Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[kelgar04]

I think with Italy it will depend on what the Govt there does in the next few months right now they have had their heads handed to them rather smartly both on land, sea and air.

The pressure that was on fortress Malta has been taken off as well and supplies and aircraft can be flown in from NA via Bengarzi rather than shipped straight into the grand harbour. This is the only place the italians can realistically strike back at from the air but with the strengthening of the Air defence it will be hard for them to do.

Their navy is pretty much also sat in port as well given how hard it got hit though their frogmen can do damage realistically their is a limit to what they can do and I can't see the french letting them land in their Algerian ports because that will provoke a British and Commonwealth responce.

Ideally Italy will want to cut its losses so it may try to under the table declare Neutrality or at least set new RoE which preserves the home territory and takes a passive stance with a few gestures here and there. This is assuming Benny is not in the picture at the very least.

With the east some formations from the desert moving there would be a god send the issue is preparing the troops and their kit for the tropical weather they can deal with the temp but the moisture, mud and other crap will take time. Heck a few chapters back thr RA were still figuring out how to prepare their tanks for the jungle. Throwing a vetran NA formations out there will be useful but they need time to acclimatise and prepare for it. Throwing them into anything other than fixed positions without time to promise asking for trouble.

 

[marathag]

OTL, what Baldwin had just delivered to Aberdeen Proving Grounds in December, 1941, just before Pearl Harbor

The 57 ton T1E2.
OTL, the British had showed some interest in these for use in the North African theater.
That will no longer be the case.

In 1939 a requirement for a slow tank with heavy armor with an good cross country performance across the expected heavily shelled areas of the German/French border, as a WWI replay was expected.
The A20 Infantry Tank, being built by Harland and Wolff in 1940 and was heavily influenced by the Char B1
even to the point of the some thought of the hull gun using the French 75mm and testing a older Naval 6 pdr in the turret in place of the 2 pdr

H&W had production issues, plus being in Belfast , that Vauxhall was brought in and design improved to the A22 specification done by Vauxhall
in December 1940 that became the Churchill, first 14 prototypes finished.
But there were other discussions on what was needed after the Fall of France
This was what English Electric came up with the 40 ton A33/1 Excelsior, This was a 'Heavy Assault Tank', not Infantry Tank

that used M6 Suspension and track, but better layout that allowed thicker armor, and the latest high power AT gun, the 6 pdr.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Much harder to turn down the offer of building UK Tanks in the USA, and may have more influence on how the M3 Stuart, M4 Sherman and M6 Heavy are developed, with more UK say on further developments. They were pushing for heavy tanks, both the T14 and M6, and never got them.

You won't have OTL's M3 Grant proving a savior in the Libyan sands vs the poor showing of UK armor, so the US Armor Board has a lot less pull, than the UK that chased the Germans and Italians out of Africa with Vickers tanks

Already ITTL, they fobbed off the Grants to a lower threat Theater, seeing little need in that interim tank. They are seen a more than equal nation that builds and fights their designs effectively, a strong showing in France, and then what's just gone on in Libya

The US sent an organisation I think called NATO - North Africa Technical Organisation or something like that - where they along with the British looked at what was working and what was not (as well as looking first hand at what the enemy were using) and took those findings back to the US and this influenced tank design (i.e. more fuel and 75mm guns please) as well as the Tank Destroyer doctrine (rightly or wrongly) and so this is almost certainly likely to still happen and still have an impact on US designs and strategy/tactics.

What change that will be over OTL is debatable but IMO the reasons that drove the adoption of the M4 over the other potential designs still exists ITTL

So I think we are still likely to see the M4 and still not the heavier tanks and if anything with the superior British tanks with superior production and QC over OTL there will be less delay in putting the M4 into production (the choice taken to continue production of the M3 Lee/Grant in order to get more in theatre OTL which is now unnecessary).

So a slightly better M4 earlier is I think the result here!

 

[MattII]

Just not against Germany for the time being. It just requires the mindset of destroying the Japanese army in Malaya before worrying about the next step in Europe. A veteran corps from North Africa could give Yamashita kittens.

Malaya is a bit different to North Africa or Europe, more closed in (not as much as was assumed, but it will affect things).

Gives up Sicily / Sardinia / Aegean in 1942 (unless the US do it as a training exercise) but probably with hindsight the best strategic move.

I'm not sure on the Aegean, I'm pretty sure the British could manage a Dodecanese campaign by themselves if they wanted.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Malaya is a bit different to North Africa or Europe, more closed in (not as much as was assumed, but it will affect things).

The key point isn't the terrain, it's that veteran units are unlikely to panic. They certainly won't be panicked by the sight of the Japanese tanks.

 

[MattII]

The key point isn't the terrain, it's that veteran units are unlikely to panic. They certainly won't be panicked by the sight of the Japanese tanks.

True. Malaya's a good place to dump the old 2-pounders, as they'll almost certainly soon be outdated against the Germans.

 

[marathag]

So I think we are still likely to see the M4 and still not the heavier tanks and if anything with the superior British tanks with superior production and QC over OTL there will be less delay in putting the M4 into production (the choice taken to continue production of the M3 Lee/Grant in order to get more in theatre OTL which is now unnecessary).

So a slightly better M4 earlier is I think the result here!

M3 was supposed to have been an interim vehicle only, but it's success in early 1942 desert combat changed all that, and gave extra life, and production orders for over 1200 Grants in 1940, with first models finished in March '41, increased to the final over 6000 Lees and Grant produced.

ITTL, the British don't need, or even want that many of the original 1200, let alone the almost 2900 they ended up with, thru L-L
OTL, by January 1942 , 345 had been accepted by the British, from the contracts with Baldwin, Pressed Steel Car and Pullam

For all those three, a separate company, General Steel, was the sub-contractor for the turrets-- and delivered faster than ready hulls could be assembled for them , for both Grant and Lee production

 

[marathag]

Now more Shermans, the T6 prototype was done in September of 1941, with regular production starting of the M4 and M4A1 in February and March 1942.

OTL the British were pushing for many modifications of the US Armor, and I believe their words will have more impact with their win in North Africa on what works with tanks against the German and Italians

The diesel powered M4A2 dated from Winter 1941, with a prototype in April of 1942, but production not till February 1943.
This I beilieve would be far faster in this ATL, as this would be what the British want more than the Radial Sherman

 

[MattII]

So the M4 will be on the scene sooner with little need for the M3?

 

[pedmore1202]

The key point isn't the terrain, it's that veteran units are unlikely to panic. They certainly won't be panicked by the sight of the Japanese tanks.

More likely fall about laughing their asses off at them instead

 

[MattII]

Come to think of it, how well would Boys AT rifles work against those tin cans?

 

[Gunnarnz]

Come to think of it, how well would Boys AT rifles work against those tin cans?

Probably pretty well. Wiki gives it a penetration of over 18mm of armour at 500 yards, and since Japanese tanks only got over 15mm on the mantlet and some parts of the hull front, I think the Boys would stay viable against anything the Japanese could field.

 

[marathag]

So the M4 will be on the scene sooner with little need for the M3?

Not all that much faster, sadly. tooling up still takes time
The savings will be a faster ramp up of production rates, and less M3s around. Possible more utility vehicles from these, like Recovery tanks,SPGs, etc.

The first M3s began rolling off the unfinished Detroit Tank Arsenal in late April of 1941

The best rate Baldwin did from my figures, was around 140 medium tanks in June 1942.
the best that DTA did was 896 in December

So what's that mean? US can pump out more than there are units to equip them with, since there are likely to be no large tank battles outside of the USSR.

Western Allies get a breather to refine designs and do some good training.

Now this may lead to haste into pulling a Round Up/Sledgehammer into France in May 1943

 

[MattII]

Not all that much faster, sadly. tooling up still takes time
The savings will be a faster ramp up of production rates, and less M3s around. Possible more utility vehicles from these, like Recovery tanks,SPGs, etc.

The M4 hull being used in suporting roles is no bad thing.

So what's that mean? US can pump out more than there are units to equip them with, since there are likely to be no large tank battles outside of the USSR.

So some of them get sent (sans guns) to the USSR under Lend-Lease?

Western Allies get a breather to refine designs and do some good training.

Maybe we get some T20 series designs seeing service?

Now this may lead to haste into pulling a Round Up/Sledgehammer into France in May 1943

That might actually be doable.

 

[Merrick]

The A20 Infantry Tank, being built by Harland and Wolff in 1940 and was heavily influenced by the Char B1
even to the point of the some thought of the hull gun using the French 75mm and testing a older Naval 6 pdr in the turret in place of the 2 pdr

It looks to me like H&W still thought they were designing ships when they came up with that thing - a flotilla-mate for HMS TOG maybe?

Seriously, I think the success of the Valiant will work against heavy tank development on both sides of the Atlantic. Mechanised flanking maneuvers have proved superior to fixed defense lines and when necessary the Valiant has proven more than adequate for supporting assaults on prepared defensive positions. The new Victor and M4 super-mediums promise an even better mix of speed, firepower and protection. There's no motivation to go for 50 ton monsters with all that means in terms of cost, logistical issues, over-stressed drive trains and poor mobility.

 

[marathag]

Maybe we get some T20 series designs seeing service?

One can hope.
In a way, the M4 was a victim of its success in Libya.
It was probably the best tank around in early 1942, reliable, proof against most German Anti-tank and tank guns at combat ranges, and a gun that could handle any tank that it met.

So why change anything? Everyone loved the Sherman the way it was, so needed changes were hard to push forward. The only thing that was easy to do was to make more of them than before

Without the drain of the tank combat in North Africa, there isn't the need to replace losses in the British Armies, as well as trying to equip the new US Armored formations, so a more realistic production schedule can be worked out, that includes new models

There's no motivation to go for 50 ton monsters with all that means in terms of cost, logistical issues, over-stressed drive trains and poor mobility.

But the Germans will not be standing still.
There will be even more effort over OTL to improve the Panzers

The reason for the Churchill, was to go over rough ground, and support infantry.
That goal hasn't changed, even with a successful line of tanks that are better than Nuffields' Cruiser lineup

Without Torch, US TD and Heavy Tank Doctrine will be far different than OTL. There isn't the rush to get an many tanks to the UK and North Africa to replace/supplant the OTL terrible UK medium tank line

The US M6 wasn't as reliable as the M4.
No heavy tank was ever that reliable as that during WWII. But it would have been far more reliable than the German heavies. US Jumbos were almost 15 tons heavier than the first Shermans, for only slightly worse reliability, but worse cross country ability.
That was something identified as a weakness even in the early Shermans, along with the poor torque delivery of the radial models
But the M6 had a slightly better ground pressure, and a better power to weight ratio, and electric drive of the M6A2 and Hycon/Torque Converter on the M6 were far easier to steer than the basic Cletrac setup on the M4

 

[kelgar04]

Also less steel being cut for new tanks as well as things like gear boxes, guns, engines ectra. It means more steel for other projects and tasks may not be much in the grand scheme of things but every little helps.

Also means more crews are still around and kicking so more experienced tankers who can pull cadre duty if needed to train up new crews and split off to give a new crew an experienced hand on the tiller.

 

[MattII]

Also less steel being cut for new tanks as well as things like gear boxes, guns, engines ectra. It means more steel for other projects and tasks may not be much in the grand scheme of things but every little helps.

A single M3 Lee is 27 tonnes, the majority of which is steel, so slightly over 500 of those is the displacement of a Baltimore class heavy cruiser. Individually they don't account for much, but in production runs, the cost adds up.

Also means more crews are still around and kicking so more experienced tankers who can pull cadre duty if needed to train up new crews and split off to give a new crew an experienced hand on the tiller.

Yep.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The US M6 wasn't as reliable as the M4.
No heavy tank was ever that reliable as that during WWII. But it would have been far more reliable than the German heavies. US Jumbos were almost 15 tons heavier than the first Shermans, for only slightly worse reliability, but worse cross country ability.
That was something identified as a weakness even in the early Shermans, along with the poor torque delivery of the radial models
But the M6 had a slightly better ground pressure, and a better power to weight ratio, and electric drive of the M6A2 and Hycon/Torque Converter on the M6 were far easier to steer than the basic Cletrac setup on the M4

I am not writing this in support of the M6 but it had a fraction of the treasure, resources and development expended on it as the Sherman enjoyed and relatively early on in its development interest waned

So it was never going to be as good a tank (regarding reliability) as the Sherman

 

[CMDBob]

One thing about all of this is that the British/Americans might cotton on a bit quicker to converting the M3's into SPGs (Priest/Sexton) earlier, especially given the work that's happening on that sort of thing at Vickers ITTL. Might be seen as a good option to use "unwanted" M3s in a role their hull design is suited for earlier on. Could also help with production of Valiants/Victors, as hulls etc won't have to be dedicated as much to the SPGs, potentially.