True but we know those, the british A *Number* thing all blends into one, and with the German ones it makes sense, the higher the number, the bigger the tank, the UK's numbers don't do that and are all over the shop
The Forge of Weyland
- Thread starter Astrodragon
- Start date
True but we know those, the british A *Number* thing all blends into one, and with the German ones it makes sense, the higher the number, the bigger the tank, the UK's numbers don't do that and are all over the shop
Deleted member 94680
Yeah I know, but it’s weird how some numbers seem “right” and others seem “wrong”. It because we’re used to British tanks being named I suppose.True but we know those, the british A *Number* thing all blends into one, and with the German ones it makes sense, the higher the number, the bigger the tank, the UK's numbers don't do that and are all over the shop
Variety helps too. If you have the C10 or the I11 (Cruiser, Infantry), it's much less confusing.
marathag
Banned
Hey now, that was to cut down on the confusion based on year of introduction.
So the improved Tommy Gun was no longer a hard to remember M1928, but the all so simple M1
That one actually throws me much worse. Similar sounding projects can be totally different types of equipment. With the A numbers I know it’s a tank and the general order of them. With the Rainbow codes I have to look up every single one.
Deleted member 94680
I agree that they’re cool, but due to whole point of the rainbow codes you have to know what each one is as the name is completely random.
I don't know about that but on an exercise I was approached by a Sergeant in search of 2 Queens..........
Mark1878
Donor
And French with Somua-35 FT-17 Char-B1 etc
Japan had Type 5 type 94 etc
Did only the British Commonwealth name tanks - before Panther/Tiger/Maus/Elephant?
All proper Jags are green, and are come with at least 1 blond bombshell.
Having once commanded a Mobile Bath Unit, I'd be very interested in reading about the Armoured variety. Downunder we could never afford such things so we made do with the unarmoured variety.
Future tanks 1
January 1939, Future Tanks, Engines and Guns (part 1)
Vickers
The request to look at possible new tanks didn't come as a surprise to Vickers. Now that the A10* and A11 were in full production, and the initial issues fixed, it was time to think about their replacements. After all it took 2-3 years to design and a tank and get it into production. To start with, they looked at the three limiting factors - the gun, the suspension, and the engine. These would determine what transmission and other supplemental equipment was needed, and how much armour could be carried, assuming the Army wanted similar speeds to the current tanks.
The first talks included Henry Riccardo, who'd been leading a team developing the Kiwi engine. He explained that there were problems if they needed more engine power. They were currently putting the Kiwi 3 into production, and they'd got just about all the performance they could squeeze out of a diesel engine of its capacity. There were, fortunately, a number of options of different power levels.
First, the Kiwi could be supercharged or turbocharged. He preferred the turbocharging solution; it would be hard to get a good supercharger designer, the Air industry had them all and wouldn't let any of them go. Also a turbocharger was more efficient for a ground engine - aero engines had different issues. A properly designed turbocharger for the Kiwi should add about 60-70hp, bringing it up to about 430hp. It would take time, probably 6-9 months if all went well, and it would make the engine more expensive. Now if, as was looking increasingly likely, there was a war, the cost wouldn't be such an issue, but otherwise if might make the engine too expensive and the Army might want to move to a less costly option.
His second option was to repeat the Kiwi work on the Rolls-Royce Merlin. This had about 30% greater displacement, and a more modern design. As a diesel it should produce about 500hp. The problem was that the chances of getting any Merlin engines, with the RAF needing all that could be produced, were almost nil.
Going back to petrol versions of the Kiwi or Merlin would give more power, but at a cost. They would really need much higher quality fuel than the pool petrol, and the chances of using the wrong fuel were much greater with two type of petrol than with two types of diesel. Also, the fuel consumption would increase, needing more room for fuel and increasing the tank weight.
There was the 500hp diesel that they'd been working on, first designed for the A11 before the Army decided the Kiwi was good enough. This could be put into production fairly easily, although it was heavier than he liked.
His final option was a new engine he'd been working on with the Paxman company, the 12TP. This was a smaller version of their VeeRB design. It was currently only a prototype, but as it was basically a cut down VeeRB, there shouldn't be too many problems getting it into production - he estimated about a year to get a production line running. The advantage of this engine was its modern design - it would give 600hp at little more weight than the 500hp model they'd been developing.
There were obvious advantages and disadvantages between the 500hp and 600hp engines, and while not a tank designer he suggested the decision as probably what size of engine fitted best, and allowed for the sort of weight gains that was a constant affliction of tank design.
The committee decided to put that decision aside for a moment - at least they had a number of options - while considering the other features they wanted in a new tank.
The next on their list was the suspension. The Carden designed A10* suspension was working well, but Sir John wasn't sure how much more weight it could take. Some analysis indicated that it was starting to get near its limit for weight and reasonable quality of ride. However now that the Army had decided (at least for now) to remove the requirement of shooting on the move, they had a bit more flexibility. He had been looking at improvements, and had been very interested in the VVSS system Nuffield had acquired from America. From the MEE's reports it gave a better, smoother ride than a straight Horstman suspension. Using this on a heavier version of their A11 suspension, it should be capable of carrying a tank of up to 35 tomes with good reliability and a reasonable ride for the crew. He wanted to get hold of a unit from Nuffield, and try it on a test A11; they would strengthen the suspension then weight it down and see what it could actually handle. If it did as well as he hoped, they would have a suitable suspension for the next generation of tanks.
The final new piece would be the gun. They already had two options, the HV3pdr and the 6/18pdr. These were fine for what they were currently expected to face, but of course the enemy would be developing tanks with thicker armour, and their own infantry tanks were too well protected for these guns to beat. So the first thought was what size gun would defeat the A11?
The most likely candidate was already being developed in conjunction with Woolwich, the new HV6pdr. Development had been started in June last year, starting with their 6pdr naval gun, and it was expected to have a prototype ready for trials in the summer. The good news was that when they'd designed the A10*, they'd made the turret with some room for a larger gun, in case they Army had decided to fit it with the 6/18pdr as a close support version. The change to elevation control helped, the gun could be moved forward in the turret. Given the size and recoil the new 6pdr would have, it should fit comfortably in the existing turret with some minor alterations. The calculations showed it should penetrate the 70mm glacis of the A11 at around 800-1,000 yards. It would also be possible, if required, to fit the 6pdr in the A11.
There were issues with the 6pdr as a multipurpose gun. While the AT round they were looking at was good, the high velocity meant a small HE load. Ideally they wanted a good HE and smoke shell so they wouldn't need to mix tanks with different guns together. There were possibilities to do this, and the shell experts promised to go away and look at them; they were confident they could produce some acceptable shells, although the warned that making a good HE shell meant using a lower muzzle velocity, so they might need dual-graduated sights. But this was seen as an acceptable compromise for what would be on offer. One other gun improvement was to make a version of the new 25pdr gun for a tank to give it a greater HE load.
While the 6pdr looked a very promising upgrade, if the enemy produced tanks with thicker armour than our current infantry models, it would struggle. There was discussion about what would be needed to kill a tank with 100mm of armour - while no current tank approached that, it would be sensible to be prepared. Some calculations indicated something around a 15pd shell , assuming similar muzzle velocity to the 3pdr and 6pdr. The only gun Vickers had in that class was their 3" AA gun, made earlier in the decade. It would need updating and modifying, it wasn't intended as an AT gun, and no-one was quite sure how much armour it would actually penetrate. The gun team asked if they could get a few solid AT rounds made - there was a complete gun, left over from the trials - and see if they could test it out to get an idea. They'd almost certainly need a new design, but having a measured starting point would be most helpful.
The Vickers team decided to review the new tanks options once they had results of the tests, particularly the suspension tests. Of course, suggesting a tank of over 30 tons might shock the army a bit, and they'd need to upgrade things like their transporters, but it wasn't as if the new tank would appear overnight.
Vickers
The request to look at possible new tanks didn't come as a surprise to Vickers. Now that the A10* and A11 were in full production, and the initial issues fixed, it was time to think about their replacements. After all it took 2-3 years to design and a tank and get it into production. To start with, they looked at the three limiting factors - the gun, the suspension, and the engine. These would determine what transmission and other supplemental equipment was needed, and how much armour could be carried, assuming the Army wanted similar speeds to the current tanks.
The first talks included Henry Riccardo, who'd been leading a team developing the Kiwi engine. He explained that there were problems if they needed more engine power. They were currently putting the Kiwi 3 into production, and they'd got just about all the performance they could squeeze out of a diesel engine of its capacity. There were, fortunately, a number of options of different power levels.
First, the Kiwi could be supercharged or turbocharged. He preferred the turbocharging solution; it would be hard to get a good supercharger designer, the Air industry had them all and wouldn't let any of them go. Also a turbocharger was more efficient for a ground engine - aero engines had different issues. A properly designed turbocharger for the Kiwi should add about 60-70hp, bringing it up to about 430hp. It would take time, probably 6-9 months if all went well, and it would make the engine more expensive. Now if, as was looking increasingly likely, there was a war, the cost wouldn't be such an issue, but otherwise if might make the engine too expensive and the Army might want to move to a less costly option.
His second option was to repeat the Kiwi work on the Rolls-Royce Merlin. This had about 30% greater displacement, and a more modern design. As a diesel it should produce about 500hp. The problem was that the chances of getting any Merlin engines, with the RAF needing all that could be produced, were almost nil.
Going back to petrol versions of the Kiwi or Merlin would give more power, but at a cost. They would really need much higher quality fuel than the pool petrol, and the chances of using the wrong fuel were much greater with two type of petrol than with two types of diesel. Also, the fuel consumption would increase, needing more room for fuel and increasing the tank weight.
There was the 500hp diesel that they'd been working on, first designed for the A11 before the Army decided the Kiwi was good enough. This could be put into production fairly easily, although it was heavier than he liked.
His final option was a new engine he'd been working on with the Paxman company, the 12TP. This was a smaller version of their VeeRB design. It was currently only a prototype, but as it was basically a cut down VeeRB, there shouldn't be too many problems getting it into production - he estimated about a year to get a production line running. The advantage of this engine was its modern design - it would give 600hp at little more weight than the 500hp model they'd been developing.
There were obvious advantages and disadvantages between the 500hp and 600hp engines, and while not a tank designer he suggested the decision as probably what size of engine fitted best, and allowed for the sort of weight gains that was a constant affliction of tank design.
The committee decided to put that decision aside for a moment - at least they had a number of options - while considering the other features they wanted in a new tank.
The next on their list was the suspension. The Carden designed A10* suspension was working well, but Sir John wasn't sure how much more weight it could take. Some analysis indicated that it was starting to get near its limit for weight and reasonable quality of ride. However now that the Army had decided (at least for now) to remove the requirement of shooting on the move, they had a bit more flexibility. He had been looking at improvements, and had been very interested in the VVSS system Nuffield had acquired from America. From the MEE's reports it gave a better, smoother ride than a straight Horstman suspension. Using this on a heavier version of their A11 suspension, it should be capable of carrying a tank of up to 35 tomes with good reliability and a reasonable ride for the crew. He wanted to get hold of a unit from Nuffield, and try it on a test A11; they would strengthen the suspension then weight it down and see what it could actually handle. If it did as well as he hoped, they would have a suitable suspension for the next generation of tanks.
The final new piece would be the gun. They already had two options, the HV3pdr and the 6/18pdr. These were fine for what they were currently expected to face, but of course the enemy would be developing tanks with thicker armour, and their own infantry tanks were too well protected for these guns to beat. So the first thought was what size gun would defeat the A11?
The most likely candidate was already being developed in conjunction with Woolwich, the new HV6pdr. Development had been started in June last year, starting with their 6pdr naval gun, and it was expected to have a prototype ready for trials in the summer. The good news was that when they'd designed the A10*, they'd made the turret with some room for a larger gun, in case they Army had decided to fit it with the 6/18pdr as a close support version. The change to elevation control helped, the gun could be moved forward in the turret. Given the size and recoil the new 6pdr would have, it should fit comfortably in the existing turret with some minor alterations. The calculations showed it should penetrate the 70mm glacis of the A11 at around 800-1,000 yards. It would also be possible, if required, to fit the 6pdr in the A11.
There were issues with the 6pdr as a multipurpose gun. While the AT round they were looking at was good, the high velocity meant a small HE load. Ideally they wanted a good HE and smoke shell so they wouldn't need to mix tanks with different guns together. There were possibilities to do this, and the shell experts promised to go away and look at them; they were confident they could produce some acceptable shells, although the warned that making a good HE shell meant using a lower muzzle velocity, so they might need dual-graduated sights. But this was seen as an acceptable compromise for what would be on offer. One other gun improvement was to make a version of the new 25pdr gun for a tank to give it a greater HE load.
While the 6pdr looked a very promising upgrade, if the enemy produced tanks with thicker armour than our current infantry models, it would struggle. There was discussion about what would be needed to kill a tank with 100mm of armour - while no current tank approached that, it would be sensible to be prepared. Some calculations indicated something around a 15pd shell , assuming similar muzzle velocity to the 3pdr and 6pdr. The only gun Vickers had in that class was their 3" AA gun, made earlier in the decade. It would need updating and modifying, it wasn't intended as an AT gun, and no-one was quite sure how much armour it would actually penetrate. The gun team asked if they could get a few solid AT rounds made - there was a complete gun, left over from the trials - and see if they could test it out to get an idea. They'd almost certainly need a new design, but having a measured starting point would be most helpful.
The Vickers team decided to review the new tanks options once they had results of the tests, particularly the suspension tests. Of course, suggesting a tank of over 30 tons might shock the army a bit, and they'd need to upgrade things like their transporters, but it wasn't as if the new tank would appear overnight.