Tank & AFV armament alternatives, 1935-45 (1 Viewer)

[Elan Vital]

I would agree, the point is they were making too many different types. With the Matilda II, Valentine, and Churchill all offering the same gun, roughly the same speed and around the same armor at the same time. Only real difference was the amount ammo carried and the extra machine gun in the Churchill and that increase in "fighting power" was not great (more in the minds of the designers/committee) They got around to increasing the gun and armor of the Churchill..........eventually.
Using the infantry tanks as ersatz cruisers is really admitting they had screwed up the cruiser tank implementation in spectacular fashion. We can argue about the doctrine, specification but the supplied tanks didn't have the reliability to perform the mission. Sending the Cruisers into the enemy rear areas to force him to retreat doesn't work well when most of your tanks are going to breakdown before they shoot up very much rear area "stuff" (supply dumps, head quarters, heavy artillery and so on). Not much enemy AT gun or counter attack by enemy tanks needed. British Cruiser tanks were not capable of staying running in large numbers over 200-300 miles of movement.

P.M. Knight answers some of this in his books on early Cruisers. The powers that be expected the battle tempo to be sufficiently slow to use the tanks for some time, then send them back for overhaul/major maintenance. So specific durability/reliability figures were not required. Admittedly, my understanding is that a lot of WW2 belligerants thought the same as well at the time.

My understanding is that it is only in 1942-43 that the British set a specific value, 3000 mile life for Cruisers and 2000 mile life for Churchills before overhaul, without failure/replacement of a major assembly. Cromwell was the first Cruiser to meet this, A30 and Comet met it as well, late Churchills met it, Black Prince was still in development but it was apparent it would have met the requirement. Late Covenanter was close, late Crusader sorta was getting there, but initially it had a pretty mediocre life of 1000-1500 miles with many systemic issues.

As for 2 pdr, I also agree that having the normal full suite of full caliber ammo almost from the start would have helped a lot. The French for example started experimental work/trials on AP ammo for their casemate guns and the 47mm tank gun in 1932 IIRC, starting with uncapped AP shot (still better against thick plate than the atrocious 2pdr APHE which had an excessively large cavity), and entering service with APBC with hardened tip (APC for tank guns). Admittedly, old APHE or uncapped ammo was actually quite common among low caliber gun users (Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Germany...)

 

[Shortround6]

I have purchased P.M. Knight's book on the Crusader and I am working my way through it. I may get a few more of his books but I can't afford the complete collection.
I do recommend this book based on what I have read so far. There is a lot of 'stuff' behind the scenes that winds up causing trouble later. Like 'just cut 6 1/2 inches' from the height of the Liberty engine. Not that the Liberty was trouble free in the early cruiser tanks, but it got worse in the Crusader which is kind of the opposite of what you would expect after you already had around 700 in service. It was supposed to have been the 'safe' choice.

To cut the British some slack the Fighting in NA was very different than what most people contemplated for combat in Europe in the 1930s. The Soviets and Americans may not have had actual mileage requirements but the size of their countries made them more mindful of distance than some other countries.
For the French it is difficult to find a 600 mile difference from the northern border to the border with Spain. You can do it but you really have to use the corners
For the British and going cross country it it about 700 miles from John O' Groats to Land's end so the idea of doing such journeys without maintenance is not surprising. Also the extensive rail networks didn't require it. For the US it is over 800 miles from Boston to Charleston and over 1600 miles from the top of the coast of Maine to Miami Florida. Yes the US had rail roads but they were expecting their motorized army to go further distances just to get to battle sites than the Europeans.
And likewise the tanks/vehicles they needed for 'colonial duties' were different than those needed for European conflicts.

Combine the distances traveled with the wear and tear caused by the Desert environment and things were worse for everybody, including the Germans and Italians.

But the British were expecting Cruiser tanks to go 25-35mph on roads, they were expecting them to operate "behind the lines" quite possible beyond even heavy artillery support and with a lot of zigging and zagging, not drive 10 miles behind the enemy front lines, drive around for an hour and then drive 10 miles back. You are going to loose some tanks due to break downs. For every tank that makes it to 1000 miles, in order to have a 500 mile average, you had to have tank that broke at 1 mile

 

[tomo pauk]

Soviets were actually experimenting with the gun that was equivalent of the M1936 (a.k.a. F-22) 'multi-purpose' gun, at least on the KV-1:



It was just a plain-vanilla KV-1 otherwise.
This ZiS-5 (F-22) version was supposed to do fire the 6.5kg projectile at 780 m/s (that is probably the very hot load ammo version), with penetration ability of 75mm at 1000m, 90 deg hit; ammo compatibility with the M1902/30, M1936 (F-22) and M1939 (USV) guns is noted:



This kind of a tank gun would've been very handy to have in 1942 and 43.

German modification of the captured KV-1, featuring a tank gun as was used on the Pz-IVG for example.

 

[bf109xxl]

Soviets were actually experimenting with the gun that was equivalent of the M1936 (a.k.a. F-22) 'multi-purpose' gun, at least on the KV-1:

View attachment 810470

It was just a plain-vanilla KV-1 otherwise.
This ZiS-5 (F-22) version was supposed to do fire the 6.5kg projectile at 780 m/s (that is probably the very hot load ammo version), with penetration ability of 75mm at 1000m, 90 deg hit; ammo compatibility with the M1902/30, M1936 (F-22) and M1939 (USV) guns is noted:

BR-350B for F-34/ZIS-5 was able to penetrate up to 78 mm at 1000m. The difference between 50clb and 41clb versions of the ZIS-5 was less significant than the projectile design, the use of the F-34 barrel made the ZIS-5 much cheaper. The Soviets tested the F-27 with the ballistics of the AA 3-K (813 m/s), however it was not well suited for the use in the KV turret. The Soviets did not need any 76mm guns with a higher ballistics. They need 85-mm. The limiting factor was the turret ring diameter - the Soviets needed American/British machines for mass production of armor plates with a 1600mm turret ring cutout.

View attachment 810471

This kind of a tank gun would've been very handy to have in 1942 and 43.

The mass-produced F-34/ZIS-5 with the BR-350B projectile fully corresponded these parameters .

 

[tomo pauk]

What the Soviets reckoned during the war, wrt. their tank/AFV guns vs. German tanks. Note that armor of the selected parts of the German tanks is 'normalized', ie. the vertical equivalent of the slanted (where applicable) armor is specified to level the playing field. tanks listed start with Pz-I (T-I) and end with Tiger B, a.ka. Tiger II (T-VI-B). Note two Pz-IV graphs, for 'normal' and for up-armored.



Several conclusions can be drawn from the graph, IMO.
Soviets were in disadvantage due to not up-gunning their tanks in early 1943, if not already in 1942 (when we account for the German self-propelled vehicles - tanks and other AFVs - with the long-barrel gun ability to destroy Soviet tanks well beyond 1km mark).
The 85mm gun would've helped a lot there.
For the peace of mid, the 100 and 122 mm self-propelled cannons should've also been in service by 1943.