If they make the proposed changes, it will be as good as the A10*, and better than the PzIII.
The Forge of Weyland
- Thread starter Astrodragon
- Start date
Unless they get the French ministry to pull its finger out about the changes though, they'll get the first improved tanks delivered around the start of May 1940.
I did point out the French never met their claimed delivery dates. And its not just the tanks, you have to learn how to use them
marathag
Banned
Missing bits are a turret basket and powered traverse,
an S-35 bis or ter with those, would be not far off from an better armed M3A3 or M5 with thicker armor, and slower,4 man crew
Yes. When you compare it with the Pz III, its beginning to look like a monster
Argh...ninja's by Steamboy. But worth bearing in mind Nick Moran is 6'6" or thereabouts!
With vertical sides the turret could probably have been enlarged into a proper two man job.
They were going to design a welded turret in OTL, but I couldn't find anything about it
Someone posted a video with a Comet, a Cromwell and a Valentine on Utube, the size comparison is interesting. While the hull of the Valentine is lower, it did not seem much narrower than the other two but the turret seemed about half the size. All three vehicles had two people sticking out of the turrets. The turret on the Val did not seem much different than the one on your S-35.
What was the first British tank with a turret basket? Did a quick search but it's complicated by the fact that some people apparently use that term for a basket attached to the rear exterior of a turret to hold the crew's gear. I has assumed it was the Centurion, but now can't remember where, if I did, read that.
marathag
Banned
Somua S35 1130mm APX1CE(chemin élargi) turret ring
M2A4/M3 Stuart 1188mm
M1 Combat Car 1206mm
M22 1206mm
M8 GMC 1382mm
M3 Lee/Grant 1384mm
Cromwell 1448mm
Lets look at the M22, with a proper 2 man turret of similar ring size, verical sides without as much interior volume as the S-35
And the good Major, for scale
Still think that the most likely outcome still is that the otl arras attack is done by the massive british tank divison and it will shatter the two panzer divisons that are around arras at a minimum. If not even further trying to breaktrough to the south and if its succesful enough you will get french help against the inevitable counterattacks no matter how horrible the french command system was . If a breakthrough is opened then the BEF and the two french armies and belgians aswell i guess could evacuate to france since they were motorised. This would help alot since the two french army commanders were rather good especially for the french . Maybe one of them takes over command from the horrible general in charge of that army in sedan wich was promoted to army group command in otl. I still think the germans would probably win but things could drag out into autumn rather than july and there will be alot bigger driver for a france fights on scenario wich would be massive butterfly compared to otl.
The otl problem was that just after arras gamelin got fired and the new guy took like 2 days to take command and he canceled the southern counter attack aswell when he got there but changed his mind two days later by wich it was abit too late cause enough german infantry had caught up. Thats another reason why id like gamelin not to be fired untill a lull happens in the fighting atleast as a slight buttefly.
As described here , a french / british tank excercise in 1939 summer could be a massive butterfly compared to otl and maybe knock some sense into the french tank core . Basicly the british can claim pretty easily that they are playing germans more or less and the french will find themselves screwed , they might do some reforms and stuff like that to address obivous shortcomings hopefully thanks to that . And people are forgetting outside mechanical issues the french tanks were good enough to fight panzers and they did so rather well at places where stukas werent a factor asfar i can tell in otl anyway.
The otl problem was that just after arras gamelin got fired and the new guy took like 2 days to take command and he canceled the southern counter attack aswell when he got there but changed his mind two days later by wich it was abit too late cause enough german infantry had caught up. Thats another reason why id like gamelin not to be fired untill a lull happens in the fighting atleast as a slight buttefly.
As described here , a french / british tank excercise in 1939 summer could be a massive butterfly compared to otl and maybe knock some sense into the french tank core . Basicly the british can claim pretty easily that they are playing germans more or less and the french will find themselves screwed , they might do some reforms and stuff like that to address obivous shortcomings hopefully thanks to that . And people are forgetting outside mechanical issues the french tanks were good enough to fight panzers and they did so rather well at places where stukas werent a factor asfar i can tell in otl anyway.
October 1938
October 1938, An Anti-Aircraft Solution
One of the points brought up during the summer exercise was the lack of mobile AA protection. While the tanks themselves were reasonably safe, the associated infantry and supporting arms were much more vulnerable, even though their protection had been improved. The obvious solution was to mount the divisions AA guns on a tracked vehicle to keep up with the tanks and infantry.
This would be more expensive than just a towed AA gun, and after some consideration it was decided that only the forward elements and SP guns really needed this type of support, the rest of the division could be covered by towed units. This still left the issue of what guns were available.
The 3" and 3.7" heavy AA guns were ruled out immediately - too big, too heavy. The 40mm bofors was being produced under license, but it was relatively heavy, especially with the Kerrison predictor considered essential for good targetting. While this would serve the HQ and more static elements, something lighter would be needed, unless they wanted to mount it on an A10 chassis, which would make it considerably more expensive. In any case, what they were looking at was something to stop a ground-attack aircraft, not a high altitude bomber.
The next stage was to consult with the RAF, who were known to be studying the best weapon to use in their fighters. They replied that they had looked at three solutions, the 0.303 machine gun, the 0.5" machine gun, and the 20mm cannon. Of these, the cannon was considered to be the best solution. While they had been mainly looking at how to shoot down a bomber, they suggested the same solution would apply to the army, on the basis that aircraft like the Stuka or other ground-attack planes would be armoured, and so be difficult to shoot down with rifle calibre ammunition. The 0.5" gun was a more viable solution for the army that in a fighter, where the weight had been an issue - this wouldn't be such a problem on the ground. They pointed out that the 20mm cannon they were considering might not be the best option for the Army - it was a lightweight version, and they suggested that the rate of fire might actually be rather high. Their experts needed it for a highly trained pilot who had been lining up his target; it might not be as good a solution for army gunners.
The next people to talk to were the navy. They were using the 0.5" Vickers machine gun as an AA gun on their ships, and had been evaluating the Swill 20mm Oerlikon. The Admiralty had been looking at the 20mm since 1937, but had rejected the 1934 model. However they had told Oerlikon at the time that if they could raise the muzzle velocity and demonstrate that the weapon could be used and maintained by non-specialist personnel, such as fishermen and merchant seamen, then it would be acceptable. While Oerlikon were in the process of making such modifications, these requirements were not such a concern to the Army. Any guns would be operated and maintained by trained gunners, so the 1934 model would be acceptable. A higher MV would be nice, but that would be much easier to change.
It was therefore decided that the Army would authorise a license for the gun, to be built by Vickers. This would make it much easier if the RN authorised the modified gun later, as Vickers already produced the AA guns for the Navy. The first guns would be ready in the autumn of 1939. In the meantime, they would purchase 100 guns direct from Switzerland for trials and to equip the initial units. The quad 0.5" Vickers gun in service with the RN was also considered, but the cannon delivered around twice the weight of fire, and they expected the time available to shoot would be less than that encountered at sea due to visibility issue, so that was a significant factor. Vickers was confident they could build a suitable twin mounting for fitting to a vehicle; they had already looked at some possible solutions for ships.
The final decision was what vehicle to use. While a purpose-built solution would of course have been ideal, the limited number they intended to build and the increased maintenance issues of a new chassis meant modifying an existing vehicle was the better solution. The three available were the MkVI tank, the Lloyd carrier, and the A10/Birch gun. The A10 chassis, while certainly the largest and most capable, was thought to be too expensive for 2 20mm guns. The MkVI was considered a little small, as while the twin guns wouldn't be too heavy, they did require space for the crew. The decision was for a modified carrier. Vickers estimated the gun and mount would weigh about 1600 pounds, plus things like ammunition drums. They would use the open-top carrier as the basis, with a lower side and rear to allow the gun to traverse more easily. The front crew compartment would be extended to allow four men. This would be the gun crew, with one of the crew doubling up as the driver. This gave space for the mount, and in fact the weight would be less that the infantry carrier.
The conversion was seen as easy, and Vickers could provide some for evaluation in six months, which was seen as likely to be when they'd get the first shipment. Oerlikon would be asked to provide a couple of guns immediately for the prototype.
One of the points brought up during the summer exercise was the lack of mobile AA protection. While the tanks themselves were reasonably safe, the associated infantry and supporting arms were much more vulnerable, even though their protection had been improved. The obvious solution was to mount the divisions AA guns on a tracked vehicle to keep up with the tanks and infantry.
This would be more expensive than just a towed AA gun, and after some consideration it was decided that only the forward elements and SP guns really needed this type of support, the rest of the division could be covered by towed units. This still left the issue of what guns were available.
The 3" and 3.7" heavy AA guns were ruled out immediately - too big, too heavy. The 40mm bofors was being produced under license, but it was relatively heavy, especially with the Kerrison predictor considered essential for good targetting. While this would serve the HQ and more static elements, something lighter would be needed, unless they wanted to mount it on an A10 chassis, which would make it considerably more expensive. In any case, what they were looking at was something to stop a ground-attack aircraft, not a high altitude bomber.
The next stage was to consult with the RAF, who were known to be studying the best weapon to use in their fighters. They replied that they had looked at three solutions, the 0.303 machine gun, the 0.5" machine gun, and the 20mm cannon. Of these, the cannon was considered to be the best solution. While they had been mainly looking at how to shoot down a bomber, they suggested the same solution would apply to the army, on the basis that aircraft like the Stuka or other ground-attack planes would be armoured, and so be difficult to shoot down with rifle calibre ammunition. The 0.5" gun was a more viable solution for the army that in a fighter, where the weight had been an issue - this wouldn't be such a problem on the ground. They pointed out that the 20mm cannon they were considering might not be the best option for the Army - it was a lightweight version, and they suggested that the rate of fire might actually be rather high. Their experts needed it for a highly trained pilot who had been lining up his target; it might not be as good a solution for army gunners.
The next people to talk to were the navy. They were using the 0.5" Vickers machine gun as an AA gun on their ships, and had been evaluating the Swill 20mm Oerlikon. The Admiralty had been looking at the 20mm since 1937, but had rejected the 1934 model. However they had told Oerlikon at the time that if they could raise the muzzle velocity and demonstrate that the weapon could be used and maintained by non-specialist personnel, such as fishermen and merchant seamen, then it would be acceptable. While Oerlikon were in the process of making such modifications, these requirements were not such a concern to the Army. Any guns would be operated and maintained by trained gunners, so the 1934 model would be acceptable. A higher MV would be nice, but that would be much easier to change.
It was therefore decided that the Army would authorise a license for the gun, to be built by Vickers. This would make it much easier if the RN authorised the modified gun later, as Vickers already produced the AA guns for the Navy. The first guns would be ready in the autumn of 1939. In the meantime, they would purchase 100 guns direct from Switzerland for trials and to equip the initial units. The quad 0.5" Vickers gun in service with the RN was also considered, but the cannon delivered around twice the weight of fire, and they expected the time available to shoot would be less than that encountered at sea due to visibility issue, so that was a significant factor. Vickers was confident they could build a suitable twin mounting for fitting to a vehicle; they had already looked at some possible solutions for ships.
The final decision was what vehicle to use. While a purpose-built solution would of course have been ideal, the limited number they intended to build and the increased maintenance issues of a new chassis meant modifying an existing vehicle was the better solution. The three available were the MkVI tank, the Lloyd carrier, and the A10/Birch gun. The A10 chassis, while certainly the largest and most capable, was thought to be too expensive for 2 20mm guns. The MkVI was considered a little small, as while the twin guns wouldn't be too heavy, they did require space for the crew. The decision was for a modified carrier. Vickers estimated the gun and mount would weigh about 1600 pounds, plus things like ammunition drums. They would use the open-top carrier as the basis, with a lower side and rear to allow the gun to traverse more easily. The front crew compartment would be extended to allow four men. This would be the gun crew, with one of the crew doubling up as the driver. This gave space for the mount, and in fact the weight would be less that the infantry carrier.
The conversion was seen as easy, and Vickers could provide some for evaluation in six months, which was seen as likely to be when they'd get the first shipment. Oerlikon would be asked to provide a couple of guns immediately for the prototype.
Deleted member 94680
Does this mean the vehicle will have to be stationary to fire? I know that will be the norm, that the vehicle will aim to be in a good position before opening fire, but what of surprise attack or strafing whilst on the move? Will there be a ‘transition phase’ between movement and firing?
I think they would always fire when stopped. The basic idea would be to keep up with the armoured vehicles, then take an overwatch position when they stop. A moving tank isnt that worried by a 1940 ground attack plane, any losses would basically be bad luck. The most fragile element is dismounted infantry and engineers. Having the AA gun ready in a minute or two to protect them is a big advantage, and it can go anywhere the carriers go. Nothing to stop it firing on the move, but it isn't going to hit anything! Normal crew was 4 - gunner, loader, observer, gun captain.
Mounting it on a carrier means it doesn't cost that much more than a towed gun, but at the moment the carriers are owned by the tankies and their little friends. This will change over time.
As its a high velocity 20mm, its also possible to give them a couple of drums of proper AP shells, just in case they run into enemy recon vehicles.
Mounting it on a carrier means it doesn't cost that much more than a towed gun, but at the moment the carriers are owned by the tankies and their little friends. This will change over time.
As its a high velocity 20mm, its also possible to give them a couple of drums of proper AP shells, just in case they run into enemy recon vehicles.