Standardized British tank. 1942.

How about a colonial/Canadian angle?

During the 1930s, Canadians recognize that the motherland will not be able to supply the Canadian Army during the coming world war, so Canadian factories gear-up to equip the Canadian Army.
Montreal Locomotive Works still produces thousands of Valentine light tanks, but with cast, bulged (ala British cruisers) that improve elbow room for the three turret crew manning the 6-pounder gun in the turret.
After casting the first batch of stepped glacis plates, MLW starts casting sloped glacis plates for all subsequent Valentine production.

By 1942, MLW recognizes that even 6-pounder guns are not enough to defeat the latest Panzers, so they import 17-pounder patterns and tooling from Britain. MLW only builds a few Valentine Archers, but takes lessons-learned to develop a Ram III medium tank based on a Sherman hull and suspension.
The Ram 3 prototype is converted from a Ram 2 and resembles the Sherman Fireflies converted in Britain albeit with a wedge-shaped mantlet extending well forward of the original trunnions, but the Ram 3A features a longer turret with the bustle cast in place. Ram 3A turrets also sport a variety of external turret baskets (ala Centurion) to compliment all the tool boxes on their hulls.
Meanwhile, CARDE has been busy developing lower velocity HE and smoke shells for 17-pounders. They only achieve 2,000 feet per scone at the muzzle but carry enough explosive to defeat most soft-skinned targets. Initially Ram 3 gunners flip back and forth between two separate aiming reticles, but Ram 3Bs combine the two sights (AT and HE) in one reticle.
Late war, MLW and Continental co-operate on a new bell-housing that allows them to lay radial engines flat in the lower hull. The turret basket sinks a foot deeper into the hull, allowing the entire hull to be so shalos that side sponsons almost disappear. New sponsons are barely high enough to support the turret ring.
To make room for fuel and ammo, the Ram 3 loses its bow-gunner.
 
My understanding was it had to fit into the low profile of the covenanter.

Oh, I get it now.
The Bedford Twin Six was such a low slung engine, with height of 750 mm. Heavy it was at ~3200 lbs, but then the Chrysler Multibank went for another 1000 lbs; the twinned diesel used on Shermans was also heavier than Twin Six.

Meadows are building the engine anyway so they are making use of resource that does not impact at all on the aero engine industry as even developing an existing engine is going to take some resourcez

There will be no impact on aero industry if RR sells in late 1930s at token price tooling for Kestrel to, say, Meadows or Rover, to meet the Army needs. Same for Napier and tooling for the Lion. Bedford Twin Six was no star allright, but it worked well and was available early enough. Eventually Meadows produced the Meteor.
The Meadows 'Flat' engine was good for 300 HP, not going to cut it for needs of a 'standardized' or 'universal' tank.
 
I wonder though, with a stadardized tank design what would the production figures for the vehicle be like with none of the other tanks getting in the way?
 
I wonder though, with a stadardized tank design what would the production figures for the vehicle be like with none of the other tanks getting in the way?

Lets assume the POD is for example a continued Experimental Brigade from 1929 developing into a regular Armoured Brigade then a Division during the 30s - driving knowledge and doctrine etc - which is the only way I can see a Universal Tank being developed in time for a WW2 situation.

Vickers were initially producing 10 Valentines a Month - increasing to 45 a month within a year and 20 a week within 2 years

As a lot was learned from building the 300 odd Cruiser Mk1 and Mk2 I would expect an earlier production to be slower than the initial production was in 1940.

I once did some napkin math on Production numbers of Valentines if they were put into production from early 1938 (the design was 'possibly' submitted on Feb 14 1938 according to some sources) instead of A9s and 10s and Matilda Is and IIs I got about 400 - 500 units.

Then if we get other manufacturers to build the same tank during this period then - perhaps another 65 instead of the Cruiser Mk 3 built at Nuffield and then 665 instead of the Cruiser Mk IV

As for 'instead of the MkIV Light tank' - well with the POD I outlined Light tanks would probably have been found wanting during exercises that establish that light tanks not fighting mediums doesn't work very well - so lets assume that half of the production effort went into a universal tank instead from 1938 or about half MKIV light tank production 1682/2=841 and lets assume that delays from re-tooling and building a larger tank reduces that number by say a 3rd and we have another 300 odd Universal tanks by May 1940

So - rough ball park figure.........with a production start of Q2 1938.....1200 - 1500 Universal Tanks in service by May 1940 along with about 800 older Light tanks for the Cavalry - although again with the POD I outlined Cavalry units sent to France would probably upgrade to the same Universal tank as the Main Tank Brigades
 
If the Lion W12 was the answer to a question why didnt the army use it and why did the RAF stop ordering aircraft using it after 1928 and get rid of it. The last RAF Lion engined aircraft seems to have been the Blackburn Ripon which went out of service in 1934.

Because it wouldn't run on 63 octane pool petrol. Liberty, with its lower compression, could.

And for aircraft, new engines with more displacement than the 1460ci, 500HP Lion were being made.

It was a WWI engine.

It just was a better one than the Liberty: made more power, with greater reliability, as shown by the Southampton flying boats, that were made til the mid '30s when replaced by the Stranraer and Scapa.

The Lion was replaced by the Kestrel. Similar power from slightly less displacement, and was supercharged.

But for sea level use? Hard to beat the Lion.
 
Because it wouldn't run on 63 octane pool petrol. Liberty, with its lower compression, could.

And for aircraft, new engines with more displacement than the 1460ci, 500HP Lion were being made.

It was a WWI engine.

It just was a better one than the Liberty: made more power, with greater reliability, as shown by the Southampton flying boats, that were made til the mid '30s when replaced by the Stranraer and Scapa.

The Lion was replaced by the Kestrel. Similar power from slightly less displacement, and was supercharged.

But for sea level use? Hard to beat the Lion.

Once again we are talking about different engines the NUFFIELD V12 was not a particulary unreliable engine when compared to its contemporaries, the Cruiser Mark VI Crusader had numerous faults mostly caused by poor design poor maintenance and lack of spares. Reading reports of the users there are many complaints of overheating (the cooling fan ran off a 9 foot long motorcycle chain) oil leaks (the crank breathers clogged) carburettor faults (many Crusaders ran without air filters because they choked with sand and killed power) radiator hoses leaking (they used hoses from a 90hp 6 cylinder Morris Lorry) track breakages, steering brake failures, band brake linings in the pre selector gear box delaminating. The list goes on and on the Crusader as first put in the field was an embarrasingly poor job but as for actual engine problems there were surprisingly few.
 

Driftless

Donor
Scrap this requirement through creating a armoured vehicle transporter, and, improve the reliability of tanks so they can drive themselves more to where needed once off the AVT.

Here are British tank transporters in WW2. Make this the standard transport for tanks from factory to front, WHEREVER train flatbeds won't work.

snowwhite_zps7d646c35.jpg

(snip)
I see no reason the Antar can't be made earlier.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thornycroft_Antar

Bingo! (you hit on one of my favorite over-looked systems) The Brits had an excellent pre-war tractor and trailer rig that offset the rail gauge issue, PLUS delivered other practical uses. The (pre-war) likelihood that tanks would be needed to defend the countryside in Kent or Sussex was slim. The use for British tanks was far more likely to be offshore - the continent, North Africa, the middle-east, asia, scandinavia?, russia? where railroad restrictions could vary considerably. Go with the Scammel Pioneer tractor/trailer and you reduce that railroad limitation.
 
I had the Dinky model of the Mighty Antar, with a Centurion on the back. The tank always fell off in the tight corners, but that might have been down to the 8 year old driver!
 
Scammel tank-transporters are the most flexible for medium-length road moves behind the front-lines. However, tank-transporter trucks are also the most expensive (petrol, driver duty hours, truck repairs, road repairs, etc.) for long moves. Railways are ten times more efficient than road moves, with ships being ten times again more efficient.
The trick to efficient road or rail moves is keeping the tracks narrow narrow enough to fit most bridges or tunnels. This can be done by over-lapping turret rings over the tracks in shallow sponsons.
Any time you limit routes to a handful of wide bridges or wide tunnels, the enemy will bomb those bridges into rubble.
 

Driftless

Donor
Scammel tank-transporters are the most flexible for medium-length road moves behind the front-lines. However, tank-transporter trucks are also the most expensive (petrol, driver duty hours, truck repairs, road repairs, etc.) for long moves. Railways are ten times more efficient than road moves, with ships being ten times again more efficient.
The trick to efficient road or rail moves is keeping the tracks narrow narrow enough to fit most bridges or tunnels. This can be done by over-lapping turret rings over the tracks in shallow sponsons.
Any time you limit routes to a handful of wide bridges or wide tunnels, the enemy will bomb those bridges into rubble.

I agree about the long hauls, but as a practical matter, what would constitute a long haul in Western Europe or the UK? I would think there's a subjective difference between those highly developed areas and the more wide open expanses encountered elsewhere. I've never transported anything larger than a pickup truck on a flatbed trailer, so my practical knowledge is limited. Having made that caveat, would all local RR stations have the set-up to unload 1930's era tanks? How do you unload a tank from a rail car?
 
Last edited:
I've never transported anything larger than a pickup truck on a flatbed trailer, so my practical knowledge is limited. Having made that caveat, would all local RR stations have the set-up to unload 1930's era tanks? How do you unload a tank from a rail car?

With the right loadmaster and the right crane, you can do a lot
maxresdefault.jpg
 
How do you unload a tank from a rail car?

A good few years ago I saw a British Army training film where they were demostrating loading and unloading Churchill MkII and Covenanter tanks on a train of flatbed wagons. There was 2 methods

1, The train of wagons was backed up against a loading ramp made of Rail sleepers (Rail Ties for the North Americans) sandbags and lengths of rail as each tank was loaded it drove to the front (or back) of the train the gaps between flatbeds was bridged by ramps or platforms.

2, The train of wagons had a special two axle ramp wagon where the wagon was jacked up and one of the axles unbolted and rolled away then the back of the wagon was lowered to the ground.

Sorry I cant be more specific but it was a while ago, I have looked for the film online but nothing comes up.
 
How do you unload a tank from a rail car?

A good few years ago I saw a British Army training film where they were demostrating loading and unloading Churchill MkII and Covenanter tanks on a train of flatbed wagons. There was 2 methods

1, The train of wagons was backed up against a loading ramp made of Rail sleepers (Rail Ties for the North Americans) sandbags and lengths of rail as each tank was loaded it drove to the front (or back) of the train the gaps between flatbeds was bridged by ramps or platforms.

2, The train of wagons had a special two axle ramp wagon where the wagon was jacked up and one of the axles unbolted and rolled away then the back of the wagon was lowered to the ground.

Sorry I cant be more specific but it was a while ago, I have looked for the film online but nothing comes up.

I think it was likely a film held by the Imperial War Museum which was mostly about a Southern Railway gas decontamination exercise, which sadly is not available on line.

However it bees Americans and a Lee tank but essentially the same idea

346452b9fb67f123d4b1ae3b89b44328.jpg
 
I think it was likely a film held by the Imperial War Museum which was mostly about a Southern Railway gas decontamination exercise, which sadly is not available on line.

However it bees Americans and a Lee tank but essentially the same idea

346452b9fb67f123d4b1ae3b89b44328.jpg

It could be the film I am thinking of but my memory is that the tanks were Churchill IIs with the 2 pounder gun and Covenanters.
 
What octane fuel was standard for the British Army in 1939 and did it change between 1939 and 1945?
 

Driftless

Donor
A good few years ago I saw a British Army training film where they were demostrating loading and unloading Churchill MkII and Covenanter tanks on a train of flatbed wagons. There was 2 methods

1, The train of wagons was backed up against a loading ramp made of Rail sleepers (Rail Ties for the North Americans) sandbags and lengths of rail as each tank was loaded it drove to the front (or back) of the train the gaps between flatbeds was bridged by ramps or platforms.

2, The train of wagons had a special two axle ramp wagon where the wagon was jacked up and one of the axles unbolted and rolled away then the back of the wagon was lowered to the ground.

Sorry I cant be more specific but it was a while ago, I have looked for the film online but nothing comes up.

Thanks! That's the type of general information I was looking for. Basically, almost any spot with a spur line could be made to serve as a loading/unloading area. That's certainly less complicated than I envisioned, and as long as you keep your enemy from disrupting the process, it's not really an issue.
 
What octane fuel was standard for the British Army in 1939 and did it change between 1939 and 1945?
Pre-War, 63
during the War, it increased, mostly from US stocks that was higher octane than what the UK had been getting from Venezuela, to 67-73 by 1944
US rating was 80.
After the war, it decreased to the low 70s value untill the '50s where it increased again.

UK posters may have the actual date when this occurred.
 
It could be the film I am thinking of but my memory is that the tanks were Churchill IIs with the 2 pounder gun and Covenanters.

..................................................

Earlier posters described field-expedient methods of unloading tanks from trains.
No need for heavy cranes or fork-lifts because all the better railway freight yards had concrete loading docks that are the same height as railway flat-beds. They also have (permanent) gentle ramps that allow trucks or horse-drawn wagons to gently return the road-level.
 
..................................................

Earlier posters described field-expedient methods of unloading tanks from trains.
No need for heavy cranes or fork-lifts because all the better railway freight yards had concrete loading docks that are the same height as railway flat-beds. They also have (permanent) gentle ramps that allow trucks or horse-drawn wagons to gently return the road-level.

It's harder for AFV with Cletrac or Clutch brake to such maneuvers than the later ones with fully regenerative steering like the Churchill that could neutral steer and pivot under power than slewing about
 
Top