Churchill at the admiralty pushes WWII 'anti-tank guns'

[Magniac]

Quick thought vis-a-vis the best-British-tank-by-D-Day-thread; Churchill pushed tank developement at admiralty during WWI, didn't he?

I know he actually deployed Rolls Royce armored cars to Belgium in 1914, said cars being manned by RN personnel.

I don't think he can get involved in any serious way in AVs during his '39/'40 tenure, but there's one thing I think he can do as first lord of the admiralty against the Nazis that might have an immeasurable impact on tank developement: develop guns similar to the 6pdr and even the 17pdr.

So, in 1939, facing a new high seas menace, Winston decides that an analogue to the 6pdr would make the perfect weapon for smaller vessels in surface engagements against U-boats, while something like the 17pdr would be a good, cheap, and flexible weapon for merchant vessel convoys attacked by German surface raiders or destroyers.

I know the gunners on this board are convinced that it's impossible to just advance the need for serious tank guns with a wave of the hand, and that adapting existing naval, AA, even artillery weapons is the best way to get good firepower in tanks earlier than OTL: but wouldn't Churchill pushing for guns that can easily be fitted to merchant cruisers or MBTs or whatever be the most flexible (and slightly lighter) alternative to AA and navy guns that I imagine were quite heavy, over-engineered, etc?

 

[Astrodragon]

Quick thought vis-a-vis the best-British-tank-by-D-Day-thread; Churchill pushed tank developement at admiralty during WWI, didn't he?

I know he actually deployed Rolls Royce armored cars to Belgium in 1914, said cars being manned by RN personnel.

I don't think he can get involved in any serious way in AVs during his '39/'40 tenure, but there's one thing I think he can do as first lord of the admiralty against the Nazis that might have an immeasurable impact on tank developement: develop guns similar to the 6pdr and even the 17pdr.

So, in 1939, facing a new high seas menace, Winston decides that an analogue to the 6pdr would make the perfect weapon for smaller vessels in surface engagements against U-boats, while something like the 17pdr would be a good, cheap, and flexible weapon for merchant vessel convoys attacked by German surface raiders or destroyers.

I know the gunners on this board are convinced that it's impossible to just advance the need for serious tank guns with a wave of the hand, and that adapting existing naval, AA, even artillery weapons is the best way to get good firepower in tanks earlier than OTL: but wouldn't Churchill pushing for guns that can easily be fitted to merchant cruisers or MBTs or whatever be the most flexible (and slightly lighter) alternative to AA and navy guns that I imagine were quite heavy, over-engineered, etc?

They did use an autoloading version of the 6 pounder on light craft, as an anti-mtb weapon.

While the 17 pounder might have been a bit light, there would have been a use for a rather larger AT gun as an anti-uboat weapon - those hulls were tought, and normal 4" ammo tended to bounce off.

 

[Magniac]

They did use an autoloading version of the 6 pounder on light craft, as an anti-mtb weapon

Was that the Tse Tse gun, the one mounted in select Mosquito light bombers?

While the 17 pounder might have been a bit light, there would have been a use for a rather larger AT gun as an anti-uboat weapon - those hulls were tought, and normal 4" ammo tended to bounce off

I think the kinds of weapons I'm thinking of mightn't be the most powerful guns afloat, and would be sneered at by RN regulars, but the point is that Winston circa 1939 might think they're brilliant and flexible, that they turn picket boats into corvettes and cargo ships into destroyers (though of course they wouldn't.)

A crazy, impetuous Churchill scheme that pays dividends for the tankers of the army from '41 onwards.

 

[Markus]

So, in 1939, facing a new high seas menace, Winston decides that an analogue to the 6pdr would make the perfect weapon for smaller vessels in surface engagements against U-boats, while something like the 17pdr would be a good, cheap, and flexible weapon for merchant vessel convoys attacked by German surface raiders or destroyers.

IIRC MGB got 6pdr guns, but a 17pdr is "just" a pimped 3inch gun. For some reason I don´t get US DE had (less powerful) 3inch AA guns, that were useless against surface targets, the rather small subs included. So let´s do this the other way:

When WW2 broke out the RN had converted a lot of old W/V-class DD to "escorts". Replacing their 4.7inch guns anti ship guns with a dual purpose gun and handing the old ones over to the merchant marine would make a lot more sense.

I know the gunners on this board are convinced that it's impossible to just advance the need for serious tank guns with a wave of the hand, and that adapting existing naval, AA, even artillery weapons is the best way to get good firepower in tanks earlier than OTL:

Well, there is not much need for anything bigger than a 6pdr. Early war tanks are tin cans, especially the German ones.

 

[Dilvish]

IIRC MGB got 6pdr guns, but a 17pdr is "just" a pimped 3inch gun. For some reason I don´t get US DE had (less powerful) 3inch AA guns, that were useless against surface targets, the rather small subs included. So let´s do this the other way:

When WW2 broke out the RN had converted a lot of old W/V-class DD to "escorts". Replacing their 4.7inch guns anti ship guns with a dual purpose gun and handing the old ones over to the merchant marine would make a lot more sense.




Well, there is not much need for anything bigger than a 6pdr. Early war tanks are tin cans, especially the German ones.

Markus,

I believe the first US DEs had 3-in guns due to limits in the 5"/38 production. The later DE classes had the 5"/38, like the DEs at the battle of Samar.

Britain did have the 3.7" AA gun. It was used as in the AT role in North Africa. I would think it could have been modified to be an AT gun if necessary, like the German 88mm.

dilvish