Tank & AFV armament alternatives, 1935-45 (3 Viewers)

[tomo pauk]

<snip>

I'm telling you again: the book about the French tanks and guns developments between 1933 and 1940 is long overdue

 

[Shortround6]

I'd guess that two H35s will cost at least as much as one S35, while needing double the number of trained crew
440 of S35 produced before mid 1940 is still very good. Too bad that French didn't doubled-up on the S35, foregoing the H35 all together, for yet another 600+- of the S35s instead of 1200+- of H35s.
French tank production, in numbers and let alone in tonnage was better than what Germans were doing, pointing out that they in fact that they have had the plants/factories to make stuff. Unfortunately, best of the production capacity was used up for making the under 12 ton tanks crewed by two men each.

The little tanks only need 50% more crew

France didn't have had the time because they were defeated by Germany. As it can be seen, production of the serious tanks in Germany was also not roses and unicorns.
If the S35 can have a 2-men turret in the operative tanks in summer of 1940, that is a major boon for them. Having that in, say, October is indeed too late for 1940.

You are right, the German production was not roses and unicorns but it was several months ahead of where the French needed to be. It takes quite a number of months to go from first tank out the factory door to having significant numbers in service in the field. Germans are going to get 5cm guns in MK IIIs sooner than the French are going to get improved tanks ( 2 man turrets, etc)

The 75mm gun on the Char B was a good start. An excellent start when compared to what the other people were installing in their tanks in the second half of the 1930s

The 75mm gun on the Char B was not really a good gun, however it's location well and truly sucked. The whole system was ingenious, However they were answering questions that should not have been asked, or at least not repeated more than once in the meetings. Just because you can design a steering system that allows you to use a fixed gun and use the driver as a gunner doesn't mean you should. At least the US was only dumb enough to try to the use the driver to aim/fire axillary machine guns and not the tanks main armament, it's reason for being. Coordination between the commander (if he wasn't playing with the 47mm gun) and the driver to aim and fire the 75mm gun needed to be of a high order. This assumes that the commander can see targets the gunner cannot. Commander has to guide the driver to line up the tank with the target, at least until the gunner can see the target in his view port or sight. Somebody had to the tell the loader which type of ammo to stick in the gun. Driver has to steer the tank for any correction left and right and may or may not have to take is right had off the controls to operate the gun elevation wheel. A few commanders and drivers seemed to get this to work well but this may have been a minority.
Grants and Stugs, Su-85s and such had limited traverse of the gun by the gunner. You had a proper commander, gunner, driver, loader division of duties.

I would note that tank turret design is not quite as simple as it seems. French may have been able to muck this one up at times. Chieftain claims that the French FCM 36 could not be upgraded to the 37mm SA 38 gun because the increase recoil broke some of the welded seams in the turret. A new turret was under test when France fell? The recoil of a 700g projectile at 700ms being too much for the turret?
A two man turret is better than a one man turret. How close does it get you to the three man turret? And it is not just the increase in the rate of fire. It is that the 3rd man (1st man?) is maintaining situational awareness (where the tank is, where his platoon mates are, where the enemy is, is the enemy moving, what is the priority list of the visible enemy targets, as an enemy disappeared from visibility/sneaking up).

 

[tomo pauk]

The little tanks only need 50% more crew

They will need 100% more of the drivers and commanders/gunners/loaders, though.

You are right, the German production was not roses and unicorns but it was several months ahead of where the French needed to be. It takes quite a number of months to go from first tank out the factory door to having significant numbers in service in the field. Germans are going to get 5cm guns in MK IIIs sooner than the French are going to get improved tanks ( 2 man turrets, etc)

What are the monthly production figures for 1940? For the tanks above 15 tons?
The 5cm gun on some Pz-IIIs still does not solve the problem of that tank being a fair game for the 25mm ATG and better.

The 75mm gun on the Char B was not really a good gun, however it's location well and truly sucked.

I'd agree with the second half of the sentence, but not with the 1st half.

 

[Elan Vital]

What are the monthly production figures for 1940? For the tanks above 15 tons?

The subject of German production plans and capability for a prolonged war with France deserves its own book IMO. The main difficulty is knowning what technological/industrial delays were incompressible (factories starting construction before 1940, but that cannot be completed any earlier) and which ones weren't (factories and tech ordered only sometime after Barbarossa when the war took on a new shape).

For Pz IV (chart at the very bottom): sustained 30/month. Pz III was IIRC around 80/100/month intended. It is a July 1940 document, but I'm not sure the Germans could really ramp up production much for the remainder of 1940 anyway. 1941 wasn't a huge change OTL, but OTL 1942 might give some indications with the caveat that this could include some of these newly added capacities with incompressible delays.

Last I recall, France alone matched German production of tanks above 15 tonnes and would be more or less able to follow, but the UK alone could add as much as 200/month by 1941 split roughly 50/50 Infantry/Cruisers.

 

[Shortround6]

What are the monthly production figures for 1940? For the tanks above 15 tons?

For the French
Production de chars et automitrailleuses, 1939-1940
It seems like 66-70 tanks above 15 tons was planned production for most of 1940.
Germans built about 1400 Pz III & Pz IV in 1940 total and about 367 Pz 38(t)s which while not 15 ton tanks were a lot better than the French two man tanks.

The 5cm gun on some Pz-IIIs still does not solve the problem of that tank being a fair game for the 25mm ATG and better.

Germans were fitting the extra 30mm plates to the MK IIIs starting in Aug 1940. This is somewhat independent of the 50mm guns, I don't think any 37mm armed tanks got the extra plates but if the BoF was still going on there doesn't seem to be any technical reason they couldn't be fitted.

I'd agree with the second half of the sentence, but not with the 1st half.

I am not sure what you get for the weight and complications aside from more HE.

 

[tomo pauk]

Germans built about 1400 Pz III & Pz IV in 1940 total

Do you have some link about that? There seems to be only 290 of Pz-IV made in all of 1940.

Germans were fitting the extra 30mm plates to the MK IIIs starting in Aug 1940. This is somewhat independent of the 50mm guns, I don't think any 37mm armed tanks got the extra plates but if the BoF was still going on there doesn't seem to be any technical reason they couldn't be fitted.

Okay.

I am not sure what you get for the weight and complications aside from more HE.

One 75mm HE shell was worth perhaps as much as five 47mm HE shells? All while not being a wimp when it is enemy tanks.
We can see that the target effect of the 75mm shell was acknowledged by the British in Summer of 1940.

 

[Shortround6]

Getting back to the British and some the reasons they did what they did.
And a lot of it had to do with money.
When they went from the A 13s to the Covenanter and Crusader they were trying to to do several things. One was change the transmission/steering gear and the 2nd was to shift of 40mm frontal armor instead of 30mm.
For some reason they decided that the tank/s had to weigh under 18 tons to suit the existing bridging equipment. And the solution to this was to shorten the tank in height so that it would need less armor. It was this shorter height that created the problems of Meadows flat 12 and need to chop about 7in out of the Liberty engine and use the squashed turret.
This is a classic own goal or shooting themselves in the foot, not once, but several times.
The Royal Engineers were already working on and nearly done with bridging equipment to suit the A 12 Infantry tank (Matilda) that was called class 24 tons (British long tons).
The Bridge thing was the official excuse. Perhaps it just gave cover to those who wanted lightweight (cheap) for other reasons.
This was a real opportunity for the British to make a decent cruiser (medium ) tank with more growth potential.

Crusader prototype. Note not only the little mg turret on the bow but that the driver has his own Besa gun mounted to the right of his head.
He can't see to the left around the little turret and he has trouble seeing out the right around the Besa guns breech. He can open the hatch and look out the front to drive but is in serious of danger of head injury if the main gun turns/depresses.
One can see why they got rid of it.
But why was it there to begin with????
The A13s had one gun in the tank, the Crusader started with 3, went to 2 very quickly and after early combat, would up with one. But it had to deal with size/space/weight for it's entire life. BTW the early testing with the little machine gun turret did not go well. The gunner lost consciousness after firing 400 rounds. It proved impossible to pull him out of the turret/firing position. After opening up all hatches and suppling air/oxygen(?) it took 45 minutes for him to wake up. Just needed a little tweaking of the ventilation, right?
While the Liberty powered A 13s were hardly trouble free the modifications done to it to get to fit into the lower hull really screwed things up. Changes to the cooling fans and fan drives (ring any bells) and the change to oil system (shallower oil pan/sump) required 7 fittings and exterior oil line/s instead of a single connection. Also screwed up the oil scavenging in the engine when not operating on the level.

This is what "it if".
What if the British tried to make a super A 13 with the same armament, more armor, room for growth (instead of cramming in machineguns for everybody) and used the higher weigh limit of the Matilda tank bridge.?

 

[tomo pauk]

What if the British tried to make a super A 13 with the same armament, more armor, room for growth (instead of cramming in machineguns for everybody) and used the higher weigh limit of the Matilda tank bridge.?

They would've been getting something like 80% of a Cromwell?

 

[Shortround6]

Maybe.
Go for 50mm frontal armor to start, not 40mm. They would up increasing it anyway. Add a little more to the sides.
Taller hull and bigger turret might allow room for 6pdr in 1941 or 6 months-year earlier? and still keep 3 man turret crew. Improve cupola, not get rid of it.
Buy time to sort out the next phase. Meteor powered Cromwell/Comet with the 77mm gun, may even a sloped glacis plate if we can keep the bow gun from coming back
British Panther Junior in 1943?

 

[Elan Vital]

This is what "it if".
What if the British tried to make a super A 13 with the same armament, more armor, room for growth (instead of cramming in machineguns for everybody) and used the higher weigh limit of the Matilda tank bridge.?

They would've been getting something like 80% of a Cromwell?

Maybe.
Go for 50mm frontal armor to start, not 40mm. They would up increasing it anyway. Add a little more to the sides.
Taller hull and bigger turret might allow room for 6pdr in 1941 or 6 months-year earlier? and still keep 3 man turret crew. Improve cupola, not get rid of it.
Buy time to sort out the next phase. Meteor powered Cromwell/Comet with the 77mm gun, may even a sloped glacis plate if we can keep the bow gun from coming back
British Panther Junior in 1943?

This is pretty much the what-if conclusion from P.M. Knight's book on Crusader. Bonus point is that the reasoning behind the Covenanter/Crusader separation (mounting an auxiliary turret while staying under 18 tons) would no longer exist, so you would reduce the number of tank variants. Would also make Meadows' solution of a flat 12 built out of truck engine blocks impractical, so could force proper development of a dedicated tank engine within the space of the Liberty, but more powerful.

In an even more ideal world, this idea would have been realized as early as the A16, replacing 3 programs (A16, A13 Mk III and A15) with a single one started a little earlier than IRL A15. Now all that remains is turning the Vulcan/LMS/ROF A14 program into the proper spiritual replacement for Matilda II and nipping the A20 and A22 concepts in the bud* and the British are set.

*Shelled Area tanks IMO only make sense if they are designed like the TOG 2 from the start as a counterpart to the French fortification assault tanks.