Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

14 February 1942. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England.
14 February 1942. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England.

Some of the team had planned a surprise for Sir John Carden. St Valentine’s Day was a running joke among some of Sir John’s friends and colleagues, as Valentine was his middle name. There was a box of chocolates on his desk and a card. The card had been signed by Lieutenant-General Giffard le Q Martel on behalf of the Royal Armoured Corps.

While Martel had backed the Christie suspension because of his experience in Russia before the war, he had come round to Carden’s point of view about the need for a single type of tank. The speed of the cruiser tank had been proven to be less important than reliability, protection and firepower. The A13 and Crusader weren’t bad tanks compared to the early Panzers, but their inability to be upgraded was due more to the limitations of the engine and Nuffield’s designers. What Carden had done with the A9, A10 and A11, and especially with the Valiant, had made the men of the RAC confident and victorious.

The new Carden designed tank, the Victor, had been put its paces at the various testing facilities. As with every new machine there had been plenty of teething troubles. These had been identified, and back and forth the prototypes had gone to the factories to sort out lasting fixes. Each of the pre-production models had been incrementally improved, and handed over to training establishments to let crews and mechanics begin to get to grips with all the new systems.

The Meteor engines were still being developed from Merlin aero-engines that were no longer airworthy. The various factories that were preparing to move to Meteor production from scratch were getting close to production, running a few months later than hoped, but confident that once they were up and running, they could fulfil the orders placed on them. The problem, as was often the case, was getting the sub-contractor’s efficiency and quality control up to standard.

The Merritt-Brown triple differential tank transmission on both the Churchill and Victor was proving a good system, once again, after the teething troubles had been ironed out. Quality control was proving to be a bug-bear that needed more man hours to get right. For the army’s fitters and mechanics there was a lot to learn about how to maintain and fix the new systems, so training was a priority.

As planned, the first production Victor tanks were to be fitted with the 6-pdr gun, while Vickers and the Royal Ordnance Factories geared up to produce the 75mm HV gun. The conflict between the production of the 75mm HV tank gun and 17-pdr anti-tank gun had been eased by the agreement about using a common projectile although in a different cartridge. Since the Americans had more experience with the 75mm, boring machines had been ordered to add the limited numbers available within the Vickers company. This would allow an increase in numbers of barrels being produced, so that the Victor Mark II with the 75mm HV could be in full production before the end of 1942.

Towed 6-pdr anti-tank production was just beginning to get fully into its stride, some 18000 expected to be completed by the end of the year. 2-pdr production was planned to begin to wind down later in the year, but the needs of the expanding army meant that there were a lot of anti-tank regiments, especially in the Empire forces, that needed any kind of anti-tank weapon. 11000 2-pdrs had been built so far, at least another 10000 were on order, which would take about a year at the current level of production. The first production 17-pdrs were expected to be completed in April, with about 700 expected by the end of the year, with about 4000 expected in 1943.

The ladies working in the Vickers offices enjoyed the chocolates that Sir John passed onto them. As it was a Saturday, the office staff had an early finish. As they went off, some to their own romantic adventures, there was a general feeling of hope in the air. The fighting in North Africa had gone so well. Now both the Russians and Americans were in the war on Britain’s side, the fact that Japan had entered on the side of Germany and Italy didn’t seem so bad. The battles in Malaya suggested that, like North Africa, the British Empire would soon have the upper hand, the fortress of Singapore providing the security for Australia and India. The battle of the Atlantic was still going badly, but the Royal Navy, with Canadian and American help, would sort that out sooner or later. Tonight, the dance halls would be open, and the unmarried women (and some of the married) would be out in their best clothes enjoying the idea that one day soon the war would be over and the pursuit of love, marriage and family would be all they’d have to worry about.
 
A filler chapter, but a very good one. Something tells me that the Germans aren't going to like it when the British start on the continent.
 
I've been looking at volume IV of Churchill's WW2 memoirs again, and I think the Imperial General Staff are going to have to come up with something in the Mediterranean (where there is at least air-cover) to keep Churchill away from 'Operation Jupiter' and Norway (where there would be little or no air-cover.)
Churchill really wanted to do the Norwegian operation, not least to clear the Russian convoy routes from air-attack from Norway.
That finally makes sense; I’ve always wondered why the allies invaded Italy as opposed to a “commando raid that stayed” in Norway. It seemed there would be more benefits to cutting Swedish Iron Ore, helping the Murmansk convoys than invading Italy, should Churchill feel the need to attack a country whose geography is optimised for the defender. (And if the idea was to get an axis nation to turn co-belligerent, wouldn’t Finland be more of an useful ally than Italy?)

Apart from FFO-APOD, I can’t even recall seeing a timeline where “Fortitude North” was launched.
 
The desire for a Norway op was known by the Germans

It was one of the reasons for Operation Cerberus in early 42

Aside from being bombed to hell, and the already outnumbered German fleet now also facing off against the USN there was a genuine fear that Norway was going to be attacked.

As it turned out a superb maskirovka by the British, tied down lots of German assets

In May 1945 the Germans still had more than 350,000 troops in Norway!
 
Who were no doubt very relieved that they weren't in Berlin, and a good proportion of which were probably thinking about bolting to Sweden before the Allies land.
Question did German Command remember that they left spare troops in Norway and the Channel Islands?
 
Question did German Command remember that they left spare troops in Norway and the Channel Islands?
No way of getting them back to Germany, they were just free open space prison camps as far as the Allies were concerned post D Day. Just like in the Pacific, they were left to wither away. Channel Islands were even supplied by the Allies via the Red Cross to prevent mass starvation.
 
Be careful about using Churchill Second World War as a reference point he omitts or ignores some points.

Still the Imperial General staff had to talk him out of Norway more than once it would have been a disasters to try and perform. Harder to cover with air and harder to resupply in a lot of ways.
 
Be careful about using Churchill Second World War as a reference point he omitts or ignores some points.

Still the Imperial General staff had to talk him out of Norway more than once it would have been a disasters to try and perform. Harder to cover with air and harder to resupply in a lot of ways.
Remember for all his 'power' he is only still the prime minister and not a dictator

And while his action this day 'rockets' did cut through a lot of BS and got things done faster than they might have otherwise - his madder ideas almost always got quashed by the other leadership surrounding him.

I think trying to push a Norway invasion is clearly going to be 'murdered' by his cabinet and war council
 
Remember for all his 'power' he is only still the prime minister and not a dictator

And while his action this day 'rockets' did cut through a lot of BS and got things done faster than they might have otherwise - his madder ideas almost always got quashed by the other leadership surrounding him.

I think trying to push a Norway invasion is clearly going to be 'murdered' by his cabinet and war council
I think Churchill's advisors most important qualification was the ability to say "No Prime Minister" and make it stick.

(There's a TV series in there somewhere)
 
As planned, the first production Victor tanks were to be fitted with the 6-pdr gun, while Vickers and the Royal Ordnance Factories geared up to produce the 75mm HV gun. The conflict between the production of the 75mm HV tank gun and 17-pdr anti-tank gun had been eased by the agreement about using a common projectile although in a different cartridge. Since the Americans had more experience with the 75mm, boring machines had been ordered to add the limited numbers available within the Vickers company. This would allow an increase in numbers of barrels being produced, so that the Victor Mark II with the 75mm HV could be in full production before the end of 1942.

Ah, does this mean that that the 17pdr ITTL will be in 75mm instead of 76.2mm if it and the 75mm HV share the same projectile and the 75mm HV seems to still be 75mm?

Seems kind of strange to me; the British have a lot more tooling for 76.2mm guns than they do 75mm guns; 76.2mm is a British calibre from guns like the 3-in 20 cwt after all, while 75mm is pretty much new.
 
Ah, does this mean that that the 17pdr ITTL will be in 75mm instead of 76.2mm if it and the 75mm HV share the same projectile and the 75mm HV seems to still be 75mm?

Seems kind of strange to me; the British have a lot more tooling for 76.2mm guns than they do 75mm guns; 76.2mm is a British calibre from guns like the 3-in 20 cwt after all, while 75mm is pretty much new.
The Vickers model 1931 was a 75mm AAA gun and was quite popular and widely exported in the 30s

They had no issues also making it in 3" /76.2mm for Finland

It you have tooling that can make a long 76.2mm gun then you already have the tooling for a 75mm gun!

Its a non issue
 
The difference between a 75mm and a 76.2mm shell are minor. All that needs adjusting is the driving bands, making them a few millimetre narrower or wider. The Germans did this with the Soviet 76,2mm field gun, before reboring it with new tubes.
 
The Vickers model 1931 was a 75mm AAA gun and was quite popular and widely exported in the 30s

They had no issues also making it in 3" /76.2mm for Finland

It you have tooling that can make a long 76.2mm gun then you already have the tooling for a 75mm gun!

Its a non issue

Sure, there is some tooling for barrels and projectiles in 75mm available, but what I'm trying to say is that it's nothing like the amount of tooling they already have for 76.2mm guns since 76.2mm was a commonly used British calibre since before the turn of the century.
 
Sure, there is some tooling for barrels and projectiles in 75mm available, but what I'm trying to say is that it's nothing like the amount of tooling they already have for 76.2mm guns since 76.2mm was a commonly used British calibre since before the turn of the century.
Barrel length is also an issue. If you can't bore a long enough length, you can't produce a gun in that calibre.
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
Having read and reread the latest post from the author, there was something about it that caused an itch in my brain. I am not referring to the decision on tank production, suspension types or gun types and calibres. And then while enjoying a flash coffee it hit me, where in Britain in 1942, which was under strict rationing, did his staff get their hands on a box of chocolates. From my understanding sweets were strictly rationed and there was no production of boxed chocolates during the war. So ether someone got hold of an old box, on the black market from before rationing was introduced, or the staff got together and combined their sweet rations and placed them in an old box.🧐

RR.
 
Maybe not having to send so many ships to North Africa means they have a few more for the Atlantic run?
 
Last edited:
Having read and reread the latest post from the author, there was something about it that caused an itch in my brain. I am not referring to the decision on tank production, suspension types or gun types and calibres. And then while enjoying a flash coffee it hit me, where in Britain in 1942, which was under strict rationing, did his staff get their hands on a box of chocolates. From my understanding sweets were strictly rationed and there was no production of boxed chocolates during the war. So ether someone got hold of an old box, on the black market from before rationing was introduced, or the staff got together and combined their sweet rations and placed them in an old box.🧐

RR.
I'm sure there'd be a bit of 'those and such as those' who'd not be quite as bothered by strict rationing as the rest of the population. Also, never gave it any thought.
Regarding the 75mm rather than 76.2mm, we've been having this conversation for awhile on the thread. OTL Vickers proposed the 75mm HV, it was eventually changed to the 76.2mm because of the 17-pdr not being able to fit the Cromwell. Also, all the 6-pdrs that are converted to 75mm for using US ammo. At this point it isn't all that different to OTL.
 
I think Churchill's advisors most important qualification was the ability to say "No Prime Minister" and make it stick.

(There's a TV series in there somewhere)
His sterling work in reining in the chubby alcoholic makes General Alan Brooke my vote for the most effective general of WW2.
 
Top