Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

I was championing the Excelsior earlier :D
Not saying Excelsior couldn't happen but I think it's facing the same issues as OTL - the Churchill is going to be ready faster.

TBH if ATL Churchill gets the same engine as the Valiants (and why wouldn't it? It will be tested and available) then it's reliability issues will be mostly solved and the gun may well go straight to 6 pdr if the Valiant I production can fill the gap as a compromise universal tank until the new turret is worked out.
 
Not saying Excelsior couldn't happen but I think it's facing the same issues as OTL - the Churchill is going to be ready faster.

TBH if ATL Churchill gets the same engine as the Valiants (and why wouldn't it? It will be tested and available) then it's reliability issues will be mostly solved and the gun may well go straight to 6 pdr if the Valiant I production can fill the gap as a compromise universal tank until the new turret is worked out.
A better Churchill would certainly a welcome sight as well, as far as I am concerned.
 
I make this post with trepidation!

So ITTL we have a much better British tank. Probably produced in infantry tank and cruiser tank variants. I can’t see even the War Office persevering with clearly inferior designs like the Covenator, Cruisader and Churchill beyond initial pre war orders and prototypes. Much of the OTL production of these tanks will go on producing more Valiants. This means that a handful of Valiants make it to France and some are available for the desert in early 1941. This will become a flood of tanks from mid 1941 onwards. Perhaps enough for a few Val’s to be sent to the Far East pre hostilities with Japan! I don’t think any of that is too contentious.

How does this effect US tanks in UK service? In OTL British tanks where a bit rubbish especially when compared to the Pz 3’s anPz 4’s. They took anything available that was better than the cruiser tanks they had. Which in OTL was anything stamped made in the USA. The Stuart was loved by British crews not just because it was reliable. To the extent they used it as a cruiser tank in the desert. ITTL with Valiants available in numbers the Stuart, excellent tank that it was, is likely to be asked for in lesser numbers and be used in the light tank role for the British. The M3 Lee/Grant is another vehicle that would be less needed by the British (unless they use it as SPG to deal with dug in STG’s). Which brings us to the M4.

How does the late 1941 Valiant compare to the early Sherman? The armour is similar as I suspect would be the maximum speeds. The 6 pounder versus the 75mm, well I think we are all going to have learn to disagree on which is better. The point I’m trying to make is that these tanks are broadly competitive against each other and the mid war Pz 3&4’s.

However, I feel that by at the latest, the summer 1943, Britain will have the successor tank to the Valiant in mass(ish) production. It’s going to happen. Indeed the British not designing a new tank based on a proven successful design over 3 year period is boarder-line ASB! I think it’s safe to assume this new tank will be armed with at least a 3” duel purpose gun and have a more powerful engine and be encased in considerably more armour. For this post let’s assume it’s closer to a British Panther at around 40 tons than a British Panzer 4.

Now how does the new British tank compare to the USA’s new Sherman tank? I suspect badly. How is this going to make the US Government and Military feel? I suspect envious. I feel that it’s one thing for the enemy to have arguably better tanks, but for the British to have better tanks, that just wouldn’t do. What’s the solution? either to improve the Sherman ASAP or design a new better than the British tank ASAP. I for see them doing both. Perhaps to the extent the the great US tank of WW2 isn’t the Sherman at all but (whispering softly) TTL’s Pershing.l available in numbers for 1944.
 
The post it's mentioned in says that Carden is looking at a weapon with a muzzle velocity somewhere in the region of 2,000-2,500 ft/s, a little lower than the 2,580 ft/s of the 77mm. Not quite as good a hole-puncher (directly at least, though a shaped charge or APDS could help), but likely with a more respectable HE round.

Will depend, if you use the same case as the 77mm (the 420R of the 3") then you could boot the pressure up as high if the barrel and breach will handle it.
 
It's Hollywood, they'll think of something. If history gets in the way of a story they'll make something up. How else do they have American volunteers winning the Battle of Britain before fighting at Pearl Harbour and taking part in the Doolittle Raid?
That's completely ridiculous and would never happen and... oh excrement, I'd forgotten about that. I'd put it out of my mind and then you went and reminded me of that.
1606741284479.png
 
I was busy over the weekend, so it's taken me all morning to read through your comments. First of all thanks to everyone who contributed, it is a fascinating place this site. Secondly you're a bunch of gun-nuts!;)
Thirdly, all sorts of things came up, and it would take me all day to reply to them, where I really need to get on with writing the next update. Just a couple of points if you don't mind.

Minor question: Is the old gang still working on the mighty TOG's or has that project been silenced?
TOG will happen and we'll get to it as OTL which is after the declaration of war.
I just had a thought, if the Matilda proves itself in France, could the army press a bunch of pom-poms into service as impromptu AT guns? If they could, I imagine this would trim several months (at least) off the introduction of the 6 pounder?
The pompom will serve to illustrate the need for HE, it shouldn't affect the development of the 6-pdr.
Are there any plans to build Valentine/ Valiant in Canada? Perhaps the Ram series could be a bit better. As I understood it they wanted the Ram to be able to fit a 75mm but followed what the tank commission wanted and the Ram 1 had the 2 pdr, because it was available and the Ram 2 the 6 pdr because that was the new standard.
Canada was due to produce the Valentine, then looked at the Ram, then back to the Valentine. TTL, hopefully they'll go straight for the Valiant, which may have consequences for the Soviets.
I think you're forgetting the new UK tank factories. Two have been mentioned so far, add them to the production ability of Vickers and some of the other armaments firms linked to Vickers (Harland and Wolff etc) and you are likely able to greatly scale back the reliance on the locomotive manufacturers. LMS for one will likely be out of the tank building business by 41 rather than 43. Vulcan is a bit tricky TTL but I could see them stopping production 6ish months earlier.
Good point. LMS has probably the least successful expansion of the war potential. They actually only produced 589 tanks all in, 400 of which were Matilda IIs. The Covenanter design which they were parent of they only built 159. Leyland (494) and English Electric (1088) did most of the building. Taking LMS out of the equation earlier, or linking Leyland and English Electric to Vickers for the Valiant cruiser version is very interesting, which raises the question of what happens to the Meadows V12 DAV engine.
Maybe I am just being hard of thinking here but it seems the thread is being dominated by Schrodingers cannon which is simultaneously existing in multiple quantum states:
I have to say reading the best part of twelve pages of debate about guns in their various forms, this made me laugh out loud!
 
Last edited:
Actually I'm not quiet sure what the Valiant will do to the Churchill.
There is no point in arming an infantry support tank with a 2pdr now. The question is likely to be, the 6pdr or a low velocity big gun as a CS solution.
I see Carden being asked for input here, given the obviously successful Valiant. Suggestions like the same engine (Churchill will be slower, but its a proven reliable engine in mass production), sloped armour is better, and making sure the turret size allows for an upgrade gun. More like the Black Prince that the OTL Churchill maybe?

As to comparisons between the 6pdr Valiant and the Sherman; not hugely disparate tanks, but the Valiant is available 2 years earlier. The Sherman will be competing with the Valiant 2. However a Sherman with the Vickers 3" gun and possibly a bit of armour improvement would be a useful tank.

Although given a D-day landing, it would be amusing to see US tank units demanding British Valiant 2 tanks to protect them from the nasty Tigers... :D
 
Actually I'm not quiet sure what the Valiant will do to the Churchill.
There is no point in arming an infantry support tank with a 2pdr now. The question is likely to be, the 6pdr or a low velocity big gun as a CS solution.
I see Carden being asked for input here, given the obviously successful Valiant. Suggestions like the same engine (Churchill will be slower, but its a proven reliable engine in mass production), sloped armour is better, and making sure the turret size allows for an upgrade gun. More like the Black Prince that the OTL Churchill maybe?

As to comparisons between the 6pdr Valiant and the Sherman; not hugely disparate tanks, but the Valiant is available 2 years earlier. The Sherman will be competing with the Valiant 2. However a Sherman with the Vickers 3" gun and possibly a bit of armour improvement would be a useful tank.

Although given a D-day landing, it would be amusing to see US tank units demanding British Valiant 2 tanks to protect them from the nasty Tigers... :D
The Sherman was too tall!
 
Well, its not surprising we talk about guns, its the primary point of the tank.
The purpose of a tank is to carry a gun around the battlefield with good protection and mobility. (Montgomery, iirc)

This was the bit the British didn't get right until the Comet; choose a gun and design a tank around it, rather than build a tank and see what you can shoehorn into its turret.
 
Actually I'm not quiet sure what the Valiant will do to the Churchill.
There is no point in arming an infantry support tank with a 2pdr now. The question is likely to be, the 6pdr or a low velocity big gun as a CS solution.
I see Carden being asked for input here, given the obviously successful Valiant. Suggestions like the same engine (Churchill will be slower, but its a proven reliable engine in mass production), sloped armour is better, and making sure the turret size allows for an upgrade gun. More like the Black Prince that the OTL Churchill maybe?

As to comparisons between the 6pdr Valiant and the Sherman; not hugely disparate tanks, but the Valiant is available 2 years earlier. The Sherman will be competing with the Valiant 2. However a Sherman with the Vickers 3" gun and possibly a bit of armour improvement would be a useful tank.

Although given a D-day landing, it would be amusing to see US tank units demanding British Valiant 2 tanks to protect them from the nasty Tigers... :D
If the Valiant I gets the 6 pdr before Churchill III/IV appears (as it probably will) then the emphasis will be on the Churchill V analogue with a QF 95mm as a true infantry support tank (edit actually the Churchill IV with the American 75mm or QF 75 mm wouldn't be a bad tank) . With possibly a Black Prince / Churchill VIII analogue as you say for a super heavy Tiger killer carrying the Vickers 3" (or 17pdr as IOTL)
 
Last edited:
Given a bit less urgency, I wonder if they could do a bit better than the rather bodged 95mm?
Maybe a shortened 25lb'r? Low velocity, so lots of bang, yet a few AP rounds just in case.
 
Given a bit less urgency, I wonder if they could do a bit better than the rather bodged 95mm?
Maybe a shortened 25lb'r? Low velocity, so lots of bang, yet a few AP rounds just in case.
Rather put the muzzel brake and super charged rounds on it.
The Mk 2 Ordnance on Mk 1 carriage added a "super" charge in a different cartridge. In 1943 a separately bagged "increment" charge was added; used with the Super it provided higher velocity for anti-tank use. The introduction of the increment to super was only possible following the addition of the muzzle-brake in the previous year.
 
Why are they not just driving tanks and arty and other kit directly onto the three massive train transporters? Looks like a pretty easy job. Natural defence of the harbour basin by the cliffs and hills around. Assault Group Kruger isn't going to be a thing after the division gets a bigger slap at Arras, and all the British tanks that were lost at OTL Arras are going to be tooling about preventing the rapid closing on either Calais or Dunkirk as a "force in being" for the paranoid German commanders. It was the rapid close on Calais after a single day to re-org after Arras and therefore supporting artillery coming into range, along with severing the line between Dunkirk and Calais that forced the hand of the British in picking Dunkirk.

Run the train transports in at night - you're going to have THOUSANDS of loggy and RN types with experience of ultra-heavy loading of channel transports from WW1 kicking about. Piece of pish.

Also, wasn't this how they got the kit over in the first place? I would have thought this method would have been vastly faster and easier into Calais and Boulogne than craned from the hold?

Given the loading capacity of Calais you're going to be looking for excuses not to be loading remaining kit at this point.

*edit* it seems when they rushed the RTR over to Calais to reinforce the Green Jackets they did it using standard crane unloading from the Gare Maratime so it does appear that no one was particularly inventive (the ship had to leave with half the vehicles in the hold!).

 
Last edited:
Top