- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Tanks were sort of the same situation. Not enough money soon enough.
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.
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.
.The heavy gun 'position' was a glaring weakness of British army during the 1st part of the war, agreed
Well, the MK II was a bit larger tank than the British light tanks.
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.
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.
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.
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.