The Experimental Armoured Force gets the go ahead.

sharlin

Banned
"We can't have it called the Matilda, it sounds...well to be honest, rather stupid."

"Its only what the men call it Sir."

"True but officially we have a few choices to put forwards, the Conqueror is suitably military, and goes well with the Centurion."

"True..regarding the new self-propelled artillery?"

"God knows, we're waiting on the Artillery to get back to us with what they want it to be called."

"Very good Sir."
 
Well the UK started mechanization in 1928 and had completed it by 39 for all but the Palestine based regiments.
The issue would be money vs other demands, like chain home , modern artillery, spitfires, carriers, more troops, motorisation generally.
But in the end by type its 2x late war amd div (-) structures, that’s feasible but a drop in the ocean in the wrong ocean in France 40.
The organisation as a brigade would not be adopted, as a brigade group from a division looks a lot like late war practice but I think a tad infantry light especially with the carriers. They would have to leave 1 man in 4 with the carrier and it buggers up section organisation. They would be better off with a larger 4x4 truck or maybe a Kangaroo type conversion from an earlier tank model. I think in 39/40 pushing for armoured infantry is a step too unnecessary and the universal does not really do it, better off having the whole army motorised. Maybe an earlier C15 type armoured truck, or India Pattern carrier for cost.
Or a development of the Light Dragon, all for larger personnel load.
Same applies to the SPG. Its kinda cool but better off motorising everything than having a limited number of mobile divs and the rest horse drawn, unlike Germany the UK has the industry and army size to do it.
203mm armour is more than a King Tiger. The RE would shoot you and rightly so, the point of a tank is to be mobile.
The Massingbird – he would have been in charge for the mechanization period, others would be the Gillman, Elles or Charles after the MGO at the time.

One other thing, if they actively testing they would find out that you need a 75mm or better HE round vs entrenched troops and build that in - but it would be a 25lber.
 
The military establishment was in general against mechanization. They wanted to remain noble knights, skilled artists and gentlemen to whom "war" meant horses, heroic missions in the colonies and Rudyard Kipling. To become mechanics in a tank was a nightmare for them. You could just study how almost all militaries resisted introducing the machinegun until WW1 with the same arguments.
Really? I was under the impression that the British army, even with the Experimental Mechanized Force having been wound up, by the start of the war was pretty much the only fully mechanized army in the world, even if it was just as say lorried infantry as opposed to APCs/IFVs as we'd think of nowadays. Ironically for all their fame for Blitzkrieg the Germans still had their infantry mostly march everywhere and use horses for towing their guns/logistics. Reminds me of this scene (possibly NSFW) from Band of Brothers. They did however have the tactics down pat right from the start.


Well the UK started mechanization in 1928 and had completed it by 39 for all but the Palestine based regiments.
The issue would be money vs other demands, like chain home , modern artillery, spitfires, carriers, more troops, motorisation generally.
Indeed, currently in the middle of reading Peter Beale's Death By Design: British Tank Development in the Second World War and on the funding front he says that of what defence spending there was the funding priorities mostly ran in order of the Royal Navy for defence of the colonies overseas and maintenance of trade, the Royal Air Force for hitting the enemy via Bomber Command and protecting the UK with Fighter Command, and then the Army - and within that the order of priorities were home defence, defending the colonies/Empire and Suez Canal and then what they called a Continental Force for intervening in Europe. Since if the UK was allied with countries like France they would obviously be expected to support them in any fighting, there was however a serious school of thought that it was better to leave ground warfare to them and instead deploy the RAF who would make a Continental Force redundant.


In general have to agree with the others that the armour being just way too much. I mean, what are the drivers for it? At the start of the war the Matilda II seems to of been immune to pretty much any of the guns the Germans had mounted on their tanks, only the anti-tank guns and 88 mm Flak guns appear to of been able to reliably kill them. If they'd had a few more and it had a gun able to fire a decent high explosive shell then it could of made things rather interesting at Arras in 1940, sure the Germans would of won, they had the tactics and technology like radios in their corner, but now without possibly being given a bit of a fright. For a monster that size the logistics would be problematic. Assuming that it's not rail transportable I don't think they had any tank transporters that could carry 40+ tonnes, you'd probably have to look at the strength of various civilian road bridges on certain routes in the UK to make sure they could take the weight, could military bridges like the Baileys even carry that kind of weight when it comes along?, loading and unloading for shipping would be fun. Now all of these things can be worked around and surmounted but it would take time and money - which was always in short supply during the period - for what seems like a lot of overkill. Is keeping the EMF around a viable idea? Sure. Is getting the funding for all of their dream toys? Possibly not, but you'd still get a fair bit. But not for something like the AT-1 in my opinion.
 
Top