January 1936: British army, you run the show

[Shortround6]

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.

It may add up because of the 500 the Australians ended up with, very few of them might have been among the the 116 they started with. Of those 10,000 and some odd guns they fired over 99, million rounds on the western front alone. A very large number of the survivors in 1918/19 would need major overhauls.
The British had not been happy with the 18pdr even in 1913/14, it had been adopted Dec 24th 1904, and work was under way for improved model when the war started and sidelined everything. Production of the 'new' versions started in mid/late 1918 after a period of tinkering with design, with battery seeing action in Nov 1918.
Now in 1919 with the production lines already switched over (or in the process of switching) do you make enough 'new' guns to meet the post war needs and scrap the old guns (or most of them) or do you institute a massive overhaul and repair program for the obsolete model so you can place then in storage? Or do you make some new guns/carriages and pick just the newer (low shot count) good condition guns to go into storage and scrap the rest.
By 1918 the frantic firing of 1914/15 was over but in the early part of the war some guns were firing 500 rounds a day (in part to make up for a lack of heavy guns... hmm... sounds familiar) so it really didn't take many months before the tube might need relining even if the rest of the gun was in good shape. 18pdrs used fixed ammo and there was only one service charge. No reduced loads for a large percentage of it's shots.
Many of the early guns broke their recoil springs, hundreds were blown up by defective ammunition, let alone enemy action and 'normal' wear and tear.

 

[Shortround6]

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?

You mean like this?

View attachment 275927

Four 7.9mm Besas

British did use 20mm guns mounted on trucks for AA work. And later 40mm guns mounted on trucks.

 

[tomo pauk]

Is there any good information how well the quadruple Besa worked vs. Axis planes?

BTW - was the 7.92mm Besa really needed? We read so much that UK have had huge stocks of the .303 ammo in warehouses, so no new ammo and gun were envisioned? Why not adopt the .303 Browning to the task? I know that Royal tank corps have had a separate supply system vs. British army, but how much there is sense for that?

 

[Shortround6]

They wanted to get rid of the Vickers gun and it's water cooling. And it's ability to jam in about 27 different ways. In the open, on a tripod, the majority of jams were minor and easily cleared and the Vickers rarely actually broke a part. But in the confines of a tank turret, or those ridiculous little one man bow/hull MG turrets, clearing the jams might be more difficult.

Since in some respects the MG was the primary armament of the tank with 2pdr being secondary (A Matilda carried more ammo for it's one gun than a Spitfire II did for 8 ) Having a really good MG was important. The BESA was a good tank gun, I don't know if it was enough better than a 1919 Browning to make the ammo problem of minor importance or not.
The BESA used a combination of gas and recoil operation and fired as the barrel was still moving forward which absorbed some of the recoil. Early versions also had an internal spring buffer mounted on lever that could be swung in and out of position to vary the rate of fire.

These turrets and tanks were developed after the Battle for France and pretty much only saw action in North Africa.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hmm - since the Vickers light tanks historically formed the bulk of RAC/RTC (?) before 1941, we might as well outfit them with either 4 LMGs from the start (say, 2 one atop of each other, a pair on each side of the turret), with option to fire either all in the same time, or in pairs (to save ammo), and/or go with a more convenient location for the .50 Vickers. Either way we have a far better infantry killer, we can do a better job of suppressing the enemy ATG, and should double as SP AA.

Related to the thread - the paper on APSV ammo, among other. In German, but schematics and tables are worth it. The Swiss were using it post war, with good results (penetration upped by factor 1.7 approx.), until something better was on the table: link

A question: from what book this might be (open the pic separately for hi res):

 

[gjs238]

This just seems crazy:

From Wikipedia:
Although Britain's armed forces used the .303 in rimmed round for rifles and machine guns, the ZB-53 had been designed for the German 7.92 x 57mm Mauser round - referred to by the British as the 7.92mm. Although it had been intended for the British to move from rimmed to rimless ammunition generally, with war imminent wholesale change was not possible. It was considered by BSA and the Ministry of Supply that the industrial, technical, and logistical difficulty of converting the design to the .303 round would be more onerous than retaining the original calibre, especially given that the chain of supply for the Royal Armoured Corps was already separate from the other fighting arms of the British Army. As a consequence, the round was not changed for British production. Since the Besa used the same ammunition as Germany used in its rifles and machine guns, the British could use stocks of captured enemy ammunition.
The Mark II version entered production in 1940. It was modified with a selector to give high (around 800 rounds per minute) or low (around 500) rates of fire. As the war progressed the design was modified to be more rapidly and economically produced, resulting in the Mark III version. This came as either an "L" (for low) or "H" (high) firing rate models.[1] While American-produced armoured cars or tanks would have been fitted with .30 cal Browning machine guns, many British tanks and armoured cars would be equipped with the Besa machine gun.

 

[tomo pauk]

Looking at the picture of the pom-pom posted by SR6 in the other thread, let's see how it compares with other AAA. It has a lower MV than other AAA of 37-40mm, also the German and Soviet guns fire greater RoF. On the plus side, it is available for the British forces, unlike the Bofors 40mm whose production in the UK did not hit the stride until the ww2 started. It is also a bit lighter.
Against the 20mm, it will also have lower RoF and MV, but it should handily out-range it, the hit should mean also a kill, the AP round would actually stand a chance to perforate a tanks armor.
Now, I'm not suggesting the pom-pom should be produced instead of other light AA, but it can be available early on, while being easier to install on lighter chassis than the Bofors, and more lethal than 20 mm. A round with tracer element is needed earlier, too.

 

[Shortround6]

trying to get AA tanks for the British army in 1939-40 is like putting Chrome tail pipes on a 30 year old rusted out truck.

The British army didn't have enough AA guns of any type or size. In 1939 they tended to jump right from .303s to the 3in 20cwt AA gun.

Just getting more .303s on AA mounts would have been a help as would getting practically anything that would shoot skyward. Buying even few hundred Vickers commercial class D machine guns would have been a help. But them on trailers, put them in the back of trucks, just get some sort of light automatic AA guns into the battle area.

The Squeeze bore principal was interesting but wound up a dead end. The Little John adapter showed up about the same time as HE ammo did for the 2pdr and since you can't shoot HE ammo out of the barrel with the adapter screwed on ( and the enemy was seldom polite enough so as not to shoot while the crew climbed out and unscrewed it) it tended not to see much use, especially as the crews soon figured out that the AP ammo worked almost as well without the adapter.
The Principle was being offered on custom commercial hunting rifles before the war so it wasn't exactly a secret, Cutting tapered rifled bores was difficult (expensive) and the adapter was a compromise. British (stealing from the French?) were moving on to the APDS projectile in any case which was a better "practical" solution.

Problem for the British in 1935-1940 is that the PTB ( Powers That Be) won't even pay for capped AP shot let alone capped ballistic capped. Tungsten Carbide cores in composite shot with collapsing flanges and tapered bores? Might as well ask for solid gold sling swivels on the old SMLE.

 

[tomo pauk]

The 2 x 15mm Besa SP AAA, Vickers light tank hull; should also make the life interesting for the crews or armored cars, ATGs, Pz-I and -II.:

Quadruple LMG mount (7.92mm Besa?):

Vickers light tank with 2pdr:

 

[Shortround6]

I tried to post the twin 15mm picture earlier but couldn't get it too link. It too was a post France experiment. The AA versions were built on converted tanks, already produced.

The quad gun used Brownings, I believe they are on their sides which changes the silhouette. Most certainly NOT BESA's as BESA's have a rather distinctive side plate that shields a good part of the barrel. Not just on the tank MGs but on the original Czech MG.

The Tank Destroyer does look rather useful.

The BEF consisted of 10 infantry divisions and one tank division. A couple of handfuls of AA tanks would have made no difference to the BEF as a whole. And they would have made little to no difference in the early desert fighting or Greek campaign.
The air defense of a standard British 39-40 infantry battalion was 4 light trucks each with a single Bren on the above Motley Mounting plus whatever Bren guns the individual unit commanders decided to NOT use as squad weapons (and there were only 9 Brens per infantry company) , the ONLY other MGs available to the Battalion commander were the 10 Bren guns in the carrier platoon (1 command and 3 sections of 3 carriers) and the Carrier platoon often acted as the mobile reserve. There were NO extra Bren guns at company HG or battalion HQ level.
There were NO AA guns of any sort attached to any higher units until you get passed the Division level. This would change with the 1941 tables of organization when a regiment of 48 towed 40mm guns was added to the Division.
The Battalion AA was increased in 1941 by going to twin Bren guns on the Motley mountings and as time went on adding a few more Motley mountings to other Battalion trucks/vehicles.

There were NO Vickers guns in the Battalion and in fact there were no Vickers guns in the Division proper. Vickers guns were in a separate battalion attached to/alocated to the division from Corp, with 48 Vickers guns in the Battalion.

The British army needed more/better light AA across ALL units, not a few expensive AA tanks in one or two divisions.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Vickers LT with 2 HMGs (even the Vickers, if not Besa) on high-angle mount would still not be an expensive weapon, while far more useful than historical one, armed with 1 LMG and 1 HMG on low-angle mount. But I agree that AA suite was found lacking in British army early on.

What about the Universal Carrier? Maybe build it a bit bigger than 12 ft (Lloyd was almost 2 ft longer, was also front drive with engine in the back)? With 2x2 main wheels per side, like some variants (Lloyd, Windsor, US T-16)? With engine next to the driver, so more room is left in the vehicle?

 

[Shortround6]

The Vickers LT with 2 HMGs (even the Vickers, if not Besa) on high-angle mount would still not be an expensive weapon, while far more useful than historical one, armed with 1 LMG and 1 HMG on low-angle mount. But I agree that AA suite was found lacking in British army early on.

Useful for what?
You don't use AA guns for recon work. The AA tanks went back to a two man crew. The early ones had no power traverse so tracking of aircraft is a bit suspect. Only 50-60 total were built/converted and details are sketchy at best, especially for the twin 15mm version which might have been a sole prototype.
The Twin 15mm looks impressive but but if it had no power traverse one man would certainly have his hands full. That and the ammo supply is out side the turret. OK for an AA gun, not so good for getting in among the enemy ground troops.
The last of the four gun 7.92mm were supposed to have gotten the power traverse back but there seem to be no combat reports that are easy to find on the internet.

What about the Universal Carrier? Maybe build it a bit bigger than 12 ft (Lloyd was almost 2 ft longer, was also front drive with engine in the back)? With 2x2 main wheels per side, like some variants (Lloyd, Windsor, US T-16)? With engine next to the driver, so more room is left in the vehicle?

You keep trying to fix things that weren't really broken. Less than optimum maybe but not really broken.

British battalions only had TWO 3in mortars. Germans had SIX. And German Battalion might[/] have a pair of the 7.5cm inf guns on loan from regiment. German Regiment had six 7.5mm in guns and two 15 cm inf guns. British brigade (functionally the same as a German regiment) has only one attached combat company, An AT company, more later.
British battalions had NO heavy MGs, unless they take Brens from rifle companies or Bren carrier platoon and mount them on tripods, German Battalion has 8 MG 34s in special MG platoons with tripods and all the "stuff" to operate as medium/heavy mgs (spare barrels and lots of ammo).
Both depended on a scattering of AT rifles for close AT defense, roughly one per platoon (Germans had a section of 3 at company level instead but it averages out close) although the British had a few more in odd places (Each AA truck had an AT rifle for example.)
British Brigade had it's AT company, which in France consisted of 9 25mm Hotchkiss AT guns, 3 platoons of 3 guns each. There was also an AT regiment of 48 towed 2pdrs at division level.
German Regiment had an AT company of 12 37mm guns. 4 platoons of 3guns. Division had an AT battalion with 3 twelve gun companies. With the three regiments AT companies that makes 72 37mm guns about a tie in total number of AT guns. The German 37 did have an HE round although it was rather poor.

British artillery was either 72 25pdrs or 48 18pdrs and 24 4.5in howitzers.
German Artillery was 36 10,5 cm howitzers and 12 15cm howitzers.

British don't have the best shells in the world for the 25pdrs ( a polite way of saying crappy) with 1.9lbs HE per shell. German 10.5cm how shell held 3.04lbs. While the British 4.5in shell held 4.3lbs it had a max range of 6600yds. 18pdr had 1.1lbs HE. The extra British barrels don't really mean 33% more target effect.

British also have few, if any sub-machine guns and the above numbers are for a unit that was fully equipped and many of the units in France did NOT have full issues of Bren guns, AT rifles and other weapons.

We also know that the British artillery above division level was low in numbers and performance. There is only so much skill and dedication can do.

Artillery does about 1/2 the killing or casualty making so poor artillery throws a much bigger burden on the infantry and armor.

 

[tomo pauk]

Having a more useful Carrier, with same engine, but of different layout, does not take anything from the artillery branch of the British army. It can actually save some money, since it would be able to carry around more stuff, meaning we need to buy less of those.

Re. HMGs on the Vickers - two .50s should be able to be installed without much of trouble, retaining protected ammo and 3rd crew member? Recon should be the domain of the recon cars, at least until we have enough of proper tanks so the light tanks can be relegated for recon job.

What do you specifically suggest for the artillery branch?

 

[Shortround6]

Having a more useful Carrier, with same engine, but of different layout, does not take anything from the artillery branch of the British army. It can actually save some money, since it would be able to carry around more stuff, meaning we need to buy less of those.

Maybe yes and maybe no. Depending on what you are carrying or using them for a bigger carrier may just be a bigger carrier. The 10-13 Carrier platoon in the infantry Battalion would have lost flexibility with a smaller number of bigger carriers. From the website http://www.bayonetstrength.me.uk/

"Carrier Platoon - the Bren carrier was an attempt to provide a fully tracked, lightly armoured vehicle, which could transport a Bren gun team across exposed ground and set up a firing position to support the advance of the Rifle Platoons.

In its earliest form the Platoon operated ten Bren carriers, with a HQ and three Sections of three carriers each. Platoon HQ had a single machine crewed by the Platoon Commander, driver-mechanic and batman. Each of the three Sections had three carriers, with an NCO, rifleman and driver-mechanic in each vehicle. The first carrier was commanded by a Sergeant, the other two each by Corporals. Each carrier mounted a Bren gun, and one in each Section also had an anti-tank rifle. There was also a 15-cwt truck with its attached driver from the Admin Platoon."

Only 3 men per carrier. larger carrier could carry more men, or stuff or ammo but they needed to be able to divide the platoon into sections for tactical flexibility and the sections could not not be 9 men in one big carrier

a mechanical break down or combat loss takes out too much of the platoon.

Re. HMGs on the Vickers - two .50s should be able to be installed without much of trouble, retaining protected ammo and 3rd crew member? Recon should be the domain of the recon cars, at least until we have enough of proper tanks so the light tanks can be relegated for recon job.

Not sure if you are talking about an AA gun set up or just sticking two .5in Vickers guns in the standard turret?

MGs over 7-8mm are bit over rated for use against personnel, you can only kill a soldier once. Unless you are firing against enemy troops in the kind of cover that the big machine guns could shoot through and the little ones can't ( and the little ones might surprise you) the big MGs were rarely worth their weight and size and especially the weight and and volume of the ammo.
Against light armor (12-15mm and under) they have their place and against aircraft they have a longer effective range.

What do you specifically suggest for the artillery branch?

I would suggest 4-5 things.

1, Fix the 3in mortar sooner. It should not have been a surprise that it was much shorter ranged than just about everbody else's medium mortar. The price of better steel for the barrel and base plate couldn't have been that much more money.
1a, Buy more of them, even better quality ones are going to be about the cheapest form of firepower you can give the Battalion.
2, Go for a bigger mortar sooner. Brandt in France was offering both 100mm and 120mm mortars before the war broke out.
3, Get a better shell for the 25pdr. It means more expensive steel. It also means more HE so you need less of them ( but a bigger HE factory) . It also means more range with less barrel wear. British were playing with a 21lb shell (containing 3lbs HE) for part of the war but dropped it at wars end without issuing it. It had a max range of 14,500yds.
4. Going out on a limb here, a 4.5-4.7 gun/howitzer. 45lb shell or so. Much like the the Russian 122mm M38 only a longer barrel (and bigger powder charge) for a few thousand more yard/meters range. Somewhere between 14-15000yds would be nice. Good steel for the shell so it has about 6lbs of HE. It will be heavier than the Russian howitzer due to the extra range but should be tons lighter than 5.5in gun/how. Put 16 of them in each division instead of 16 25pdrs.
5. Build the 80lb shell for the 5.5in from the start.

 

[parsifal]

maybe instead of the fully tracked universal carrier, the british would have been better off with a proper halftrack each carrying 8-12 men and mounting a HMG with light ATG capability as a secondary role. . thats not an increase in resources, its just a re-allocation of existing dollars for different equipment.

 

[Shortround6]

The two vehicles actually have different primary roles although they tend to blur. The Bren carrier was a weapons carrier. It was intended to carry a MG or light mortar with crew and ammo about the battlefield to critical points. It was NOT an APC for a squad. The American half-track was a squad APC.
You can take a squad APC and turn it into a weapons carrier and because of it's size it will carry bigger weapons and/or more ammo for the same weapons.

It would be interesting to find out what each one 'really' cost. although different contracts and exchange rates will complicate things. A US half track did weigh about twice what the US built universal carrier did though. And the engine the US used in the half-tracks was 6.3 liter 6 that would have been seen as a tank engine in most of Europe for 10-12ton tanks in the late 30s. The Bren Carriers used a 3.6liter engine.
You might have had a lot fewer half-tracks even though they were more capable.

The other "job" the American half track was designed for was as a prime mover for light/medium artillery. It towed 105mm howitzers. Something well beyond the capability of a Bren carrier. But at what cost?

 

[tomo pauk]

Maybe yes and maybe no
....
Only 3 men per carrier. larger carrier could carry more men, or stuff or ammo but they needed to be able to divide the platoon into sections for tactical flexibility and the sections could not not be 9 men in one big carrier

a mechanical break down or combat loss takes out too much of the platoon.

A 'refined' and a bit bigger Carrier would be probably carrying 5-6 men? The platoon will still be flexible

Not sure if you are talking about an AA gun set up or just sticking two .5in Vickers guns in the standard turret?

If we can go with a regular turret modified to hold two HMGs while allowing for at least 70 deg elevation, than go with that. Otherwise, go with two .50s at the sides, with ammo inside the turret.

MGs over 7-8mm are bit over rated for use against personnel, you can only kill a soldier once. Unless you are firing against enemy troops in the kind of cover that the big machine guns could shoot through and the little ones can't ( and the little ones might surprise you) the big MGs were rarely worth their weight and size and especially the weight and and volume of the ammo.
Against light armor (12-15mm and under) they have their place and against aircraft they have a longer effective range.

The greater effective range should also be able to suppress the crew of an ATG at 'safer' ranges, if not make a real kill.

I would suggest 4-5 things.

1, Fix the 3in mortar sooner. It should not have been a surprise that it was much shorter ranged than just about everbody else's medium mortar. The price of better steel for the barrel and base plate couldn't have been that much more money.

The longer barrel should not be that expensive?

2, Go for a bigger mortar sooner. Brandt in France was offering both 100mm and 120mm mortars before the war broke out.

Yep, the British 4.2 was too late, for all of it's qualities.

 

[Shortround6]

The longer barrel should not be that expensive?.

It wasn't a question of longer barrels but of stronger steel, When they first tried to increase the range using larger propelling charges the existing barrels bulged (how many rounds before they split?) so initially they just used what ever charge didn't bulge the barrel. Pretty much the same for the base-plate, the increased recoil from the heavier charges bent the base plate under repeated firings. Troops in NA had tried using German/Italian ammo from the British tubes and had bulged/burst a few there. They will fit as while the British mortar is 'called' a 3in it was really an 81mm.

The British were a little too in love with the idea of cheap weapons/ammunition. The Germans a little too in love with complicated/expensive weapons/ammunition.

 

[gjs238]

The British were a little too in love with the idea of cheap weapons/ammunition. The Germans a little too in love with complicated/expensive weapons/ammunition.

So if this is the story of The Three Bears, who is Mama Bear? USA, Russia, France, ......

 

[tomo pauk]

Back to the tanks - on what to bet on?
A 30 ton tank with something better than a 2 pdr should be feasible; the Matilda II was at 27 tons. The lighter tanks might be needed to overcome the budget restraints, though, while using the commercial engines (1x150 or 2x85/95 HP), so we can have enough of decent tanks. The Liberty must be kept at 340 HP, without attempts to increase the power, in order to give good service?