Huzzah! The Mk.2 is in for testing!
Is this an incomplete sentence? Just caught my eye.
Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
allanpcameron
Donor
Probably would be better if:
In actual fact it was a straight copy of the captured German Turmzielfernrohr TZF 5b.
Nice update and one that bodes well for the future of the Valiant.
The improved telescope and cupola will make a big difference not only in the capability of the Valiant but also likely lead to improvements to the final Victor as well.
Churchills action this day will also possibly prove important and may set the cat among the pigeons in more ways than one. For a start it shows that, for the time being at least, Churchill is probably focussed on North Africa and XIII corps. This is understandable given they are one of the few bright spots Britain has right now and also the only active theatre Britain really has land wise. Yes Greece will come up soon and take his attention but that is at least another two weeks away if not slightly more. The second is it will probably put more of an official focus on getting the 6pdr into service sooner rather than later I would suspect. My suspicion would be that the MoS will be keen to avoid any more Action this Day memos about the 6pdr going forward, especially given the implicit support the PM has shown for the gun. I am therefore speculating that the 6pdr will get more of a push to get it into service, even if that means disrupting the 2pdr slightly. You also have the embarrassment factor of Vickers being able to get the 6pdr going while the MoS can't so getting the 6pdr into production and service sooner and in larger numbers will help alleviate that. I know that is not a real assessment of the situation but when has reality gotten in the way of politicians and civil servants pride.
If I am correct what could this all mean.
Well to start with it means the 6pdr could well get into widespread service sooner than OTL which is only a good thing, the problem is it will impact 2pdr production. That could well have a few knock on affects. The first is that the A15 could well, like the Covenanter in OTL, be produced without guns. If production is disrupted something will have to give, AT guns are still needed until the 6pdr can replace the 2pdr so that cant stop. The Matilda II is in service and is overseas already, yes on guard duty but is an option to be sent to combat theatres if something else (Cough, Greece, Cough) flares up so disrupting Matilda II production and deliveries is more impactful than disrupting the A15. The Valiant is getting the 6pdr yes but it wont be a 100% switch over straight away so some tanks will still be getting the 2pdr for some time. That only leaves the A15 as a candidate to face the wait on the 2pdr.
Next is the A22 will be looked at with a new eye, it will already be struggling to match up to the Victor and this will only make it worse. The Victor can take the 6pdr, which will be either at or near full production or have an even better gun (don't worry @allanpcameron I'm not going there, this time). Now with the 2pdr potentially being phased out before the A22 even enters production it faces questions. Does the A22 offer enough to warrant a redesign or should the A22 simply be cancelled, if a redesign is on the face of it deserved how big a redesign is required and does that change things for the A22. When it comes to redesigning the A22 you have a few options. You can "simply" redesign the tank to take the Valiant turret with the 6pdr. This will be both fast and cheap as you don't need the time or expense of designing and testing a new turret, you also get to take advantage of the institutional knowledge of building Valiant turrets that also exists simplifying matters further. The problem with this is what are you getting at the end of it, a slower but more heavily armoured Valiant II, is that worth it?. The next option is to design a new and improved turret that takes on board any lessons learnt from the Valiant 6pdr, this gets you a better end product but it will take time and money and could that be better spent somewhere else? The Final option is two redesign the A22 to take the 3" Vickers HV, this future proofs the tank somewhat and any turret that can take the 3" can take the 6pdr if the 3" isn't adopted for some reason. The issue with going down this route is it will likely require not just a new turret but also modifications to the tank to fit the turret. That leads to issues like engine power and suspension to deal with the increased weight that brings. Suddenly you are looking at designing an almost entirely new tank in the worst case scenario which probably won't be seen as worth it.
The final benefit is that the Valiant will likely switch over to being armed with the 6pdr sooner than was expected. This not only gives the Valiant a gun with a useable HE round sooner but also means that when the Panzer 3 start getting the 5cm and 7.5cm guns unless they get brought forward over OTL. It is a possibility ITTL but the fact it didn't happen OTL means it probably wont ITTL.
There are other considerations regarding the Victor and the 3" Vickers but I said i'm not going there so won't. Besides this is long enough already.
The improved telescope and cupola will make a big difference not only in the capability of the Valiant but also likely lead to improvements to the final Victor as well.
Churchills action this day will also possibly prove important and may set the cat among the pigeons in more ways than one. For a start it shows that, for the time being at least, Churchill is probably focussed on North Africa and XIII corps. This is understandable given they are one of the few bright spots Britain has right now and also the only active theatre Britain really has land wise. Yes Greece will come up soon and take his attention but that is at least another two weeks away if not slightly more. The second is it will probably put more of an official focus on getting the 6pdr into service sooner rather than later I would suspect. My suspicion would be that the MoS will be keen to avoid any more Action this Day memos about the 6pdr going forward, especially given the implicit support the PM has shown for the gun. I am therefore speculating that the 6pdr will get more of a push to get it into service, even if that means disrupting the 2pdr slightly. You also have the embarrassment factor of Vickers being able to get the 6pdr going while the MoS can't so getting the 6pdr into production and service sooner and in larger numbers will help alleviate that. I know that is not a real assessment of the situation but when has reality gotten in the way of politicians and civil servants pride.
If I am correct what could this all mean.
Well to start with it means the 6pdr could well get into widespread service sooner than OTL which is only a good thing, the problem is it will impact 2pdr production. That could well have a few knock on affects. The first is that the A15 could well, like the Covenanter in OTL, be produced without guns. If production is disrupted something will have to give, AT guns are still needed until the 6pdr can replace the 2pdr so that cant stop. The Matilda II is in service and is overseas already, yes on guard duty but is an option to be sent to combat theatres if something else (Cough, Greece, Cough) flares up so disrupting Matilda II production and deliveries is more impactful than disrupting the A15. The Valiant is getting the 6pdr yes but it wont be a 100% switch over straight away so some tanks will still be getting the 2pdr for some time. That only leaves the A15 as a candidate to face the wait on the 2pdr.
Next is the A22 will be looked at with a new eye, it will already be struggling to match up to the Victor and this will only make it worse. The Victor can take the 6pdr, which will be either at or near full production or have an even better gun (don't worry @allanpcameron I'm not going there, this time). Now with the 2pdr potentially being phased out before the A22 even enters production it faces questions. Does the A22 offer enough to warrant a redesign or should the A22 simply be cancelled, if a redesign is on the face of it deserved how big a redesign is required and does that change things for the A22. When it comes to redesigning the A22 you have a few options. You can "simply" redesign the tank to take the Valiant turret with the 6pdr. This will be both fast and cheap as you don't need the time or expense of designing and testing a new turret, you also get to take advantage of the institutional knowledge of building Valiant turrets that also exists simplifying matters further. The problem with this is what are you getting at the end of it, a slower but more heavily armoured Valiant II, is that worth it?. The next option is to design a new and improved turret that takes on board any lessons learnt from the Valiant 6pdr, this gets you a better end product but it will take time and money and could that be better spent somewhere else? The Final option is two redesign the A22 to take the 3" Vickers HV, this future proofs the tank somewhat and any turret that can take the 3" can take the 6pdr if the 3" isn't adopted for some reason. The issue with going down this route is it will likely require not just a new turret but also modifications to the tank to fit the turret. That leads to issues like engine power and suspension to deal with the increased weight that brings. Suddenly you are looking at designing an almost entirely new tank in the worst case scenario which probably won't be seen as worth it.
The final benefit is that the Valiant will likely switch over to being armed with the 6pdr sooner than was expected. This not only gives the Valiant a gun with a useable HE round sooner but also means that when the Panzer 3 start getting the 5cm and 7.5cm guns unless they get brought forward over OTL. It is a possibility ITTL but the fact it didn't happen OTL means it probably wont ITTL.
There are other considerations regarding the Victor and the 3" Vickers but I said i'm not going there so won't. Besides this is long enough already.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Could a shortfall in 2 pdr guns to support the infantry result in an accelerated development and deployment of the PIAT?
Possibly, could be an interesting outcome. Could also lead to other interim solutions such as refitting the Boys like the PzB 39 eventually became the GrB 39. Britain already has an anti tank rifle grenade and while it wasn't brilliant and couldn't be improved because of the limitations of using the Lee Enfield to fire it ITTL we could see an interim design using the boys. That could give the PIAT more time to mature so comes out both better than OTL and with more ammo types.
Either way Britain gets either improved map portable AT weapons sooner ITTL to cover them until the PIAT arrives or gets a better interim solution and better late war solution.
You forgot the South Alberta Light Horse.
I also served in the FGH, it started my career in the Reg Force Armour.
I was Garry from 70-74, when I joined the Regs.
allanpcameron
Donor
| Year and month | Bofors guns | 2-pdr. T. and A.T. guns | Year and month | Bofors guns | 2-pdr. T. and A.T. guns | 6-pdr. T. and A.T. guns |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1940 | 1941 | |||||
| May | 81 | 126 | January | 155 | 281 | nil |
| June | 119 | 169 | February | 144 | 246 | nil |
| July | 128 | 200 | March | 213 | 319 | nil |
| August | 124 | 148 | April | 176 | 325 | nil |
| September | 116 | 150 | May | 190 | 392 | nil |
| October | 138 | 211 | June | 250 | 567 | 2 |
| November | 104 | 157 | July | 225 | 674 | 1 |
| December | 119 | 215 | August | 233 | 721 | 4 |
| September | 270 | 985 | 1 | |||
| October | 301 | 1,262 | 13 | |||
| November | 260 | 1,393 | 32 | |||
| December | 295 | 1,382 | 146 |
Edited to add, not sure what Vickers' contribution to 2-pdr production was exactly, so I'm probably being hopeful.
Allan
Last edited:
you could add in Canadian production once that starts.6pdr 's for sure and probably 2pdrs as vickers were making octuple pompoms.
Alanbrooke used to infuriate Winston, for he quickly became wise to Winston's 'ways' and he made sure that all depts (related to the military) if they received such an 'end run' were to advise the CIGS and send the answer to him (unless it was one of WSCs madder missives in which case it got quashed) and not back to Churchill.
In this he became a superb filter between the PM and the military
Small point is those figures are going to have to be wrong for TTL. Just counting Valiant's you have already made it canon that over 200 would have been made in December 1940 alone which would then be added to with Matilda II's and A13's, possibly A9's or A10's as well but can't remember on those. I think the numbers worked out at or around 300 tanks in December 1940 alone ITTL. OTL Britain produced about 430 tanks in Q4 1940 and 583 2pdr's based on your table. That alone means that if 2pdr production has not increased then their is already a gun shortage for Britain.
I think I am right in saying the numbers for both versions of the Valiant were 100+ in December.
This next bit is speculation based on Britain building an average of 250 tanks a month for Q4 of 1940, I think that was in the ballpark. The second is looking at the relationship between tank gun and tank production. I am also only looking at infantry and cruiser tank numbers for this. now I cant find the numbers for January through April 1940 so I have extrapolated back assuming an increasing rate of production. Make of that what you will, also the percentage figure represents how many tanks were produced as a percentage of the gun numbers
| 1940 | 2pdr's produced | Tank's produced | Numbers Difference | Percentage Difference |
| Q1 | 310* | 134 | +176 | 43% |
| Q2 | 400* | 138 | +262 | 35% |
| Q3 | 498 | 280 | +218 | 56% |
| Q4 | 583 | 432 | +151 | 75% |
Now one of two things has happened, firstly Britain has increased 2pdr production to match tank numbers and enable the army to be equipped with AT guns. That means that in Q4 Britain will have needed to have produced around 950 2pdr's, that's a 63% increase over OTL.
The other option is Britain's armament has matched the OTL split so the Number of AT guns produced is enough to mean that tanks took only 75% of them. That means Britain has made 1000 2pdr's in Q4 or a 72% increase over OTL.
Now my numbers could well be wrong for the tanks produced ITTL but even 600 in Q4 means either 750 2pdr's (29% increase) or 800 2pdr's (38% increase)
The problem this represents is the massive increase in production in 1941 would probably be mirrored ITTL but again increased over the OTL numbers so assuming an increase of 30% over OTL you get
| Q3 1940 | Q4 1940 | Q1 1941 | Q2 1941 | Q3 1941 | Q4 1941 | |
| OTL 2pr production | 498 | 583 | 846 | 1284 | 2380 | 4037 |
| ITTL 2pdr production | 648 | 758 | 1100 | 1670 | 3094 | 5281 |
| OTL tank production | 280 (56%) | 432 (75%) | 653 (77%) | 943 (73%) | 1368 (57%) | 1877 (46%) |
There are some ways out of this however.
- The first is to just ignore it but I doubt you will do that.
- The second is to say that yes 2pdr production is higher than OTL but only just high enough to keep the tanks and AT guns going. This means you have roughly the same number of guns being made as AT guns per quarter as OTL.
- The third way is to say that 2pdr production was increased early war over OTL but was stagnant for a bit. That caused some units to get 2pdr AT guns before OTL but as tank numbers increased deliveries as AT guns slowed.
- The fourth way is to explain part of it by saying 2pdr's were gotten out of France to either cover some or all of the difference.
- The fifth is that again 2pdr production is above OTL but was hitting a plateau whilst waiting for new production to come on line and work up. This will coincide with the switch to the 6pdr so there is going to be a shortfall to either tanks of AT guns. Number will then go back up later on in 1941
- The final way is to say that some lines that were about to be set up for 2pdr production are instead going to 6pdr production. That limits the increase of 2pdr's later in the year but get's 6pdr's going earlier and still causes a shortfall however.
Edit;
Just to make it clear what I am saying. Any increase in 2pdr production earlier in the war to produce enough for all the extra tanks will have had a knock on affect. The increase would likely have required setting up extra production etc that would have had a large affect as war was declared and war production started. All the things done OTL to increase production would be done on the larger scale of production already underway leading to even greater production.
Last edited:
An AA gunner as a POV character in a timeline so tightly focused on tanks? Interesting, I am guessing he will be manning the turret of a Vigilant (or is it still the Vanguard?) before long? The Australian senior officers and politicians are all quite adamant that the Austrialian forces should fight as a unified force, so I doubt he's heading to Crete.
Good to see Canada doing well. Hopefully those tanks don't end up wasted on a shingle beach with lacklustre support.
The 'Commonwealth Valiant' does have a nice ring to it. Though, it might be possible that some variants, owing to perhaps a desire for HE capability and lack of heavier barrels produced in an area might be armed with pom-poms, yes? A Pom-pom armed Valiant is more than enough tank for anything that might happen in the far east.
Lieutenant Allsup sounds like the sort of an officer who might go far. Taking on board advice and training from the scouts and thinking of defending the flank of the main force, very good. Also, will the Hussars be transitioning onto Daimler armoured cars soon, or something else?
Good to see Winston's determination and clout getting a positive outlet.
The RN will be taking up every Pom Pom produced and nothing has happened to massively increase production over OTL to allow some to go to the Army. Realistically the 6pdr will have a better HE round than the Pom Pom but will lack the ability to cover an area in HE. That is a trade off the crews will happily accept as putting one good HE round into a bunker will be seen as far more valuable than 3-4 around it.
What is going to happen to Pom Pom´s that are being replaced by 40mm bofors
RN has a lot of ships and while the Bofors will replace the Pom Pom in time that won't happen yet and any taken off of capital ships will simply be given to other vessels. The RN has a LOT of ships.
That is just pure filth, Molins gun in a Victor firing APDS at Panthers, tigers and anything else in the general area.
I suspect that you could start seeing some unique Commonwealth variants of the Valiant (and potentially Victor, but we're early days yet) as local manufacture use what's on hand to meet feedback from their deployed troops.
We could get a 'Kangaroo' Valiant APC this way if Montreal finds production of the bespoke vehicle Vickers is working on can't meet demand fast enough, for example.
Once the Aussies make that short 'jungle' version of the 25pdr I'm sure they'll find any excuse to put it in a tank turret, even if they have to make it themselves. I rather like this option actually, Canadian-built Valiant hulls mated to an Australian 'CS' turret with the short 25 would be a lovely thing to have trundling around.
Derek Pullem
Donor
So in this reality we don't have a tank scandal but a gun scandal?
Not enough guns to arm the tanks. This may have the serendipidous (sp?) outcome that more Valiant hulls get used for spg and spaag. I wonder if Vickers will even try some early 3" TD \ spat. As others have mentioned the A15 may get produced without guns for training and someone is going to think about an early kangaroo
Wouldn't say we are going to have a gun scandal. No matter what the frontline fighting tanks will get guns. The fact that Covenanters were delivered without guns was never an issue, I can't see the lack of guns for the A15 causing issues during or post war, the pragmatic decision to get the 6pdr going sooner will be vindicated. The lack of guns going to A15's, if that is what happens, means that Valiant's will still get them until 6pdr production gets into stride.
Kangaroo type vehicle probably won't happen ITTL with a dedicated APC being built already.
We are at an interesting point for British tanks though and I was making a post about it. Thing is when I got to 2000 words and was still going strong I figured I better take a break from it and see how things play out.
I do this not for "correct" English. There is no "correct" English (I am Australian.) And I do so having just this week finished a marathon of your other writing here.
I do this so you know the poetry of your language.
A problem is a problem.
A problematic is a system of a problem, or something which is problematic is a thing which has the qualities of a problem.
A problematical thing is a thing with the properties of a problematic, or a thing with the properties of a thing with the properties of a problem.
To my generation X ears it sounds as if you're an English speaker who has fallen in with too many post-modernists. My ears are conditioned by having had to deal with far too many post-modernists who are unwilling to declare racism a "problem," but rather hide behind the problematic, or the "problem system" of racism as if it is a language game.
Other options include "would be a problem." Which is direct and plain English.
Or, "which would be problematic." Which indicates something less direct and more systematic about the problem.
But it is a matter for the author's choice and intentions in their words. And I only mention it because it grates my ears like they were cheese (a problem of course *inside me*,) and in case you didn't know this might be the effect of your words.
And as I've said, its a problem in me from having to deal with too many pomos who won't come out and call abhorrent things abhorrent (despite apparently believing such).
yours,
Sam R.
Last edited:
- Status