Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I presented that Valentine as an easy improvement not a perfect one.Citing the Valentine as perfectly serviceable tank for 4 years is both setting the bar very low and showing how bad the rest of the British tanks were and how faulty their doctrine was.
Good thing the Valentine is cheap because you need more of them. But needed to build more runs the total cost back up.
They were slow and at times could not flank the Germans in NA. They also could not avoid being flanked (or had to depend on other, faster tanks to do the flanking maneuvers)
Valentines, like a number of other British tanks, had very poor vision when locked down. And the 2 man turret versions suffered from this. Once you start shooting the commander was loader and if he pops his head out, he isn't loading the gun.
Valentines had limited ammo capacity. And with the bigger guns it was not only main gun ammo but machine gun ammo. I don't know were the sweet spot is but under 2000 rounds of co-ax gun ammo was not it. British Challenger tanks in Iraq went through over 4000 rounds of co-ax ammo in some engagements and had to withdraw. They were using the co-ax guns to suppress anti-tank missile teams and RPG teams. The need for decent co-ax guns and large ammo supply has not gone away.
Not buying 2pdr HE ammo for over 3 years was just stupid.
Not buying 6pdr HE ammo in quantity was also stupid. In 1942 they manufactured 2.5 million AP rounds and only 396,000 HE rounds. How many they issued?
One wonders how many German 50mm HE rounds were built and fired off in 1942?
German tanks had a better chance of success because the commander could see better. Both closed down and unbuttoned.
The British had jumped right over the 20-25mph speed range and either built somewhat reliable tanks that topped out 15mph or unreliable tanks that went 27-31mph.
The Germans built two different classes of 20-25 ton tanks but they were both 'universal' tanks. The MK III was supposed to handle just about everything and got smoke and HE support from the MK IV, but they were supposed to go the same speed and cross the same obstacles (or close) so they could support each other.
The British built too many different tanks that operated at different speeds and had different obstacle capabilities.
The British could have done a lot better than they did. There are reasons that there are books about "The Great Tank Scandal".
The British should not have to wait for the Merlin to get a tank that could beat the MK III & IV.
Artillery is probably the least sexy military hardware to discussBritain did not have enough money/resources to get even most of what they wanted.
the BEF in France had only the above mentioned 13 6in guns and
13 8in howitzers (12 active and 1 spare) 10,430 meter range.
16 60pdr (5in) guns with 3 spares. 13,800 meters.
176 6in Howitzers with 45 in reserve. 10,430 meters range.
after that they were down to the 18/25lbs and 4.5in Howitzers (6040 meters).
Long range may have been in the British Army's vocabulary but it was not in the Army's capability and it would not be for several years.
The British 4.5in guns were not that great even when they showed up. (Cheap shells with low HE, what a surprise)
The 5.5in guns don't show up until 1942.
Here we run into several problems. There were actually at least two different 18pdr guns. They used the same ammo (sort of) and things get complicated by several different carriages before we even get into rubber tires. Most of the 18pdrs built during WW I were worn out, destroyed, blown up by the end. The old pole carriage guns should have been retired. The 16 degrees of elevation restricted the range to 5,966 m unless the the crew dug a pit to hold the trail. Range went to 7,100 m. Problems with trying to use these old guns for sp guns is that you can keep the barrel and breech but you need to throw away everything else. 9 degrees of traverse and having to keep a chunk of the old axle was a major problem. So was the meter of recoil when they fired. The later guns (MK III & IV) got variable recoil and higher elevation and the IV had trails that spread and had much greater traverse.Both the 18 and 25 pdr can get an additional level of usability as the weapon of an SP artillery system. Granted, a suitable doctrine is needed here.
Mostly covered above for the small guns.To me, it seems like the British were keen to switch the calibres across the board, leaving a lot of overlap in the process. Combine it with the late start with the modernization program of artillery, as well as the long drawn-out introduction of the 'proper' 25 pounder, and their artillery park of 1940 looked a lot like that of 1918.
Well, there were two distinctly different 60pdr although they could share ammo, mostly. The older 60pdr (1904-5) had limited elevation and limited traverse and had a pair of recoil cylinder on top of the barrel. The 1918 gun was pretty much brand new but would fire the old shells. But since these were peace time guns (war had ended before production geared up) there were not all that many and since 76 (all the carriages that were deemed suitable) of them were converted with new barrels to form the 4.5in MK I it would seem the British were trying to get more mileage out of them.I'd try and get better mileage from the 60 pdr before embarking on something bigger, and forget the 4.5in cannon.
I am not sure quite what the thinking was behind the 5.5 in except that the 5.5in could fire a 100lb/44.5kg shell at 1675fps for 16,200yds range and the 4.5 in barrel would fit on the same carriage and recoil system for a 55lb shell at 2250fps and 20,500yds range. They even used the same breech mechanism.As a next step, I don't see the niche for opting for an all-new caliber that 5.5 in was, so I'd suggest simply continuing with the 6in route, but with a new gun, that can again be reasonably light, while offering the range in-between the 6in howitzer and cannon, or perhaps tad better than the 15cm sFh18.
The new 6in gun and the 60 pdr cannon might have shared the carriage.
Why?What of the thousands of 12 inch shells from the early dreadnoughts? Could these be modified for use as AP bombs?
As a next step, I don't see the niche for opting for an all-new caliber that 5.5 in was, so I'd suggest simply continuing with the 6in route, but with a new gun, that can again be reasonably light, while offering the range in-between the 6in howitzer and cannon, or perhaps tad better than the 15cm sFh18.
OK 5 reasons the British would not do that.Instead of developing the 5.5", they could have adopted the French 155mm system, like the US already had.
US in a strange position in 1918-1919. They had a lot of factories tooled up to make assorted French and British guns and ammo. And not much tooling for anything of their own.Make a howitzer similar to the US M1, and a long range cannon like the US Long Tom, firing the same shells.
Kind of out the era and requires tremendous foresight.As a bonus, this would have given them a heavy artillery park of the right caliber once NATO standardized on 155mm post war.
This may not have been quite as simple as it appears. Or maybe it is?Make a howitzer similar to the US M1, and a long range cannon like the US Long Tom, firing the same shells.
You are referring to the Spitfire MkIII, which did not reach service. The Merlins 32/45/55 were ugly compromises to get the new impeller into action against the Germans ASAP. The Spitfire MkVs and all the Merlin Seafires had single speed superchargers.Merlin XX fitted on the Spitfires, too.
In 1940.
Panic was due to the Bf 109E having a 30-40 mph advantage over the Hurricane, thus Hurricane with Merlin XX. Merlin 45 inherited the impeller from the Mk.X (slightly improved vs. what the previous marks had) and elbow intake from the Merlin XX (much improved
Yes.
Spitfire III prototypes started their lives on the production lines as Spitfire I, and were tsken away as unfinished aircraft from there to be modified to the Mk.III standard, that included the installation of the Merlin XX in the nose.You are referring to the Spitfire MkIII, which did not reach service.
The Merlins 32/45/55 were ugly compromises to get the new impeller into action against the Germans ASAP.
The Spitfire MkVs and all the Merlin Seafires had single speed superchargers.
The earliest I know of is the article in the 'L'Aeronautique' from Dec 1938. Do you know where it was mentioned earlier?Possibly the British could have picked up on Szydlowski's and Planiol's work on the swirl throttle supercharger, which was mentionned as early as 1936 in the French press.
Louis de Monge, Deux années de progrès technique, L'aéro, 11-12-36, p.5 and M. Victor, Un compresseur à haut rendement, Les Ailes, 11-11-37, p. 8 discuss it.The earliest I know of is the article in the 'L'Aeronautique' from Dec 1938. Do you know where it was mentioned earlier?
Rolls Royce were due to make the swirl throttle as an update addition to the post war BRM V16 Formula One car but the supercharged 1,500cc for,Ila fell into disuse before it was tried out. The purpose was to cope with the use of a centrifugal supercharger which, with its conventional throttle, had the power and torque climb exponentially as the revs went up which was hard to control. A gentle bit more throttle and suddenly you get twice the power………Possibly the British could have picked up on Szydlowski's and Planiol's work on the swirl throttle supercharger, which was mentionned as early as 1936 in the French press. This would allow further optimization of the single speed superchargers to improve low altitude performance without sacrificing high altitude power, or to have even higher altitude versions.
On the 2-speed ones, the benefit would be smaller but not insignificant.
OK 5 reasons the British would not do that.
1. It's French
2. It's French!
3. It's French!!!
4. Not invented here
5. It's French!!!!
Heavy artillery is/was expensive and long lasting (or rebuildable) and caliber change was not taken lightly.
Kind of out the era and requires tremendous foresight.
The 5.5 stayed in British service, at least with the territorial army, until 1980.
Granted the British just adopted (were given? reduce prices?) the 155mm US guns for the Forces stationed in Europe.
The 5.5 was used in Korea, South Arabia and Borneo by the British. It lasted a lot longer in some ex colonies. A few showed up 1999 with the Pakistani forces fighting India in Kashmir.
Not too shabby for 50 year old guns.
Again this speaks to the longevity of many artillery systems/calibers.
And then we get to the tanks. The tanks, as we know, had no HE of any substance. Two tanks out of 16 that were mostly smoke filled are not HE support.
The rest of the world accepted, even if they didn't like it, 37mm-47mm HE shells fired out of tanks/AT/infantry guns. Only the British adapted the NO HE policy.
Note that the adoption of the US 105mm Howitzers (M 7 Priests) upped the HE support somewhat. A US 105 howitzer shell held 2.66 times the amount of HE that the 25pder did. That is an extreme cases but it does show that were large differences in even common guns. Now start figuring in supply and things get a lot more complicated.
Louis de Monge, Deux années de progrès technique, L'aéro, 11-12-36, p.5 and M. Victor, Un compresseur à haut rendement, Les Ailes, 11-11-37, p. 8 discuss it.
First source directly below, second one on this link :Les Ailes : journal hebdomadaire de la locomotion aérienne / directeur, rédacteur en chef, Georges Houard | 1937-11-11 | Gallica
The first source just says that after 8 years of research, Szydlowski-Planiol obtained a high performance supercharger which could do 80k rpms instead of 25k rpm of normal SCs of the day. The 1937 article is quite detailed.
At high altitude in thin air you have to to move a lot of volume of air to actually move mass/weight needed to make big power.