Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

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.
Notably Douglas Haig fits almost perfectly into the Stereotype of the Cavalry Officer. His family had money, they were Haig & Haig Whisky, and technically Gentry.
However, young Douglas failed to graduate from Oxford, and actually flunked the Staff College Entrance Exam, he got in by social connection.
 
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 75mm QF had only one thing in common with with the US M3 75mm

It fired the 75mmx350R cartridge.
It was a new gun that was build on the machinery that had done the 6 pdr QF. Different profile barrel with a 75mm rifling, and a breech and chamber that fit the 350mm Cartridge, shorter than the 6 pdr.

This was done because UK Gun and turret designers didn't talk with each other of the OTL 75mm HV. Whoops.

The Vickers M1931/36 wasn't loaded to much, if any higher levels in 1939. it was comparable to the US 75mm loading in velocity
The difference was, that the Vickers AA gun had the potential to be loaded at much higher pressures, since it had more volume able to be filled with propellant.

To be honest in this TL, as the US adopted the 6 pdr as the M1 57mm, that Vickers gun will be looked at to replace the 75mm M3 in place of the 76mm M1, that had testing started in August 1942.
In this TL, that Vickers 75mm is a mature design at this point, and nearly has the performance of the US M7 3" gun, but in a far lighter package, the goal for the Ordnance 76mm program. My there were many idiots at Ordnance, that weren't lead paint drinkers.
They didn't like the 6 pdr QF over the problem of poor HE.
The Vickers AA doesn't have that problem.
 
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.

Perhaps the wording of the argument was unclear. The gun I was referring to was the New Vickers Gun. I was saying the US 75mm is a worse at defeating armour than either the 6pdr or the new Vickers gun that will be either be 75mm or 3". The New Vickers gun will likely have a HE shell that is only going to be marginally worse than the US 75mm at worst and comparable at best. OTL the 17pdr had a HE filling that was 87% the size of the US 75mm.

I probably shouldn't have used the 6pdr in the comparison but wanted to emphasise what adopting the US 75mm would likely mean for Britain.
 
That's being kind the TOG II was potentially useful. They'll send them details of this.

1606596981904.png
 
Perhaps the wording of the argument was unclear. The gun I was referring to was the New Vickers Gun. I was saying the US 75mm is a worse at defeating armour than either the 6pdr or the new Vickers gun that will be either be 75mm or 3". The New Vickers gun will likely have a HE shell that is only going to be marginally worse than the US 75mm at worst and comparable at best. OTL the 17pdr had a HE filling that was 87% the size of the US 75mm.

I probably shouldn't have used the 6pdr in the comparison but wanted to emphasise what adopting the US 75mm would likely mean for Britain.
As may be, but you're unlikely to be able to fit the Vickers 75mm in the Valiant I turret without losing a crewman, so the point is moot. The Valiant I turret will take an American 75mm gun (or a modified 6 Pounder), so the comparison should be between that and the 6 Pounder.
 
From my cynical side.
Because the US told them to.
The slow down in British AFV production from 1943 was due to 2 things - the British needed their train / locomotive making company's that were making tanks from 1940 odd to restart making trains - and it was easier for both parties for the USA to ship tanks than it was to ship trains (and trains designed for the British railway system).

Also with the Germans now fully enmeshed in the Eastern front verses the Russians - the pressure was even more off British Industry

This also allowed the British to spend more time on the Cromwell, Later Churchill, Comet and Centurion with the result that these were high quality products with great reliability.

Now with this TL if those factory's instead are spamming out quality HV 75mm armed universal tanks in 1943 that are superior to the then US tanks then it makes more sense for the Americans to build new trains and ship them over
 
As may be, but you're unlikely to be able to fit the Vickers 75mm in the Valiant I turret without losing a crewman, so the point is moot. The Valiant I turret will take an American 75mm gun (or a modified 6 Pounder), so the comparison should be between that and the 6 Pounder.
I have to disagree.

Firstly Britain was never shy about accepting less than ideal turret conditions to get the gun it wanted into a tank. That was done with the 6pdr and the 17pdr. if Britain wants the Vickers gun in a tank it will go into a tank despite the issues that may present.

Secondly just because a tank cant take a gun in its initial configuration does not mean it cant be modified. OTL the Valentine which started as a 2 man turret was modified to have a 3 man turret. I strongly suspect that as soon as Carden becomes aware of the final specifications of the new gun, along with looking at a replacement tank, will start to look at ways of putting it into the Valiant in a convenient way.

Thirdly the timeline is completely off, TTL the likely scenario is the Valiant enters service in 1940, gets a 6pdr in late 40 or early 41, the Vickers gun enters service some time in early-ish 41 then in 42 Britain encounter the US 75mm in combat. Britain would have had nearly 12 months experience with the Vickers gun in some capacity. That may be in a newly designed 3 man turret or a cramped 2 man turret on the Valiant with a replacement on the way. Or it could be as a SPG or even towed AT gun. To then suddenly stop work on the Vickers gun and a new tank/Valiant turret to take it in order to work on adopting the US 75mm makes little to no sense.

Fourth Britain wont see the US 75mm and suddenly gain the obsession some members of this forum have with it. It will need to see service, prove itself as a better dual purpose gun than the 6pdr then be adapted and introduced. That will take time, enough people will likely baulk at sacrificing the armour penetration ability of the 6pdr to delay its acceptance. Add to that the fact Britain is likely already moving away from the 6pdr enough people will question why are you replacing a gun that is already being replaced. Now lets assume that all happens and Britain is going to look at adopting the 75mm how long will that take? If that takes 6-9 months to convince enough people it is worth it you are likely on the verge of getting a tank into service that can take the Vickers gun in comfort and the Valiant will be carrying it, why then are you bothering with the 75mm?. Any longer than 9 months and Tiger arrives (unless it gets brought forward TTL) and that changes things again, at that point the ability to defeat thick armour is a big benefit and the Vickers gun wins period.

Finally Britain is likely going to be in a much healthier position regarding tank production TTL. The Valiant will likely be fairly quick to produce and has two new tank factories making it. A lot of the issues Britain had in terms of equipping it's army with tanks wont be present here. That likely means that any Lend Lease tanks will either be used in combat in smaller numbers or not see combat at all and be used at home to simplify logistics in a combat zone. Either way the ability of the 75mm to prove it's worth is much reduced and makes it less likely to be adopted by Britain.
 
Last edited:
The slow down in British AFV production from 1943 was due to 2 things - the British needed their train / locomotive making company's that were making tanks from 1940 odd to restart making trains - and it was easier for both parties for the USA to ship tanks than it was to ship trains (and trains designed for the British railway system).

Also with the Germans now fully enmeshed in the Eastern front verses the Russians - the pressure was even more off British Industry

This also allowed the British to spend more time on the Cromwell, Later Churchill, Comet and Centurion with the result that these were high quality products with great reliability.

Now with this TL if those factory's instead are spamming out quality HV 75mm armed universal tanks in 1943 that are superior to the then US tanks then it makes more sense for the Americans to build new trains and ship them over

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.
 
Last edited:
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
This can only be a good thing, the Railways were hard used and any extra resources returned to them will be worth more that their weight in gold.
 
I have to disagree.

Firstly Britain was never shy about accepting less than ideal turret conditions to get the gun it wanted into a tank. That was done with the 6pdr and the 17pdr. if Britain wants the Vickers gun in a tank it will go into a tank despite the issues that may present.

Secondly just because a tank cant take a gun in its initial configuration does not mean it cant be modified. OTL the Valentine which started as a 2 man turret was modified to have a 3 man turret. I strongly suspect that as soon as Carden becomes aware of the final specifications of the new gun, along with looking at a replacement tank, will start to look at ways of putting it into the Valiant in a convenient way.

Thirdly the timeline is completely off, TTL the likely scenario is the Valiant enters service in 1940, gets a 6pdr in late 40 or early 41, the Vickers gun enters service some time in early-ish 41 then in 42 Britain encounter the US 75mm in combat. Britain would have had nearly 12 months experience with the Vickers gun in some capacity. That may be in a newly designed 3 man turret or a cramped 2 man turret on the Valiant with a replacement on the way. Or it could be as a SPG or even towed AT gun. To then suddenly stop work on the Vickers gun and a new tank/Valiant turret to take it in order to work on adopting the US 75mm makes little to no sense.

Fourth Britain wont see the US 75mm and suddenly gain the obsession some members of this forum have with it. It will need to see service, prove itself as a better dual purpose gun than the 6pdr then be adapted and introduced. That will take time, enough people will likely baulk at sacrificing the armour penetration ability of the 6pdr to delay its acceptance. Add to that the fact Britain is likely already moving away from the 6pdr enough people will question why are you replacing a gun that is already being replaced. Now lets assume that all happens and Britain is going to look at adopting the 75mm how long will that take? If that takes 6-9 months to convince enough people it is worth it you are likely on the verge of getting a tank into service that can take the Vickers gun in comfort and the Valiant will be carrying it, why then are you bothering with the 75mm?. Any longer than 9 months and Tiger arrives (unless it gets brought forward TTL) and that changes things again, at that point the ability to defeat thick armour is a big benefit and the Vickers gun wins period.

Finally Britain is likely going to be in a much healthier position regarding tank production TTL. The Valiant will likely be fairly quick to produce and has two new tank factories making it. A lot of the issues Britain had in terms of equipping it's army with tanks wont be present here. That likely means that any Lend Lease tanks will either be used in combat in smaller numbers or not see combat at all and be used at home to simplify logistics in a combat zone. Either way the ability of the 75mm to prove it's worth is much reduced and makes it less likely to be adopted by Britain.
1) They weren't shy about a lot of things relating to tanks, which is why so many are rightly regarded as poor.
2) You're supposing (without any real evidence) that it's possible.
3) The American 75 will fit in the Vickers I turret with limited modification, and retain decent ergonomics. The Vickers 75 will take rather more work, and the ergonomics will likely be pretty crummy. In addition, the British are likely to not be in such a "we need this NOW" mindset, because the Valiant is actually a good tank.
4) You're assuming an all-or-nothing adoption, but you remove a lot of those issues by just arranging mixed squadrons.
5) True. OTOH, they'll come in with the American troops, so there's going to be exposure regardless.

Also, you're forgetting that the USA has far more resources to hand, while the Vickers team is struggling just with their pre-war orders.
 
The OQF 75 is a modified 6lber made explicitly to avoid having to modify their tanks to take on the us 75. If they have the capacity to make enough 6lber they should have enough to make OQF75s.
 
Also, you're forgetting that the USA has far more resources to hand, while the Vickers team is struggling just with their pre-war orders.
In early 1939, the only place building US tanks was the Rock Island Arsenal, Walter Christie's workshop and Marmon-Herrington, looking for export sales. Plans for expansion didn't start until the Germans invaded Poland
 
The OQF 75 is a modified 6lber made explicitly to avoid having to modify their tanks to take on the us 75. If they have the capacity to make enough 6lber they should have enough to make OQF75s.
True, assuming you have the capacity. OTOH, the resources you spare on those guns could maybe make a significant difference elsewhere.

In early 1939, the only place building US tanks was the Rock Island Arsenal, Walter Christie's workshop and Marmon-Herrington, looking for export sales. Plans for expansion didn't start until the Germans invaded Poland
Who said anything about tanks? I was just talking about guns.
 
Who said anything about tanks? I was just talking about guns.
If you aren't building a lot of tanks, you aren't building a lot of cannons.
Especially in the USA, where they wanted machines guns for everything till the M2 Medium. Only private companies making small cannons was AAC and Browning, and they were lower powered 37mm.
everything else was WWI surplus
 
Top