Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[steamboy]

How about something akin to the

T20 medium tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

coming into service but having the 76 from the start instead of the 75?

 

[weNEEDlove]

American definitely didn't have enough short men. American tanks *had* to be larger inside than Russian ones, because American tankers had to fit.

The American can start by lengthening and shortening the Sherman… because FFS the Sherman is taller than a M1 Abrams by ~half a meter.

Start having the driver laying on his back for one… although idk they can do that now with how baked the Sherman design is now.

 

[Bougnas]

Russian tanks of WW2 weren't THAT low. British ones were of similar height. They stood out because so many tanks of the day had front drives or tall engines driving hull height up. Average crew height wasn't such a deciding factor.

 

[GrahamB]

How about something akin to the

T20 medium tank - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

coming into service but having the 76 from the start instead of the 75?

I think it runs into the same problem as OTL: depending on how the US's M4-equivalent works TTL, the T20 replacement might not be enough of an improvement to warrant shifting production.

Unless of course you mean TTL's M4 is more like the T20 with a rear sprocket from the outset, in which case I think there might be a decent chance.

 

[steamboy]

I think it runs into the same problem as OTL: depending on how the US's M4-equivalent works TTL, the T20 replacement might not be enough of an improvement to warrant shifting production.

Unless of course you mean TTL's M4 is more like the T20 with a rear sprocket from the outset, in which case I think there might be a decent chance.

Yeah that the US looks at the Sherman and the Victor and makes concerned noises and asks for urgent redesigns etc.

 

[Some Bloke]

So the Victor is fast enough for its role but over armoured and relatively undergunned compared to the latest German tanks.

 

[steamboy]

So the Victor is fast enough for it's role but over armoured and relatively undergunned compared to the latest German tanks.

The Vickers 75mm HV should be easily equivalent to the Panzer IV Aus F's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_40 gun on a more heavily protected and yet more mobile chassis, and I don't think the Germans have many Aus F's yet. Sure against a Tiger it might come up a bit short but its got a gun that can threaten the Tiger at range and do so frontally.

 

[JWilly48519]

So the Victor is (...) over armoured (...) compared to the latest German tanks.

I don't understand "over armored". Significantly greater survivability...of your tanks, and of their crews...compared to your enemy is a huge, huge advantage in war. And if somehow you're able to design and build a tank that carries enough armor to remain viable against not just the current generation of enemy guns, but also their *next* generation, that's a massive success.

Your tanks and their crews will survive and become skilled veterans, fighting against inexperienced new crews in a succession of new, unproven hardware. Your side's morale will be sky-high, the other side's will be in the dumps, with scary stories about your indestructible tanks. Your logisticians and armorers can spend their time upgrading and restocking, instead of constantly struggling to recover and rebuild wrecks, and prepare replacement equipment.

 

[JWilly48519]

The Vickers 75mm HV should be easily equivalent to the Panzer IV Aus F's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_40 gun on a more heavily protected and yet more mobile chassis, and I don't think the Germans have many Aus F's yet. Sure against a Tiger it might come up a bit short but its got a gun that can threaten the Tiger at range and do so frontally.

Bring along the APDS technology available from France's Edgar Brandt company in 1940, and...at least at moderate range...a high velocity 75mm gun will be able to handle any WWII frontal armor configuration. And, Britain with manufacturing and ore-supply support from Western allies could supply all of its warfighters with tungsten carbide ammo...unlike the Germans.

 

[GrahamB]

I don't understand "over armored".

I think an argument might be made if the drivetrain struggled to get the thing moving at any useful speed (*ahem* Black Prince *ahem*), but that's clearly not an issue for the Victor, so this is not unlike calling a comfy sofa 'overstuffed'.

 

[weNEEDlove]

Unless of course you mean TTL's M4 is more like the T20 with a rear sprocket from the outset, in which case I think there might be a decent chance.

so much of the Sherman design limitation would’ve been fix with a rear sprocket…
-Lower hull
-more internal volume
-bigger turret possible.. etc etc

 

[steamboy]

Question is that 4-inches of armour before accounting for sloping/angling or is that 4-inches equivalent with? Because if that's 4 inches before taking the angle into account yeah the Victor's gonna be a very tough nut to crack frontally, and they can probably improve the gun by introducing a longer caliber version of it if needed.

And as was pointed out, this thickness of armour means that frontally the German 75 will struggle to penetrate the Victor's armour at most decent combat ranges, and at longer ranges, the 88mm is going to struggle.

Using this - https://panzerworld.com/relative-armor-calculator

Angling the armour at 45 degrees gives you 142mm armour equivalent instead of 101 on the vertical, at 40 its 157mm armour equivalent. At 30 degrees that screams up to 202mm armour equivalent although I doubt the armours that sharply angled because that would make it super cramped. And please note that wikipedia assumes that a target is going to have a 30 degree slope of armour for the L40/43's armour pen. So thats 203mm of armour equivalent which it can NOT penetrate. And even angled at 45 degrees, that's still more than what the L40/43 can do (99 or 110 mm respectively at 100 meters) and even the L48 gun on the Jagdpanzer version of the Panzer IV in terms of numbers alone JUST gets through with 143mm.

Hell going off the Tiger I's gun article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_36 using the bog standard shell it can do 136mm of penetration at 100 meters. Only the PzGr 40/43 with its tungsten penetrator can go clean through at 100 and 500 meters with 171mm and 156mm respectively, and the Germans don't have that much tungsten to fire around. Note that for this I'm assuming the armour isn't at a 30 degree slope. If it is, then the Tigers gun, and thus the 88mm will not be able to penetrate a Victor's hull over the 4-inch armoured area frontally.

So using that if we knew the slopes of the Victor's armour we could work out the rough armour protection equivalent.

But regardless, this means the tank is VERY well protected frontally, and has a pretty damn decent gun which I assume (as we've not got any performance data) is going to be roughly similar to the Germans long 75 on the Panzer IV (either the 40 or 43 caliber weapons) which is decent by any standard and won't have issues until it starts running into Panther's and Tigers, assuming they get developed, but even then only frontally, and even then only really at longer ranges.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The American can start by lengthening and shortening the Sherman… because FFS the Sherman is taller than a M1 Abrams by ~half a meter.

Start having the driver laying on his back for one… although idk they can do that now with how baked the Sherman design is now.

I am unashamedly a member of the M4 Sherman fan club and IMO the best all round tank of WW2 so please appreciate my critique is only in relation to this thread in relation to the improved UK Tanks

The Sherman height was dictated by the drive shaft and the height of the gearbox driving it to the fwd transmission not the average height of Americans

An obvious improvement is to have the final transmission at the rear such as with the Cromwell and I believe the T26 pershing and the M10 (that had a similiar layout to the M4 IIRC lowered the drive shaft making the tank destroyer lower - so the M4 could be lowered in the same fashion?

I also note that Cromwell (and I assume our Vickers tanks) with their rear drive were not that much longer than the Sherman - only a foot longer although I note the Cromwell is 1 foot 3" wider.

Also a far more compact design

Use of a V12 probably helped as well

Here is the Pershing - perhaps pushed harder ITTL - it used the same sort of layout as the Cromwell and used a torsion bar system

 

[steamboy]

The Sherman was a very good tank, in 42 it was a world beater and it was far better laid out than anything the UK or Soviets had, and was very easy to bail out of, moreso when they put springs on the hatches., but yeah if you could change the profile slightly, to reduce its profile and make it less towering you'd probably be onto a winner.

We mustn't forget the real factors of tank design, erganomics, visibility for the crew, how good or bad the gunner's sight is, and how easy it is to get out.

The Cromwell was VERY difficult for the driver and bow machine gunner to get out of, the T-34 was a nightmare, the Sherman was easy, even for a 6'5 giraffe like Chieftan

All the armour and decent guns in the world won't mean much if its a pig to drive because you can't see jack shit, and if you do get penetrated its a nightmare to get out of.

 

[weNEEDlove]

Question is that 4-inches of armour before accounting for sloping/angling or is that 4-inches equivalent with? Because if that's 4 inches before taking the angle into account yeah the Victor's gonna be a very tough nut to crack frontally, and they can probably improve the gun by introducing a longer caliber version of it if needed.

Word for word from the update.

The fact that the British tank had armour of 4-inchs compared to the American’s 2-inch had come as a surprise to the American crew

Because in the update the 4inch armor is compare to 2inch of plate thickness (which was the sherman actual plate thickness), it’s likely the 4inch is the actual plate thickness of the victor.

And as was pointed out, this thickness of armour means that frontally the German 75 will struggle to penetrate the Victor's armour at most decent combat ranges, and at longer ranges, the 88mm is going to struggle.

The short 88 wouldn’t be able to pen the armor except at short range. Due to the fact that the effectiveness of armor is more than the LoS thickness if we take into account reflection.

Using this - https://panzerworld.com/relative-armor-calculator

Angling the armour at 45 degrees gives you 142mm armour equivalent instead of 101 on the vertical, at 40 its 157mm armour equivalent. At 30 degrees that screams up to 202mm armour equivalent although I doubt the armours that sharply angled because that would make it super cramped. And please note that wikipedia assumes that a target is going to have a 30 degree slope of armour for the L40/43's armour pen. So thats 203mm of armour equivalent which it can NOT penetrate. And even angled at 45 degrees, that's still more than what the L40/43 can do (99 or 110 mm respectively at 100 meters) and even the L48 gun on the Jagdpanzer version of the Panzer IV in terms of numbers alone JUST gets through with 143mm.

Hell going off the Tiger I's gun article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_KwK_36 using the bog standard shell it can do 136mm of penetration at 100 meters. Only the PzGr 40/43 with its tungsten penetrator can go clean through at 100 and 500 meters with 171mm and 156mm respectively, and the Germans don't have that much tungsten to fire around. Note that for this I'm assuming the armour isn't at a 30 degree slope. If it is, then the Tigers gun, and thus the 88mm will not be able to penetrate a Victor's hull over the 4-inch armoured area frontally.

Due to added reflection of armor,

I don’t think the short 88 can even pen the victor except at super short range.

So using that if we knew the slopes of the Victor's armour we could work out the rough armour protection equivalent.

But regardless, this means the tank is VERY well protected frontally, and has a pretty damn decent gun which I assume (as we've not got any performance data) is going to be roughly similar to the Germans long 75 on the Panzer IV (either the 40 or 43 caliber weapons) which is decent by any standard and won't have issues until it starts running into Panther's and Tigers, assuming they get developed, but even then only frontally, and even then only really at longer ranges.

APDS would hopefully take care of the problem

 

[Monty Man]

Allan can weigh in but a quick look at his posts from ...3 years ago ... show that the Victor is NOT 4 inches of slopped armour. It is 4 inchces equivalent. " He proposed that the Victor would provide 4 inches of armour on the front hull and turret, with 3.5-inches on its sides. The armour would be sloped to provide the level of armour while keeping the weight down as far as possible, though it was likely to be in the 30-32 ton range". So in some places it will be 4 inches where relatively flat but in others thinner as it is slopped (couldn't find the angle in the old threads- 60 to 50 degrees give or take would be a fair assumption without getting crazy... but then if the weight really was 32 tonnes it might be more. Victor is well armoured...but not much more than a Matilda II and almost exactly the same as a Panther. (3.1 inches at 55 degrees with a bit of trig gives just a hair under 4 inches). Now honeslty there is no way that thing is only going to weigh 30 to 32 tonnes. We know what a V-12 powered , 3 inch gun, 4 inch armour equivalent tank weighs... and thats a Panther.. at 45 tonnes. Now teh Victor has one position less (front MG) which saves some space, therefore armour, and while Torsion Bar suspension is great, the Panther had a lot of interlocking wheels. Finally the 75mm KwK was a bit bigger than the 1931 AA that vickers is using for the basis of the gun. All those will save some weight for sure but the Victor is going to be in the high 30s, pushing 40 tonnes. Howeverit is NOT going to be immume to 88mm with 100mm of armour. The Victor is an equivalent of a Panther. except no second MG, a tad smaller, very slightly better armoured and a slightly lower velocity gun. Except with more reliable suspension and , once the teethig problmes are sorrted out a better drive train with the Meteor / Merritt Brown.

 

[Monty Man]

BTW it's not a problem that the Victor weighs more than originally conceived... cos it was first thought to put the Peregrine engine in. Allan did a wonderful job getting Vickers (Carden) thinking about aero engines earlier which enabled the Merlin / Meteor to go in it. The Victor will carve through Panzer IIIs and IVs , and go toe to toe with Panthers but almost certainly have greater reliability and availabilty. It's as conceived by Allan - better balanced than a Comet and not quite a Conquerer. But in production in 1942.....

 

[weNEEDlove]

Allan can weigh in but a quick look at his posts from ...3 years ago ... show that the Victor is NOT 4 inches of slopped armour. It is 4 inchces equivalent. " He proposed that the Victor would provide 4 inches of armour on the front hull and turret, with 3.5-inches on its sides. The armour would be sloped to provide the level of armour while keeping the weight down as far as possible, though it was likely to be in the 30-32 ton range". So in some places it will be 4 inches where relatively flat but in others thinner as it is slopped (couldn't find the angle in the old threads- 60 to 50 degrees give or take would be a fair assumption without getting crazy... but then if the weight really was 32 tonnes it might be more. Victor is well armoured...but not much more than a Matilda II and almost exactly the same as a Panther. (3.1 inches at 55 degrees with a bit of trig gives just a hair under 4 inches). Now honeslty there is no way that thing is only going to weigh 30 to 32 tonnes. We know what a V-12 powered , 3 inch gun, 4 inch armour equivalent tank weighs... and thats a Panther.. at 45 tonnes. Now teh Victor has one position less (front MG) which saves some space, therefore armour, and while Torsion Bar suspension is great, the Panther had a lot of interlocking wheels. Finally the 75mm KwK was a bit bigger than the 1931 AA that vickers is using for the basis of the gun. All those will save some weight for sure but the Victor is going to be in the high 30s, pushing 40 tonnes. Howeverit is NOT going to be immume to 88mm with 100mm of armour. The Victor is an equivalent of a Panther. except no second MG, a tad smaller, very slightly better armoured and a slightly lower velocity gun. Except with more reliable suspension and , once the teethig problmes are sorrted out a better drive train with the Meteor / Merritt Brown.

than Allan should reworld this part of the 15 April 1942. Dorset, England update

The fact that the British tank had armour of 4-inchs compared to the American’s 2-inch had come as a surprise to the American crew

because the above mean that the actual thickness of the Victor is 4 inch.


so, its up Allan if he wanted to rewrite that above to say that they are just comparing relative thickness( with 3.6 inch being Sherman relative thickness), or leave it in and confirming that the actual thickness of the victor is 4inch.

edit:
i also wanna add:

T44 weight 32 ton with front armor at 90mm with 60* slope.
so lets add 6-8 ton for crew comfort and safety, and thats 38-40 ton.
so its possible for the Victor to be a 38-40 ton tank while having basically 4(or 3) inchs of armor at a lesser Slope than 60*.

one of the reason why the Panther was so heavy is that its was very tall. IIRC the panther is taller than both the M1 Abram and the Challenger 2 by about half a meter.
with rear drive, and better crew configuration i expect the Victor to be at least 0.3 meter shorter than the Panther.

 

[brazen]

than Allan should reworld this part of the 15 April 1942. Dorset, England update

because the above mean that the actual thickness of the Victor is 4 inch.


so, its up Allan if he wanted to rewrite that above to say that they are just comparing relative thickness, or leave it in and confirming that the actual thickness is 4inch.

I don't think he needs to rewrite anything just because you think he should, the last updates were from testing a tank at a proving ground, so they will probably be talking in generalities when talking about the equivalent armour rather than down to the exact 1000ths of an inch

Before you start demanding rewrites think of how many chapters of this work Allan has given us for free and how much information and research he has to juggle for each update.

 

[weNEEDlove]

talking about the equivalent armour rather than down to the exact 1000ths of an inch.

i am not demanding it to be recorded down 1000th of a inch tho. as the actual thickness of the a unsloped Sherman is 2-inch, and even if generalizing they should've said 3 or 4 inches, as that is way closer to the relative thickness of the Sherman.

Before you start demanding rewrites think of how many chapters of this work Allan has given us for free and how much information and research he has to juggle for each update.

If Allan wanted to I can pitch in the do some volunteering work on that sentence.

I am also not asking him to rewrite half of the update.
just a small edit.

The fact that the British tank had armour of 5-inchs compared to the American’s 3( or 4)-inch had come as a surprise to the American crew

and i do feel very grateful that Allan have sacrifice his time for all of us for basically free.