# Best possible tank for UK Commonwealth, 1940



## tomo pauk (Apr 2, 2012)

Using the present state-of-the-art from the late 1930s, could the Brits managed to design produce the best tank in the world for service for 1940? A true MBT? I'm not trying to get Merlin/Meteor, or 17pdr installed for Battle of France, but trying to grasp what the best possible design was feasible for that era.
The tank should be license produced abroad, too, so let's not make it too complicated.


----------



## davebender (Apr 2, 2012)

The 6 pounder (i.e. 57mm) is probably the best tank main gun Britain could mass produce by 1940. With good AP and HE rounds it would be state of the art during 1940 to 1941. It's essential that Britain give HE round development the same priority as AP rounds. Otherwise your tank will be crippled from the start vs soft targets.


----------



## Glider (Apr 2, 2012)

Personally its my belief that the main problem was the basic tank. The PzIII originally had a poor gun and thin armour, in a stand up fight the Matilda had most of the advantages. But what the Pz III had in spades was growth potential. 
The british started the war with the Matilda and there was nothing wrong with that, where they went wrong was designing the Valanine. They should have designed it with growth potential so as the 6pd came on stream they could have installed it, in the same way the Pz III was easily upgunned from the 37mm to the 50mm L42 and 50mm L60


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 4, 2012)

Agreed with above posts; the tank need to be a reliable, mass produced all-rounder if it's to play any role in a major war.

Let's start with size weight. Matilda II was 27 tons, Independent was 33 tons. Something in between, under 30 tons, growing later above 30 tons - much like M4/T-34. 
All that bulk need to be propelled by a powerful engine. The Liberty tank engine (340 HP) received plenty of bad press, much to the usage in the desert (due to sand) - perhaps it would been fared better in Europe? The another choice might be the 370 HP V-12 from Independent tank (making it go 20 mph on road). Yet another choice can be the variant of the RR Kestrel, plenty of power there even in 1920s (450 HP).
The armor should be comparable with Matilda II/Sherman/T-34. Silhouette, due to 'all rear' nature of drive, is to be lower than Sherman, more akin to the T-34.
Being an all-rounder, the armament need to be at least 57mm (being from the UK), the turret need to accommodate crew of 3 - so we need a decent turret ring. Without the sponsoons, that is not to be achieved, if the tank is to fit the much-blamed British train gauge. The 57mm will be using the 19th century vintage round, in order to expedite the development production. The new guns (old barrels ammo will be used for pre-series examples, in order to accelerate the testing and training) will allow for a better power, comparable in HE AP performance of the German 'short' 5cm tank gun. We will not develop the 2pdr, nor the 3in howitzer.

I was initially thinking about the 10% increased Valentine, but that wouldn't suffice for all of the capabilities wanted/needed for a proper MBT of 1940


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2012)

The weight limits on tanks usually had little to do with combat capabilities, except for power to weight ratios with available engines ( more on that later) and much more to do with transportation and general mobility. Mobility in the sense that if the majority of bridges in the area you want to operate in are only rated for 20 ton vehicles a 22 ton tank is a gamble, a 30 ton tank probably won't make past the the first couple of rivers. What is the capacity of the tactical temporary bridging equipment if the existing bridges are blown? Weight also governs the number of available railway carriages and even the docks (cranes) that can be used for sea movements. 

There are reasons that some weight limits were what they were before the shooting started and why some bigger, heavier tanks stayed limited in production. 

The Liberty was a bad decision. It had a very troubled reputation as an airplane engine. a good Liberty wasn't a bad engine but a bad Liberty was a disaster. Many of the WW I Liberty's should have been melted down while brand new. Anybody who thought this was a good choice in 1937 must have been looking at the bottom line (cheap).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 5, 2012)

"... The tank should be license produced abroad, too, so let's not make it too complicated. "



MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The weight limits on tanks usually had little to do with combat capabilities, except for power to weight ratios with available engines ( more on that later) and much more to do with transportation and general mobility. Mobility in the sense that if the majority of bridges in the area you want to operate in are only rated for 20 ton vehicles a 22 ton tank is a gamble, a 30 ton tank probably won't make past the the first couple of rivers. What is the capacity of the tactical temporary bridging equipment if the existing bridges are blown? Weight also governs the number of available railway carriages and even the docks (cranes) that can be used for sea movements.
> 
> There are reasons that some weight limits were what they were before the shooting started and why some bigger, heavier tanks stayed limited in production.
> 
> The Liberty was a bad decision. It had a very troubled reputation as an airplane engine. a good Liberty wasn't a bad engine but a bad Liberty was a disaster. Many of the WW I Liberty's should have been melted down while brand new. Anybody who thought this was a good choice in 1937 must have been looking at the bottom line (cheap).



Doh, I did not know that Liberty was (without dirt/sand issues taken into account) such a troublesome machine. Still we have the two good choices.

'My' tank would be, ideally, a ton heavier than Matilda II, for 1940. It would be lighter than the Independent, let alone the Churchill (almost 40 tons, specifications laid down in July 1940; the predecessor, A20, specified prior ww2, was to be at 43 tons). Or, as heavy as the Char B1, M3 medium (Lee/Grant).


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 5, 2012)

Weight comes from the military requirements. Like the desired armor thickness, Steel weighs 40lbs per 1ft X 1ft x 1in piece. Make a tank one foot longer (to house larger engine) and with even a 6ft wide hull (between the tracks) and 5/8ths (16mm) armor top and bottom you have gained 300lbs. what do you want for side armor? 30mm armor is about 47lbs per square ft a four ft high hull will need another 376lbs. about 1/3 of a ton to provide armor for a 1 ft longer engine. tank designers worried more about the size of an engine than than they did the weight. 

Bigger turret rings meant longer, wider tanks with all the extra armor. More powerful engines meant longer engine bays. more fuel (or ammo) also meant a bigger hull. Once the requirement for armor went past the protection level needed for 12.7-20mm weapons the extra space (volume) needed for multiple turret tanks like the Independent became prohibitive.

Cross country performance needs a good power to weight ratio. Road speed can be an illusion. what is wanted is the ability to climb hills at a fair pace. Not racing but not crawling. The Churchill was slow on the road but in low gear (walking pace) it could climb hills other tanks could not. Also in soft ground the tank is continuously trying to pull it self UP out of a pair of shallow trenches. this sucks up considerable power.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2012)

No quarrel with your analysis 

Basically, I'm looking at what could be called 'Cromwell tank of 1940'; the Meteor engine is off for obvious reasons, replaced with either Armstrong-Siddeley V-12 or RR Kestrel. A smaller engine, needing a smaller cooling system, can save on weight for the engine compartment. Cromwells at 28 tons were featuring the armor impervious to the 3,7cm fire from frontal arc, even to the Czechoslovakian 4,7cm; the short 5cm of the Pz-IIIs will also have trouble. Since we've saved some weight from the engine compartment, we can add some armor on sides making the tank bulletproof for at least frontal 270 deg, if not all 360, for 1940. 

An interesting engine choice could be the AEC engine from Valentine. The 1st versions of that tank was powered by a 130-135 HP engines, a 50% increase over Matilda (later at 160 HP). The engines would offer yet another saving on the engine department weight, so we can have a well armored, decently maneuverable tank, with all-round fighting capabilities. If I'm not mistaking it badly, the AEC engines were off-the-shelf stuff? Of course, this is as far from 'pre-Cromwell' as it gets.

Another possibility: DH Gipsy Twelve, even if it's de-rated to 350 HP. 

The gearbox ratio can have the really short 1st gear, so we can climb hills other unfavorable terrain. No worries about multiple turrets, those are not at my liking


----------



## stona (Apr 6, 2012)

Panzer IV .........I'll get me coat.
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2012)

Play with us, Steve 
Pz-IV was a good tank, a 'Britanized' version would've served the UK Commonwealth froces well.


----------



## PJay (Apr 9, 2012)

The Valentine could take a 6 pdr. Valentine tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Glider said:


> Personally its my belief that the main problem was the basic tank. The PzIII originally had a poor gun and thin armour, in a stand up fight the Matilda had most of the advantages. But what the Pz III had in spades was growth potential.
> The british started the war with the Matilda and there was nothing wrong with that, where they went wrong was designing the Valanine. They should have designed it with growth potential so as the 6pd came on stream they could have installed it, in the same way the Pz III was easily upgunned from the 37mm to the 50mm L42 and 50mm L60


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 9, 2012)

Which Brit tanks had welded armour


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2012)

The Crusader and Valentine tanks with 6pdr guns had two man crews which lowered the rate of fire and distracted the tank commander from his job of commanding the tank.


----------



## Readie (Apr 10, 2012)

I think some fresh thinking was needed for a modern British tank.
Things like.
Interchangeability of ammo with artillery
Common parts
etc.
This would have a field advantage in battle zones.
There is an argument for the disposable mass produced tank, crudely made like the Russian T34 or a state of the art tank like the German Tiger.
Which way would you have gone?
John


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 10, 2012)

The interchangeability of ammo with Royal artillery could be achieved with a version of 'our' tank featuring a 25pdr, either like it was done for Shermans (105mm howitzer in turret) or as in StuH-42 (Pz-III hull with 10,5cm howitzer with limited traverse). Should be great to take out the ATGs, MG nests etc. Even to make a mess of the medium/light armor, provided it hits (the 25pdr was used as an AT gun).
The usage of an existing engine in the tank's offsprings should make for better maintainability. 
A tank gun version of the 3in AAA should be introduced in 1941/42, so the tank can compete with long-barrel wielding Pz-III, StuGs and -IV. 

I'm not a favorite of a 60-70 ton tanks for the ww2. 
The 28 ton tank should be practically ATG-proof (not for the 8,8  ) in 1940. It should grow to 30 tons in 1941 (so the 5cm ATG should have problems to make a kill), 32 tons in 42. The UK would have access for the mass produced M4s from late 1942, so they maybe should venture for the 45-50 ton tank to be deployed in early 1944 (17pdr, Meteor tank, sloped armor to defeat Tiger's Panther's guns at 500-1500 yds, and 'medium length' 7,5cms from 200-500 yds - depending on direction of the attack). They also have their own equivalents of late M4s/T-34-85s.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 10, 2012)

The British had a problem with ammo inter-changeability for tanks in WW II. The 25pdr used separate load ammunition. Projectile loaded and then case I believe. AP rounds were crimped together for faster rate of fire. 

These are hand loaded guns and the loader usually didn't have room to stand fully upright. Granted the 25pdr doesn't use the cartridge case of the 88 but the projectiles were the same diameter and weight. 

The low muzzle velocity makes long range hits difficult (and by long range we are still way under 1000 yds or meters). A rough rule of thumb for "practical point blank range" the max range from the gun muzzle that the shell will neither rise above or fall below a tank sized target (depending on the size of the tank, of course) is the muzzle velocity + 10%. Longer ranges require enough elevation that is is possible to over shoot at close range. Point blank range for the 25pdr is a bit under 600meters while the 2 pdr in about 870meters. 
the 25pdrs use as an AT gun was desperation.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2012)

I guess someone would see the light and crimp the HE shells with cases, once the 'crimped' AP shots are used some time. The loader would have easier work than the loader in M4/105 or StuH-42 (depending on what configuration is chosen).
The 25pdr were (not) viable for AT work as the 105mm howitzers were (not) - rather hard to hit a moving target, but a hit was able to make a mess, depending on the part where it landed. With 57mm, and later 3in installed, the AT capabilities seem fulfilled, so the 25pdr in the AT role would be the exceptions.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 11, 2012)

The simplest item to pin down is the gun. The 6 pounder (57mm) was a period item and could have been introduced before the war. Design began in 1938 even if production was delayed until 1941. It had a usable HE round and ammunition development kept it a viable anti armour gun until the end of the war (some Regiments kept 6pdr tanks as anti armour protection when the rest were changed to 75mm.) Thus we can settle on just one gun type and refit some later to take US 75mm ammunition (like the WW1 French 75mm). 

Now we need an engine, gearbox, hull, suspension and tracks. These need to be within industry capability of 1938 and able to be developed. It need not be more than 20 tonnes rough ground speed is more important than flat road speed.

My candidate would be the Valentine in all these areas. Ideally with a bulkier 3 man turret to release the commander from loader duty. This will also improve reliability and ease crew fatigue with an extra man to assist maintenance, stand guard etc. 

Easily built and later up engined versions can carry more armour, welded armour and benefit from track material and design upgrades. Not a star performer but able to be built in bulk so you will have numbers of effective tanks able to kill armour, to support infantry with HE and knock out anti tank guns with HE.

Effectively this is a Sherman production concept but available from 1939 and we have proven development potential from the actual Valentine.

It also needs to be matched with a 'modern' tank transporter to give theatre commanders the option of transferring their armour from battlefield to battlefield at relative speed and without wearing out limited life components. This can be used to recover damaged tanks to further multiply their effectiveness.

This is no sexy 17 pounder 600bhp designer tank for the few but an industrial plodder tank for the masses.

Once this is in mass production then you can set the design teams to make the next generation tanks for introduction in 1944.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 12, 2012)

The Brits started with a faulty concept on Tank roles....the so-called infantry Tanks and Cruiser tank concepts. What they needed was a blend of both.

The other glaring weakness in Brit tanks were the inadequate engine development, and to a lesser extent the poor armament carried (the two pounder). these things all conspired to make Brit Tank designs second rate compared to those of germany, or even france. 

Best tank of 1940-41 was the matilda II despite all these shortcomings. But it lacked a number of things, and could not easily be updated.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2012)

> The Brits started with a faulty concept on Tank roles....the so-called infantry Tanks and Cruiser tank concepts. What they needed was a blend of both.



Yep - that's the reason I'm trying to propose a '1940 Cromwell', that historically was tank with no major flaws, but it was some 2 years too late. The gun issue is highlighted here, as well, a decent HE shell is a must for a tank. 

All tanks of 1940 were having some real issues, from Matilda II (ill suited to attack non-tank targets, inability to take the advantage of the existing roads to encircle the enemy due to low road speed, low speed all together), Pz-III/IV (needed to operate as pair when faced with mixed defences, armor vulnerable to ATGs from 37mm up, sometimes even to 25mm) to BT-7 (thin armor, rare radios). Only the German tanks had 3 man turrets, enabling them to fight as real units. 

The best tank in service in 1941 would be the KV-1


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 12, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> Pz-III/IV (needed to operate as pair when faced with mixed defences,



can clear this point?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2012)

Pz-III (in 1940) was equipped with 37mm main gun, making the attack vs. well emplaced AT guns infantry not so efficient, while the short cannon of the Pz-IV would have trouble to hit a moving target (tank). Soviets were issuing the 'artillery tanks' (BT-5A, BT-7A) for their units, despite the 45mm having far heavier HE shell than 37mm.


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 12, 2012)

if i remember right the tactic of Heer for light guns tank v/s AT gun expectsed the use of AP(HE) ammo targeting the shield. Sure the 37mm HE shell has little explosive effect but only few tanks had better


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2012)

The British actually had a rather good start with the A-13 Cruiser tank. They then dropped the ball with the Covenanter tank and then kicked the dropped ball into the thorn bushes with the Crusader. 

The A 13 had the proper layout, 3 man turret with a cupola for the commander, driver in the hull without a space wasting bow gunner, rear drive. 
Stretch it to Crusader size but keep the bow turret on the drawing board, change the engine to a Kestrel if possible ( throw the plans for the Meadows in nearest sewer) keep basic turret layout of the A 13 but go for biggest turret ring you can fit even if sponsons have to overhang the tracks. Give the Commander even better vision. Either use 40mm Bofors shells in the 2pdr from day one or go for a 47mm or 57mm gun right away. 

A better turret shape and heavier armor along with a 47-57mm gun would keep up with the Germans until the long barreled MK IVs show up. With a new transmission and a Kestrel that could putout 450-500hp a 30-35 ton tank is certainly not out of the question still based of the same basic design (Comet?) just slope the front armor ( a lot easier if the bow gunner is left out)


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2012)

Vincenzo said:


> if i remember right the tactic of Heer for light guns tank v/s AT gun expectsed the use of AP(HE) ammo targeting the shield. Sure the 37mm HE shell has little explosive effect but only few tanks had better



French tanks were on par or better (Somua 35, Char 1), Soviet 45mm HE was twice as heavy, British had nothing to compare. Sure enough, a gunner capable to hit the shield of 25-45 mm ATG was one hell of a shooter


----------



## parsifal (Apr 13, 2012)

> All tanks of 1940 were having some real issues, from Matilda II (ill suited to attack non-tank targets, inability to take the advantage of the existing roads to encircle the enemy due to low road speed, low speed all together), Pz-III/IV (needed to operate as pair when faced with mixed defences, armor vulnerable to ATGs from 37mm up, sometimes even to 25mm) to BT-7 (thin armor, rare radios). Only the German tanks had 3 man turrets, enabling them to fight as real units.




I would prefer to express it as all tanks are compromise between three competing priorities....armament, armour/protection, and mobility. The building blocks are your gun, the hull size, and the engine. of the three, engine is the most important. Germans had an enormous heasd start in this regard and never lost it



> The best tank in service in 1941 would be the KV-1



In theory, yes, in practice no, too many relaiability issues and drive train issues to claim the title of best tank in 1941. Maybe 1942 after most of these problems had been solved, but not in 1941 IMO


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2012)

I can see you logic. Since the Matilda had the engine of the least power vs. the competition, why would we rate the tanks as the best?

If you can point me to a source that can confirm that reliability issues were the real problem of the KV-1 in 1941, and not something caused by operating it by inexperienced crew (driver), that would be cool.
In 1941 we have T-34, and the M3 medium is also in production from July 1941. Germans have the Pz-III with 5cm in use.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 13, 2012)

I still have to plump for the Valentine. Proposed in 1938, using existing reliable parts, able to knock out any tank even with the 2pdr until well into 1941 and could have been introduced before 1940 with a 6pdr if the impetus was there. By 1944 power from 130bhp to 210bhp, thicker welded and cast armour and APDS shot to penetrate axis armour as well as HE to cope with anti tank guns and support infantry. From 13mph on the road to 20mph and track life from 500miles to 3,000miles. It would have been a doable one model tank army throughout the war. Yes if I had to go to war in 1939 I would prefer to be in a Centurion but that was not an option. Valentines could have been there in numbers when needed. No Sherman or Cromwell could cope with a long 75mm or 88mm hit either but the Valentine was a low tiny target. If the Matilda II could be fitted with a 3 man 6pdr turret (and it was done) then so could the Valentine. You can still do the 17pdr Archer and the 25 pdr Bishop, bridgelayers, flails and DD. The Sherman is a giant by comparison. Over 8,000 were made while other tanks were also produced. If production were pure Valentine we are looking at at least 3 times as many.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2012)

tomo pauk said:


> I can see you logic. Since the Matilda had the engine of the least power vs. the competition, why would we rate the tanks as the best?
> 
> If you can point me to a source that can confirm that reliability issues were the real problem of the KV-1 in 1941, and not something caused by operating it by inexperienced crew (driver), that would be cool.
> In 1941 we have T-34, and the M3 medium is also in production from July 1941. Germans have the Pz-III with 5cm in use.



The KV used the same engine and transmission as the the T-34, good for spare parts, not so good for a heavy tank if it is causing problems in a lighter tank. See problems the Germans had trying to use the same engine in the tigers as in the Panthers. The Soviet transmission was also rather crude. Transmission often includes the steering gear in a tank. The Soviet transmission was a 4 speed (5 on later models) without synchromesh on any of the gears. it was so difficult to shift that a mallet was included in the drivers kit, early T-34s carried spare transmissions into battle on occasion cabled down on th engine deck which prevent full rotate of the turret. If transmissions were not lasting on a 30 ton tank their life in a 40 ton tank must certainly be suspect. It was not uncommon for KV tanks to be driven using only the lower gears ( with a non synchromesh transmission a missed shift is going to require bringing the vehicle to a halt and starting over again in first gear.) meaning that their proving ground top speed was rarely reached in operation. 

Better training helps but the crude design, whihle simple to make, called for a higher degree of skill to operate.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2012)

I love Valentine, too. It was offering whatever the Matilda II was, but with far better power-to-weight ratio* and a tad smaller profile (it was later in the fray, too). With HE shell available from day one, it's would be a fine all-rounder tank prior 1942. The problem with having only the infantry tanks is that one still need Cruiser tanks for enveloping maneuver, exploitation etc. 

Valentine did not featured sponsons (rigid hull parts overhanging the tracks), so my take is that a 3 man turret with decent gun would be hard pressed to fit there. We need sponsoons (or wider hull), bigger turret and a powerpack of greater power size (so we can ditch the need for Cruiser tanks). The tank is now maybe around 25 tons?

Sherman could be ill presented as a compact tank. It featured, like most of the German tanks, a 'distributed' powerpack layout: engine in one part of the tank, transmission on another, with shaft connecting those. All claiming plenty of internal volume (easy to confirm by looking at Stuart/Sherman/Lee/Grant/Pz-III/IV etc cross section drawings), far more than 'all back' layout of the British Soviet tanks. M4 also featured the tall radial engine. So the British tank I'm proposing would be far more compact than the M4.

*speed was not benefiting from this


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 13, 2012)

The Valantine suspension worked fine at the speeds the Valintine operated at but it would have been found wanting at the higher speeds of a cruiser tank. 

Please look up the Vickers Valiant tank (A-38) of WW II. Sometimes it is better to start fresh than adapt an existing design.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 13, 2012)

Yep, there is only so much gain to be achieved by a modification of an existing design. Valentine was not any faster than Matilda II, despite having 2-3 times better power-to-weight ratio. Here we need maybe Christie suspension, or Horstman type (beefed up for the weight, with 10-15% allowance for growth). Maybe some type of voulte suspension, if not the torsion bar kind already.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 14, 2012)

God, I was hoping no one would mention the Valiant. As far as high speed tanks for exploitation remember tanks without infantry and artillery are called targets. The speed you can exploit is that at which you can move combined services as a whole. Non gun Valentines were known to run at a reliable 20 mph but in combat the rough ground speed is what counts. Thus Churchills could approach Cromwell speed and Conquerors that of Centurions once they left the road. We know the Valentine suspension worked. We know the engines used worked. We know the 6 pounder worked. We know the gearbox worked (hard work for the driver though.) We know the armour protected from anything other than the best anti tank guns (and what could at the time?) Essentially we have a whole package that works. To quote the americanism 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Leave it to a 1944 replacement to improve on the design. With less time pressure on the designers a quasi Comet or Cenrurion could have been introduced in 1944. Incidentally, building good dedicated tank transported would remove the rail loading limits that set the maximum width (and therefore length) of British tanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 14, 2012)

Brits were about the only ones with fully motorised infantry artillery prior ww2. Being truck-borne, they could use the roads to the advantage. They needed tanks that would be fast at the road (while having decent performance off road) - Cruiser tanks. The Infantry tank is ill suited for such movements, and no matter how I love the 'I' tanks, that cannot be put aside. Or in other words, 'C' tanks had capabilities for off-road tasks, 'I' tanks didn't have the capabilities to exploit roads, to bolster their maneuver. 
6 pdr worked, but that meant the turret crew goes down to 2, and we know that is not as efficient as 3 crew members. The 3 crew turret + 6 pdr is out of question for Valentine, since the hull is too narrow for that, and it has no sponsoons. Since the Valentine was compact, it could be well protected without becoming to heavy. All good, but if we want a 3 man turret + 6 pdr, it's a non starter.
Many things were 'not broken', that does not mean a better thing would not be a better chioce. All manualy-loaded rifles, infantry guns, 2 pdr 37mm ATG, biplane fighers - all worked. Yet people moved on better stuff as soon as it was produced. 
The quasi Comet/Centurion was feasible for 1943/44, so it was the tank transporter, I agree with that. But for 1940, Brits have had many other options better than Matilda/Valentine/Cruiser A9/A-13. BTW, wouldn't the Matilda II with 3 man turret and 6 pdr be a better choice (it existed as a prototype)?
You can note that late war British tanks were happy recipients of the powerful engines (being 'C' types), while far less designs remained faithful to the 'I' concept.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 14, 2012)

Another thing that makes Valentine and Matilda less than perfect platforms for 6pdr was the amount of rounds carried. Valentine was carrying only 53 pcs of 6pdr ammo, barely 55-60% of what Pz-IIIJ/L/M had; if we try to shove in a 3rd turret crew member in, that cannon ammo count would be maybe half of that? It was also carrying half of the coax MG ammo vs. the 2 pdr variants.
The 6pdr round was requiring 3-4 times as much volume as the 2pdr shell, and Matilda II was carrying up to 90 pcs of 2pdr rounds.

So, Valentine was an very good blend of a small cannon it's small ammo, small engine transmission, tailored for small speed, only one crew member in hull - kind of a Nakajima Oscar between tanks (Oscar excelled in one field - maneuverability, Valentine in another - it was featuring armor of reasonable thickness)? The very time it started receiving upgrades, it's compactness was acting against those, mandating the trade-outs. Was it the 6 pdr, 25 pdr, or 17 pdr they tried it with.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 14, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> The KV used the same engine and transmission as the the T-34, good for spare parts, not so good for a heavy tank if it is causing problems in a lighter tank. See problems the Germans had trying to use the same engine in the tigers as in the Panthers. The Soviet transmission was also rather crude. Transmission often includes the steering gear in a tank. The Soviet transmission was a 4 speed (5 on later models) without synchromesh on any of the gears. it was so difficult to shift that a mallet was included in the drivers kit, early T-34s carried spare transmissions into battle on occasion cabled down on th engine deck which prevent full rotate of the turret. If transmissions were not lasting on a 30 ton tank their life in a 40 ton tank must certainly be suspect. It was not uncommon for KV tanks to be driven using only the lower gears ( with a non synchromesh transmission a missed shift is going to require bringing the vehicle to a halt and starting over again in first gear.) meaning that their proving ground top speed was rarely reached in operation.
> 
> Better training helps but the crude design, whihle simple to make, called for a higher degree of skill to operate.



With regard to the reliability, ive read it was the gearbox that was the major weakness. I understand that as originally designed it was a "crash box" in every sense. Whatever happened, reliability did improve, markedly. I believe a new gearboxwas designed and fitted from april 42, but will stand corrected


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2012)

According to one story Vickers was invited to join in production of the Maltida II in late 1937, early 1938 but offered the option of designing their own tank to meet the same general specification. They were already making the A9 cruiser and A 10 Infantry/heavy cruiser. The Valentine used the same suspension, engine, transmission and steering gear in a smaller more heavily armored hull and turret. The engine was from a bus. 
It was reliable, in part due to the low speed, and due to it being sort of a 2nd or 3rd version of a mechanical system that had been started in 1934. 

Some of the later versions with the big guns were more self propelled guns rather than tanks. Some of the 6pdr versions had _NO_ co-ax machine gun let alone one with half the ammo of the 2pdr versions. Vision for the commander was lousy at best when closed down. 

Here is a picture of the 2pdr Valentine turret with 2 men. I don't think it needs much further description or imagination to figure out what it would be like with a 6pdr or 75mm even if enlarged a bit. 







here is a picture of the first 3 infantry tanks that matter. 






While it is a picture of model it does show a nice angle on the A13 cruiser. 






I don't think there was anything that would have prevented a sloped upper hull front from being fitted. Stretch the hull slightly and cram the road wheels together to ft a 5th set like the Crusader. Sponson the hull a bit where the tool boxes are and try to get rid of the Liberty engine. It looks like a good start to me. The Covenanter was a step backward, too much space was sacrificed in the turret for the low silhouette and the loss of the cupola. Less said about the engine the better.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 15, 2012)

You simply know when what kind of pictures to pull out 

What kind of armor protection for your proposal?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 15, 2012)

One thing I would argue. in tanks vs tank engagement, the 2pounder armed brit tanks were equal or superior to the equivalent early war Axis AFVs.

Where the Brit tanks fell down badly was in HE capability. This enabled many tanks to be knocked out by long range AT fire (both 50mm and 88mm) with relative ease.

Which makes me think that even if the brits had disrupted their production lines, and opted for a revised tank with saay a 6pdr gun, it would have made not a great deal of difference, except that fewer brit tanks would have been available. I have the strong suspicion that we would be lamenting the shortage of numbers in this alternative scenario, and how a few more tanks of simpler easier design might have made the difference. in other words, be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 15, 2012)

Wishing that they had skipped the Covenanter and gone to a Crusader with a bit bigger turret could hardly result in fewer tanks on the front lines  

Bad tactics and the lack of HE ammunition were responsible for a large share of the poor performance of the British tanks.


----------



## yulzari (Apr 16, 2012)

There was a reason Vickers used the A9 'slow motion' suspension. The A13 suspension was less robust and heavier even if it could cope with more speed. The larger the turret the larger the hull and the more the weight. The fixed point, around which all Valentine compromises were made, was the AEC bus engine. A sound device but limited in power. The later GM diesel was somewhat more powerful but was of the same class. 

The only alternative was the Liberty. It suffered from poor installations causing overheating. It went into the A13 with little trouble and gave twice the AEC power but now you need a larger hull, a larger fuel tank, a larger 3 man turret and effective (ie up to 50mm antitank gun) armour. We call this a Cavalier. It is tempting but thinkcarefuly. You are now suggesting an untried vehicle. 

Stick with a working Valentine for 1939 to 1943 and spend your time on a 17 pounder Meteor vehicle. Trialled in service at the end of 1943 and replacing quantity Valentine production in 1944. 

The Matilda Infantry II tank was a wonderful device but horrendously expensive in production costs and time. This is why Vickers said they could give something nearly as good but far cheaper in materials and time. There was no way you could make vast numbers of Infantry II tanks. It was beyond the capabilities in depth of British industry. The Valentine could be made by many branches of heavy industry.

I have tried to keep to the 1938 industry limit and my only 'what if' is to bring forward the 6 pounder gun which is quite achievable and to urge production of more force multiplying tank transporters.

The 6 pounder HE round was certaily inferior to the French 75mm type but was still effective against anti tank guns, US army 6 ponder gunners used to try to get HE rounds from their British counterparts they were not issued to US guns.

Without the OTL desire to avoid breaking Cromwell hull production, we can postulate a 1944 larger Comet type vehicle, Meteor engined with a 3 man 17 pounder turret and sloping glacis. Essentially a Centurion but in time for D day


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2012)

Hi, SR6,
How thick the armor for your machine?



parsifal said:


> One thing I would argue. in tanks vs tank engagement, the 2pounder armed brit tanks were equal or superior to the equivalent early war Axis AFVs.
> 
> Where the Brit tanks fell down badly was in HE capability. This enabled many tanks to be knocked out by long range AT fire (both 50mm and 88mm) with relative ease.
> 
> Which makes me think that even if the brits had disrupted their production lines, and opted for a revised tank with saay a 6pdr gun, it would have made not a great deal of difference, except that fewer brit tanks would have been available. I have the strong suspicion that we would be lamenting the shortage of numbers in this alternative scenario, and how a few more tanks of simpler easier design might have made the difference. in other words, be careful what you wish for.



Agree with AP capability of the 2pdr, it was fine to deal with any tanks axis was deploying in 1940, and for almost all the tanks Italians Japanese were fielding years later. With HE shell available from day one, much of the criticism would've never emerged.The retention of the 2pdr at the mainstay of the tank guns to almost 1943 is hard to comprehend.

As far as weapon goes, Brits have pre-war 3pdr, then the 2pdr and 3,7in howitzer, with 3in howitzer and 6pdr in pipeline - it does not seem like a ruthless standardization. The proposal at my liking is the one by T. Williams - a gun based upon the dimensions of the 57mm cannon that was used in ww1, but manufactured by the technological standards of the 1930s, so the new gun would be roughly comparable with german 5cm/L42. As the plan B, in case the 'new 57mm' encounters issues, the 47mm cannon can be installed. Another choice might be the Czech 47mm, 50% more HE, and we can tackle the later Pz-IIIs/IVs better.

If we take a look at how many substantially different tank designs UK serially produced from 1935-40, not even the Soviets were that prolific. Perhaps it was historically the case that too many designs (many being partial or total flops) were hampering war performance of them?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 16, 2012)

Keeping the Vickers slow motion suspension is not going to save enough weight to turn either the AEC or GMC engines into creditable engines for a standard tank unless you use two of them, hardly a savings in cost, space or weight. 

A "standard" tank needs to be able to engage all types of targets, not just other tanks. This was a major failing of the early British tanks. They had to rely on the MG/s for all targets that were not armored ( yes they fired 2pdr AP shot for morale effect.) this might have been a bit more successful if they had had more ammo on board for the MG/s. While th eroded hull guns on the US tanks were useless the storage for 6,000 rounds or so of MG ammo meant that a few tanks could put out a lot of covering fire for the infantry or suppressive fire without using the main gun. An up gunned Valentine, if it even had a MG, carried seven 225 round belts, at just 225 rounds a minute ( well under the cycle rate of the gun) that is just seven minutes worth of fire. 
Vision from closed down British tanks was just plain bad. Some other counties had tanks as bad but that really isn't a good excuse. There is one story of an attack using Valentines on a defended position and three Valentines would up onto of each other in a ditch. The following tanks could not see where the tanks before it had gone. 
The tank commander needs to have at least some situational awareness and a single periscope and a couple of vision slots in the sides of the turret do not cut it. If the commander. Is acting as the loader that just makes things worse. 
The Commander needs to be looking one or two targets ahead, spotting the fall of shot, looking for threats to the sides and trying to co-ordinate with the either tanks in his unit. ( not get to far ahead or behind). If the tank commander is also a platoon or company commander his duties are that much more complicated. 
Please note that the Germans did a major refit to the Panzer II after the battle of France to fit many of the existing tanks with a cupola with 6 vision blocks replacing the split hatch and periscope of the MK IIs used in France and this is on a one man turret. All German tanks bigger than a MK II had some sort of cupola for the tank commander. 
Luxury or did it allow their tank commanders to fight their tanks more effectively? 
British threw away the advantage of the cupolas on the Matilda II and A13 cruisers and went for the low profile lozenge turret with rear 1/3-1/2 of the turret roof forming a giant hatch that rose a bit and slid rearward ( well it beat the early T-34 two man hatch that folded forward but obscured the tank commanders vision to the front unless he climbed half way out of the tank. That's not saying much.)

I think the British could have done much better in the cruiser series if they had skipped the Covenanter while is still on paper and gone straight for the Crusader only with a slopped front end ( ditch the stupid bow machine gun turret) and a bit bigger turret with a cupola. Keep the 2pdr to keep things simple to start but give it HE ammo. Armor should have been 50mm basis on the front and 30-40mm on the sides. That is to say the armor should provide the protection of a vertical 50mm plate or 30mm or 40mm plate. A 20mm plate sloped at 60^ from the vertical will weigh what a 40mm plate will for the same height but will offer increased protection. 

Going for a Kestrel/Peregrine tank engine would make things much better but may be too much to ask for.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 16, 2012)

Thanks for the assessment 



> Going for a Kestrel/Peregrine tank engine would make things much better but may be too much to ask for.



Why do you think so?


----------



## PJay (Apr 16, 2012)

How about 'turretless' designs? OK you lose some tactical flexibility but more armour, bigger guns and more ammo?


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 16, 2012)

I know little of Armour but see nothing mentioned of the Ram tank built in Canada using a M3 Chassis but a lower profile turret


----------



## yulzari (Apr 17, 2012)

The Ram had much merit but was not a 1940 machine. It was curiously popular 2nd hand post war though.

1940's technology turretless designs suffer from the German 'assault gun' title. They are first class mobile anti tank guns but not suitable for assaulting. Against tanks and anti tank guns they are unable meet and return fire other than from the frontal arc and, for the same reason, cannot readily support infantry with HE fire. Now 1960's S-Tank technology is another matter. Wouldn't it be good to combine that in 1940 with an almost equally out of period Mollins auto 6 pounder!

I am open minded about better cupolas on Valentines but fear raising the height too much.

I think correspondents here each have a different philosophy on the possibilities and swapping technical numbers will not change these. Mine is simply to stick to something we know will work and to approach it from an industrial point of view(ie make lots of something just adequate). 

HE weaknesses in my Valentine were the reason for my 6 pounder gun (or Tony Williams'). Certainly a 3 man turret is far better than a 2 but 2 did work and you can get 3 into a Valentine turret ring (see Crusader, AEC and Matilda II 6 pounder turrets). As for speed, I am not sure this is as important as others do, but ungoverned Valentines could (and did) run at a reliable road speed of about 30 kmh which is much the same as early PzIII or IV. 

The opposite approach is to seek the best technical device which became the German one and left the PzIV still making up much of the numbers in 1945. The best drove out the good. The consensus is that the Germans would have been better off if they had either stuck with purely PzIV or moved on entirely to PzV. Like the British they played around with too many alternatives. The Russian's and American's T34 and Shermans could be criticised but they went for huge amounts of them as a standard item. For the British and Commonwealth forces in 1940 what I believe was needed was quantity production of a single tank type that works. For my money the Valentine answers this, even if it could be better in various ways.

Incidentally, the Kestrel was out of production long before 1940 and Miles had to search around for as many as possible for Master trainers until they had to move on to Mercuries. The Peregrine was a dead duck in 1939, only being made to use up Whirlwind production. The Rover Meteor took until 1943 to get going and 1944 in quantity (even then having to re use old Merlins to keep production going.)

The AEC was a sound engine but low power (130-160 bhp). The GMC replacement went up to 210 bhp. The situation was that UK did not make large enough lorries to have a bigger simple 6 cylinder engine but USA and Canada did so that is what went into Canadian then UK Valentine production. Australia and India(?) also had such engines and there is no reason why they could not also have made 200+bhp Valentines. India certainly had the railway industrial capacity to make Valentines.

As a last piece, I had cause to speak with someone whose father was a Russian tank commander 1943-45 in Valentines and Shermans. He allegedly much preferred the Valentine because you could hide it. He compared it to infantry and cavalry. If an infantry soldier is shot at he can lie down. The cavalryman is stuck 1 metre up in the air.

For those that differ from my take on the original question; I readily acknowledge that you can postulate a better tank than a Valentine, but do you know if you can make it in quantity and in time using the actually available industry?


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2012)

A couple of comments. The turret less design is a way of getting a bigger gun onto a chassis than the chassis could fit if you used a turret ring. Increase in armor is marginal if you keep the same weight as the original tank. Increase in ammo is an illusion. You have less interior volume with a bigger breech mechanism. German and allied turret less designs also carried very little machine gun ammo. Some German turret less designs carried a single MG34/42 ford from an open hatch or over the wall of the open superstructure. Ammo capacity was "officially" 600 rounds in many cases. What the crews really carried I don't know but even 750-900 rounds is a far cry from the 2500-6000 rounds the medium tanks were carrying. 
Tank machine guns varied enormously in capability. Fixed guns like the US tried in the M3 Stuarts and the grants/ early Shermans were just about useless. Bow machine guns were better but not really worth the room they took up. A heavy barreled medium MG that was belt feed and mounted in a power turret and aimed with a telescope is worth how much compared to a similar gun on a tripod aimed with open sights? The tanks with the higher ammo capacities were carrying enough ammo that it would take 10-12 ammo bearers, a hand cart or small motor vehicle to carry the same ammo.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 17, 2012)

pbfoot said:


> I know little of Armour but see nothing mentioned of the Ram tank built in Canada using a M3 Chassis but a lower profile turret



It wasn't a bad tank but it is a bit late in timing and it would never have been accepted by the British pre-war as it is way too large to fit the British railway gauge. The British railway loading gauge governed not only height but width. 
The Ram was also heavier than the British desired at the time and required an engine of 340-400hp which also was not available. It is this lack of an available 340-400 HP engine that drove the British to both the Meadows and Bedford flat 12s and the decision to build the Liberty engine. Rams were powered by a Wright Whirlwind aircraft engine made under license by Continental.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 17, 2012)

yulzari said:


> The Ram had much merit but was not a 1940 machine. It was curiously popular 2nd hand post war though.



Yep, it's does not fit in this time line.



> 1940's technology turretless designs suffer from the German 'assault gun' title. They are first class mobile anti tank guns but not suitable for assaulting. Against tanks and anti tank guns they are unable meet and return fire other than from the frontal arc and, for the same reason, cannot readily support infantry with HE fire. Now 1960's S-Tank technology is another matter. Wouldn't it be good to combine that in 1940 with an almost equally out of period Mollins auto 6 pounder!



1940 Stug-III is 1st and foremost an assault gun that would provide infantry with, mostly, direct fire support. Sure enough, if an unsuspecting tank finds himself in cross hairs, it would be targeted, too. As for the angles to meet the fire, that would be 360; in order to return fire the whole vehicle slews into a general direction of the target, the gunner making fine aiming. No point to mention here the S-tank, other as the spiritual successor of the StuG idea.



> I am open minded about better cupolas on Valentines but fear raising the height too much.
> 
> I think correspondents here each have a different philosophy on the possibilities and swapping technical numbers will not change these. Mine is simply to stick to something we know will work and to approach it from an industrial point of view(ie make lots of something just adequate).



My approach is similar - a Cromwell, using the bits pieces that were available, or feasible prior 1940 (gun, engine).



> HE weaknesses in my Valentine were the reason for my 6 pounder gun (or Tony Williams'). Certainly a 3 man turret is far better than a 2 but 2 did work and you can get 3 into a Valentine turret ring (see Crusader, AEC and Matilda II 6 pounder turrets). As for speed, I am not sure this is as important as others do, but ungoverned Valentines could (and did) run at a reliable road speed of about 30 kmh which is much the same as early PzIII or IV.



How well 2 man turret worked? The 2 men are never as efficient as 3 in turret, the ammo count for 6pdr was down on 53 rounds, the MG installation was nothing to brag about. Sticking another crew member further cuts ammo count by large margin. I don't know of any Crusader 3 man turret that was featuring 6pdr, care to elaborate on this? AEC was a wider vehicle, the mid hull unobstructed by tracks allow for far wider turrets. Matilda featured sponsons, and the 6pdr turret was mounted on reworked upper hull (possible via the presence of the sponsons). How much the speed was important? All the major tank producers were settling at 50-60 km/h tanks in ww2, so even 30 km/h still dictates a separate Cruiser tank design to be built. 



> The opposite approach is to seek the best technical device which became the German one and left the PzIV still making up much of the numbers in 1945. The best drove out the good. The consensus is that the Germans would have been better off if they had either stuck with purely PzIV or moved on entirely to PzV. Like the British they played around with too many alternatives. The Russian's and American's T34 and Shermans could be criticised but they went for huge amounts of them as a standard item. For the British and Commonwealth forces in 1940 what I believe was needed was quantity production of a single tank type that works. For my money the Valentine answers this, even if it could be better in various ways.



I'm not aware of the 'consensus', maybe there is not any? Perhaps the Germans needed, from 1943 on, a tank that is better than Pz-IV, yet simpler, lighter (maybe a better all-rounder, too) than Panther. No such beast for them; the Germans played around with too few alternatives IMO. But the British were really prolific re. number of designs.
I agree that for the British it would be the best to produce a single tank that would be produced for both 'I' and 'C' purposes, while being as good team player as the Pz-III/IV. The Valentine does NOT fit the bill. 



> Incidentally, the Kestrel was out of production long before 1940 and Miles had to search around for as many as possible for Master trainers until they had to move on to Mercuries. The Peregrine was a dead duck in 1939, only being made to use up Whirlwind production. The Rover Meteor took until 1943 to get going and 1944 in quantity (even then having to re use old Merlins to keep production going.)



Future (for mid 30s) phasing out the Kestrel as the aircraft engine in production plays into the hands of the tank design production. Instead of licence-built Liberty, go for the Kestrel and British have the the most powerful engine (out of the USSR); the second hand examples are possibility to sped up the initial tank production testing. We won't bother with Peregrine, while choosing of Merlin in, say, 1938, as a tank engine seem so tempting 



> The AEC was a sound engine but low power (130-160 bhp). The GMC replacement went up to 210 bhp. The situation was that UK did not make large enough lorries to have a bigger simple 6 cylinder engine but USA and Canada did so that is what went into Canadian then UK Valentine production. Australia and India(?) also had such engines and there is no reason why they could not also have made 200+bhp Valentines. India certainly had the railway industrial capacity to make Valentines.



Canada and Australia were gearing towards production of the 30 ton tanks (Ram, Sentinel), so I'd say they judged their industry to be capable enough. 



> As a last piece, I had cause to speak with someone whose father was a Russian tank commander 1943-45 in Valentines and Shermans. He allegedly much preferred the Valentine because you could hide it. He compared it to infantry and cavalry. If an infantry soldier is shot at he can lie down. The cavalryman is stuck 1 metre up in the air.



No disrespect to the old soldier. But, what it's good for him (ability to hide well), might not be what is good for the army (make a good maneuver, attack defeat the enemy either directly or by supporting other units etc).
The small profile (and the good armor) was a direct benefit of the tank based on small engine, cannon, general capabilities. If one wants a decent gun, decent speed armor, plenty of ammo fuel, the tank is no more a small one, but it grows. 



> For those that differ from my take on the original question; I readily acknowledge that you can postulate a better tank than a Valentine, but do you know if you can make it in quantity and in time using the actually available industry?



Really expecting an answer to that kind of a question?


----------

