And Rolls.
I remember a passage from TE Lawrence about how well a Rolls turned into an armoured car. Add steel plate. Add a couple of springs to the suspension, et voila.
And Rolls.The first bunch of madmen were running around the desert 20 years earlier in Model T's.
The Rolls Royce Armoured car was chosen by the Tank Museum as its 100th Video because of its longevity, reliability and utility throughout both wars and between the warsAnd Rolls.
I remember a passage from TE Lawrence about how well a Rolls turned into an armoured car. Add steel plate. Add a couple of springs to the suspension, et voila.
Problem is the Armoured car was a later development in 1914-1915 thanks to Churchill when Royal Navy officers drove out to hunt germans and began to up armouring and adding more weapons.I really wish I could work out a plausible way for the BEF to have a couple of Armoured Car brigades when they go to France in 1914 and while I'm at it at least one lorry borne Infantry division. It's technically possible but finding a reason.....
India more likely or when the British army was going through its major reform process after the Second Boer War looking for something that could move ahead of the armoured trains maybe?Like I said it's technically possible but finding a reason to speed things up is the problem. Trouble in India perhaps, or Ireland?
Could try having people in India and Ireland poison the horses.Like I said it's technically possible but finding a reason to speed things up is the problem. Trouble in India perhaps, or Ireland?
The story about the suspension problems is interesting. So the British could have sent more Matilda IIs in France if they had just added grousers?
I don’t think Ireland was as restive before world war one in-fact I think there was a vote on home rule in Westminster just before the war kicked off but I’m not sure on this one.Could try having people in India and Ireland poison the horses.
First Belgian armoured cars were August 1914 and only moved to the East when things went static. Armoured cars were used by the British on the western front when it was static ( as part of the machine gun corps ) but mainly as rear patrol elements or quick response if things got briefly mobile.Problem is the Armoured car was a later development in 1914-1915 thanks to Churchill when Royal Navy officers drove out to hunt germans and began to up armouring and adding more weapons.
The first offical armoured car was to late to take advantage of the war of movement on the western front however in Mesopotamia (I think) and the Belgian armoured cars in Russia performed very well in fact in 1918 the armoured cars also did very well.
My guess would be as support vehicles for hitting Italian strong-points. They might be slow, but the Italians have nothing that can penetrate them, and the pom-poms will be good against almost anything the Italians have.So I'm wondering why a selection of A11's and MkVI's were sent to the Sudan. Of all the tanks in North Africa the A11 is the least suited to a long trek across Ethiopia, in part because Kennedy will have been assassinated before they get half way. Yes I am talking about TTL's faster A11.
But can be taken down by the Cannone da 47/32. They're not going to be sending many tanks, so why send ones that risk being wrecked by enemy fire?I would have thought that sending not only a faster but uniform force would be better. I know I caused a ruckus talking about this tank yesterday but I really would have thought the A10 would have been sent. There aren't enough to arm a full batallion in North Africa and they are too slow to work with the rest of the WDF. Yes the same is true of the A11 but the A10 will be able to move across the expanse of East Africa quicker than the A11.
Possibly, thing is getting them to the strong points is going to be a pain. If they have to travel at high speed a significant amount of the time then mechanical issues become a real issue. At that point it doesn't matter if the Italian's can knock them out or not if the tank is broken down a mile away from where it is needed.My guess would be as support vehicles for hitting Italian strong-points. They might be slow, but the Italians have nothing that can penetrate them, and the pom-poms will be good against almost anything the Italians have.
Why send men into combat who risk being killed? OK, I know, that was a pretty facetious argument but it does hold some truth. The A10 is a more versatile if more vulnerable vehicle. Mobility while not the be all is still pretty important.But can be taken down by the Cannone da 47/32. They're not going to be sending many tanks, so why send ones that risk being wrecked by enemy fire?
That's a fair point. There's no really ideal tank they can spare, but on the whole the A10 probably would be the better choice.Possibly, thing is getting them to the strong points is going to be a pain. If they have to travel at high speed a significant amount of the time then mechanical issues become a real issue. At that point it doesn't matter if the Italian's can knock them out or not if the tank is broken down a mile away from where it is needed.
Yes the A10 will suffer problems as well but if the two vehicles are running at the same speed then the A11 will, in general be more taxed. Particularly of that speed is at or near the A11's top speed.
True. As for your analogy, if you have 5000 troops, losing a hundred will not significantly affect your strength. If you only have 50 though, losing even a dozen will do so.Why send men into combat who risk being killed? OK, I know, that was a pretty facetious argument but it does hold some truth. The A10 is a more versatile if more vulnerable vehicle. Mobility while not the be all is still pretty important.
You do need to look into it a bit more.I don’t think Ireland was as restive before world war one in-fact I think there was a vote on home rule in Westminster just before the war kicked off but I’m not sure on this one.
At this point it's uncertain, but given that the Churchill will need a lot more testing and development before it's really, and the fact that the Valiant's follow-up (the Victor) is already in the pipeline, and will have the Merritt-Brown gearbox (really the Churchill's only saving grace), the Churchill will will struggle to find a purpose. I think even if Britain keeps with the Infantry/Cavalry tank divisions, the requirements will be modified, so that any Infantry tank must be capable of sustained running at 12( or maybe even 15)mph, which will kill the Churchill.To return to the story. Does the development of the Valiant and it's successor totally butterfly the Churchill?
Perhaps as the basis for the "funnies"? Given it's better over very rough ground and at hill climbing.At this point it's uncertain, but given that the Churchill will need a lot more testing and development before it's really, and the fact that the Valiant's follow-up (the Victor) is already in the pipeline, and will have the Merritt-Brown gearbox (really the Churchill's only saving grace), the Churchill will will struggle to find a purpose.
How much of that was the suspension, and how much was the Merritt-Brown gearbox?Perhaps as the basis for the "funnies"? Given it's better over very rough ground and at hill climbing.