January 1936: British army, you run the show

[tomo pauk]

Thanks for the diagram

Tanks were sort of the same situation. Not enough money soon enough.

Indeed. Hence the modestly-sized tanks need to be ordered 1st, they will be cheaper, and can use commercial engines. Going for maybe 15-17 ton infantry tank, and 13-14 ton cruiser tank?
Once there is a requirement (and the money) for more capable tanks, we can go for 27-30 ton tank ('stead of Matilda II) that will use either Kestrel or Lion, and 20-23 ton tank that can use Liberty engine?

Back to the size limitations - the tanks' hulls need to feature sponsons (Matilda II have those, for example), so a wider turret ring can be engineered. The gun mantlet need to be of 'external' type, rather than of 'internal' type, so a more powerful gun can be installed for a given turret ring.

What about the Vickers 6-ton tank? No that it was a wonder tank, but it is a small and off-the-shelf design, so it will cost less money and time to bulk up the tank units strength.

 

[parsifal]

A glaring omission in the small arms area that was not sue to financial constraints, was the almost criminal refusal to allow wholesale adoption of tha SMG as an adjunct to squad firepower. The British Army was real;ly lacking in SMGs until well into 1942. It didnt have to be that way.

Amother thing they should have reconsidered is not selling their surplus horses to the Germans in the 1930s. The heer wasa very quick to use these beasts to provide transport for many of their own divisions.

 

[tomo pauk]

Interesting - do you have more info re. how much horses the UK sold to the Germans, price etc?

 

[Shortround6]

The British had looked at the 6 ton tank but didn't like it, although they did buy a dozen chassis to use as gun tractors.

The Lion is a problematic engine as it is both wide and tall although a bit shorter than a V-12. From Wiki;

Length: 57.5 in (1460 mm)
Width: 42.0 in (1067 mm)
Height: 43.5 in (1105 mm)
Dry weight: 960 lb (435 kg)


The Liberty used a 45 degree angle between the banks and so was a few inches narrower than most big V-12s. wiki;

Length: 67.375 in (1,711 mm)
Width: 27 in (685.80 mm)
Height: 41.5 in (1,054.10 mm)
Dry weight: 845 lb (383.3 kg)

R-R Kestrel

Length: 74.61 in (1,895 mm)
Width: 24.41 in (620 mm)
Height: 35.63 in (905 mm)
Dry weight: 957 lb (434 kg)

Length of engines is dependent on reduction gears and supercharger (if fitted) and is probably the most easily accommodated dimension.

Wiki claims the Covenanter had to move the radiators to the front because the flat 12 Meadows took so much width that the radiators could not be placed along side the engine. Don't know if it is true but sounds plausible.
Have seen a picture of the Liberty in a Crusader chassis with a mechanic/worker on each side with legs inside between engine and hull walls.

commercial engines, while cheap, may not be available in large numbers without a fair amount of work. Another article on Wiki says the Meadows company had about 2,000 employees at some point near the beginning of the war but was making about 40 different types of engines. This ranged from small engines powering generator sets to small car/truck engines to the large truck engines. Meadows did make " a flat-12 type-MAT/1 engine of 8858cc for military applications including the Tetrach Light Tank. Later they built a 16litre 300 bhp flat-12 type-DAV petrol engine used in the Covenanter tank[2]" So perhaps they could have expanded sooner to make more large 6 cylinder truck engines or built a V-12 instead of a flat 12 if instructed to do so.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Lion was considerably narrower than the twinned engine used in the Matilda (~1070 vs. 1470 mm), while not much higher (1105 vs. 950 mm). Also narrower than the Bedford twin-6, but, again higher. It should be also of much more modest dimensions than the Chrysler Multibank and GMC twinned 6046.
The shorter engine directly means that one can have a shorter tank (British tanks, as most others, used longitudinal engine placement) - either better protected for same weight, or lighter for same protection. Granted, the Kestrel without supercharger and reduction gear should've loose some length - seems like the Meteor (no S/C, no reduction gear) was only 1470 mm long? The Lion II should also shave some length without the reduction gear.

FWIW (please open in a separate tab):

 

[fastmongrel]

Get Vickers building the Valentine a year earlier. It was a simple mostly off the shelf design but an armoured division of them in France would have meant a nasty time for the Panzers.

Whatever you do I feel it means boat loads of shiny new expensive kit gets left in France. Britian needed to spend more money on its Navy and Airforce a shiny new tank or heavy gun means fewer Spits/Hurris or fewer Destroyers.

 

[Shortround6]

It all depends what you want to put it in. The Shermans with the twin diesels and Chrysler multi-banks were lengthened about a foot (300mm , this is from memory so...) over the aircooled radial engine hulls so you can't re-engine an air cooled tank with a different engine set up without a lot of work.

For British tanks the A9-A10 used a rather boat shaped hull with the suspension bolted to the outside. Granted their inline 6s didn't take up much width. The A-13s, Crusader and the Cromwell series all used a Christie suspension with rather large coil spring units between double walls of the hull. This made the interior of the tank a bit smaller than it might first appear. While the Matlida was a small tank despite it weight ( or because of it?) it's suspension was bolted to the hull sides and pretty much contained with the width of the tracks rather than being inboard of the tracks. This gave more hull volume of the same or similar width.

If you haven't seen them there is a nice series of videos on tanks by "the Chieftain" AKA Nicholas Moran. 2 to 4 8min videos per tank, He goes over a lot of the tank from the user's (crewmans) view.

Lead video for the Matilda; http://video.search.yahoo.com/video...n&vid=da62a03632221f48b6428918f7d28bb1&l=8:09

 

[Shortround6]

Get Vickers building the Valentine a year earlier. It was a simple mostly off the shelf design but an armoured division of them in France would have meant a nasty time for the Panzers.

Whatever you do I feel it means boat loads of shiny new expensive kit gets left in France. Britian needed to spend more money on its Navy and Airforce a shiny new tank or heavy gun means fewer Spits/Hurris or fewer Destroyers.

Well, that is what they did and while it kept England from being invaded in 1940, it meant the Army struggled and lost a lot of men in many of the other theaters after that due to poor equipment and tactics. NOTHING you gave the British BEF in France would have saved France.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm sure nobody wants to gold-plate the British army, though in many cases there was more bang for buck available than it was historically so.
What about the 'CS' tanks, armed with howitzers? Granted, since the 'regular' tanks would get the HE shells, there is less need for those? Or maybe insist that CS tanks carry much more HE shells, rather than smoke? How true is a repeted rumor that delivery of HE shells was a domain of Royal artillery, rather than of Royal tank corps?

 

[Shortround6]

I don't know how true it was or how untrue. After the war the people responsible for such stupid decisions certainly weren't highlighting them in their memoirs

However according to this site : WWII Equipment.com

and then 2 Pounder Anti-Tank Gun

Show that no HE rounds were manufactured until 1942 and then only 40,000. 474,000 HE shells were manufactures in 1943 and 304,000 in 1944 with none in 1945.
SO until sometime in 1942 the AT gunners didn't have them either. For perspective in 1942 they made 8,202,000 rounds of AP shot. 205 rounds of AP for every HE round.

The British tank "howitzers" were pretty light affairs (to fit in the 2pdr mounting) and fired light for their caliber rounds at very low velocities.

One book says the 3.7in CS mortar fired shells of about 15lbs at 620fps (189m/s), max range 2000yds and that HE was available. I have seen one source that 'claims' the load out for a CS tank with 40 rounds was 36 rounds smoke and 4 HE (that is assuming the the HE ever made it to the front line ammo depot).

The 3in howitzer that replaced it fired 10lb projectiles at 600-700fps, max range 2400yds and again HE is listed as available but there is no scale of issue.

The 95mm Howitzer used in the Centaur, Cromwell and Churchill fired 25lb HE shells at 1075fps and had a max range of 6,000yds for comparison. Of course it fitted into the mounts for a 6pd gun.

BTW the production totals for the 6pdr show He ammunition being produced to the amount of 396,000 in 1942, 1,865,000 in 1943, 286,000 in 1944 and 172,000 in 1945. How it was issued may be another story.

 

[tomo pauk]

Thanks again.

Interestingly enough, the Churchill tank (A22) was designed as 3.25 m wide vehicle, and that is already in 1940 - 30 cm wider than what was specified by the British railroads. The A20, specified prior the war, was also wider?

How about an AA gun next/on the commander's hatch? Some Valentines carried the Bren gun there, maybe because the 6pdr armed versions carried no coax gun?

 

[Shortround6]

Many British tanks were fitted for, or at least trialed for, Bren AA guns but the mounts were rather large and cumbersome, at least when NOT in use.

This site wont let me link pictures but here is the site. : Engines of the Red Army in WW2 - Bren Gun Mk.1 Light Machine Gun on Lakeman AA mount

There may have been other tank AA mounts. The British tended to stow the Guninside the tank rather than drive around with it outside.

the Mount for use in truck beds was called the Motley mounting.

 

[tomo pauk]

Interestingly enough, there is no mention of the Naval 3pdr Vickers in Tony Williams's table available here. The British also adopted, for the interwar tank use, a new cartridge, let's say a 'mid-power' 47 mm x 351R Vickers (560 m/s), despite the availability of a more powerful 47 mm x 376R Hotchkiss cartridge (650 m/s) for almost 50 years.

added: the powerful 47 mm x 411R Vickers was also available for some time

What to do with AFVs lighter than 10 tons? Meaning light tanks, transport vehicles etc? Any point to have a 20mm automatic installed on those, or 2-3 pdr to hit tanks, even if it would mean going for a limited traverse weapon, ie. not in turret? When is a good time for a SP artillery, and a bigger/better tank gun (3in?, 17pdr?) and/or such a tank itself?

 

[Shortround6]

A lot depends on your doctrine,

Get a decent tank, make in in numbers and you don't need a whole bunch of little tank destroyers running about that will be next to useless once the Germans shift to 30mm armor.

Few armies are polite enough to let your light armor engage their light armor while their medium/heavy armor engages your medium/heavy armor only.

See all the problems the US had trying to get the Germans to co-operate with the US tank destroyer doctrine

20mm weapons on light armor have a real problem with ammo storage which limits their use against infantry/soft targets (trucks). Do you want a 20mm with 200 rounds or a belt fed rifle caliber MG with 2,000 rounds? Which can support your ground troops for longer period of time?

SP artillery is good anytime, IF you can afford it. It's primary purpose though is to move from one firing position to another in support of the armor (which it can do much faster than towed artillery) and NOT to take part in the battle using direct fire.

But since money is a major problem, which is better, an SP 18/25pdr in 1940/41 or a decent 120-150mm howitzer (and shell) that is towed instead of the WW I left overs? The only made 177 5.5 in barrels in 1941 after NONE in 1940 (they had made 5 prototypes earlier) and while the 4.5in gun went into service earlier it was on left over carriages and the 4.5in shell was a pretty poor piece of work. For a 55lb shell it only contained 3.9lbs of explosive which is about the the worst ratio of any commonly used artillery piece in WW II and less than the US 105mm howitzer.
Also please note that the standard German 10.5cm howitzer (without muzzle brake and supercharge) could out range the British 6in 26cwt Howitzer by 275 yds (depending the state of wear of the guns involved). A bit to close to really call but if your opponents "light" divisional howitzers have the SAME range as your Corp artillery you DO have a problem.

If you are not aware of it this is an excellent site with much information about artillery use and how/why things worked they way they did. You might not agree with everything but it is by an ex- Royal artillery man and is the best site on the web I have come across and beats most books too.

Site Directory

 

[tomo pauk]

Agreed re. 20mm soon to be obsolete. It would be needed to be replaced, either by 40mm or, preferably by yours truly, by 47mm. BTW, the Pz-II carried both 180 rounds of 20mm and 2700 rounds for the MG. The LMG is ill able to take it on enemy ATG, unlike the 20mm.

SP artillery is good anytime, IF you can afford it. It's primary purpose though is to move from one firing position to another in support of the armor (which it can do much faster than towed artillery) and NOT to take part in the battle using direct fire.

I'd prefer to have the ww1 left overs installed on tracked chassis, it's task to engage in the indirect fire. The direct fire was the task for the CS tanks, that would be much more useful with predominant HE shells aboard, instead of Smoke shells.

But since money is a major problem, which is better, an SP 18/25pdr in 1940/41 or a decent 120-150mm howitzer (and shell) that is towed instead of the WW I left overs? The only made 177 5.5 in barrels in 1941 after NONE in 1940 (they had made 5 prototypes earlier) and while the 4.5in gun went into service earlier it was on left over carriages and the 4.5in shell was a pretty poor piece of work.

The heavy gun 'position' was a glaring weakness of British army during the 1st part of the war, agreed.

added: re. ammo carried: the Vickers light tank MK.VIB carried 400 rds for the .50 gun and 2500 rds for the .303

 

[Shortround6]

Well, the MK II was a bit larger tank than the British light tanks.

The WW I left overs make lousy weapons to try to mount on tracked chassis without some major modifications. The Sexton got around the traverse limits of the gun carriage by using a different mounting that allowed 25° left 15° right traverse instead of the 8° total you would get by bolting the towed gun carriage into an armoured box.

The vertical drum holding the gun turns.

You also have to mount the gun high enough off the 'floor' so the breech doesn't hit it when recoiling at high elevations. (solved on some 'older guns' by digging pits in the ground under the breech, not an option with a steel deck.)

Or limited elevation, solution used on the Bishop which limited max range of the 25pdr unless you parked it on hill sides or ranps

Bishop carried 32 round of ammo compared to the Sextons over 100.
The British didn't actually have the large number of 'small' Left over WW I artillery pieces that many people seem to think they had.

For example they only ever built 416 of the 13pdr cavalry guns and most of those were pre-WW I. Due to one gallant and heroic action the gun wound up being used for ceremonial purposes. Most were worn out, destroyed or scrapped during/after WW I. A few were mounted in pill boxes for anti-invasion duties and used for training but since most (all?) of the available ammo was of WW I manufacture nobody was in a hurry to use them in the front lines.

Btw, soldiers could break most anything if you gave them long enough.

For the 18pdr, while well over 10,000 were built most were hard used in WW I and of the survivors many were scrapped after WW I.

From Wiki so......" During World War II the 18 pdr was used by Territorial Army regiments in the British Expeditionary Force in 1940, where 216 guns were lost. This left the British Army with 126 guns in UK and 130 in the rest of the world, according to a stocktake in July 1940. 611 18-pounder were converted to 25-pounders before the war, and 829 during it."

Now please note the guns lost by the BEF in France would be the modern guns (split trail or box trail) and not the older pole trail guns.

Please remember that there were 3 different recoils systems and 3 major types of carriage with the last recoil system (cylinders below barrel) being used on two different carriage types , box trail and split trail. Most surviving pole carriage guns ( max elevation 16 degrees) would have been converted to the hydro-pneumatic recoil system.

Ranges from WIKI

6,525 yd (5,966 m)
Mk I II
7,800 yd (7,100 m)
with trail dug in
9,300 yd (8,500 m)
(Mk III, IV V)
11,100 yd (10,100 m)
(streamlined HE Shell Mk IC)

How useful an 18pdr was depended on which model it was (the MK IV and V used a different breech which increased the rate of fire) and the carriage it was mounted on. The vast majority of the late 18pdrs ( first went into action Nov 1918)
were the ones converted to 15pdrs. Leaving you with which ones for SP conversions?????

from Wiki on the 4.5in Howitzer; while 3359 had been built in WW I by WW II .... in France in 1940. 96 were lost, leaving 403 in world-wide service (only 82 outside UK) with the British Army, plus those held by Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. The British holdings were expected to increase to 561 by August 1940 due to completion of reconditioning and repairs. And without some sort of pivoting mount the gun carriage had 3 degrees of traverse each side and the gun had a max range of about 7,000 yds.

The heavy gun 'position' was a glaring weakness of British army during the 1st part of the war, agreed

.

They didn't need heavy guns, they had Lysanders

And that is where some of the money went.

 

[tomo pauk]

Well, the MK II was a bit larger tank than the British light tanks.

It was longer, since it employed a separate engine compartment, vs. the Vickers that have had the engine installed next to the driver. The Vickers' 400 HMG rds compare well to the Pz-II's 180 rds for the 20mm, volume-wise.

Or limited elevation, solution used on the Bishop which limited max range of the 25pdr unless you parked it on hill sides or ramps
Bishop carried 32 round of ammo compared to the Sextons over 100.
The British didn't actually have the large number of 'small' Left over WW I artillery pieces that many people seem to think they had.

Not suggesting the Bishop. The 'proper' SP arty need to have propulsion at the front, and gun at the back. Choosing out the smallest battle-worthy tank to be converted to a SPG does not sound like a well-thought decision either.
The early cruiser tank I've proposed earlier (13-14 tons) should have the 'Merkava' layout, so it is later easier to install a decent (25pdr or similar) gun on it, while still having good ammo supply and enough elbow room for the crew.

 

[parsifal]

For the 18pdr, while well over 10,000 were built most were hard used in WW I and of the survivors many were scrapped after WW I.

This does not add up. Admittedly i dont have information on the British Army, but for the Australian Army, in 1914 we had 116 18 pounders. From there until 1918, the inventory was increased to just over 500 guns. 216 were brought home, the remainder handed back to the British Army, who presumably scrapped them. 216 were still on hand in 1939 (some of the originals had been exchanged during the 20 year period), and they were retained in frontline service until 1945. We could not get enough of them, where their rugged construction made them very useful in rough terrain. In 1945, there were still over 100 in service. They were retained in the reserve park until the 1970's. Now there are none operational, and just 7 in the country. Money is currently being raised to restore one of them to working condition.

On the basis of those numbers, one has to question the Wiki figures. I suspect the numbers refer to refurbished guns, but it defies logiuc to suggest that only a couple of hundred remained in 1940. on the Australian experience, based on a proportional guesstimate, i would suggest total stocks might be around 4000.

 

[Shortround6]

It was longer, since it employed a separate engine compartment, vs. the Vickers that have had the engine installed next to the driver. The Vickers' 400 HMG rds compare well to the Pz-II's 180 rds for the 20mm, volume-wise.

From Tony Williams site:

Not suggesting the Bishop. The 'proper' SP arty need to have propulsion at the front, and gun at the back. Choosing out the smallest battle-worthy tank to be converted to a SPG does not sound like a well-thought decision either.
The early cruiser tank I've proposed earlier (13-14 tons) should have the 'Merkava' layout, so it is later easier to install a decent (25pdr or similar) gun on it, while still having good ammo supply and enough elbow room for the crew.

Not suggesting the Bishop either, just pointing out that trying to use odd bits and pieces sometimes doesn't work out well. Bishop used a 25pdr with good elevation and the installation limited it. Starting with a WW I left over that had poor elevation is also a limit as regardless of where you put the engine you still have the low elevation unless you build a new gun cradle and elevating arc. You also have a recoil problem. The Late 18lbs would recoil 48in when horizontal and slower change recoil as it was elevated until at full elevation it was recoiling 26in at 37 degrees elevation. The older guns recoiled 41in regardless of elevation so even IF you build a new cradle elevating arc the Breech may hit things (like the floor) at higher angles of elevation, You could build a new recoil system but at that point ALL you are saving is the barrel and breech mechanism.

The Merkava may not scale that well either, a Merkava is about 1.2 meters wider than an early Cruiser and it is not all track. A better 'model' may be the German MK II and the Wespe. In any case you may not get quite the tank you want if you try to adapt it too much for the SP gun role. 6 cylinder engine (and limited power) so drive can fit along side the engine ( so he has some forward/downward vision) or V-8/V-12 taking up the width of the hull with the driver behind with his head higher?

 

[tomo pauk]

I'd go for an in-line 6 cylinder engine, AEC 150 HP, as used on early Cruisers. Merkava has a V-12, that about doubles the width of the engine compartment required, and might push the tank's width above what British railways prescribed.

What about the SP AAA? Would the twin .50 Vickers be too weak? Maybe a twinned Besa 15mm, until the production of 20 and 40mm ramps up?

edit - seems your attachment does not work?