Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

Might better trains and a different war buttefly BR Catering?
Better mass production processes will mean that there is no improvement in the quality of the catering, there wil just be much, much more of it..........

The dystopian future awaits.

BR cheese sandwiches used as ablative armour?
 
Last edited:
I'm beginning to wonder how long before this devolves into discussions about trains, given all the engine fixation... :p
Better Diesel engines than food, I suppose...
Goal: make a better Deltic
 
Interesting, hadn't really thought of that, but it more likely speeds up a Cromwell. There's still a lot of love for Christie suspension and the fast tank. That specification takes you into Cromwell territory, which if the UK fielded in 42 would have been considered a good tank, less so in '44.

So heres the thing. OTL the Crusader had slightly better armour and significantly more speed than the A10. Add to that OTL in 1940 the only tanks around or in the works were armed with the 2pdr. The decision to move forward with the crusader over other cruisers was completely justified and understandable.
TTL the A10 is faster so the speed deficit is lower and the 10mm armour difference is really minimal. In addition the 6pdr is on its way. The Valiant is probably going to get the 6pdr before the crusader comes off the production lines. In that situation the decision is much less certain.
The Crusader will be looking like it wont be a long term tank, it can't take a 6pdr in a 3 man turret and it's armour can only be upgraded so much. It looks limited compared to the Valiant 6pdr so why go through the process of developing and setting up production of a tank that will at best only see limited service and at worst be second line.
Cut the losses and scrap this iteration of the Crusader and up armour and up gun it off the bat. In the interim keep the A10 in production until the replacement is ready. You also have the issue that Britain is short of tanks right now. Keeping an existing tank in production longer helps solve that.
All lots of reasons to make the change.
You as the writer have the option of suggesting that Nuffield also adopt the petrol lion. That would be a fun write surely.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure the Crusader will disappear, the reasons you give for it being phased out will be the reasons it will be produced as it uses different resources from the Valiant, 6pdrs and Lions are going to be in short supply as is welding gear and the Crusader uses none of those in demand items.

What you might get is the Crusader being sent back for rework as the Army is not as desperate for tanks as they were OTL, Nuffield might be told that the hull is OK and the engine acceptable but the engine ancillary set up is gash and it needs proper air filters put in a better place, while your at it make the turret ring bigger so you can fit the Valiant Mk1 turret.

The Crusader wasn't a bad tank, it just didn't have the development needed to make it reliable or the spares, combine that with poor tactical use in the desert and it gets an awful reputation it eprobably doesn't really deserve.

I could see the Crusader making an excellent reece tank with it's low profile and high speed, the 2pdr is quite adequate for use in those situations.
 
The Crusader served well as a 17 Pounder gun tug in 1944/5. The bugs sorted out and the Liberty toned down to a reliable power rate.
 
I'm not sure the Crusader will disappear, the reasons you give for it being phased out will be the reasons it will be produced as it uses different resources from the Valiant, 6pdrs and Lions are going to be in short supply as is welding gear and the Crusader uses none of those in demand items.

What you might get is the Crusader being sent back for rework as the Army is not as desperate for tanks as they were OTL, Nuffield might be told that the hull is OK and the engine acceptable but the engine ancillary set up is gash and it needs proper air filters put in a better place, while your at it make the turret ring bigger so you can fit the Valiant Mk1 turret.

The Crusader wasn't a bad tank, it just didn't have the development needed to make it reliable or the spares, combine that with poor tactical use in the desert and it gets an awful reputation it eprobably doesn't really deserve.

I could see the Crusader making an excellent reece tank with it's low profile and high speed, the 2pdr is quite adequate for use in those situations.

The crusader won't dissappear per se. More that the reason I stated make it a strong possibility that the design is revised so that is no longer the same Crusader we know from OTL. The ability increase the armour and put a 6pdr in from the start with a 3 man turret will be very attractive.
As I pointed out, this isn't OTL where the crusader is notably superior to the prior tanks. Its superior in some ways yes but also has drawbacks. You can then look at other detail improvements like the air filters while you are at it.
You still get the fast Christie cruiser, just a more capable one. Also it will likely be more reliable as the longer design process helps.

So not no crusader, just a different crusader.

Im not suggesting a Cromwell esc tank right now more a halfway house. Picture a mk3 crusader so 60mm of armour and a 6pdr as the mk 1. The only major difference would be the 6pdr in a 3 man turret. Beyond that it will have some room to upgrade as well.
I like the crusader BTW and agree with you that it is suffering an unfair reputation. It's biggest failing however was being unable to be improved sufficiently to remain useful as a front line tank. Here that need not be the case
 
Last edited:
You can then look at other detail improvements like the air filters while you are at it.
It gets dinged for filters on the Fenders, but the US started doing that for the Cold War era Pattons without problem. Location not the problem, quality of units was. They weren't alone, Sov T-34 were hardly better
 
On diesel engines.
The Matilda II was driven by a pair of bus engines - cheap, but I understand the paired engines caused maintenance and reliability issues.
They were 6 cylinder designs, and from what little I've been able to find on AEC engines, Riccardo had a hand in them.
How hard would it have been for him to basically double it from a V-6 to a V-12? This would resolve the problems associated with two engines, and likely end up lighter and more efficient.
Or is doubling up a V-6 to a V-12 too hard?
 
It gets dinged for filters on the Fenders, but the US started doing that for the Cold War era Pattons without problem. Location not the problem, quality of units was. They weren't alone, Sov T-34 were hardly better
Never knew that, however I would have thought a better location may have been able to sort out some of the problems. Dodgy filters aren't a notorious issue for all British tanks of WW2 so it should be possible to mitigate the issue somewhat.
 
On diesel engines.
The Matilda II was driven by a pair of bus engines - cheap, but I understand the paired engines caused maintenance and reliability issues.
They were 6 cylinder designs, and from what little I've been able to find on AEC engines, Riccardo had a hand in them.
How hard would it have been for him to basically double it from a V-6 to a V-12? This would resolve the problems associated with two engines, and likely end up lighter and more efficient.
Or is doubling up a V-6 to a V-12 too hard?

I think they were a straight 6 rather than a V6, designing a V crankcase to make a V12 would probably increase the price, also your no longer using an off the shelf solution.
 
It gets dinged for filters on the Fenders, but the US started doing that for the Cold War era Pattons without problem. Location not the problem, quality of units was. They weren't alone, Sov T-34 were hardly better
Well, the Patton's cleaners had to be replaced twice because they were too fragile where they were.
First went from side to top-loading, then from aluminium to steel armored air cleaners.
 
Just reading through the old passages from the beginning, I came across yet another titbit (1 October 1938). As well as being better-armed and more reliable, the A11 is also going to be slightly faster (significantly fast compared to it's OTL speed, but only 2-4 mph total), thanks to the 135 hp engine.
 
Relevant to our interests!
Ha! I've just finished watching that one!
While we're on the subject I have an idea this timeline's version of the Churchill (assuming Vauxhall makes it) would take the example of the Valiant and mount sloped armour on the front (which at 102mm at least would be neigh invulnerable for much of the war) and never mind the 3" in the hull, put it in the turret then see if Vickers has any guns spare.
As an infantry tank the Churchill was very good overall (early trouble aside), put a decent turret and gun on the early ones and the biggest complaint about it will be noise!

Oh, I recall Carden wanted the Vampire SPG renamed the "Birch Gun" in honour of the man who conceived it. I think it'd be nice if Allied SPGs adopt a naming scheme based on trees rather than the ecclesiastical positions as OTL.
According to a quick look online the naming scheme was based on the 25pdr Valentine SPG and M7 SPG superstructures looking vaguely like a Bishop's mitre (nice hat) and a Priest's pulpit, respectively. Since it's possible the Bishop SPG might be butterflied thanks to Birch, it's likely the ecclesiastical names won't come up.

A tree-based naming scheme (Birch, Larch, Alder, etc) could also lead to some amusing nicknames for the artillery park ("Welcome to Sherwood Forest" - sign posted next to SPG storage depot).
 
I'd still say slap the 25lb into the Churchill analogue, will give you a damn good HE lobber and a good AP round. And I like the tree naming idea for the SPG's. If there's ever a SP 5.5 it needs to be the Oak though :D
 
While looking at possible German answers to the likely increase in heavily armored British tan numbers, I found out that the 75 Pak/Kwk 40 had low priority until Op Barbarossa.

It wouldn't surprise me if Italian intelligence reports from late 1940 or even reports from the fighting in Greece in mid 1941 lead to the Germans giving it high priority several months earlier.
 
Top