The Forge of Weyland

You are right, but in 1940, you could use a 3" inch gun/ 75mm, (152mm or 122mm is overkill in 1940), but you would have around 45/50 rounds instead of the 22/30 of the later russian tanks. The big question is how effective are those shells, 1 hit = 1 kill or do you need more than 1 hit to kill a tank. If so those 70+ shells are not all 1 hit = 1 kill but 2/3 hits = 1 kill. They punch little holes and not always hit something important inside the hull/turret of an target.
Given that the 3" gun is seen as too large for the 60" turret ring in the Sabre/Cutlass, the logical thing to do is increase it to at least 66". If you're looking at a gun to go through 100mm of armour, then you are probably looking at this on your own tank as well. That's too much for the Sabre and Cutlass really, so we are now looking at the successor tank, something to arrive in 1942 (they have a heavy cruiser being tested with the proposal for production in the Autumn, so a successor tank in 1942 seems about right. They are also looking at some other infantry tank designs, so making sure they can carry an appropriate gun also seems logical.
But if we have a new tank, we can put in storage for more of the new larger shells. One snag of an all-purpose gun is you need AP, HE and smoke shells, so the shell storage requirement goes up.
 
You are right, but in 1940, you could use a 3" inch gun/ 75mm, (152mm or 122mm is overkill in 1940), but you would have around 45/50 rounds instead of the 22/30 of the later russian tanks. The big question is how effective are those shells, 1 hit = 1 kill or do you need more than 1 hit to kill a tank. If so those 70+ shells are not all 1 hit = 1 kill but 2/3 hits = 1 kill. They punch little holes and not always hit something important inside the hull/turret of an target.
If they are APHE which is what is being proposed, they would explode and ruin the crews' day quite easily. APHE however is an unusual round for the British Army to use, they much preferred AP or APC or APDS or HESH (if it becomes available) and plain HE. A 25 Pdr firing a HE round on supercharge worked at 532 m/s out of a barrel length of 2.47 m (8 ft 1 in) (28 calibres). It would be quite possible to increase the muzzle velocity by increasing the barrel length and increasing the charge. Adopting a fix round cartridge case would make it quite a handy tank gun.
 
If they are APHE which is what is being proposed, they would explode and ruin the crews' day quite easily. APHE however is an unusual round for the British Army to use, they much preferred AP or APC or APDS or HESH (if it becomes available) and plain HE. A 25 Pdr firing a HE round on supercharge worked at 532 m/s out of a barrel length of 2.47 m (8 ft 1 in) (28 calibres). It would be quite possible to increase the muzzle velocity by increasing the barrel length and increasing the charge. Adopting a fix round cartridge case would make it quite a handy tank gun.
The British are planning AP (with APDS to follow at some point), HE, and Smoke. That's all they see a tank needing.
Right now APDS is something being worked on, so they are carrying on with bigger guns.
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
Which shells?

You are carrying 70 rounds in your tank

BUT how many of them can you access in a fight without having to start taking the inside of the tank apart?

Watching the Chieftans Hatch can show how inaccesable a lot of that ammunition actually was.
 
You are carrying 70 rounds in your tank

BUT how many of them can you access in a fight without having to start taking the inside of the tank apart?

Watching the Chieftans Hatch can show how inaccesable a lot of that ammunition actually was.
I don't really know. They carry about 80, so probably 30-40?
Mind, if the battle lasts longer than that there are other things to worry about
 

Driftless

Donor
^^^ If you've got a temporary lull in the action, but don't expect to be resupplied immediately, didn't the crews relocate ammunition to more accessible spots?
 
^^^ If you've got a temporary lull in the action, but don't expect to be resupplied immediately, didn't the crews relocate ammunition to more accessible spots?
Yup , first thing the loader did in a lull was refill the ready rack(s) , then start moving the rest so all the most accessible places were full if he had time.
 
Next to be tried were a WW1 vintage gun, the 3" AA gun. This fired a slightly heavier shell at just over 600 m/s, and the results were less promising. It had only penetrated 70mm.

Given these results, and some more calculations, if this calibre was to be selected then it looked like they would want a shell of around 17pd - 7.7kg - fired at around 800 m/s. It might be possible to reduce this a little - the rounds used for testing had been made for that, hopefully a proper AT round would be a bit better - but it gave them a starting point. A higher MV would be better, but with this calibre of gun there was worry about its size and recoil - a turret only had so much room. As it was, it was clear they existing 60" turret ring wouldn't be large enough.

The next step had been to try a version of the 6/18pdr tank gun with a stronger charge. They had managed to get 650 m/s out of it, but the performance had been worse that the 3" AA gun. One suggestion had been a new gun which would push the shell out at more like 800 m/s. Calculations had shown that this would certainly give a good penetration - figures indicated it should penetrate between 100mm - 110mm at the specified 1,000 yards, but the gun would be heavy, and again it would need a larger turret ring.

One suggestion for the 3" gun had been to use a version of the existing 3" AA shell. This would allow a bit heavier shell, and should give a better MV. With this, they reckoned they could get the 100mm penetration with a real AP shell. HE capability would have the same problem with the early 6pdr shell, a thick shell case fired at a high MV meant a lot less room for explosive. However the 6pdr round had been improved by using a lower velocity, thinner cased round, and the same could be done for this. It wouldn't be as good as the 6/18pdr as an HE weapon, but it would be close enough they could probably lose the need for two types of gun in the field.
The 3" 20cwt is a close relative of the eventual 77mm HV (modified projectiles with the same case, a longer barrel and I'm not sure what they did to the rifling and recoil mechanism). That first appeared on the Comet which had a 64" turret ring, so 66" should be fine. Just make sure you don't go down the OTL Churchill casemate version route...
609px-The_British_Army_in_the_United_Kingdom_1939-45_H28352.jpg
 
Just make sure you don't go down the OTL Churchill casemate version route...
To be fair, that's a terrible casement design, one I suspect would have never been in full production.
A Churchill would make a decent casemented AT gun platform though, those things never had particularly good traverse angles so mounting the gun low like that between the track shoulders wouldn't be an issue and (arguably) improve protection in a sort of 'if you can get a shot at the mantlet, it can shoot you first' sort of idea.
 
As they are looking at at least a 3" gun in a turret, I don't see why anyone would look at a 3" casement gun.
If they did, it would be something bigger.
 
perhaps one of the features taken from TOG group could be ammo storage perhaps someone in the old guard remembers the battle cruisers in ww1 and his land ships having a similar issue
 
And so it begins - I suspect that the best-laid plans of mice, men and tank designers are about to get rudely upset.
Interesting that they're already looking at a 3" gun to crack 100mm armour - when no tank in service or even planned has that much armour. The British must be thinking in terms of a next-generation heavy tank to out Char-B the Char B, at least as far as opponents go. Do they have any decent intelligence on the current German designs, or are they just guessing?
 
In my TL, the army captured the Soviet 91st Tank Battalion of the 20th Tank Brigade at Summa in the Winter War in early 1940, with the SMK prototype, two T-100 prototypes, and 2 KV prototypes. I think it was pretty obvious that the KV tank, which was the most heavily armored, was going to win what was obviously a competition for a heavy assault tank. If my information was correct, the KV tank of the time was had 3 inches of armor equivalent (3 inches vertical side armor, sloped frontal armor equivalent to 3 inches LOS). Dealing with this tank at a 45-degree oblique angle would require a gun with about 90 mm of penetration, so 100 mm of pen would be a pretty reasonable goal. This led to the replacement of the upcoming medium tank's 3-inch field gun (a good choice for a general-purpose medium tank) with a larger 3-inch anti-tank gun.

The problem for this TL is that the British have no way of knowing this. I know that the Germans were also working on a breakthrough tank, which would ultimately lead to the Tiger I, but the VK 36.01(H) had armor (100 mm front and 80 mm sides, both vertical) that would require a gun more along the lines of the QF 17-pdr.
 
In my TL, the army captured the Soviet 91st Tank Battalion of the 20th Tank Brigade at Summa in the Winter War in early 1940, with the SMK prototype, two T-100 prototypes, and 2 KV prototypes. I think it was pretty obvious that the KV tank, which was the most heavily armored, was going to win what was obviously a competition for a heavy assault tank. If my information was correct, the KV tank of the time was had 3 inches of armor equivalent (3 inches vertical side armor, sloped frontal armor equivalent to 3 inches LOS). Dealing with this tank at a 45-degree oblique angle would require a gun with about 90 mm of penetration, so 100 mm of pen would be a pretty reasonable goal. This led to the replacement of the upcoming medium tank's 3-inch field gun (a good choice for a general-purpose medium tank) with a larger 3-inch anti-tank gun.

The problem for this TL is that the British have no way of knowing this. I know that the Germans were also working on a breakthrough tank, which would ultimately lead to the Tiger I, but the VK 36.01(H) had armor (100 mm front and 80 mm sides, both vertical) that would require a gun more along the lines of the QF 17-pdr.
Think the British are guessing what the maximum armour, erring on the high side, they might have on a tank by the time the gun would be in service and are merely assuming the German equivalent will have similar levels rather than basing on any intelligence on actual designs.
 
Norway 1
April 1940

The German invasion of Norway involved some seven divisions, as well as airborne troops and some attached armour and artillery, although the initial forces were much lower due to the low capacity of the Kriegsmarine to transport and land troops. Most of these forces weren't also allocated to Fall Gelb, but the Luftwaffe, especially the Junkers troop transports, was needed for support, and the air landing capability was an integral part of the plan to invade Holland.

The defeat and occupation of Denmark had proceeded as planned; the small Danish Army had offered little resistance to the overwhelming German attack, as had been predicted.

The situation in Norway and the surrounding seas was far more fluid and confused. After initial success at landing troops by ship, aided by terrible weather and some miscalculations by the Royal Navy, the Kriegsmarine had suffered reverses and considerable losses at the hands of Allied ships, submarines and aircraft. Despite these, there were sufficient forces in Norway to take over the pivotal south of the country, and pursue the remaining Norwegian forces northwards. The situation had been made worse for the Allies by the limited action of Norwegian forces; due to the lack of urgency in their mobilisation many of their units had been unable to act with any effect.

Further north the Allies were in a much better position, with the exception of Narvik which was still held by German troops. A number of landings had taken place, and the situation is perhaps best described as confused.

A major problem for the Army is the provision of units for the operations. While the Navy has ample ships available, there are few good ports in the northern area capable of landing substantial forces. This is not helped by the nature and area of the terrain making it difficult to assemble and use larger formations. As a result it is intended to send four infantry brigades plus their support.

The first formation to arrive is the Guards Brigade. This had originally been intended for the intervention planned by the Allies, and was landed in the Narvik area on the 15th. Following them was the 146th Brigade, at Namsos on the 16th, and the 148th Brigade at Aandalsenes on the 18th. The piecemeal nature of the reinforcements is not helped by the lack of a unified command structure. Another problem occurs when the decision of a fourt division is considered. The initial idea is to pull the 15th Brigade out of 5th Infantry Division in France, but after all the issues over the Dyle plan eralier in the year, there are political implications. While the French are also supplying a force for Norway, this isn't being drawn from units facing the German threat.

The solution reached is to use a brigade from the 1st Canadian Division, This is an infantry formation currently forming in the UK, and it was expected to be able to deploy it to France in about three months. The Division is short of some of its support troops and artillery, and hasn't had any real training as a division. However it is practical to form one fully equipped infantry brigade. The issues are more political than logistical - Canada has insisted that its formation fight as much as possible as complete units, and under their own commanders. Of course the British Army would have been happy to use the full division if it had been ready. As it wasn't, after some discussions the Canadian government agreed to its use provided that when the rest of the division was ready it would be withdrawn and the 1st Canadian Division would be deployed as a unit. This was quite acceptable to the British, as this was their long term aim anyway. It was also seen as a way of getting the Canadians valuable combat experience, and it was felt that they would be well suited to the conditions in Norway.

No decision was made initially about the deployment of tanks, The french were intending to send a unit of Hotchkiss H-39 tanks, although these would have to wait until adequate port facilities were under Allied control. There was consideration of sending a force of Infantry tanks, but currently the knowledge of the logistics and ports in Norway was insufficient to know how practical this would be. However once this problem had been solved, a battalion of tanks would be sent over.


15th April 1940

The 42nd (East Lancashire) Division is now part of the BEF. This is the last combat division expected until June, although three untrained divisions are being used as line of communication and engineering troops. As a result the BEF is reorganised into four Corps under Lord Gort.

I Corps - LTG Sir John Dill

1 Div (MG Alexander)

2 Div (MG Lloyd)

48 Div (MG Thorpe)

II Corps - LTG Sir A Brooke

3 Div (MG Montgomery)

4 Div (MG Johnson)

50 Div (MG Martel)

III Corps - LTG Sir A Adam

51(highland) Div (GHQ reserve) (MG Fortune)

42 Div (MG Holmes)

44 Div (MG Osborne)

IV Corps - LTG Lindsay

5 Div (MG Franklyn)

1st Armoured Div (MG Evans)

(IV Corps is seconded to French 7th Army as part of the reserve)

1st Army Tank Brigade (assigned to GHQ reserve)


In addition to the normal artillery and supporting troops, the BEF has one cavalry regiment per division, with an extra regiment for 1st Armoured Division, and two regiments retained in GHQ reserve (The Cavalry regiments re equipped with a mix of light and heavy armoured cars).

Additional divisions are being formed in Britain, and it is intended to bring them over in groups of three, each time forming a new Corps. At this point consideration will be given to splitting the BEF into two Armies.

In addition to the fighting formations, three divisions - the 12th, 23rd and 46th - would be sent over. These second-line divisions would be used for pioneer duties, building airfields, depots and other infrastructure to be used by the growing BEF. Only the infantry and engineers were sent, with a skeletal HQ organisation and minimal service units.

There was no intention of using these formed but untrained units in combat. While every man did have a rifle, barely half had even fired one, and they had only 1/3 of their complement of LMG's, and no mortars or carriers. The officers were not even generally issued with pistols or compasses. The divisions arrived in the second half of April, with the stipulation that one battalion in each Brigade would train while the other two worked.
 
I'm not planning on writing up the first part of Norway in any detail. Apart from the changes in todays update (the Canadian Brigade being assigned) its no obvious change to OTL, and its horribly messy to write.
If and when things do change there, I'll revisit this plan.
The Canadian Brigade does mean 5th Division is at full strength for Fall Gelb though
 

Errolwi

Monthly Donor
Hmm, if Canadians are badly handled in Norway, AU and NZ commanders and politicians might be more wary of British requests for deployments. So if a Greece situation comes up, there may well be more effective pushback from the Dominions.
 
Top