alternatehistory.com

Hello all! I just came from an interesting book binge about the preparations of the British military in the years leading up to WW2. Skipping the usual rant about morons, budgets and short-sightedness, let me ask this: if the British high command believed that the fighting would be similar to WW1, with the trenches and the no-man's land and the machine guns and bombardments, then would it be possible to find a way to make the British embrace these weapons that allow safer transit of troops in such conditions?

I personally lack the knowledge of the people in place at this time who could change this, but I do have some ideas for the vehicles in question, and the doctrine.

For the vehicles, an armoured half-track based on further development of the Holt half-tracks, the basis of most early tanks. Many British commanders saw these vehicles as effective after the first world war. The engine could be broadly similar to any on offer for a tank, as would the armour, presumably similar to the A10 cruiser tank. With a sufficiently long chassis, a full infantry section could be carried to war.

The armament could be a simple as an MG or two, but an IFV would be a fairly straightforward development. A series of 'firing ports' would be a very simple, and effective, method of allowing infantry to fire from relative safety. A 2pdr with HE shells would be excellent in a turret to support assaults on defended positions or for suppressing machine guns or any unfortunate artillery.

The IFV might be a stretch, but the APC seems reasonable to me. What does everyone else think?
Top