Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

If the end result of the 3" gun will be a similar size to the US 75mm, I wonder if they'd adopt it? They did adopt the 6pdr, so its not impossible.
 
I think the UK will still use the US 75 on their 6lb armed tanks purely because its a better DP weapon, sure its an inferior hole puncher but its a better HE lobber. Also I'm assuming that we'll see a later Cruiser development that is basically the Cromwell and that could be armed with the 57mm or re-bored and fitted for the US 75.
 
I think the UK will still use the US 75 on their 6lb armed tanks purely because its a better DP weapon, sure its an inferior hole puncher but its a better HE lobber. Also I'm assuming that we'll see a later Cruiser development that is basically the Cromwell and that could be armed with the 57mm or re-bored and fitted for the US 75.
But why?
If the Vickers gun fits the British tanks, is a considerably better hole puncher, and can carry a similar sized HE round, why put an inferior US gun in?
 
This is how I think a potential development of UK tanks will go

Early War 1939 - Early 1940

Matilda Mk I
Assorted Cruisers
Very limited numbers of Valiants with some possibly seeing service in France.

1940 - 42

Most of the 'assorted cruisers' will be replaced by a Crusader type tank as there's still a requirement for a cruiser tank, this is doctrinal.
Matilda Mk I - Still in production and service, a good performance in France despite what happens will ensure that it remains in production albeit as a pure infantry support vehicle. Retired by late 41 or deployed to quiet areas.
Valiant Mk I/II enters more widespread service, armed with a 2lb gun but by late 40/early 41 the 6lb armed Mk III is starting to enter service although will be heavily outnumbered by the Mk I/II versions.

Development of a replacement for the Matilda as a heavy infantry support tank is also ordered.

1943 - 45

Valiant Mk III/IV is now the definitive version of the tank, 6lb armed, various internal changes (radios engine etc) over the older marks, the Mark IV is equipped with the 75mm gun similar to those fitted to the US Army's Grant tanks. An inferior AT weapon its more than adequate against Panzer IV's and is a superior HE weapon which makes it popular with the Infantry.

A new Cruiser has also entered service, armed with the 6lb/75mm gun and is an evolution of the Crusader.

The British army is also introducing a new 'heavy cruiser' based upon work done on the Valiant and is fitted with *GUN* a higher velocity and larger caliber than the 6lb gun on the Valiant Mk III/IV. Development of this tank also saw the cancellation of any planned 'heavy infantry' tanks as it was felt that they were not needed. The first examples of the *NAME* would start appearing in late 1943 but it wasn't until 1944 that the bugs were fully worked out and production ramped up to allow for a 3 - 1 ratio of Valiants to the newer tank.
 
A big part of the rate-of-fire is how easy it is to move inside, which is related to how long the breech is inside the turret, the shorter the breech, the easier it will be to manoeuvre rounds. Does anyone have any figures on how such figures compare between the 90mm M3 and the 17-pounder?
1606577558874.jpeg
Tiger and Firefly
1606578465224.jpeg
Low hull M4 with 90mm, shortened turret basket,
similar to what was done when the M36 turret was tested on the lower hull M18, basket needed to be shortened.
1606578710672.jpeg
But good to note 90mm M3 breech location.
since open topped,breechblock opens to the top, rather than side like 17pdr for round clearance

1606578621358.png
standard M4 with 75mm
 
Last edited:
But why?
If the Vickers gun fits the British tanks, is a considerably better hole puncher, and can carry a similar sized HE round, why put an inferior US gun in?
If the Cruisers are still using interior mantlets and small turret rings, just like OTLs goof with the 75HV, too big for the turret, because the Brit draftsmen were not paying attention between the gun and turret teams
 
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.
 
If the Cruisers are still using interior mantlets and small turret rings, just like OTLs goof with the 75HV, too big for the turret, because the Brit draftsmen were not paying attention between the gun and turret teams

That and not everything could be big enough to take the bigger gun without dropping to a 2 man turret which is a bad thing. Sure its an inferior gun but if its adequate against Panzer's and can fire a good HE shell then it'll be passable. Remember the 75 only had problems against Tigers and Panthers, and they were not that common.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the fixation of putting the inferior US 75mm gun in a tank in place of the 3" which will be available earlier.
If you want a 75mm with poor penetration, bore out the 6pdr.
Also, if Carden is designing the Valiant Mk1 with a big enough turret for the 6pdr, why not just convert earlier models to carry it? Considering some of the battlefield conversions that were done in OTL, it hardly seems outrageous
 
AIUI If a turret can take a 6 pounder it can probably take a US 75 mm with similar arrangements. My guess is that the Valiant will probably be able to take either gun with a 3 man turret crew. Or another turret will be fitted that can. On older models and possibly on Nuffield cruisers, a two man crew might be necessary for either one. If the US 75 mm is bigger than I remember then the expedient of the bored out 6 pounder (QF 75 mm) would probably be the easiest fix. A mixed brigade of 6 pounder and QF 75 mm tanks could keep older models relevant for a while. Newer models probably use some variant of a 3”/75 mm former hole puncher that has its own respectable HE.
 
This is how I think a potential development of UK tanks will go

Early War 1939 - Early 1940

Matilda Mk I
Assorted Cruisers
Very limited numbers of Valiants with some possibly seeing service in France.

1940 - 42

Most of the 'assorted cruisers' will be replaced by a Crusader type tank as there's still a requirement for a cruiser tank, this is doctrinal.
Matilda Mk I - Still in production and service, a good performance in France despite what happens will ensure that it remains in production albeit as a pure infantry support vehicle. Retired by late 41 or deployed to quiet areas.
Valiant Mk I/II enters more widespread service, armed with a 2lb gun but by late 40/early 41 the 6lb armed Mk III is starting to enter service although will be heavily outnumbered by the Mk I/II versions.

Development of a replacement for the Matilda as a heavy infantry support tank is also ordered.

1943 - 45

Valiant Mk III/IV is now the definitive version of the tank, 6lb armed, various internal changes (radios engine etc) over the older marks, the Mark IV is equipped with the 75mm gun similar to those fitted to the US Army's Grant tanks. An inferior AT weapon its more than adequate against Panzer IV's and is a superior HE weapon which makes it popular with the Infantry.

A new Cruiser has also entered service, armed with the 6lb/75mm gun and is an evolution of the Crusader.

The British army is also introducing a new 'heavy cruiser' based upon work done on the Valiant and is fitted with *GUN* a higher velocity and larger caliber than the 6lb gun on the Valiant Mk III/IV. Development of this tank also saw the cancellation of any planned 'heavy infantry' tanks as it was felt that they were not needed. The first examples of the *NAME* would start appearing in late 1943 but it wasn't until 1944 that the bugs were fully worked out and production ramped up to allow for a 3 - 1 ratio of Valiants to the newer tank.
I think you are forgetting a few things.
Firstly the Cruiser Valiant, secondly the Valiant tank factories. These two things have the potential to make big impacts in North Africa, Particularly the latter. These impacts will have knock on effects later in the war.
The Valiant, particularly the Infantry tank variant has the potential to be built in very large numbers. The Valiant likely being much faster and easier to produce than the Matilda II as well as being more reliable, faster and able to fit a bigger gun with ease mean it likely replaces the Matilda II as Britain's infantry tank sometime in 41. Add to that the lack of any real follow on infantry tank in the pipeline whilst their are plenty of Cruisers coming along the Infantry Valiant is likely built in far larger numbers than the infantry. I also wouldn't be surprised if Nuffield creates a scene about the engine for the cruiser Valiant's at least. This likely gives us the following scenario.

France 39-40
All the Cruisers minus the Valiant Cruiser
Matilda I
A few dozen each of the Matilda II and Valiant.

These are armed entirely with the 2pdr except the Matilda I which has the pom pom

North Africa 40-41
Still all the cruisers including the Valiant Cruiser
Valiant infantry in large numbers
Matilda II

All start with the 2pdr but the Valiant increasingly sees the 6pdr so that the entirety being sent by the end of 41 are 6pdr armed. The Matilda II is likely withdrawn as Valiant production allows it to become the infantry tank. You also have the potential for the Valiant infantry tank to be used as a cruiser due to both availability and reliability allowing it to keep up with the "faster" cruisers.

How does the future progress, well that depends but it is likely the Valiant gets the new Vickers Gun at some point in 41 or 42 and a replacement wont be far behind that can take that gun in comfort. If the Valiant has proven itself as a universal tank then it likely becomes one.
 
Availability in large numbers from early/mid 1942 - which takes huge pressure off of the British AFV industry
I think the UK will still use the US 75 on their 6lb armed tanks purely because its a better DP weapon, sure its an inferior hole puncher but its a better HE lobber. Also I'm assuming that we'll see a later Cruiser development that is basically the Cromwell and that could be armed with the 57mm or re-bored and fitted for the US 75.
If the Cruisers are still using interior mantlets and small turret rings, just like OTLs goof with the 75HV, too big for the turret, because the Brit draftsmen were not paying attention between the gun and turret teams

If Britain is producing enough tanks, particularly Valiant's then the pressure of needing American tanks as any more than stop gaps isn't their. TTL also has the potential for the New Vickers Gun to be in service for some months before Britain gets a tank with the US 75mm. if you have that gun being built in sufficient numbers to arm the Tanks you are building why would you need the 75mm? For Britain to adopt the US 75mm on it's 6pdr armed tanks requires wither shipping guns across from the USA or setting up production in the UK. Both of those are tricky and unlikely much before mid to late 42. At that point the 6pdr has been in service for over a year and the replacement is out their. Britain is likely looking at getting it's next generation of tanks in service that can comfortably take the Vickers gun in the not too distant future. Why go to the effort of adopting an inferior gun? The Vickers gun will likely be coming off production lines in early 41 then all in development tanks like the Cromwell can be designed for it from the outset rather than have the issues that arose OTL. I also suspect hat the infantry Valiant will be produced in sufficient numbers for it to be pressed into service as an impromptu cruiser in North Africa and it proving itself as a universal tank.

TTL Britain will very likely have a gun that is both a fantastic hole puncher whilst having a credible HE round in 41. They will only lack a tank that can take it in comfort at that point, something Carden is likely already working on. Then after a few months Britain get's it's hand on the US 75mm, that gun is worse than the 6pdr let alone the Vickers gun as an AT gun whilst likely having only a small improvement in HE capability. Why would Britain put the breaks on it's own gun to try and adopt the American gun to then go back to it's own gun? It makes no sense and actively hurts Britain's war effort.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Let us look at the major questions in regards to the British and German tank forces in the coming years. For the British, what gun is at present a minor consideration, Britain has three guns in production that are more than adequate for its needs up until late 42 early 43. The 2lb pom pom as fitted to the A11, will be effective in Europe and North Africa, until mid 41 as a main weapon, and until the end of hostilities in reconnaissance units, and the Far East. The 6lb, with modified ammunition, eventually a sabot round will stay viable until 44, against anything other than the very heaviest German tanks. And even these will be susceptible to a kill shot from the side or rear, it’s only from head on that they are immune. The 2lb anti tank gun, is going to be by 42, sent to use in the Far East and various colonies.

Britains problem isn’t guns or even to an extent armour, it’s doctrine and training. Because of the way that British Armour Forces have come to be, there is a major fault in doctrine and training. The RAC has two parents, the RTC, Royal Tank Corps, and the Cavalry and Yeomanry regiments. The RTC, was the successor to the Tank Corps, which itself succeeded the original tank unit the Heavy Section of the Machine Gun Corps, and the MGC, was a WWI Formation that hadn’t existed before 1915. The Cavalry and Yeomanry, had in the majority of cases long history, most having been formed in the years after the English Civil War, and in the case of the Yeomanry could also be split between the City Yeomanry and the County Regiments. The City Regiments tended to have less social class, often being formed by middle class professionals and skilled workers from the transport industry, such as local bus companies. While the Country Regiments were often as much a social club, and had in the past been used to help maintain the persevered social order. It should be noted that it was the Yeomanry who were responsible for most of the deaths and injuries during the Peterloo massacre, unlike the 15th Hussars who tended to keep their discipline.

The regular Cavalry were the lest regarded, by the rest of the British Army, of the four fighting branches of the Army, Corps of Infantry, Royal Engineers, Royal Artillery and Corps of Cavalry. Winston got such a low mark in his final examination at Sandhurst, that his father could only secure him a commission in a second class cavalry regiment, the 5th Hussars. If you had brains and little of no money, you went to Woolwich, and joined the RE or RA, if you had money but no great social class, you went into the Infantry, the Rifle Regiment if you had a brain. If you had the right social class, money and a bit of a brain it’s the Household Division for you, and if you were thick but had a bit of social class, you were for the Cavalry. Prior to the Second World War, I doubt that there was a single officer in the regular cavalry who possessed a university degree, there would have been a number in the Yeomanry who possessed a professional degree , lawyer, accountant even on or two mechanical engineers. Note while the infantry especially the Rifles would have had a few, as would the Artillery, if you are looking for men with degrees it’s the Engineers or newly formed Signals, you need to look at. As for the Household Division, they were a law unto themselves, it tended to be who your great great grandfather was, or who your great grandmother slept with, that counted.

When the British Army decided to get rid of its hay burners, and completely mechanise in the nineteen thirties, it started with its least fashionable regiments and gave them armoured cars. Nor did it require them to go through a complete training course, under the far more professional officers of the RTC. After all you couldn’t expect Captain the Honourable Diggby-Smithe to take instructions from Captain Smith of the RTC. Diggby-Smithe who’s pater was Lord Smithe, had been to Sandhurst, and was called to the colours in the family regiment, at the outbreak of WWI. He had had a good war, wounded in early spring 15, returned to duty in 16, he spent the remainder of the war up until the last hundred days, waiting for the infantry to make a hole he could change through, during the last hundred days, he dashed about from here to there most dashingly. The inter war years were spent between home postings, riding to hounds and playing polo, and overseas postings helping to keep the natives in order. Captain Smith who at the outbreak of WWI was just completing his apprenticeship with the London General Omnibus Company as a mechanic, rushed to do his bit and went to France along with the busses taken into service by the Army in 1914, feed up with servicing buses and intrigued by the adverts in February 16 for men to form the Heavy Section of the Machine Gun Corps. He applied and much to the disgust of his CO, was accepted, but had to drop a rank from Corporal to Lance on transfer. A driver in the first tank attack, promoted to Sergeant and given command of his own tank by the end of 1916, he survived the bloodbath that was Passchendaele, despite losing one tank to enemy fire and one to break down and the mud, picking up a MM, Military Medal along the way. He took part in the battle of Cambrai, and was promoted directly to Lieutenant over the Winter, doing a short course in England and a spot of home leave. The battle of Hamel, saw him command a platoon of tanks, and during the last hundred days he picked up a Military Cross and promotion to Captain.

With the end of the war he applied to stay in the Army, but had to accept demotion to Sub Lieutenant to remain in, he was lucky they tried to get him demoted to Sargent. During the inter war years, he served in armoured cars in Ireland during the revolution, then on the home station, finally being promoted back to Full Lieutenant in 1924. He took part in the exercises of the Experimental Mechanical Force in 27 to 29, having once again made it to Captain in 27. He has taken both night school and numerous courses, to improve his knowledge, and would like to take the staff course if he can. When the Army decided to fully mechanise, who do you think will get the promotion and eventually get to be a Brigadier, Captain Smith the son of a bus driver, and fully knowledgeable about tanks and mechanical forces. Or Captain Diggby-Smithe, son of a Lord, and didn’t look after his hay burner, that’s what grooms are for dont you know, and while he can diagnose colic in a horse, doesn’t have a clue why his armoured car is overheating. Or where to put the water in, as he has never gotten his fingers dirty, and doesn’t really understand what makes it work. His basic battle plan is to shout Tally-ho, and in the best tradition of British Cavalry charge the enemy, as his forefathers did to such effect down the centuries.

One of the, if not the greatest British trainer of mechanical troops, Percy Hobart got into no end of trouble while responsible for training of the Desert Mechanical Forces. He railed against the officers of the various Cavalry units, for deserting their men while on exercise over night. To rush back to Cairo and enjoy the night life, before rushing back in the early morning to join up again. He tried his best to get the officers and men of the historical Cavalry units, to develop the simple standard of carrying out basic maintenance every morning and night. Only once the worst of the pre war attitudes among the Cavalry are dropped and by attrition the total idiots removed, will the British begin to form an effective Armoured Force. And that doesn’t include the need to become part of a fully integrated force, with all arms learning to work together, as they did during the last hundred days in WWI.

As for the Germans, they are going to get a major shock during their battles against the British during the Invasion of France. Unlike the French, every British tank is fitted with a radio, and while the tactics will be shit, the tanks are more than a match for any of the German tanks that take part. Once their technical branch have examined a number of the tanks that have been left behind after the evacuation, damaged in combat, or just abandoned. They are going to have a serious problem, while the Panzer III and IV, can be up armoured and up gunned to match the British. They need to develop one or two new tanks rapidly to have a better than the British tank. And that’s not taking into account what the British might be developing themselves. Orders will go out to the German spy network in Britain to gather all the information they can about future British tank development. Orders will also be sent to the various German tank and gun manufacturers to develop tanks and guns that are better than anything the British have or might have in the immediate future. If the Germans decide they have to pull Benitos nuts out of the fire in North Africa, it won’t be Rommel whose sent to do it. If he survives the Battle of Arras, with or without getting seriously injured, he is going to be in the doghouse for the way he changed off and disregarded orders. He very nearly lost a complete Panzer devision to the British, as is it got severely mauled and took very little part in the rest of the campaign. The Germans will send if they do, and General who can be relied upon to stick to his instructions, and not change of into the desert with totally inadequate logistics. Their only saving grace for the time being is the poverty of British doctrine and tactics, but eventually even the dumb horse headed Cavalry will learn. And then superior British logistics and better tanks, will defeat the Germans who are on the end of a very wonky supply line.

RR.
 
From my cynical side.
Because the US told them to.

Why would Britain listen and why would the US actively try and hurt Britain's ability to fight effectively. Yes the US did some underhand things (nothing Britain wouldn't have done if the roles were reversed) but they never tried to get Britain to compromise it's fighting ability as that hurts the fighting ability of the allies.
 
If Britain is producing enough tanks, particularly Valiant's then the pressure of needing American tanks as any more than stop gaps isn't their. TTL also has the potential for the New Vickers Gun to be in service for some months before Britain gets a tank with the US 75mm. if you have that gun being built in sufficient numbers to arm the Tanks you are building why would you need the 75mm? For Britain to adopt the US 75mm on it's 6pdr armed tanks requires wither shipping guns across from the USA or setting up production in the UK. Both of those are tricky and unlikely much before mid to late 42. At that point the 6pdr has been in service for over a year and the replacement is out their. Britain is likely looking at getting it's next generation of tanks in service that can comfortably take the Vickers gun in the not too distant future. Why go to the effort of adopting an inferior gun? The Vickers gun will likely be coming off production lines in early 41 then all in development tanks like the Cromwell can be designed for it from the outset rather than have the issues that arose OTL. I also suspect hat the infantry Valiant will be produced in sufficient numbers for it to be pressed into service as an impromptu cruiser in North Africa and it proving itself as a universal tank.

TTL Britain will very likely have a gun that is both a fantastic hole puncher whilst having a credible HE round in 41. They will only lack a tank that can take it in comfort at that point, something Carden is likely already working on. Then after a few months Britain get's it's hand on the US 75mm, that gun is worse than the 6pdr let alone the Vickers gun as an AT gun whilst likely having only a small improvement in HE capability. Why would Britain put the breaks on it's own gun to try and adopt the American gun to then go back to it's own gun? It makes no sense and actively hurts Britain's war effort.
A small improvement in HE capability? You're increasing the cross-sectional area of the shell by 73%, and since it's travelling at a lower velocity, you can get away with comparatively thinner walls. Increasing the HE filling by 75+% isn't a small thing.
 
Top