I could see a CW tank inventory in late 42 more likely 43 being a 17lb I tank in, say, RTR/Yeomanry regiments attached to infantry divisions in Europe. With Cromwells in the Amd Div until Sentinel production (in Canada I think was discussed) picks up with a 17lb and a decision as to whether to use the I tank or Sentinel as the main battle tank in 44. 25lb versions of the Sentinel would probably be fine for the Far East. And for the sake of coolness the Canadian built one could be called the Wolfe.
The UK can also produce a lot of tanks and partly from doctrine, partly from a desire to avoid casualties the integration of armour into infantry divisions will happen sooner- say during 42.
And this is why I think this could come about.
The spec for what became Cromwell (but 6lb) is out in late 40 (OTL) and design back early 41. Spec for Churchill is June 40, production June 41. 17lb is technically in service in May 42. The components for British tank design late war are/were set prior to the NA battles.
The UK have some effective stop gaps and if the Cromwell is going into service during 41/early 42 alongside the Churchill (both with 6lb) that gives an adequate antitank capability for 42 and about half of 43. So the next generation is going to be influenced by both the early war and current experience.
What the Brits will be getting a lot of is experience with bunkers, landing operations and second hand reports from the East front.
Astro says O’Connor asked for a short 75 and 6lb. The short 75 does not exist in the UK inventory and the 6lb is too small for the HE role, but we can do a nice 25lb or 17lb or 95mm. The 95mm is a bit specialised so I think the gun choice would be between a 25lb and a 17lb.
The numbers on the 25lb don’t seem that far off the US 75 M2/M3 so it’s a maybe. 17lb has much better AT characteristics and is probably just as effective as a direct fire HE weapon for taking out machine gun positions/AT guns dug in and suchlike. If offered a 17lb instead of a short 75 I think most people would take it.
So I can see an argument for an I tank, easily transportable by sea, agile enough to cope with southern European conditions (poor roads, lots of rocky bits) to do the I tank job in support of infantry with a 17lb gun being the requirement issued during 41 or at least a response to that requirement. There is no real need to change the Cruiser spec but the I tank spec could give a more heavily armoured, slower gun tank already in production when the need arises.
Churchill was in fact very agile - not fast but agile.
At the same time Sentinel production may pick up so there will be a choice between a Sentinel derived and an I tank derived 17lb for 44 with development going on on the next generation - OTL Centurion which would have to be better and as Astro says the drivers for an MBT are pretty universal.
The UK can also produce a lot of tanks and partly from doctrine, partly from a desire to avoid casualties the integration of armour into infantry divisions will happen sooner- say during 42.
And this is why I think this could come about.
The spec for what became Cromwell (but 6lb) is out in late 40 (OTL) and design back early 41. Spec for Churchill is June 40, production June 41. 17lb is technically in service in May 42. The components for British tank design late war are/were set prior to the NA battles.
The UK have some effective stop gaps and if the Cromwell is going into service during 41/early 42 alongside the Churchill (both with 6lb) that gives an adequate antitank capability for 42 and about half of 43. So the next generation is going to be influenced by both the early war and current experience.
What the Brits will be getting a lot of is experience with bunkers, landing operations and second hand reports from the East front.
Astro says O’Connor asked for a short 75 and 6lb. The short 75 does not exist in the UK inventory and the 6lb is too small for the HE role, but we can do a nice 25lb or 17lb or 95mm. The 95mm is a bit specialised so I think the gun choice would be between a 25lb and a 17lb.
The numbers on the 25lb don’t seem that far off the US 75 M2/M3 so it’s a maybe. 17lb has much better AT characteristics and is probably just as effective as a direct fire HE weapon for taking out machine gun positions/AT guns dug in and suchlike. If offered a 17lb instead of a short 75 I think most people would take it.
So I can see an argument for an I tank, easily transportable by sea, agile enough to cope with southern European conditions (poor roads, lots of rocky bits) to do the I tank job in support of infantry with a 17lb gun being the requirement issued during 41 or at least a response to that requirement. There is no real need to change the Cruiser spec but the I tank spec could give a more heavily armoured, slower gun tank already in production when the need arises.
Churchill was in fact very agile - not fast but agile.
At the same time Sentinel production may pick up so there will be a choice between a Sentinel derived and an I tank derived 17lb for 44 with development going on on the next generation - OTL Centurion which would have to be better and as Astro says the drivers for an MBT are pretty universal.