WI - The British army re-armed rationally

[ctayfor]

>
>
>
So mortars were manned by Royal Artillery?

No, just when anyone asked, the infanteers got "Tiny" from Huddersfield to sling one over his shoulder.

 

[MattII]

German external intelligence efforts were so poor I've seen it seriously suggested that Admiral Canaris of the Abwehr was actually working against the Nazi regime.

Since he was involved in plots against Hitler at least from '38 onwards, this isn't surprising.

 

[PMN1]

The big problem I see with this Time line is that it doesn't address the main reason British tanks were stuck with small turrets (and hence small guns) prior to WWII. They were not allowed to exceed the very tight British rail loading gage which limited vehicle width. This limited turret ring size which limited the size of gun they could carry. So while the Valantine for example was later equiped wit a 6pdr or 75 mm the size of the turret cut the turret crew size to 2 men reducing the efficency. later designs such as the Cromwell and Churchill took advantage of the relaxed rail loading rules during the war. An Later designs such as the Black Prince and Centurian were possible due to the further relaxing of the rules

Also the British armor force did not believe in explosive AT rounds. Even as late as 1944 they specifed that AP rounds supplied by the Amricans NOT be loaded with explosive filler while comparable rounds for American units.

Putting the turret ring on a superstructure above the tracks as per US, Soviet and German tanks rather than between the tracks as per OTL British practice may help to get a larger turret, though there would still be the problem of the space for the crew to work in between the tracks.

 

[Ian Hathaway]

The big problem I see with this Time line is that it doesn't address the main reason British tanks were stuck with small turrets (and hence small guns) prior to WWII. They were not allowed to exceed the very tight British rail loading gage which limited vehicle width. This limited turret ring size which limited the size of gun they could carry. So while the Valantine for example was later equiped wit a 6pdr or 75 mm the size of the turret cut the turret crew size to 2 men reducing the efficency. later designs such as the Cromwell and Churchill took advantage of the relaxed rail loading rules during the war. An Later designs such as the Black Prince and Centurian were possible due to the further relaxing of the rules

Also the British armor force did not believe in explosive AT rounds. Even as late as 1944 they specifed that AP rounds supplied by the Amricans NOT be loaded with explosive filler while comparable rounds for American units.

There was a lot more give in the loading gauge than people might think ... the W6 gauge is a go anywhere gauge and a quick comparison to the Panzer IV gives you some idea of what might have been.

 

[AdA]

If folks want to put some ideas forwards for this i'm up for adding them.

although there's a lack of krautwank so that might be an issue...

OTL Fuller refused command of the EMF.There's a POD right there. with Fuller as CO the EMF could have been a better tool for training a generation of Mech savy British Officers. More than decent tanks, what the Brits lacked was officers that understood mechanized warfare. Of course if Fuller was a less weird creature, he could have been more influential.
So my sugestion would be:
A better Fuller (no black magic fixation, no fascist conections) goes on to command the EMF, writes both a series of books and training manuals, and goes on to teach a generation of officers and influence defence policies in a way that OTL Fuller couldn't. You could also make Liddell Hart less vain and retain them as friends and colaborators, since their influence as a team would be much greater.
As for the tanks, a BEF with two Armoured and four Mechanized divisions properly led at all levels could have beaten plan Yellow with just Matildas and Cruiser Mk IV.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

As (IIRC) teh BEF fas fully mechanized in 1939/1940, I would not say the Brits had the wrong doctrine. THe more glaring problem of teh British army was that it was comparatively small in size.So a quick expansion was hard to do (not enough experienced NCOs and officers to fill the slots).


The split in Infantry and cavalry tanks war not a bad idea in itself, but the machines were lacking.

Even the Germans adhered to the concept of Infantry and Cavalry tanks (they just did not call them so, but PZ III had the role of teh cavalyr and Pz IV (Inityally) that of an infantry tank.

Basically to improve the British Amry would be "make it larger" to have a bigger pool of NCOs ans COs

Make better tanks ( basically upgraded guns) and teh Cavalry needs armored transport for the infantyr needed to protect tabnks.

 

[Garrison]

Please can we arrange an unpleasant accident for whoever needs to have one and have this prioritised for production:

Rolls Royce Meteor

Unlike earlier British tank engines, such as the American Liberty L-12 of 340 bhp (250 kW) licence-built by Nuffield and used in the Crusader, the Meteor engine, of virtually the same 1,650 in³ (27 litre) displacement as the earlier Liberty engine, from its R-R Merlin origins was very lightly stressed and reliable, and doubled the power available. Previously British tanks had been regarded as underpowered and unreliable, and the Meteor is considered to be the engine that for the first time gave British tanks ample, reliable power. Initially it was used in the Cromwell tank, which was a further development of the cruiser line and would replace the Crusader tank.

 

[AdA]

Please can we arrange an unpleasant accident for whoever needs to have one and have this prioritised for production:

Rolls Royce Meteor

There is no real need for a 600HP engine unless you're planning to build a 35t fast tank or a really heavy slow one.The only way to get the meteor earlier is if someone had needed a powerful modern engine for the TOG, and the same lunacy that allowed the TOG to happen allotted the old gang the resources to have RR build it. Then when the TOG was discarded the engine would be ready to be used. But even that only gets you an engine for the Cromwell and bypasses the unloved Centaur. Unless the you give the TOG an early start...

 

[PMN1]

A modified Kestrel would do the job for tanks of the weight they are in TTL or if you want to future proof it, a Buzzard.

 

[Garrison]

There is no real need for a 600HP engine unless you're planning to build a 35t fast tank or a really heavy slow one.The only way to get the meteor earlier is if someone had needed a powerful modern engine for the TOG, and the same lunacy that allowed the TOG to happen allotted the old gang the resources to have RR build it. Then when the TOG was discarded the engine would be ready to be used. But even that only gets you an engine for the Cromwell and bypasses the unloved Centaur. Unless the you give the TOG an early start...

I wasn't really thinking of it for 1940 but assuming that the war is still going to be a long one it would really useful to fit it to some of the infantry tank designs and give them decent manoeuvrability.

 

[Sior]

>
>
>
So mortars were manned by Royal Artillery?

Some times they were!

http://nigelef.tripod.com/maindoc.htm

Medium regiments always had two medium batteries, each with eight guns. Heavy regiments had batteries of four guns, which were not organised into troops so they had only one CP. After Dunkirk they had four batteries with 7.2-inch howitzers as these became available. In 1943 155-mm M1 guns replaced 7.2-inch in two of these batteries and in early 1945 the 7.2-inch started converting to the longer range Mk 6 on the M1 carriage. Super heavy batteries had two guns, with three batteries in each mixed regiment. The various mountain and light batteries varied from four to eight howitzers, and mortar batteries generally had 16 tubes.

 

[Sior]

There is no real need for a 600HP engine unless you're planning to build a 35t fast tank or a really heavy slow one.The only way to get the meteor earlier is if someone had needed a powerful modern engine for the TOG, and the same lunacy that allowed the TOG to happen allotted the old gang the resources to have RR build it. Then when the TOG was discarded the engine would be ready to be used. But even that only gets you an engine for the Cromwell and bypasses the unloved Centaur. Unless the you give the TOG an early start...

Compression ignition (diesel) variant

In 1932 the Air Ministry initiated a conversion of the Condor petrol engine to the compression ignition system. The conversion was developed at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, with the co-operation of Rolls-Royce Ltd. Engine layout, bore, and stroke remained the same as for the petrol version; the compression ratio increased to 12.5:1. The more robust construction required to withstand the increased stresses increased the engine weight to 1,504 lbs (682 kg). At its maximum 2,000 rpm the engine developed 500 hp (373 Kw), giving a power/weight ratio of 0.33 hp/lb.[3]
The engine passed the 50-hour civil type test for compression ignition engines, being only the second British engine to do so. The only previous engine to pass this test was the much larger Beardmore Tornado fitted to the R101 airship. The diesel Condor was experimentally flown in a Hawker Horsley to explore the practical operation of a diesel engine in flight.

 

[Perky50]

Hi Sharlin,
Good to see you're still churning out the stories.

This may not be the right place to raise this question, but as turret ring restrictions are being discussed here I thought I'd toss it out there to see what the response might be.It's just a thought regarding turret ring sizing ... it's something that has baffled me for some time ...

It's in regard to the A-27L/M series ... these tanks were limited by the fact that their turret ring was too small to be upgraded to the 17 pdr. Even the following A34 could not mount the 17 pdr.

So why is it that post war a way was found to mount a turret containing a 20 pdr on an A-27 hull, and why wouldn't such an expedient measure be taken during the war fore the smaller 17 pdr, Vickers 75 mm HV in it's original form, or even the 77mm?

 

[PaperPanzer]

The scenario seems to have missed out on heavy SPGs.

The French in OTL still had St Chamond 194mm gun and 280mm howitzer SPGs left over from WW1 in service in 1940 as well as a handful of Schneider 220mm gun SPGs.

The US in OTL experimented with a range of SPGs with 155mm guns, 8 inch howitzers, 4.7 inch guns and 240mm howitzers until 1923 when the traditionalists pulled the plug.

The Americans found that the small number of 155mm M-12 SPGs available were very useful in OTL Normandy and Germany.

One would think that Fuller would have been aware of developments in heavy SPGs and insisted that his "panzergruppes" needed some serious firepower to back them up. Integration of heavy SPGs into the combined arms groups would weaken Royal Artillery objections since de facto the artillerymen become part of the mobile force rather than a support arm.

Combined arms operations were devised by Monash in WW1. They were highly successful at Hamel and St Quentin in 1918.

Charlie

 

[sharlin]

The Birch gun was a SP 18 lber gun on a Mark I Medium's hull, its cheif advantages were rate of fire rather than weight as the British didn't really have anything capable of hauling a larger gun unless they used a Rhomboid hull but then they were slow as hell. so to have a tracked SP gun they went with a compromise and opted for a lighter weapon that was mobile and could deploy easily.

In this timeline the latest edition of the SP gun the 'Welly' is armed with the new 25lber and is based on a heavily altered and stretched Mark II 'Valentine' tank (the OTL's Matilda)

 

[PaperPanzer]

I think it was more that the British never really accepted the US and French ideas on "gun motor carriages" - carrying a heavy gun on a tracked chassis with the crew and ammunition in support vehicles. The US gun motor carriages in the 1920s were quite impressive vehicles, much faster than tanks, submersible and quite light (the 1922 Mark X with 4.7in gun weighed 11 tons).

Charlie

 

[pdf27]

As (IIRC) teh BEF fas fully mechanized in 1939/1940, I would not say the Brits had the wrong doctrine. THe more glaring problem of teh British army was that it was comparatively small in size.So a quick expansion was hard to do (not enough experienced NCOs and officers to fill the slots).

I think that's the biggest objection to the British doing any better ITTL - they were already the most mobile force out there and had reasonable doctrine. Making their armoured forces stronger either means a weaker RN and RAF, or it means a much smaller army (half the size?). Either way Dunkirk is still going to happen.

The Birch gun is a good example - OTL instead of them they bought a lot of 4x4 or 6x6 gun tractors, enabling the whole of the RA to have reasonable mobility. If they buy the Birch gun, they have a lot fewer mobile guns but those they have are very mobile. I'm not sure that's an improvement.

 

[Terrion]

OTL Fuller refused command of the EMF.There's a POD right there. with Fuller as CO the EMF could have been a better tool for training a generation of Mech savy British Officers. More than decent tanks, what the Brits lacked was officers that understood mechanized warfare. Of course if Fuller was a less weird creature, he could have been more influential.
So my sugestion would be:
A better Fuller (no black magic fixation, no fascist conections) goes on to command the EMF, writes both a series of books and training manuals, and goes on to teach a generation of officers and influence defence policies in a way that OTL Fuller couldn't. You could also make Liddell Hart less vain and retain them as friends and colaborators, since their influence as a team would be much greater.
As for the tanks, a BEF with two Armoured and four Mechanized divisions properly led at all levels could have beaten plan Yellow with just Matildas and Cruiser Mk IV.

I think the bigger issue is Fuller's OTL thoughts on combined arms (or rather, the lack thereof). Historically, Fuller was one of the leading proponents of the "cavalry" school that wanted tanks to operate independently of infantry and artillery, considering them a shackle to armor's freedom of movement. Fuller went further than most, and believed that infantry and artillery would be rendered obsolete.

"The question now arises, what can the infantry do? These troops can do nothing outside playing the part of interested spectators. What can the gunners do? They can do next to nothing"

In the event, the early-mid war British doctrine largely was developed on Fuller's thoughts. The whole infantry/cruiser tank distinction was bascially his idea, for example (although most countries started the war with a similar divide in practice). So what's really needed is either some event to make Fuller take a more balanced view (difficult without post-1918 wartime experience) or to make him less influential, rather than more.

Also, a more influential Fuller could result in more emphasis on chemical warfare. Fuller was a big proponent of gas, because he considered it more humane

 

[PaperPanzer]

Fuller wasn't alone in his views on gas warfare - a lot of the front line troops also thought gas was more humane.

I guess you've got to look at the context - in WW1 70% of the casualties were caused by artillery fire. Survivors were likely to be grossly injured (mangled) by shell fragments since the shell casings in WW1 didn't fragment into small shards like modern shells do but into steel chunks. Add in the likelihood of being buried alive in collapsed dugouts then choking on gas would likely seem a better outcome.

Charlie

 

[AdA]

Fuller's view is not much diferent from some concepts on conducting operations in a nuclear war.
Experience with the EMF would probably allow him to evolve, and he might be less radical on oficial studies than he was on books meant for sale.
But the BEF of 1940 was essencialy a motorised infantry force with tank support, and the issue here is turning it into a Mechanized force. 6 motorized infantry divisions and 1 incomplete tank division will not change events in 1940, but a mechanized corps with agressive and capable commanders might.
A BEF with a flawed tank doctrine (Soviet mid 30s style for example) would still be better than the OTL BEF in the very peculiar circunstances of May 1940.
And I've allways said a revised "improved" Fuller would be required.