The Whale has Wings

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
Right, enough of this tankery! It is the weekend, therefore Astrodragon has nothing more important on so he should be posting the next update or two. ;)
 
Well based on what happened with the destroyer deal and radar I suspect they will make a better deal than OTL.

Thank god ! Churchill in OTL do horrible business with USA in tech transfer before, during, and after wwii.

After - just look the stupid .280 bullet thing.

For some reason, the guy is found of given for free or almost free things to USA.
 

abc123

Banned
please , please don't give the goods to US of A for free as in OTL.

Make then pay and pay hard cash / good things


I fully agree with that.
;)

At least project should be joint undertaking with results divided equally amongh both sides. So in 1945 two bombs for USA, one for Britain etc. That would be fair deal IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Thank god ! Churchill in OTL do horrible business with USA in tech transfer before, during, and after wwii.

After - just look the stupid .280 bullet thing.

For some reason, the guy is found of given for free or almost free things to USA.

paulo

Probably because he related so much to his brother and virtually thought of himself as half-American. Also he realised that the US could help Britain a lot and thought that giving things for free would be the best way of prompting reciprocity.:( He was a believer in the grand gesture and appealing to the emotions and didn't realise how cold-blooded both Roosevelt and Stalin were. Even when things were slipping away in the last couple of years of the war he still clung to the idea that he had a special understanding with Roosevelt.

Steve
 
paulo

Probably because he related so much to his brother and virtually thought of himself as half-American. Also he realised that the US could help Britain a lot and thought that giving things for free would be the best way of prompting reciprocity.:( He was a believer in the grand gesture and appealing to the emotions and didn't realise how cold-blooded both Roosevelt and Stalin were. Even when things were slipping away in the last couple of years of the war he still clung to the idea that he had a special understanding with Roosevelt.

Steve

So, is fooled by these two, or is 3/4 american and 1/4 english. Real facts show that every time in an USA / UK dispute - WC take the worst decision for UK. Add ENIGMA, and the little know fact about the order - from WC - to disband the team and destroy the hardware in Bletchley Park - computers, for example.

But, as WC say - history say good of him, because he intended to write most of hit.


Excuse my real bad english.
 
Well with any luck Astro will have Eden made Viceroy of India and butterfly Ernie Bevin in early as Foreign Secretary. Some interesting conversations when Katyn comes out.
 
So, is fooled by these two, or is 3/4 american and 1/4 english. Real facts show that every time in an USA / UK dispute - WC take the worst decision for UK. Add ENIGMA, and the little know fact about the order - from WC - to disband the team and destroy the hardware in Bletchley Park - computers, for example.

But, as WC say - history say good of him, because he intended to write most of hit.


Excuse my real bad english.

paulo

I've recently been reading a book, WWII Behind Closed Doors, Stalin the Nazis and the West by Laurence Rees. Its in conjuncture with a BBC series. Mainly about Churchill's relations with Stalin but also some interchanges with Roosevelt and later all three of them. Amazing how much of a doormat Churchill seemed to be willing to be. Admittedly we have the advantage of hindsight as to the fact Stalin couldn't really have made a separate peace before about 43-44 at the minimum but the amount of abuse Churchill took from both of them.:(:mad:

I have been toying for a long while with an idea for a TL, Fabius Churchill, where he's a lot more grounded in reality and far more cautious and looking to Britain's interests. This has made me think a better option might be to have a 3rd choice, as well as Churchill and Halifax to take over when Chamberlain falls.

Steve
 
paulo

I've recently been reading a book, WWII Behind Closed Doors, Stalin the Nazis and the West by Laurence Rees. Its in conjuncture with a BBC series. Mainly about Churchill's relations with Stalin but also some interchanges with Roosevelt and later all three of them. Amazing how much of a doormat Churchill seemed to be willing to be. Admittedly we have the advantage of hindsight as to the fact Stalin couldn't really have made a separate peace before about 43-44 at the minimum but the amount of abuse Churchill took from both of them.:(:mad:

I have been toying for a long while with an idea for a TL, Fabius Churchill, where he's a lot more grounded in reality and far more cautious and looking to Britain's interests. This has made me think a better option might be to have a 3rd choice, as well as Churchill and Halifax to take over when Chamberlain falls.

Steve


Ok, i'm not British, and i concur that insight is a bitch, but WC decisions are consistently way too much pro american and too costly to UK.

and don't event start with is real stupid military decision in WWI and WWII - if exist a case of a guy that story (official) have a real clean version - is that guy.

Every-time is in a position of power do shit for is country (and for europe).

Is only good as rhetoric / actions against any european power - but as no calms as to surrender UK power to USA.
 
Out of interest, what is superior, the natural rubber from the plantations or the synthetic rubber developed at the time and could the plantations have kept up with demand had they remained in British hands or was synthetic production inevitable to meet demand?
 
Out of interest, what is superior, the natural rubber from the plantations or the synthetic rubber developed at the time and could the plantations have kept up with demand had they remained in British hands or was synthetic production inevitable to meet demand?

The natural rubber was both better, and should have been sufficient. The investment to first work out how to make synthetic rubber and then to produce it was substantial.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
PMN1, at the time natural rubber was the better of the two, though even better was a combination of the two. As for could the plantations produce enough to satisfy all the needs, probably not. But there was in storage large amounts that had been produced pre war, and you can always increase the amount of artificial rubber in any mix from the ideal. Thereby stretching the supplies of natural rubber you have further.

One thing to remember is that you need rubber for far more than just tyres. It was in many ways the plastic, of which it is technically one, of the pre plastic age, with myriad uses in lots of fields. And as for the London Rubber Company, famous for the Jonnies, they also made some very special extra large ones for the RAF. No not because all pilots had a very big one, these Jonnies were used as covers on the early 20mm cannon. To help prevent icing this was a major problem, and caused jams. ;)
 
There are things that synthetic rubber, even then, was better at, like resisting rot, mould, decay. But even today tires want a fair bit of natural rubber, because its more well, rubbery.
 
To be fair, there is a year or two between Korea and Afghanistan. The weapons and doctrine of the opponents was somewhat different too, not to mention the UN forces generally had the support of the majority of the locals, something the Soviets couldn't really claim.

Yes, but the term "mountains" really means something very different between Korea and Afghanistan. I think that general really was guilty of speaking in hyperbole regarding tanks as a tool to be used in mountain warfare.
 
So, is fooled by these two, or is 3/4 american and 1/4 english. Real facts show that every time in an USA / UK dispute - WC take the worst decision for UK. Add ENIGMA, and the little know fact about the order - from WC - to disband the team and destroy the hardware in Bletchley Park - computers, for example.

But, as WC say - history say good of him, because he intended to write most of hit.


Excuse my real bad english.

3/4 American? His father Randolph Churchill was half-American? I've never heard of this before...
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top