Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks

[vinnye]

Thanks for the link and the image Bob.
Had a read of the attached - very interesting! Shows that some of the guys at the front were highly innovative and were capable of adapting whatever was available to get the job done!

 

[MacArther]

I wrote this a while ago on the topic of a British assault gun based off the Crusader. Armed with the 3 inch AA gun.

Englander Sturmgeschutz - Alternate History Discussion Board

Here's the pic:

View attachment 229873

In retrospect it looks like the superstructure shape has room for improvement.

Awesome!

 

[Glider]

Thanks for the link and the image Bob.
Had a read of the attached - very interesting! Shows that some of the guys at the front were highly innovative and were capable of adapting whatever was available to get the job done!

The tragic thing is that if the people higher up the food chain had listened think of the difference it would have made and lives saved.

 

[vinnye]

Totally agree Glider, seems those that should have been put in decision making positions were often unable to get there because of some upper class twit who got his job because of who he was, his family were or who's butt he'd kiss!

 

[parsifal]

gotta put in some voice of dissent here. no question that the British command system was its weak point. However its not valid to blame it all on the higher leadership. in fact british higher leadership had vastly improved from WWI to WWII.

In my opinion, the inertia that was so evident in the British Army in WWII was as much evident in the middle and lower levels of command as it was higher up. But having said that, there was also a measure of great initiaitive and originality as well.

Blaming the higher leadership for all the woes in the British Army is about the same as those supporters of things German to blame all the failure German on Adolf Hitler. hitler made his share of stuff ups, but he was in no way solely or mosly responsible for the defeat of Germany. In the same way, the higher levels of British command made its fair share of bad calls, but they cannot be blamed, solely or mostly for the numerous British failures either.

 

[Glider]

I agree with everything you say but in this case it was a seriously bad call. The one thing the British army lacked in the middlewar years was a way of taking on the German Armour. I don't think anyone is pretending that this would have been the total solution to the problem but it had a number of advantages.
a) It was cheap
b) There would have been no strain on the supply support or production front
c) It worked

There was still a need for a decent tank but it would have been a good start

 

[Shortround6]

The big problem with most of these schemes to build British tank/destroyers armed with 3" AA guns is that the vast stock of 3" barrels everyone is depending on didn't actually exist and the gun had been out of production for years.

Sources disagree but it seems that 100 or fewer barrels were available and some were used in the Churchill gun carrier, up to 50 while another 50 barrels (?) were mounted on 17pdr carriages when there was a shortage of 17pdr barrels. No record of combat use has shown up so far.

 

[tomo pauk]

Too bad the British did not contemplated a JagdChurchill, with 17pdr in the superstructure. Or maybe the 17pdr on the M7 Priest, 'stead of the 105mm?

 

[stug3]

Priest 105mm self-propelled gun of 11th Royal Horse Artillery (Honourable Artillery Company), 1st Armoured Division, 22 April 1943.

Sherman tanks advance past a knocked-out 88mm anti-tank gun

Churchill tank in the Medjez-el-Bab area, April 1943.

A CMP truck and motorcycle of 11th Royal Horse Artillery (Honourable Artillery Company), 1st Armoured Division, Tunisia,

Stretcher bearers of the East Surrey Regiment, with a Churchill tank of the North Irish Horse in the background, during the attack on Longstop Hill, 23 April 1943.

 

[Shortround6]

Too bad the British did not contemplated a JagdChurchill, with 17pdr in the superstructure. Or maybe the 17pdr on the M7 Priest, 'stead of the 105mm?

12-15mph tank chassis don't make good tank hunters.

M7 needs tons more armor, once you get above the transmission casing in the front or the tracks on the side the armor was only 1/2 in (12.7mm) thick. The M7 was never intended for direct combat.

 

[tomo pauk]

I'm not thinking about 'chasing' the enemy tanks, but more of a mobile AT (and direct HE) support for the Churchills armed with 2 or 6pdr guns. It would certainly offer better off-road mobility than towed 17pdr
The M7 can receive an armor plate or two, it weighted some 23 tons as-is, combat ready. We can note, OTOH, that Archer, M-10/Achiles and M-36 were nothing more than LMG-proof AFVs; M-18 not even that?

Either of the AFVs would've bring to the table, as early as late 1942, something Allies lacked for a better part of the war - a self propelled AT gun that can go wherever the tanks can go, while being able to reliably kill any AFV Germans historically fielded.

 

[Shortround6]

And the M-10 was what?

M7 was standardized Feb 1942 and the M10 was standardized June of 1942 (standardized=modifications to prototypes stopped, design approved for production.)

October 1942 sees studies for mounting 90mm gun in M10 start, first design not so good so new design started March 1943, the T71 was classified "limited procurement" in Nov 1943 and standardized June of 1944.

British study mounting the 17pdr in the M-10 but don't actually start doing it on a production basis until April of 1944.

M-10s had 1 in of armor in many places where the M7 had 1/2in and it was sloped. not much different against real tank guns but at least it would stop 20mm shells

 

[vinnye]

If there were problems with 3 inch and 17 pdr availability could the 25 pdr not have been produced more quickly to do the job?
I know the Bishop was a Valentine tank with a 25 pdr - would a Churchill hull have been better suited?

 

[vinnye]

The inertia that caused problems for the British Army was also evident elsewhere - the lack of support for Frank Whittle is a good example.
When this barrier is removed, it is quite remarkable what progress can be made - Hobart's Funnies are good examples.
( I know Percy did not design them - he was the figurehead for the specials team.)

 

[Shortround6]

25pdr has worse penetration than the 6pdr. It is ONLY a substitute AT gun for the 2pdr and then it depends on the ammo for the 2pdr.

The British stayed with cheap projectiles much too long. Plain uncapped shot is cheap and easy to make but it performs poorly, especially at higher velocities. The 2pdr didn't get APCBC shot until 1943 when it was way too late. APCBC shot would penetrate at 1000yds what the cheap shot wold at 500 yds. or penetrate at 500 yds what the cheap shot would at 100 yds.

 

[tomo pauk]

And the M-10 was what?

M-10 was a fine AFV, yet the 17 pdr can far better fulfill the "being able to reliably kill any AFV Germans historically fielded" criteria.

M7 was standardized Feb 1942 and the M10 was standardized June of 1942 (standardized=modifications to prototypes stopped, design approved for production.)

October 1942 sees studies for mounting 90mm gun in M10 start, first design not so good so new design started March 1943, the T71 was classified "limited procurement" in Nov 1943 and standardized June of 1944.

British study mounting the 17pdr in the M-10 but don't actually start doing it on a production basis until April of 1944.

Told you so - a better part of the war passed until the (Western) Allies fielded a really potent cannon on tracked chassis. Many of the 17pdr-armed AFVs and M-36 were introduced in late 1944.
The 17pdr-armed M7 might as well be the field, in-theatre modification. The British managed to create the Churchill 75mm NA (North Africa) modification; the turret-less, open topped vehicle should be an easier thing to modify.

M-10s had 1 in of armor in many places where the M7 had 1/2in and it was sloped. not much different against real tank guns but at least it would stop 20mm shells

I've already proposed the aplique armor

 

[Shortround6]

M-10 was a fine AFV, yet the 17 pdr can far better fulfill the "being able to reliably kill any AFV Germans historically fielded" criteria.

True but the M-10 was in action in March of 1943. Any conversion of an M-7 might have only beaten into action by 4-5 months. First M-7s go into action with the British at the Battle of El Alamein at the end of October 1942.

and as far as getting 17pdrs go. From Wiki:

"These early weapons were known as 17/25-pounders and given the codename Pheasant. They first saw action in February 1943."

Any attempt to cobble together some Egyptian shop built tank destroyer in the winter of 1942/43 is going to using some mighty scarce resources.

While the M-10 certainly cannot kill "any AFV Germans historically fielded" it could seriously put the hurt on any it ran up against when introduced and could continue to do so for the vast majority of AFVs it would encounter for the next 6-9 months.

The problem is that both the British and the Americans dropped the ball at this point. They had a massive intelligence failure both in estimating enemy (German) tank production and with a few generals in command positions insisting that the M-10 was good enough With a little push the M-36 could have been being produced 6-7 months before it was. The British had ordered over 1000 M-10s in 1943 but they weren't delivered until 1944. Meanwhile M-10s were piling up so fast in US depots that over 200 were converted to M-35 artillery tractors.

Such is the way of US weapons procurement sometimes.

I am afraid that not only would there have been little support from "on high" for such a conversion program as you propose ( aside from a handful of conversions done at forward shops, not enough to affect even a single battle) but any one who pushed too hard for it was in danger of being put in charge of a weather station in Greenland.

Told you so - a better part of the war passed until the (Western) Allies fielded a really potent cannon on tracked chassis. Many of the 17pdr-armed AFVs and M-36 were introduced in late 1944.
The 17pdr-armed M7 might as well be the field, in-theatre modification. The British managed to create the Churchill 75mm NA (North Africa) modification; the turret-less, open topped vehicle should be an easier thing to modify.

true, but the Allies didn't really have a "really potent cannon" to put on a tracked chassis aside from the US 90mm until the spring of 1943.

The M-7 was a bit of a bodge as it was. The towed gun had it's wheels taken off and then the whole carriage, trail legs (shortened) and all was lowered into the hole in the middle of the chassis. Traverse was restricted and the gun could not be fired near full elevation without the breechblock hitting the floor. The 17pdr was a lot heavier and about 2 meters longer,

It may fit but you don't have much a fighting vehicle. More like a tracked gun which is not the same thing.

 

[tomo pauk]

True but the M-10 was in action in March of 1943. Any conversion of an M-7 might have only beaten into action by 4-5 months. First M-7s go into action with the British at the Battle of El Alamein at the end of October 1942.

and as far as getting 17pdrs go. From Wiki:

"These early weapons were known as 17/25-pounders and given the codename Pheasant. They first saw action in February 1943."

Any attempt to cobble together some Egyptian shop built tank destroyer in the winter of 1942/43 is going to using some mighty scarce resources.

I was wrong to 'locate' the 17pdr in the late 1942, sorry.

While the M-10 certainly cannot kill "any AFV Germans historically fielded" it could seriously put the hurt on any it ran up against when introduced and could continue to do so for the vast majority of AFVs it would encounter for the next 6-9 months.

Indeed, apart from the odd Tiger, the M-10 was good enough for most of other targets.
The 17pdr should add at least 500m to the distance the kill can be achieved? Once mounted at Churchill chassis, it will take an 88mm to destroy it, or a really good shot from one of the longer 75mm.

The problem is that both the British and the Americans dropped the ball at this point. They had a massive intelligence failure both in estimating enemy (German) tank production and with a few generals in command positions insisting that the M-10 was good enough With a little push the M-36 could have been being produced 6-7 months before it was. The British had ordered over 1000 M-10s in 1943 but they weren't delivered until 1944. Meanwhile M-10s were piling up so fast in US depots that over 200 were converted to M-35 artillery tractors.

Such is the way of US weapons procurement sometimes.

All beligerents' AFV procurement was sometimes a 'comedy of errors'; eg. Soviets have had maybe the best choice of AFV guns and engines in ww2, yet the Germans in Kursk got them with the pants down.
The Sherman Firefly should've also receive more support?

I am afraid that not only would there have been little support from "on high" for such a conversion program as you propose ( aside from a handful of conversions done at forward shops, not enough to affect even a single battle) but any one who pushed too hard for it was in danger of being put in charge of a weather station in Greenland.

Grenland being one of better places to be in ww2? Okay, maybe not for someone in CONUS

true, but the Allies didn't really have a "really potent cannon" to put on a tracked chassis aside from the US 90mm until the spring of 1943.

Yep, my mistake.

The M-7 was a bit of a bodge as it was. The towed gun had it's wheels taken off and then the whole carriage, trail legs (shortened) and all was lowered into the hole in the middle of the chassis. Traverse was restricted and the gun could not be fired near full elevation without the breechblock hitting the floor. The 17pdr was a lot heavier and about 2 meters longer,
It may fit but you don't have much a fighting vehicle. More like a tracked gun which is not the same thing.

The M7/17pdr being a better proposal than the 'Pheasant'?

 

[Ascent]

Alright it's a little late for this discussion but they did plan to put a 17pdr in a Churchill

Black Prince (tank) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[stug3]

Salvaged German petrol cans or 'jerry cans' being inspected at a depot in the Western Desert, 21 April 1942. The robust German cans were considered far superior to the British 'flimsy' can and highly prized.

Troops carrying a dummy Stuart tank, April 1942.

A soldier takes a bearing from his Fordson WOT2 15cwt truck,

Troops examining captured German MG34 machine guns,