Vanguards and cruiser tanks in Malaya and Singapore

Yes its great but they would be used in Med or shipped to Soviets.....

I think you need to come up with stuff that was not needed for the war in Europe/Africa, that and simply more energy to test stuff and use what they have but I will admit that's more political involving fighting both London and local civilian leadership and treasury.

true

I chose the A10 cruiser MK 2 because while are obsolete in Europe and North Africa they are comparable to panzer III and superior to the Japanese.
 
Who would a better commander instead of Arthur Percival?

Lieutenant General Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart VC, KBE, CB, CMG, DSO

Instead of sending him on the British mission to Yugoslavia, send him to Singapore. This is a man who moved troops 100 miles over the mountains of Norway without skis or snowshoes ... or artillery, transport or air-cover ... in a foot and a half of snow.
He could probably handle the Malayan Peninsular, at the very least he would have held on long enough for Yamashita to consider withdrawal?
 
Lieutenant General Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart VC, KBE, CB, CMG, DSO

Instead of sending him on the British mission to Yugoslavia, send him to Singapore. This is a man who moved troops 100 miles over the mountains of Norway without skis or snowshoes ... or artillery, transport or air-cover ... in a foot and a half of snow.
He could probably handle the Malayan Peninsular, at the very least he would have held on long enough for Yamashita to consider withdrawal?

quite a feat even by today's standards.
 
Okay all these sounds good and proper

But all rests on who controls the air over Malaya and Singapore. The Brewster buffalo is useless against the navy o same goes for the hurricane which would fall prey to the infamous low speed turning fight trap.
 
Any British Tank till 1942 will have issues with track and track pin breakage, they all had this problem.

This is one of the harder areas to fix for UK tankers, till the better wearing Manganese alloys for the pads, and different alloy for the pins were mass produced.
Now the A10 tracks suffered the most, and Valentine had slightly improved sets, but still were far behind everyone else in WWII.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The Australians drew from US sources for armor and aircraft during the later part of the war because the British were not sufficiently forthcoming with military armaments in the early war. The US had better tracks, as used on the Sentinel. The Valentine could be adapted to fit US tracks. By the time the Canadian Valentine production line was in full swing, the tanks were deferred to the USSR. Australian tanks could be used by the Aussies in Malaya by mid-late 1941. A tank transporter/trailer could be developed, or adopted from US or UK designs. Curtiss provided China with an assembly line for knock down kits of H75 Hawks. The same could be provided for Australia, which was producing the P&W R1830.

I wonder if the Canberra crash was avoided, would the influence of White have substantially changed postings of Australian officers in 1941. How much of an effect would he have had over the Greek fiasco from Australia?
 
Any British Tank till 1942 will have issues with track and track pin breakage, they all had this problem.

This is one of the harder areas to fix for UK tankers, till the better wearing Manganese alloys for the pads, and different alloy for the pins were mass produced.
Now the A10 tracks suffered the most, and Valentine had slightly improved sets, but still were far behind everyone else in WWII.

So either the A10 or the Valentine infantry tank is used for defence the former is (somewhat) readily available the latter is needed in north Africa and in small numbers available for the far East.
 
Any British Tank till 1942 will have issues with track and track pin breakage, they all had this problem.

This is one of the harder areas to fix for UK tankers, till the better wearing Manganese alloys for the pads, and different alloy for the pins were mass produced.
Now the A10 tracks suffered the most, and Valentine had slightly improved sets, but still were far behind everyone else in WWII.
Does this matter defending a near static position?

All GB needed to do is build a fortress line of strong points/pillboxes that defeats the landings Kota Bharu and stops the IJA coming south, the IJA simply doesn't have the supplies, tanks, guns or time to really fight a WWI style battle to break a significant defensive line if its built pre war (40-41).
 
Does this matter defending a near static position?
.

It does, as it means that since the British had few Tank Transporters, as soon as they disembarked from the docks, they have to move under their own power to get to that strategic area.
That's one reason why the A10s were so unreliable in Greece.
 
It does, as it means that since the British had few Tank Transporters, as soon as they disembarked from the docks, they have to move under their own power to get to that strategic area.
That's one reason why the A10s were so unreliable in Greece.
Isn't there a huge difference from moving under wartime conditions in an emergency landing like Greece to what they could do in Malaya when they have pre war to get into position?
 
Isn't there a huge difference from moving under wartime conditions in an emergency landing like Greece to what they could do in Malaya when they have pre war to get into position?
Not really.
That how bad the track were.

Most of the Brit Armor that the Germans repurposed in France ran on German Panzer I or Panzer II tracks
 
Any British Tank till 1942 will have issues with track and track pin breakage, they all had this problem.

This is one of the harder areas to fix for UK tankers, till the better wearing Manganese alloys for the pads, and different alloy for the pins were mass produced.
Now the A10 tracks suffered the most, and Valentine had slightly improved sets, but still were far behind everyone else in WWII.

I thought that the Valentines were known for their running gear reliability - self deploying over 100s of miles in North Africa? Many of those would have been built in late 40 and 41.
 
Not really.
That how bad the track were.
But the OP is talking about deploying in mid 40..... so they have like a year and a half to deploy to positions in the north of Malaya under peacetime conditions...they can get out and look at the tracks every mile if they want to and spend a day fixing them and still get in place in time....if GB tanks are really that bad how did any of them self deploy in BoF or North Africa or even pre war exercises in UK?

"the driving distance between Kota Bharu to Singapore is 720 km" from goggle and they have 18 months?
 
I thought that the Valentines were known for their running gear reliability - self deploying over 100s of miles in North Africa? Many of those would have been built in late 40 and 41.
Oh, they were far better than the A10 tracks, but they still had issues, but still about half the life of what the German tracks were running
 

trurle

Banned
NOTE: This an scenario is offshoot from my APC thread and thanks to@Derwit & @Cryhavoc101 who further expanded upon it.

The mid 1940 the British army trials a dozen vanguard troop carriers and bishop self propelled guns in Malay, Singapore and east Indies. The trials prove without a doubt that tanks can work in the jungle without hindrance, the British further enhance the defence of Malaya and Singapore by forming two oversized armored battalions using a mixture of A10 cruiser tanks half of which is the close support version and vickers MK VIB/C light tanks with vanguard troop carriers and a bishops.

The RAF is further enhanced with the use of re-engined hurricane MK I that supplement the Brewster buffalo.

How does the defence of Malaya and Singapore go now that British have armour?
Could the British prevent the fall of Malaya and Singapore or delay it?
Who would a better commander instead of Arthur Percival?
The assumption "the Bishop is suitable for Jungle warfare" is wishful thinking at best. Its mobility was grossly insufficient in even much more benign desert conditions.
Compared to Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go which was actually suitable for plowing through jungle roads or even undergrowth, Bishop was grossly oversized and underpowered. The usual outcome of armour vs armour outcome clash would be Japanese detecting Bishop first, outmaneuvering it and firing at will to the most vulnerable rear.

Better use for "Bishops" would be as backing at static defense lining, but its loss rate will be high because of again "Bishop" low speed and sizable profile making it relatively easy target for any Japanese artillery (which Japanese did bring aplenty anyway).
 
Last edited:
The assumption "the Bishop is suitable for Jungle warfare" is wishful thinking at best.
Compared to Japanese Type 95 Ha-Go which was actually suitable for plowing through jungle roads or even undergrowth, Bishop was grossly oversized and underpowered. The usual outcome of armour vs armour outcome clash would be Japanese detecting Bishop first, outmaneuvering it and firing at will to the most vulnerable rear.

Better use for "Bishops" would be as backing at static defense lining, but its loss rate will be high because of again "Bishop" low speed and sizable profile making it relatively easy target for any Japanese artillery (which Japanese did bring aplenty anyway).

This is not a Bishop as in the OTL SP Gun - this is a derivative of a larger version of the Universal Carrier type 'APC' vehicle that in this thread is adapted to multiple tasks including that of SP gun

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-armoured-personnel-carriers-in-1940s.466512/

Specifically this post
 

trurle

Banned
This is not a Bishop as in the OTL SP Gun - this is a derivative of a larger version of the Universal Carrier type 'APC' vehicle that in this thread is adapted to multiple tasks including that of SP gun

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-armoured-personnel-carriers-in-1940s.466512/

Specifically this post
Basic specs would be something like
Weight: 6 tons
Power: 63kW
Armour: 0-7mm
Height: 2.6m+
armamement: up to 2-pounder for maneuver warfare, up to short version of 18-pounder gun for mobile pillbox role

Overall, better mobility (although still slightly worse than Ha-Go), and seriously inferior to Ha-go in other aspects. Especially bad is survivability at close-range fight typical for jungle warfare.

P.S. 25-pounder gun (even with short barrel and reduced powder charge) would be impossible for Loyd carrier derived vehicle. Too strong recoil on too light chassis will either topple vehicle at low elevation or break suspension at high elevation. The 1954 year derivative of Loyd carrier - CATI 90 which had gun similar to 25-pounder was specifically designed to place gun very low and have limited elevation, so overturning torque is reduced and weak suspension is less loaded. And i am not sure if even all these tweaks have made CATI 90 to survive recoil of more than few shots.

It is common line of thought for amateur to try to fit most powerful armament to the lightest possible chassis, and generally it is wrong. Best combat efficiency is achieved with weapon which hit and barely disable target, not with weapon which produce largest crater a hundred meters off target. Also, the general efficiency of artillery against "soft" targets is reverse proportional to gun caliber.
 
Last edited:
Basic specs would be something like
Weight: 6 tons
Power: 63kW
Armour: 0-7mm
Height: 2.6m+
armamement: up to 2-pounder for maneuver warfare, up to short version of 18-pounder gun for mobile pillbox role

Overall, better mobility (although still slightly worse than Ha-Go), and seriously inferior to Ha-go in all other aspects.

P.S. 25-pounder gun (even with short barrel and reduced powder charge) would be impossible for Loyd carrier derived vehicle. Too strong recoil on too light chassis will either topple vehicle at low elevation or break suspension at high elevation. The 1954 year derivative of Loyd carrier - CATI 90 which had gun similar to 25-pounder was specifically designed to place gun very low and have limited elevation, so overturning torque is reduced and weak suspension is less loaded. And i am not sure if even all these tweaks have made CATI 90 to survive recoil of more than few shots.

It is common line of thought for amateur to try to fit most powerful armament to the lightest possible chassis, and generally it is wrong. Best combat efficiency is achieved with weapon which hit, not with weapon which produce largest crater a hundred meters off target. Also, the general efficiency of artillery against "soft" targets is reverse proportional to gun caliber.

Yes but its a Sp arty not an AFV - its not going up against the Ha-Go unless its having a bad day in the office - that's the job of the A10 Cruisers or Valentines (whichever the OP decides) or the 2 pounder AT teams
 
Top