Ready for El Alamein: ideal British tanks

[fastmongrel]

That was pretty much the argument of the time. The lower velocity 75mm shells could be made with thinner walls and carried a noticeable difference in HE content than the 76mm HE shells.
The 75mm was perfectly good against MK IV tanks and worked pretty well against Panthers from the side/rear. Turns out the 76mm didn't work so well against the front of a Panther anyway so maybe the difference wasn't that great. Perhaps the 76mm should have been adopted sooner but they probably would have wanted an even higher percentage of tanks armed with 105 howitzers for HE work.

Someone on another forum (cant remember which) argued pretty persuasively that the 76mm was not the ideal weapon being neither fish nor fowl. Not good enough to be a pure anti tank weapon nor having a good enough HE shell to be a good infantry support weapon. He argued that the 105mm should have been the gun mounted on all Shermans but for a proportion of properly designed and Detroit built 17 pdr Fireflys to support the 105s. The only counter I could think of towards his ideas was ammo load the 105mm only carrying about 40 rounds as opposed to about 90 for the 75mm version.

 

[Shortround6]

Part of the 76mm problem was timing, it was ready for production, I believe, at th end of 1942. If it had been introduced into combat in 1943 it might have a better reputation. It could take on a Tiger from the front at greater distance than it could a Panther and against the sides/rear of a Tiger it would work hundreds of yards beyond the suicidally close range the 75mm needed. Due to it's higher velocity it also had a point blank range several hundred yds further than the 75mm. Being introduced when the Panther was becoming the Germans main battle tank (as far as production would permit) it's advantages were rather diminished.
Problems with the 105 as a tank cannon may include a low rate of fire, a low velocity which means a short point blank range and needing more ranging shots at long range, couple that with the lower rate of fire and long range engagements get rather dicey. Both the power traverse and gyro stabilizer were deleted from the 105 tanks. Some sources say they were added back later in production. Lacking both the 105mm armed tanks would find it harder to do the rapid maneuver and "snap shooting" that allowed them to perform as well as they did with the existing guns.
Since developments seldom operate in a vacuum, once the Germans realize the main (only?) US tank round is a HEAT round they can extend/beef up the bazooka plates, add more extra track, or even weld bars across the front, much like the vehicles in the middle east, whatever it takes to get some stand off distance to defeat the HEAT round.

 

[davebender]

Part of the 76mm problem was timing, it was ready for production, I believe, at th end of 1942

Rather late even if it had entered mass production ASAP. The German 7.5cm PaK40 entered service during November 1941. German vehicles armed with this weapon entered service during the spring of 1942.

USA Guns 75mm and 76mm calibre
76mm Gun M1 L55.
HE Shell. .9lb of explosive.
AP (M79). 109mm @457 meters. 30 degree slope.
APC (M62). 93mm @457 meters. 30 degree slope.
HVAP (M93). 157mm @457 meters. 30 degree slope.

German Guns 75mm and 76mm calibre (Tank AT)
7.5cm L48 Penetration is the same for both tank and AT guns.
12,000 to 13,500 marks. Depending on version.
HE Shell. .66kg of explosive. Similiar to a German 75mm howitzer shell.
APCBC (Pzgr.39). 96mm @ 500 meters. 30 degree slope.
APCR (Pzgr.40). 120mm @500 meters. 30 degree slope.
HEAT. 100mm penetration at any range.
APDS (Pzgr.44). NA.
I don't think Germany fielded an APDS round for the 7.5cm L48 cannon, as they did for 7.5cm/70 and 8.8cm cannons late in the war.

 

[Shortround6]

A. While the German towed gun started delivery in Nov of 1941 and the vehicle guns started in the spring of 1942 that was the L43 version of slightly lower performance. The L48 doesn't show up until 1943. As far as being "late" goes the 76mm gun could go through the front of a MK IV at 2000yds. The German gu could penetrate the Sherman at 1500yds or less so at any practical battle range both were vulnerable to each others guns.
B. HVAP was scarce for the American guns in the summer of 1944 but availability got better during the fall/winter but still nowhere near unlimited supply. Germans by 1944 were non-existent for APCR (which is the same as HVAP, just a different name).
C. The Americans never used APDS during the war and I don't believe the Germans feilded any either in service with any AT gun. There is a lot of talk about such rounds on the internet but very few reference's in most books on the subject and unless somebody can figure out a way to change most accepted theorys of armor penetration and the way steel works as it penetrates I would rather doubt any service rounds of Pzgr.44,
"Timmy the powergamer" fantasies aside

 

[davebender]

As far as being "late" goes the 76mm gun could go through the front of a MK IV at 2000yds. The German gu could penetrate the Sherman at 1500yds or less so at any practical battle range both were vulnerable to each others guns.

WWII tanks, especially American tanks, spent a lot more time firing at soft targets then at enemy armored vehicles. The German 7.5cm cannon was a superior all around weapon in addition to being available in large numbers relatively early.

 

[Shortround6]

WWII tanks, especially American tanks, spent a lot more time firing at soft targets then at enemy armored vehicles. The German 7.5cm cannon was a superior all around weapon in addition to being available in large numbers relatively early.

Superior how?
and for which jobs?
and superior to which American guns?
And which German 7.5cm cannon are we talking about?
Not including the short 7.5cm L24 and the Panthers L70 gun there 3 different 7.5cm tank/AT guns.

 

[CharlesBronson]

There were at list 4 models of german 75mm tank guns, the L24, L43/48 and the panther L70, probably the L43/48 is the most equilibrate. yes it is a bit better than the one in the Sherman but is no related to the early L24 in any aspect.

 

[Shortround6]

while the L46 towed anti-tank gun (or armament of a number of self propelled anti-tank guns, Marders,etc) had the same performance for any practical purpose and used the same projectiles it used a totally different cartridge case.
Ammunition was no more interchangeable than the American 3in AT gun (M10 tank destroyer gun) and the 76mm gun in the Sherman and M-18.

considerations for guns include not only the armor piercing performance and/or shell/HE weight but weight of the gun (tube/recoiling mass?) weight of complete equipment in towed guns. velocity for point blank range for direct fire guns, rate of fire, accuracy which is different than flat trajectory and barrel life. you can through in cost and a few other factors too.

 

[stug3]

70 years ago today

 

[vinnye]

Had the Russians shared their design ideas from 1939 with Britain, we could have had a tank with sloping frontal armour and maybe the meteor engine and a high velocity 75mm main gun? That would have done quite nicely in the desert in1941.

 

[yulzari]

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.

Yes one would have preferred a 75mm AP/HE gun and a 3 man turret faster tank but these would have been pipe dreams in the timescale.

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. Concentrate on this for all purposes and, in the background, work on the next generation Centurion with a full 17 pounder for mid 1944.

The 25 pounder is a red herring. Artillery needed all that could be made. It's best use is as support artillery.

Do not let the best drive out the good. Lots of Valentines actually on the battlefields, able to take on infantry and anti tank guns with HE and tanks with AP. You must have armour in quantity and the Sherman showed how a single standard tank can do that.

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.

 

[vinnye]

I like the Valentine as a standard tank. It was well thought of by many crews. A reliable workhorse unlike some of its peers!
More armour (sloped) and the high velocity 75 would make it even better. 3 man turret would be nice but not essential. Reliable radio equipment - as the Panzer crews had would be beneficial.

 

[yulzari]

I like the Valentine as a standard tank.

I'm glad you do too vinnye. The key thing is to resist the temptation to make it another tank rather than a better Valentine. An ex-crewman told a friend of mine that the main problem of a 2 man turret was that was one less person to help maintain the tank and stand guard. He used it on the Eastern Front and preferred it to a T34 as he could hide more easily.

 

[Glider]

I admit to not liking the Valantine as a standard tank, too small, to slow and no firepower. The Britsh had the ideal standard tank for the Desert, it was called the Sherman. Fast, reliable, good armour and the 75mm was a good gun for the time.
The 75mm may not be as good as the 75mm L43 but the Pz IV f2 had thin armour and the two for all practical purposes balanced each other out.

If you want a British ideal tank then the Cromwell should have been ready in time, it wasn't but it shold have been and that would have been even better

 

[vinnye]

If Leyland had not pulled out of the develepment in mid 1941 - it may have been possible to have the Cromwell earlier?

 

[Glider]

The engine was the problem, the basic design of the tank changed little

 

[yulzari]

The only firepower issue of the Valentine was 57mm HE rather than 75mm and one could have mixed bored out 6 pounders as 75mm HE infantry support with normal 6 pounders as anti armour tanks. I suspect the Valentine has an image problem in not looking 'cool' or doing anything 'cool'. It was not fast, but fast enough. It was not impressively armed but well enough to do the job. It was reasonably armoured but not very heavily so. It was subject to continuous careful evolution where each change was a step better but had no revolutionary changes.

Designed in 1938 it could keep up with tank evolution until 1944 when a real 17 pounder/Meteor engined super Comet could supercede it, merging the design and development resources of the Matilda, Covenanter, Crusader, Centaur/Cromwell, Challenger and Churchill. Never mind the TOGs and Tortoise. Integrating the production resources into mass output of a single design. For El-Alamein a 6 pounder Valentine single standard tank was actually possible.

A bit of a hobby horse of mine, as some will recognise. I remain convinced it was the best choice that could be achieved, if not the best tank one could make.

 

[Glider]

I think we are going to have to differ on this. The Valantine wasn't an improvement on the Matilda II. Similar armour, similar speed, similar size and same gun. The 6pd version was overgunned for its size not even having room for a co ax mg. It was hopelessly left behind in the evolution stages being too small to be developed.

 

[vinnye]

Glider - you are correct - the engine was the problem. In the Wiki page on the Cromwell it says -
Leyland were lined up to produce the Meteor but withdrew in mid-1941 as they had doubts about being able to provide sufficient cooling
This was what I was referring to in my earlier post.
Had they been able to overcome the heating problem - they may have been able to field more of them sooner.

The Valentine may not have been much of an improvement over the Matilda ii - even looks like the early ones had the same turret?
But since we lost so much materiel at Dunkirk, any tank was a bonus.

 

[yulzari]

You can get a 6 pounder in a Matilda II and they did but the key thing about the Valentine was that it was so much easier to make and used less resources to do so so you can have Valentines in quantity, real quantity. It was mediocre in the proper meaning of the word but this is a 'pile them high and sell them cheap' approach. It is about how much useable armour you can actually put into the front line and replace, not about how sexy a tank you can create.

Anyway, I have set out my stall, buyers may browse and decide for themselves how they want to spend their cash.