Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

Where the M3 was being replaced in WW2, on the other hand, it was generally not the case that a Sherman would be too heavy for the local infrastructure and where that might have been the case the ability to bring a 75mm was deemed worth it or M3 Stuarts were available.
The M-3/5 was replaced with the M-24 Chaffee, a decent enough light tank with a 75mm...my pet rock on the subject is to give the Stuart enough firepower to be a difference maker in 1942. IMO with a larger turret ring and a redesigned turret it could handle the 57mm...
 
The big difference the Valiant could make in the African campaigns is to allow them to be finished off a lot earlier at a lower cost in lives and material. Not only does this mean those forces who could have done with better equipment no longer need it in Africa, but that much of those forces can be shipped to the Far East.

Britain Supporting Russia with equipment and supplies, especially in 1941 is vital to the collective war effort. Although it becomes less important as the US starts to flex its industrial muscles from 1942 onwards and the Russians start to regain their ballance after the shocks of Barbarossa.
I would agree with that

But it is beyond the window when said equipment might have been useful in Malaya and the Far East - which is pretty much what happened OTL

For example just 2 Battalions of Stuarts (100 tanks) made it in time to support the retreat from Rangoon and preventing it turning into a rout after the Bilin River and Sitting Bridge Debacles which resulted in the decimation of the only main Imperial Division in the region the 17th Indian Army Division with much of its heavy equipment lost during those 2 battles.

One can only wonder what might have happened had they been available a month earlier of even sent to Malaya 6 months earlier?

The Slim River defeat is unlikely to happen with Stuarts on hand and indeed 'Matador' the occupation of the Kra Isthmus and southern Thailand ports (from where the defence of Singapore should have been conducted) might have been given the green light.....

But again we digress
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
There is a lot of speculation right now, as to how events in France during the Battle of France, will effect events in North Africa and the Far East, in the coming years. Right now we haven’t seen the final results of the Battle of France, and there is still the possibility of things turning out much worse. Winston might in a moment of romantic and alcohol induced fantasy, send large numbers of British Forces and equipment, to bolster the French, and lose them all to the Germans. The defence of Dunkirk might collapse and just a few third echelon troops be recovered, while the majority of front line troops get captured. Do I think that is what is going to happen, no, though Winston is going to need watching and delicate handling, to avoid a big mistake. So provide that the British get out of France, with more troops and their personal weapons/equipment in hand, than was the case IOTL. Britain will be in a much better place than it was in the post Battle of France situation IOTL.

Will a BoB happen, yes, the Germans are not in any position to invade Britain, immediately after the conclusion of the Battle of France. They need time to assemble an invasion fleet, and for their Army to rest, train, carry out much needed repairs, and absorb replacements for losses of men and equipment. They also need to have a plan, it’s no good the brass saying, get in a boat and invade England. While this is happening the Luftwaffe, having itself had time to reequip, carry out much needed maintenance and establish forward bases. Has to try to establish control over the local airspace, and reduce the effectiveness of the RAF. It can not establish control over all British airspace, as its aircraft lack the range to do so. So once Uncle Adolf, stopes playing tourist, and trying to get a deal with the British government, having a holiday. He will call for an invasion, but in typical manner fail to establish a single command, responsible for all aspects of the invasion.

The BoB ITTL, will unless there are serious changes in the character of the German commanders, go very much as it did IOTL. A lack of focus, and knowledge, the Germans didn’t have a plan for how to defeat the RAF, just a few ideas, remember this is the first time that they have come up against an airforce that has a developed plan, for the defence of its own airspace. And one that has an integrated air defence system in place, and the aircraft, bases and logistics to back the plan up. Even if the front line bases were put out of action, the RAF could have retired to bases out of range of German fighters. This isn’t a campaign that the Luftwaffe had planned for, their basic plan was to hit hard and fast without warning on day one, then while supporting the Army, keep the opposing airforce off balance. They now have to engage in a prolonged conflict from temporary bases at the end of a long supply line, against a pre warned opponent operating from home bases on fixed supply lines. And one that has a significant technical advantage over the Luftwaffe, one that the Luftwaffe doesn’t know about, or appreciate at this time. By accident the British, despite the underlying theory of air warfare prevent in the inter war years by the RAF, the supremacy of the bomber and an attack on the infrastructure of an opponent. Had thanks to government intervention concentrated on defence against such an attack, during the later years of the nineteen thirties. So the RAF was the only airforce that was prepared for the upcoming conflict and able to deal with it in a systematic way

However until we see the results of the Collapse of France, the results of the the Air Attack against the British mainland, and the measures needed to prevent a German invasion of Britain. It’s way too soon to speculate about the effects on British strategy in North Africa and the Far East. There are at present just too many variables to be able to accurately forecast events, other than to say that there should be more and better tanks in the North Africa area, than there was in OTL. Will the better tanks result in a quick victory over the Italian forces, and will this result in better preparations in the Far East, only time will tell.

RR.
 
The M-3/5 was replaced with the M-24 Chaffee, a decent enough light tank with a 75mm...my pet rock on the subject is to give the Stuart enough firepower to be a difference maker in 1942. IMO with a larger turret ring and a redesigned turret it could handle the 57mm...
M8 GMC had that slightly larger ring, and fit then75mm Pack Howitzer, and a prototype M8A1 with the 75mm M3, both with an an open turret, since they were Gun Motor Carriages, and McNair demanded all to be open topped, so the crews knew they were in a GMC, and not a tank.
After his death, armored covers were field adopted, with last M36 being factory.
 
The M-3/5 was replaced with the M-24 Chaffee, a decent enough light tank with a 75mm...my pet rock on the subject is to give the Stuart enough firepower to be a difference maker in 1942. IMO with a larger turret ring and a redesigned turret it could handle the 57mm...
Wasn't the US philosophy at the time to just add more MGs?
 
Wasn't the US philosophy at the time to just add more MGs?
By 1939, tests showed the effectiveness of the 75mm Pack Howitzer over machine gun fire.
Didn't stop the fitting of fixed MGs in the Stuart's, Lee's and early Sherman tanks.
Also, the M6 37mm gun was well provided with HE and canister ammunition.
The big change in MG policy seems to have been in 1941, with the decision for the M2 50 to replace the .30 for the AA mount.
 
On the whole Malaya/Russia debate, it's not even like you have to choose necessarily, as the Matilda II would be an equally poor fit on the Russian steppes as in the desert, because it's just too slow. So pack the Valiants off to Russia, and the Matilda IIs off to Malaya. Of course, having Valiants to send will rely somewhat on how things go in North Africa, but I'm fairly confident that with the Valiant in play, Britain can hold both Cyrenaica and Crete in 1941.
 
Last edited:
Following an InterWar flying boat fatal accident, when a senior officer on board over ruled the pilot, it became official RAF policy that the pilot, no matter how junior, is the person in command of the aeroplane.
PIC. Pilot in command. There is a legal weight to that in civilian flying too.
 
To be fair the Soviet's used the Matilda's for training as they were better suited for it then there own tanks if I remember what I read correctly.
 
To be fair the Soviet's used the Matilda's for training as they were better suited for it then there own tanks if I remember what I read correctly.
By 1942 British Standards, the 2pdr was obsolete. By Soviet Standards, it wasn't as good as the 45mm, only found in light tanks by 1940
 
Hm, they might not even need to send tanks to Malaya, not if they could just get Vulcan to send a few people out to Australia to help them set up production for the Matilda II out there.
 
Hm, they might not even need to send tanks to Malaya, not if they could just get Vulcan to send a few people out to Australia to help them set up production for the Matilda II out there.
Valiant production is more likely.

There were reasons that the Matilda II was not produced OTL in Australia. Namely the stupid levels of complexity involved in it's construction and the (sort of correct) belief that it would soon be obsolescent at best. TTL the Valiant is a lot more future proof so gets round hurdle 2 and is easier to produce so gets round hurdle 1.

Thing is TTL is going to be a lot different to OTL in terms of tank availability. The Matilda II is going to be seen as the back up tank TTL, that combined with higher Valiant production compared to either the OTL Valentine or Matilda II mean there is the potential that Matilda II's find there way out east a lot sooner than OTL. Australia may not need to produce tanks and can instead focus on aircraft. But we are getting way ahead of ourselves here.
 
Matilda II's reputation rests on it being "The Queen of the Desert" able to shrug off everything the Italians and most of what the Germans can throw at it. TTL that title is going to belong to the Valiant which is both faster than the Matilda and upgradable. The Matilda while being relative tough is likely to be held up as an example of why you don't let amateurs (railway locomotive designers) design tanks. Sure it meets the specification but there's no long term potential in the design.
 
27 May 1940. Rouen, France.
27 May 1940. Rouen, France.

After the losses the day before the 1st Armoured Division spent most of the day licking its wounds. The French infantry made more attempts to push the Germans back from their bridgehead, with as little success as the day before. The losses in the 10th Hussars and Queens Bays meant that they were far below strength, so the survivors were amalgamated into a composite regiment, while the 9th Lancers, themselves still understrength, retained its own identity. The 2nd Armoured Brigade, such as it was, were withdrawn to Rouen to refit.

The 3rd Armoured Brigade was in a better position. All three Battalions were now understrength, but most of their losses were mechanical breakdowns rather than losses to enemy action. The Brigade remained part of the French reserves at the moment. The 51st (Highland) Division were on their way from the Saar, and General Evans, commanding 1st Armoured Division still hoped that the two British Divisions would be put together.

What was noticeable was that the vast majority of losses to the German anti-tank guns were the A13 Mark I, their 0.55 inch of armour was the most vulnerable. The A13 Mark II, with the applique armour bringing them up to 1.1 inch had been more likely to survive at least one hit, though the hit often knocked off sections of the armour. The A10, which was built with 1.1 inch armour as standard, and with its well sloped shape, had the best survival rate. There weren’t too many A9s in the Division, and since they tended to be Close Support versions, had tended to be used as the rear link tank, as they hadn’t been issued with smoke shells.

NB the text in italic differs from OTL. The losses in fact made a it necessary to form a single composite regiment from all three regiments. Here there are more A10s in the Division, so although their numbers of losses are the same, they had more tanks to begin with. IOTL it was the 3rd Armoured Brigade were withdrawn to Rouen to refit, they were already only two Battalions of RTR, since 3rd Bn RTR were at Calais.
 
Looking good so far, @allanpcameron, thanks for the regular updates.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed all this ends with an orderly withdrawal back across the channel instead of OTL's praying for the best.
 
Valiant production is more likely.

There were reasons that the Matilda II was not produced OTL in Australia. Namely the stupid levels of complexity involved in it's construction and the (sort of correct) belief that it would soon be obsolescent at best. TTL the Valiant is a lot more future proof so gets round hurdle 2 and is easier to produce so gets round hurdle 1.

Thing is TTL is going to be a lot different to OTL in terms of tank availability. The Matilda II is going to be seen as the back up tank TTL, that combined with higher Valiant production compared to either the OTL Valentine or Matilda II mean there is the potential that Matilda II's find there way out east a lot sooner than OTL. Australia may not need to produce tanks and can instead focus on aircraft. But we are getting way ahead of ourselves here.
Matilda II's reputation rests on it being "The Queen of the Desert" able to shrug off everything the Italians and most of what the Germans can throw at it. TTL that title is going to belong to the Valiant which is both faster than the Matilda and upgradable. The Matilda while being relative tough is likely to be held up as an example of why you don't let amateurs (railway locomotive designers) design tanks. Sure it meets the specification but there's no long term potential in the design.
The Matilda IIs drive-train is close to, or within the capabilities of Australia to produce right now. The Valiant, not so much.

@allanpcameron, good update.
 
More and better tanks might just prolong the agony tbf. A lot depends on the PM and war cabinet accepting it's a lost cause. Then putting in motion the actions needed to get as much of the lads and their gear out ASAP. A better showing might give them unachievable expectations and leave it to late, implementing op dynamo.
 
More and better tanks might just prolong the agony tbf. A lot depends on the PM and war cabinet accepting it's a lost cause. Then putting in motion the actions needed to get as much of the lads and their gear out ASAP. A better showing might give them unachievable expectations and leave it to late, implementing op dynamo.
True, but even if Malaya is lost, tanks should at least allow them to hold onto Singapore long enough to evacuate at least a portion of the men there. And they'll certainly result in more dead Japanese.
 
Top