by the Defense Advisory Committee that the British would only be allowed to buy American tanks, which they would need to pay for in dollars, with a large deposit in advance. The Vice-Chief of the Imperial General Staff General Robert Haining confirmed to Pakenham-Walsh during August 1940, that, should the Americans choose not to build the Valiant, then the War Office were prepared to make an initial order for M3 tanks, under the terms that they would have certain modifications made for British use, and be available in a timely matter. A contract was signed in September with the Pullman Standard Car Manufacturing Company for 500 M3 tanks, which was in some ways a bet against the A15 Cruiser tank being late or unsatisfactory.
The Americans did ask if they could keep hold of the Valiant I* as there were lots of things that they liked and thought would help speed up their own medium tank, especially the way the turret worked. They also wondered if they could have permission to continue experimenting on it, they were particularly interested in how the 75mm gun they were planning to use on the M3 might be fitted to the British turret. The British were happy to leave the tank with them at Aberdeen Proving Ground, and were keen to know how the Americans got on with it. One of the tank crews was also left, the US Army were interested to see if there was anything about how the Royal Tank Regiment’s training and experience could be applied to their own training.
NB text in italic differs from OTL. The French did propose sending a Char B1-bis, but as far as I know it didn't arrive. The British did send a Matilda II, but the American view of it was negative, see @marathag's post which was very helpful in writing this. I've tried to be fair about what would be seen as good and bad on the Valiants, hopefully it rings close enough to what would have been true. There was a crew who'd been at Arras, again mentioned in the quote in marathag's post. I'm guessing the British would pass on the details of the captured German panzers, I wouldn't be surprised if the Americans would want them shipped to Maryland at some point too. The order for 500 M3s from Pullman was in fact the first of far greater orders, again see the quote in marathag's post. The idea of putting the 75mm gun into the Valiant turret is a bit of a gimmick, which I'm going to use as a butterfly.
marathag
Banned
Not the first experience that the USA had
Back in 1928, a M1920 Pack Howitzer was first fitted to a US Tank in a Turret, the Mild Steel Medium T1
where it was found very effective in live firing trials against the WWI FT-17 test target
allanpcameron
Donor
Sorry, I thought it was implied in saying that the turret was built with a bigger gun in mind.
Allan
Yes, the British are aware of it, but there's nothing in the post suggesting that the news that a better gun was on the way was communicated to the Americans.
Still, the idea that the Americans are going to try to fit the 75mm gun into the Valiant will be interesting.
Last edited:
i really hope this ends up with a hybrid centurion flooded out of American factories
Something like a Comet with sloped armour and the US 76mm or UK "3"/77mm" might be feasible by 1944. Or late 1943 even
This is reasonable Allan, why would people on that mission know about what is in essence an internal development at Vickers for the next version of the tanks.
I love the way people have got Valliant's rolling over Africa, stopping the invasion of Crete and saving Malaya when I dont even recall a post saying that the Perkins Lion has even been tested?
Keep up the good work Allan, Your striking the right balance with not going over the top and turning it into a one way show.
The first 500 will be using the original Napier Lions, so the 275 tanks that went into Operation Compass OTL well within belief, even more so, since a good portion of the force will actually be tanks other than Valiant (A9, A10 and A13 Cruisers, and the A12/Matilda II Infantry, plus some Lights).
Last edited:
(Read in the 'Brian's Mums' voice of Terry Jones) If those women want to strut around 'Dragon country' dressed to emphasise their 'wench like virtues' then they deserve everything that's coming to them
Now if they would only dress a bit more modestly, with a plain wimple, then no self respecting Dragon is going to look twice at them now are they?
23 July 1940. London, England.
allanpcameron
Donor
23 July 1940. London, England.
The Mechanisation Experimentation Establishment (MEE) first interim report about the A15E1 Cruiser which they had been testing since 6 May 1940. It began by noting that the vehicle had been fitted with more than a ton of lead ballast to represent a fully loaded tank, with all its equipment, five crew and increased armour thickness to 50mm (1.96 inches). The tank was assessed as being just under 18 tons.
The drivers position came in for a lot of criticism in the report. It was ‘most unsatisfactory, both opened up and closed down.’ When opened up the driver was uncomfortable, and his head was vulnerable to being hit from behind by the gun or when the turret was reversed. When closed down, although the driver was less uncomfortable, his vision was limited. The clutch pedal was badly positioned, and the spent cartridge case bin for the machine gun obscured the accelerator pedal.
During the trails the running of the tank was discontinued on the advice of the Medical Officer, who identified that the driver was in danger of severe trauma to the abdomen due to ‘extreme flexion of the driver’s thighs at the hip joint but also a degree of flexion of the lumbar spine’. To the team at Farnborough this suggested that the manufacturer had not really taken the tank out to acquire any mileage.
The engine was described as ‘very cramped’ but the transmission and suspension were normally accessible for a normal drivers’ maintenance, but major work is not simple, particularly such jobs as removing the engine or radiators. The air cleaners were noted to be exposed to small arms fire, and ‘if the flimsy bracket, which holds the concertina element extended is shot away, the element will be sucked in by the air stream and strangle one bank of the engine.’ The cleaners were also very exposed to dust it was noted.
An extra inspection plate would be needed in the belly of the tank to permit access to the clutch control rod. The electric starter was judged not powerful enough to rotate the engine. The steering control was not judged satisfactory, it being erratic, too violent when engaged and too slow to disengage. It was believed this could be fixed by changing over to an Arens cable control rather than the unsatisfactory Girling mechanism.
The report continued, ‘The vehicle is not controllable on roads to the extent that it can be passed safe for road running. It is rather out of hand on cross country, but normally there is sufficient room to avoid trouble.’ The tank’s suspension was reckoned to be unsuitable for cross country running on any type of terrain that wasn’t extremely level, the front and rear springs were too soft, causing a violent rocking motion, which contributed to the injuries to the driver.
The were a whole list of other defects listed, such as the cooling was unsatisfactory; the engine tended to oil up when climbing hills, which suggested inadequate oil scavenging; the footbrake didn’t hold the on slopes greater than 1 in 3; reverse steering could occur on gradients, with the tracks ‘freewheeling’ due to the momentum of the tank; the power traverse pipe from the turntable floor fouled the gunners leg; the vision devices lacked standarisation; stowage was a problem. Although this part of the assessment of the tank did not include gunnery trials, it was believed that ventilation arrangements were likely to be found inadequate, especially for the hull gunner position.
The A15E1 was returned to the manufacturers for them to work on the deficiencies, and it was expected that the next report would be issued in December to see what progress had been made.
NB text in italic differs from OTL. In other words, this is all as OTL, though some parts are from later reports as well as the first interim report. The details come from P M Knight, A15 Cruiser Mark VI Crusader, a technical history. Black Prince Publications
The Mechanisation Experimentation Establishment (MEE) first interim report about the A15E1 Cruiser which they had been testing since 6 May 1940. It began by noting that the vehicle had been fitted with more than a ton of lead ballast to represent a fully loaded tank, with all its equipment, five crew and increased armour thickness to 50mm (1.96 inches). The tank was assessed as being just under 18 tons.
The drivers position came in for a lot of criticism in the report. It was ‘most unsatisfactory, both opened up and closed down.’ When opened up the driver was uncomfortable, and his head was vulnerable to being hit from behind by the gun or when the turret was reversed. When closed down, although the driver was less uncomfortable, his vision was limited. The clutch pedal was badly positioned, and the spent cartridge case bin for the machine gun obscured the accelerator pedal.
During the trails the running of the tank was discontinued on the advice of the Medical Officer, who identified that the driver was in danger of severe trauma to the abdomen due to ‘extreme flexion of the driver’s thighs at the hip joint but also a degree of flexion of the lumbar spine’. To the team at Farnborough this suggested that the manufacturer had not really taken the tank out to acquire any mileage.
The engine was described as ‘very cramped’ but the transmission and suspension were normally accessible for a normal drivers’ maintenance, but major work is not simple, particularly such jobs as removing the engine or radiators. The air cleaners were noted to be exposed to small arms fire, and ‘if the flimsy bracket, which holds the concertina element extended is shot away, the element will be sucked in by the air stream and strangle one bank of the engine.’ The cleaners were also very exposed to dust it was noted.
An extra inspection plate would be needed in the belly of the tank to permit access to the clutch control rod. The electric starter was judged not powerful enough to rotate the engine. The steering control was not judged satisfactory, it being erratic, too violent when engaged and too slow to disengage. It was believed this could be fixed by changing over to an Arens cable control rather than the unsatisfactory Girling mechanism.
The report continued, ‘The vehicle is not controllable on roads to the extent that it can be passed safe for road running. It is rather out of hand on cross country, but normally there is sufficient room to avoid trouble.’ The tank’s suspension was reckoned to be unsuitable for cross country running on any type of terrain that wasn’t extremely level, the front and rear springs were too soft, causing a violent rocking motion, which contributed to the injuries to the driver.
The were a whole list of other defects listed, such as the cooling was unsatisfactory; the engine tended to oil up when climbing hills, which suggested inadequate oil scavenging; the footbrake didn’t hold the on slopes greater than 1 in 3; reverse steering could occur on gradients, with the tracks ‘freewheeling’ due to the momentum of the tank; the power traverse pipe from the turntable floor fouled the gunners leg; the vision devices lacked standarisation; stowage was a problem. Although this part of the assessment of the tank did not include gunnery trials, it was believed that ventilation arrangements were likely to be found inadequate, especially for the hull gunner position.
The A15E1 was returned to the manufacturers for them to work on the deficiencies, and it was expected that the next report would be issued in December to see what progress had been made.
NB text in italic differs from OTL. In other words, this is all as OTL, though some parts are from later reports as well as the first interim report. The details come from P M Knight, A15 Cruiser Mark VI Crusader, a technical history. Black Prince Publications
Derek Pullem
Donor
So if the Americans produce a "Valiyank" with a 75 mm M2 (later M3) and a Chrysler multibank petrol engine, what is this "Sherman" they are trying to sell us?
why dont you mention that they are being upgunned to the 6 pounder in 41 ? And they could manufacture that and should manufacture that , and for themselves they can rebore the barrel to 75 mm as was done in otl . Cause thats the main complaint the americans had about the tank asfar i can tell.
Last edited:
Why would the use a Chrysler engine when Cummins is going to be producing an approximate copy of the Lion diesel?
Well as brazen mentioned, the 6-pounder upgrade at this point is an internal Vickers project, so not really known about.
- Status