Vanguards and cruiser tanks in Malaya and Singapore

trurle

Banned
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
So, "Mobile pillbox" role. Useful for defense on prepared positions. Never let that "Loyd-Bishop" go to jungle.
 
A larger version of this. (Note engine moved to the side of the driver) Not sure about an 18 or 25pdr but should take a 3.7" mountain gun.

upload_2019-5-7_22-21-59.jpeg
 

trurle

Banned
A larger version of this. (Note engine moved to the side of the driver) Not sure about an 18 or 25pdr but should take a 3.7" mountain gun.

View attachment 457950
x'D(Hysterically laughting)
The photo above shows the butt of gunner protruding over rear edge of vehicle, even with 2-pounder (1.575"). With 3.7" inch gun (which is larger at breech and have recoil length of nearly 1m) you must have gunners to stay on ground well behind vehicle. No way without significant chassis lengthening.
 

trurle

Banned
I was thinking of the Vanguard 'Bishop' being something like the Wespe in size - and that mounted a 105mm
Panzer II which was a base for Wespe was twice the weight of Loyd carrier which you "evolve" into Vanguard. You need another chassis to mount that heavy guns. Loyd carrier derivatives equivalent of Wespe would be just 84mm SPG
 
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 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.

Type 95 Ha-Go
Horsepower 120hp@1800rpm
Power/Weight Ratio 15.6 hp/t
Ground Pressure 8.9 psi
Ground Clearance (m) 0.39
Fuel Diesel
Range (km) 250
Gradient (degrees) 30-40°

Armor 12mm basis Front/Sides/Turret
Crew: 3 No Radio

Armament:
Type 98 37mm Tank Gun

Caliber : 37 mm
Barrel Length : 1.359 m (L36.7)
EL Angle of Fire : -15 to +20 Degrees
AZ Angle of Fire : 20 Degrees
Muzzle Velocity : 685 m/sec
Penetration : 25 mm/500 m
Not really a terror in the Jungle, or anywhere else

Half the battle is showing up. They showed up.

Now for SPGs
GB-LoydCarrier-25pdrHowitzer-1-HomeGuard.jpg


For big guns on small vehicles
m56_scorpion_history_1.jpg

7.1 ton M56 Scorpion, with a 90mm with a bit over twice the recoil energy of the 25 pdr

The T16 Universal Carrier from Canada used a Ford V8, and a bit heavier than the British around 5 tons. 105 HP, 7.4psi ground pressure
 

trurle

Banned
For big guns on small vehicles
m56_scorpion_history_1.jpg

7.1 ton M56 Scorpion, with a 90mm with a bit over twice the recoil energy of the 25 pdr
Does not this photo showing M56 flying by the force of its own recoil?
To say seriously, such increase of muzzle energy/weight was likely made possible by limited elevation (-10 to +15) and traverse (-30 to +30), plus long recoil (110cm or longer) of the gun, ruling out entirely armoured turret.
I should also point out what unlike 1953 design, same gun was tried to be installed earlier on M2 medium tank (19 ton weight), and the design failed.
 
Last edited:
It's remarkable what you can with small vehicles and a little ingenuity. I think the Germans were pushing things a bit far with the 105mm gun though.

vickers-105mm-german-spg.jpg
Firing-vickers-105mm-spg.jpg
vickers-spg-v1-test.jpg

(Just a thought, something like this last one with a 25pdr would probably have been transportable by Hamilcar Glider and come in handy at Arnhem)
 
Last edited:
Okay I did some digging about the A10 tank in Greece they already worn when they arrived so that played a role in the reason they were abandoned.
 
The Commanding General would want them under his control not with the advance party. The same's true for any division in Malaya, to get back on topic. The rate of fire of the 25pdr was stupendous and any forward observer could call in every gun in the division no questions asked till the shooting stops.
 
Last edited:
The Commanding General would want them under his control not with the advance party. The same's true for any division in Malaya, to get back on topic. The rate of fire of the 25pdr was stupendous and any forward observer could call in every gun in the division no questions asked till the shooting stops.

True and look no more Japanese imperial army giving problems.
 
You've only got to slow them down for a few more days and the whole lot would have to retreat to Thailand or starve, which also buggers up the invasion of Burma.
 
You've only got to slow them down for a few more days and the whole lot would have to retreat to Thailand or starve, which also buggers up the invasion of Burma.

With the imperial army never say retreat only withdraw

Which gives me the image of the Japanese trying

again *crash*

Again *Crash*

AGAIN!! *CRASH!!!!*

Japanese general: "Damn those British and those metal boxes of theirs!!!"
 

trurle

Banned
With the imperial army never say retreat only withdraw

Which gives me the image of the Japanese trying

again *crash*
Then Japanese division commander call in a squadron of Ki-51 which accurately lays a pair of 15-kilogram bombs to each SPG, killing entire gun crew.

With oversized gun resulting in open-top thin-walled combat compartment at best, or more realistically gun-shield only, the said SPG would be helpless against fragmentation bombs (or fragmentation shells of artillery barrage just saturating the suspected area).

Again, oversized guns are not a solution for your personal problems, unless you are WoT veteran or member of collective suicide club.
 
Last edited:
Unless you've got your bombers on a standing patrol over the front by the time they get to the site of the battery the SPG's have gone somewhere else. Also counter battery fire without the proper radars is a lot more difficult than you would at first think.
 
Then Japanese division commander call in a squadron of Ki-51 which accurately lays a pair of 15-kilogram bombs to each SPG, killing entire gun crew.

With oversized gun resulting in open-top thin-walled combat compartment at best, or more realistically gun-shield only, the said SPG would be helpless against fragmentation bombs (or fragmentation shells of artillery barrage just saturating the suspected area).

Again, oversized guns are not a solution for your personal problems, unless you are WoT veteran or member of collective suicide club.

There's always shoot and scoot, camouflage netting along with mortars and besides I meant that the imperial army tries to invade again and being repulsed again too.
 

trurle

Banned
There's always shoot and scoot, camouflage netting along with mortars and besides I meant that the imperial army tries to invade again and being repulsed again too.
May be. Shoot and scoot together with optical and acoustical camouflage will work to limited degree, increasing survivability, but these methods are far from perfect, especially when enemy have air superiority and can track movement of assets, and assets themselves are fragile semi-armoured SPGs.

In the environment the British encountered in Malay and Singapore, a dozen of small towed anti-tank or infantry guns would be far more useful than the single large SPG of the same weight, simply because these would cover larger portion of stretched defensive line, and are more difficult to be spotted by enemy. Unfortunately, IOTL Britain was just coming out of period of acute shortage of anti-tank weapons following defeat in France, and supplying ATGs to England proper was still a top priority.

P.S. Seems your intention is to create infantry gun which would be survivable in typical environment of Battle of Malay peninsula. For this purpose, field fortification around 2-pdr or even old 3-pdr gun will be more effective than SPG which would every day face the risk of mechanical breakdown, risk being lodged in mud, risk being hit by airstrike while on move, and on top having an armour semi-effective against rifle fire at most.
 
Last edited:
Then Japanese division commander call in a squadron of Ki-51 which accurately lays a pair of 15-kilogram bombs to each SPG, killing entire gun crew.

Since SPGs are mobile, they tend to move after firing

Then there is this

tea-plantation-landscape-in-malaysia.jpg


"the guns is over by the 4th Hill from the white building in the gully, the west side. It should still be there after your 45 minute flight'
 
Top