Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks

[vinnye]

Yes the flimsy's were exactly that!
Whenever possible the Brit's used the Jerry can - far better made and robust design.

 

[vinnye]

The Black Prince would have been a good addition in 1942, but led nowhere in 1944/5.
The Allies may have been better advised to make a Hetzer type anti tank AFV.
The l ow profile would aid in hiding it even in the desert.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Western Allies have had all the bits pieces to field Sherman Firefly in 1943. They could've also issued the APDS for the 75 and 76mm, too.

Hmm, what about Grant Firefly - ditching the 37mm turret in process? For AT purposes, somewhere between the SU-85 and SU-100 (once the APDS becomes available)? Sherman Firefly would be a better thing, undoubtedly, as would Ram Firefly

added: the Hetzer was a way to utilize a cheap chassis that was beyond it's prime. The downsides (vs. the StuG-IIIG) being cramped interior, lower ammo count and restricted cannon traverse to the left. Downside vs. a tank being the lack of the rotating turret. Allies didn't needed to resort to such AFVs.

 

[Shortround6]

Hmm, what about Grant Firefly - ditching the 37mm turret in process? For AT purposes, somewhere between the SU-85 and SU-100 (once the APDS becomes available)?

See below:

the Hetzer was a way to utilize a cheap chassis that was beyond it's prime. The downsides (vs. the StuG-IIIG) being cramped interior, lower ammo count and restricted cannon traverse to the left. Downside vs. a tank being the lack of the rotating turret. Allies didn't needed to resort to such AFVs.

By the time the 17pdr shows up in towed form you already have several chassis that take it in a rotating turret, had the powers that be simply OK'ed it or expressed any desire at all for it.

A problem with trying stage ambushes in the dessert with limited traverse guns/AFV is that the approaches to the ambush site are a lot less restricted. The enemy armor/vehicles DO NOT have to drive down certain roads or though certain intersections. The may not have total freedom but they seldom are are as restricted as in Europe. And with few trees or buildings hiding is a lot harder especially if you have to pivot the tank destroyer to get on target.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hetzer's chassis was way more cramped than Grant's (especially when the turret is deleted), the 17pdr was way more powerful than the 7,5cm. The W. Allies did not have had several chassis able to take the turreted 17pdr in early (whole?) 1943, there was one (one and half? ) that I've already acknowledged:

Sherman Firefly would be a better thing, undoubtedly, as would Ram Firefly

 

[Shortround6]

OK, it was one chassis but they were making the Ram, The Sherman and the M-10 on it.

The Gun mount in the M-10 had been designed to take several guns (including the 105 howitzer although I don't believe any were built) and as the hole through the mantlet had to big enough to take the American 3" gun (which was a fat, heavy gun for it's caliber) fitting the 17pdr actually required a sleeve to fill up the space around the barrel.

The Problem was getting somebody to OK the production/modification of M-10s with the 17pdr.

The Grant was out of production when the 17pdr showed up so any attempt to mount 17pdrs on grant chassis would be work shop affairs. All M3 factories had been converted to M-4 production.

The US had tried a wide variety of self propelled guns

See: United States Self Propelled Guns

just click on little pictures.

Since a very similar (or better) concept had already been tried and rejected twice, see first effort

I doubt work shop conversions would have been approved.

The US tried a lot of stuff, getting something approved for production took a lot more doing.

 

[tomo pauk]

...
The Gun mount in the M-10 had been designed to take several guns (including the 105 howitzer although I don't believe any were built) and as the hole through the mantlet had to big enough to take the American 3" gun (which was a fat, heavy gun for it's caliber) fitting the 17pdr actually required a sleeve to fill up the space around the barrel.

Thanks for the details

The Problem was getting somebody to OK the production/modification of M-10s with the 17pdr.

Indeed. A quote from Wikipedia: "The British had planned to convert some 1,000 M10s into 17pdr armed variants for Normandy, but for some reason conversions were not started until April 1944."

The Grant was out of production when the 17pdr showed up so any attempt to mount 17pdrs on grant chassis would be work shop affairs. All M3 factories had been converted to M-4 production.

Agreed.

The US had tried a wide variety of self propelled guns

See: United States Self Propelled Guns

just click on little pictures.

Since a very similar (or better) concept had already been tried and rejected twice, see first effort

I doubt work shop conversions would have been approved.

The British army would/should initiate conversions. Unlike the Americans, they have have had the 17 pdr guns

The US tried a lot of stuff, getting something approved for production took a lot more doing.

Agreed - all the belligerents were trying testing stuff, with better or worse results.

 

[vinnye]

When I put the Hetzer forward, I was suggesting that a superb machine could be made from "surplus" chassis if the will was there. The Germans were fighting more defensive battles and so required more anti tank weapons. The Hetzer was in my opinion a pretty good one, small enough to hide in woods / rubble in town and had a good punch! Because most American and British tanks did not have a powerful enough gun to do anti tank work, a SPG type weapon with a 17 pdr would have been a useful addition to their armoured divisions.

 

[Glider]

Going back to the title - Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks

Why hasn't anyone including myself said T34/76?

Fast, reliable, great protection, very low ground pressure, good gun probably little different to the Sherman 75, fairly small target.

OK a bit rough and ready on build and creature comforts but given the choice between this and a Valantine, Grant or a Crusader I would take the T34.

Only real contender is the Sherman which is a bit big for me.

 

[Shortround6]

Now you just have to get the t-34 to run in dessert for hundreds of miles.

Chances of the British either getting several hundred T-34s from the Russians or building their own is zero

 

[Glider]

Have to agree on that

 

[vinnye]

Yes, good point, the T34 would have been a valuable asset if it could have been made reliable in desert conditions - and I do not see any reason why it could not be.
Also agree, Russia was not going to supply them or allow them to be manufactured by USA or Britain.

 

[stug3]

Men of the 2nd Sherwood Foresters firing a captured German MG42 machine gun, Tunisia, April 1943.

 

[Glider]

Stug, I will never cease to be amazed by the variety of photos you have access to on almost any topic. Just saying thanks

 

[stug3]

Its not me Glider, its the internet, Im amazed at the stuff I run across every day that Ive never seen before. I wish it would have been around when I was a kid.

 

[razor1uk]

Wonderful info and pictures Stug

 

[Freebird]

Um, to return to the thread topic.

On reading my way through the past postings on topic I have to agree that improving tactical use of combined arms is a key but we are looking for what could have been achieved in time. There was nothing to prevent a Centurion being made pre-war had the will been available but post Summer 1940 there were 2 key items in the pipeline that could have been made into the standard all purpose British/Canadian tank. The 6 pounder Valentine. Ideally Canadian diesel engined.

The Valentine was reliable, reasonably armoured and able to be produced in quantity. It's speed across the battlefield was not that much slower than others, even if it's road speed was poor. The 6 pounder was a good period anti tank gun with an adequate, if not good, HE round.

Even by the end of the war numbers of small low Valentines with 6 pounder APDS would remain a viable threat to a Panther or Tiger.

The Valentine tank is not the answer, it's a dead end path. It's too small, too cramped and too slow to be developed.
As Shortround mentioned, the 2 man turret was a major handicap, and the 6 pdr gun in these small tanks sacrificed
the 3 man turret.

When I put the Hetzer forward, I was suggesting that a superb machine could be made from "surplus" chassis if the will was there. The Germans were fighting more defensive battles and so required more anti tank weapons. The Hetzer was in my opinion a pretty good one, small enough to hide in woods / rubble in town and had a good punch! Because most American and British tanks did not have a powerful enough gun to do anti tank work, a SPG type weapon with a 17 pdr would have been a useful addition to their armoured divisions.

Vinnye, I had mentioned the assault-gun idea using the Crusader chassis about 4 pages ago.
The 17 pdr is not available by the summer of 1942 in AFVs. Also, with a new tank likely having a very effective 6 pdr antitank gun, the assault gun or "hetzer" idea should have a dual purpose gun with HE, likely a 75mm one.

I largely agree with FB on this. Essentially what he is saying is that messing around with production by introducing radically new types is a mistake. This is because the overwhelming determinant on successful tank operations is NOT quality, its numbers. The germans chose the quality pathway and basically lost the (tank) war as a result.

However within the parameters of the existing production program there were opportunities to shift things around a bit and not affect numbers. He is essentially advocating concentrating on the RAM tank, and putting less effort into the Crusader. Whilst I am not as critical about the Crusaders problems, there is no denying that the tank had its problems, and that as a design the RAM was a better overall package. What is attractive to FBs scenario, is that a changeover to RAM as the principal type in the desert could have been achieved with virtually no dispruption to output. Instead of constructing Crusaders, the factories devoted to this purpose could have converted to RAM production, with only minimal loss of output for a short period of time, IMO.

One word of caution I would say, however. In 1939 the canadians were an unknown force in AFV production. they had a pretty well established auto industry and a pretty strong proponent for armoured warfare (I apologise to the canadians, but ive forgotten his name). For the British to put their faith in the canadians, when they had no credentials to show that they could deliver, was asking a lot from the british army.

as it turned out, the british need not have worried, the RAM was superior to the home grown designs in many respects. But that was not a known outcomee in 1939, which is when the decision to rely on the Canadians to that extent needed to be taken.

Parsifal, I think you misunderstood my theory.
There would be NO CHANGE in AFV development in 1940 or 1941, the British would put the Churchill into production, and would continue development work on the Cromwell I (Cavalier tank). The switch would occur in early 1942, when the trials of the Cavalier came back unsatisfactory.
At this point the British, realizing that the re-developed Cromwell/Centaur would take until at least 1943, should have asked the Canadians to increase production of the 6 pdr RAM, and ship models over to Egypt as quickly as possible. With the RAM essentially used instead of the Crusader, it would allow some Nuffield Crusader production to be switched over to a "Hetzer" type 75mm version of the Crusader.
BCCR Leyland would continue to develop the Cromwell/Centaur for follow on production.

 

[Freebird]

Going back to the title - Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks

Why hasn't anyone including myself said T34/76?

Fast, reliable, great protection, very low ground pressure, good gun probably little different to the Sherman 75, fairly small target.

OK a bit rough and ready on build and creature comforts but given the choice between this and a Valantine, Grant or a Crusader I would take the T34.

Only real contender is the Sherman which is a bit big for me.

Glider, I don't know if your proposal was serious for the T-34, but the Soviets were pretty intractable, they would hardly give tanks or blueprint to the British for consideration.

Sherman the only alternative? It's not the best design alternative, nor is it available in the summer of 1942.


There are a few things that I think should be clarified on this thread:

1.) "Ready for El Alamein" is not even possible, (unless the British have a crystal ball)
The British have no idea that when or where battle will occur in the future (El Alamein), so can't prepare tanks for this purpose. (And Tomo hasn't specified WHICH battle of El Alamein, 1st or 2nd?)
A better wording would be "Best British tank in production by the summer of 1942". British tanks will need to be produced by June of 1942, to allow time to ship them to Egypt (July August), then at least a month for training desert modifications (September) which would be ready for operations in the late Autumn (October/November).

2.) It seems that there has been a tendancy here to assume that a new tank design can be slapped together in a few months, when in reality issues such as cooling problems, delays in gun production etc often caused unforseen delays in tank production. Typical tank development from proposal, through design, to production was about 2 years, although the Cavalier was shortened to about 18 months by developing the design from an existing tank, the Crusader. (But the end product was rejected)

3.) Personally, I don't see how an "Ideal British tank" and "In production before summer 1942" is even possible, given only what was known at the time.
They could develop the "ideal tank" or have a tank ready for summer 1942 production - but not both!

4.)The thread starting in the second half of 1940 pre-supposes that the British could have or should have done something differently, so I'd really like someone to point out what was the bit of information that was ignored?


Just to review, in the summer of 1940, (and taking into account the events of the Battle of France), Vauxhall are about to start production of the Churchill, and Nuffield will start production of the Crusader in early 1941.
The Tank board discusses follow on tank production, and decides that to expidite development, the new tank should be based on an existing design, so they ask for proposals from both Nuffield Vauxhall for a new cruiser.
It should be capable of at least 25 mph, have better armour, and use the 6 pdr gun. (Despite the 2 pdr performing well in France against German tanks)

So my questions: What other specifications were missed? What other lessons were ignored?

In the beginning of 1941 (when it was decided to go forward with the Nuffield proposal) the British didn't know that any American tanks at all would be available, that Lend-Lease would be enacted, or that the resulting tanks (Grant/Sherman) would even be acceptable.
They didn't know that the Crusader would be inadequate against the Pz II or Pz III, as the only battles in the desert so far, the Matildas Cruiser Mk III Mk IV had performed admirably against Italian forces in Compass.
They also didn't know that the upgraded Crusader project (ie Cavalier) would turn out to be a dissapointment.

The crux of it is this, if they had a crystal ball and could have known all these things, maybe they could have taken the slower route and developed a whole new design, but at the time, given the urgency of the situation, the Nuffield proposal was the best option for a tank that could be put into production quickly, with reduced time expected for design changes, production problems training.

 

[Glider]

I am very aware that the Russians wouldn't give us the T34 but it was an allied tank that would have been very pretty much ideal. Don't quite understand your comments on the Sherman, as they did fight at El Alamein.

If your looking for a British built tank then the mistakes were made well before the battle. In my mind there was no reason for the design and build of the Valantine. It was so similar to the Matilda II, same gun, similar armour, similar speed, it was no better. The British knew that the 6pd was either in production or about to enter production so there is no excuse for designing a tank that couldn't be fitted with the 6pd as production numbers increased. After all the PzIII started with a 37mm and ended up with the 50mm L60 or 75 L24.

The Crusader was also no improvement on the tanks that went before it just a bit more reliable. The development of the Cromwell started in plenty of time and the dithering over the development and production cost the Army a lot of good men. The Cromwell should have and could have been ready in time for the battle.

The problem the UK had was the lack of a decent engine. The US had a similar problem, used their initiative and used small aero engines, the UK didn't. They had a prototype engine ready in early 1942 which was too late.

The assult gun version of the Crusader I hadn't heard of before but despite all the evidence they didn't take up what was obviously a very good idea.

The German had assult guns and the Pz III and IV so why the UK stuck to the outmoded Heavy or fast combination I have no idea.

 

[razor1uk]

Some 'old guards' whom harked back to their youth and previous/preceding warriors times for cavalry infantry only versions, with some sidelong glances at other nations types usage of armour - the (old) brass was at times as nearsighted as it could be farsighted, and conservative to change/ideas that didn't fit with their personal their forces preconceptions and resistance to change - until its needed/too late.

Most nations with armour, followed us (and France) as we followed them (for possible sales) following WW1, and many aristocratics/neuvo-rich prevailed the idea of fast and heavier tanks to cavalry artillery; only really the Germans the Soviets had a more 'modern appreciation' for armour compared to most other users, well thats my gathered outlook upon then.

Things military generally advance 1 steps forward, 2 step back with another one sideways some other direction, like hop scotch...