Okay. I'm going to assume they can be ready sooner than the OTL 20-pounder too? The Centurion was a pretty decent tank for the era, so with Carden in play, it's safe to assume it will be even better, maybe enough to win orders from outside the Empire/Commonwealth?
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
They should be there somewhat sooner yes. 28pdr is contemporary with 17pdr itself, 3.7"/87mm based weapons should be there early enough if pursued instead of being cancelled. Basically OTL they went into obscurity much like the 8, 10 and 12 pounder weapons from the 1940-42 period.
Just while so many knowledgeable people are looking at thread while discussing a 3.7" gun, did the UK ever consider a 3.7' howitzer in place of 3.45" 25 pounder? I find it so counterintuitive that the UK appears to have built the 3.7" mountain howitzer in isolation. Especially considering it could have potentially used some common tooling with the 3.7" anti-aircraft gun. Thanks in advance, Matthew.
It has been said that British Radar went from being five years behind the Germans in 1936 to being five years ahead by 1941, a lead they never lost thereafter.
Whilst R.V. Jones book is a good summary of the electronic war form his perspective (a little self congratulatory for my taste) I would recommend "Instruments of Darkness" by Alfred Price.
Whilst R.V. Jones book is a good summary of the electronic war form his perspective (a little self congratulatory for my taste) I would recommend "Instruments of Darkness" by Alfred Price.
If you are able to listen the 'we have ways of making you talk ' podcast James Holland spends almost an hour describing how the dowding system was more than the sum of its parts - well worth a listen
Last edited:
Didn’t the fact they thought that the British Radar chain was primitive help in the defence of the UK im the battle of britian? It lead them to under estimate Chain Low and chain home and the whole organisation that had developed to handle interceptions.
Basically, yes the Germans never understood how the "Dowding System" worked and that actually hampered their response to the RAF fighter defence.
20 November 1941. Montreal, Canada.
allanpcameron
Donor
20 November 1941. Montreal, Canada.
Production of the Valiant IA* continued apace, with the Canadian 5th Armoured Division having received its full quota of 340 tanks, plus replacements. During the early part of 1941, once full production was underway, thoughts had turned towards a follow-on tank.
There had been a close look at the American Medium M3 to see if the hull could be adapted to take a fully traversable turret. Progress on the American Medium M4 had been advanced with the presence of the British Valiant I, which had helped the designers to master the turret mechanisms. With American production ramping up, it was clear that access to the materials to build an M3 variant in Canada wasn’t likely to be that easy.
While the Valiant II, with the new turret to take the larger 6-pdr gun was looked at, it was felt that it would be easy enough to convert the production of the Valiant IA* to take the new turret, and larger gun, which Canadian factories were preparing to build. The Canadian Government had been approached to enquire if production of the Valiant IIA* could be continued to supply the Soviet Union with Lend-Lease tanks. The formation of a second Canadian Armoured Division (4th Armoured Division) was underway, and while the Valiant IIA* was originally chosen to equip this, another tank had been developed as far as the prototype stage as an alternative.
At the same time, the connection with Australia had been deepening, with experts travelling in both directions to help set up Australian production of tanks. It was clear that both the Canadian and Australian army were looking for the same kind of tank. The proposal from Vickers to start production of the Victor was welcomed, but access to the Merlin based engine would be problematic. The Victor had many of the qualities that both Dominions were keen on, but it was felt that it was perhaps a step too far for two nations new to tank building.
The New South Wales Government Railway Company had opened Sydney's Chullora Tank Assembly Shops, with help from Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Like the Canadians, the Australians were using cast hulls and turrets, rather than welding. The difference being that the Australians were casting the entire hull in one piece, likewise the turret. Taking the Valiant as a starting point, they had been looking at continuing to use the Cummings diesel engine, but with slightly less armour to keep the tank’s weight down, and speed up. The new Merritt-Brown transmission in the Victor and Churchill was a step too far for either country’s capacity in the short term. On the other hand, the French Hotchkiss style Horizontal Volute bogies, and the Valiant’s final drive and gearbox, were all within Australian capacity, as well as Canadian.
Australia’s capacity for rolling steel was already fully taken up in the munitions industry. The use of castings was looked at, and the best kind of steel for strength, were all investigated, so that the Australian prototype had a single cast hull, a considerable achievement for the steel industry in Australia.
Taking all these things together, a joint design team of Canadians and Australians, had worked on a Canadian/Australian Cruiser (CAC1). Once the hull requirements had been worked out, the usual problem of a suitable gun was discussed. Options included the 2-pdr, 6-pdr, the American M2 or M3 75mm, but the feedback from the fighting in North Africa gave an emphasis to the primary role of the gun delivering a potent High Explosive shell.
Since both Canada and Australia were building 25-pdrs, the design team looked at the howitzer as a possibility. This gun had proven itself in direct fire against German tanks in North Africa, as well as its celebrated artillery role. The Australians had taken the lead on adapting the 25-pdr for use in a tank, making it shorter, lighter and moving to an overhead recoil system. This had been done successfully, but with the loss of about 13% of the standard howitzer’s range, considered less important in the tank role.
Looking at the hull it became obvious that a turret big enough to take the 25-pdr would need a turret ring of at least 64-inches. Choosing such a large gun, with the need for adequate ammunition stowage, plans to have a hull mounted machine gun and gunner had to be deleted to make room. The crew of four (commander, driver, gunner, loader) would be protected with 3-inchs armour on the front of the tank hull and turret, less than 2-inches on the sides to keep the weight down.
Without the ‘hidebound’ views of the British military establishment, it was felt in Ottawa and Canberra that such an armament was more than adequate for the role of a tank that needed to deal with enemy anti-tank guns and fortifications more than simply a tank to fight other tanks. The Americans and French had both opted for a 75mm gun, adapted from a field piece. Choosing the excellent 25-pdr would ease supply of ammunition if the same was being used by the Artillery and tank forces. When the War Office in London was informed of this new tank development stream, it was described as a ‘very courageous’ decision.
When Sir John Carden looked over the “CAC1” (Canadian/Australian Cruiser) he was impressed. The designers had taken an already effective engine, drive and gearbox, adapted the suspension, and with a very large turret ring, had managed to resolve the gun question with a proven and available howitzer. If he had one criticism, it was that the maximum elevation of the gun prevented it being used efficiently as an indirect artillery piece, such as the Birch gun.
There had been a great deal of debate between the Canadians and Australians about a name for the tank. The Canadians wanted to call it the Ram, the Australians went along with them, but preferred Jumbuck, the Australian nickname for a ram.
Production of the Valiant IA* continued apace, with the Canadian 5th Armoured Division having received its full quota of 340 tanks, plus replacements. During the early part of 1941, once full production was underway, thoughts had turned towards a follow-on tank.
There had been a close look at the American Medium M3 to see if the hull could be adapted to take a fully traversable turret. Progress on the American Medium M4 had been advanced with the presence of the British Valiant I, which had helped the designers to master the turret mechanisms. With American production ramping up, it was clear that access to the materials to build an M3 variant in Canada wasn’t likely to be that easy.
While the Valiant II, with the new turret to take the larger 6-pdr gun was looked at, it was felt that it would be easy enough to convert the production of the Valiant IA* to take the new turret, and larger gun, which Canadian factories were preparing to build. The Canadian Government had been approached to enquire if production of the Valiant IIA* could be continued to supply the Soviet Union with Lend-Lease tanks. The formation of a second Canadian Armoured Division (4th Armoured Division) was underway, and while the Valiant IIA* was originally chosen to equip this, another tank had been developed as far as the prototype stage as an alternative.
At the same time, the connection with Australia had been deepening, with experts travelling in both directions to help set up Australian production of tanks. It was clear that both the Canadian and Australian army were looking for the same kind of tank. The proposal from Vickers to start production of the Victor was welcomed, but access to the Merlin based engine would be problematic. The Victor had many of the qualities that both Dominions were keen on, but it was felt that it was perhaps a step too far for two nations new to tank building.
The New South Wales Government Railway Company had opened Sydney's Chullora Tank Assembly Shops, with help from Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Like the Canadians, the Australians were using cast hulls and turrets, rather than welding. The difference being that the Australians were casting the entire hull in one piece, likewise the turret. Taking the Valiant as a starting point, they had been looking at continuing to use the Cummings diesel engine, but with slightly less armour to keep the tank’s weight down, and speed up. The new Merritt-Brown transmission in the Victor and Churchill was a step too far for either country’s capacity in the short term. On the other hand, the French Hotchkiss style Horizontal Volute bogies, and the Valiant’s final drive and gearbox, were all within Australian capacity, as well as Canadian.
Australia’s capacity for rolling steel was already fully taken up in the munitions industry. The use of castings was looked at, and the best kind of steel for strength, were all investigated, so that the Australian prototype had a single cast hull, a considerable achievement for the steel industry in Australia.
Taking all these things together, a joint design team of Canadians and Australians, had worked on a Canadian/Australian Cruiser (CAC1). Once the hull requirements had been worked out, the usual problem of a suitable gun was discussed. Options included the 2-pdr, 6-pdr, the American M2 or M3 75mm, but the feedback from the fighting in North Africa gave an emphasis to the primary role of the gun delivering a potent High Explosive shell.
Since both Canada and Australia were building 25-pdrs, the design team looked at the howitzer as a possibility. This gun had proven itself in direct fire against German tanks in North Africa, as well as its celebrated artillery role. The Australians had taken the lead on adapting the 25-pdr for use in a tank, making it shorter, lighter and moving to an overhead recoil system. This had been done successfully, but with the loss of about 13% of the standard howitzer’s range, considered less important in the tank role.
Looking at the hull it became obvious that a turret big enough to take the 25-pdr would need a turret ring of at least 64-inches. Choosing such a large gun, with the need for adequate ammunition stowage, plans to have a hull mounted machine gun and gunner had to be deleted to make room. The crew of four (commander, driver, gunner, loader) would be protected with 3-inchs armour on the front of the tank hull and turret, less than 2-inches on the sides to keep the weight down.
Without the ‘hidebound’ views of the British military establishment, it was felt in Ottawa and Canberra that such an armament was more than adequate for the role of a tank that needed to deal with enemy anti-tank guns and fortifications more than simply a tank to fight other tanks. The Americans and French had both opted for a 75mm gun, adapted from a field piece. Choosing the excellent 25-pdr would ease supply of ammunition if the same was being used by the Artillery and tank forces. When the War Office in London was informed of this new tank development stream, it was described as a ‘very courageous’ decision.
When Sir John Carden looked over the “CAC1” (Canadian/Australian Cruiser) he was impressed. The designers had taken an already effective engine, drive and gearbox, adapted the suspension, and with a very large turret ring, had managed to resolve the gun question with a proven and available howitzer. If he had one criticism, it was that the maximum elevation of the gun prevented it being used efficiently as an indirect artillery piece, such as the Birch gun.
There had been a great deal of debate between the Canadians and Australians about a name for the tank. The Canadians wanted to call it the Ram, the Australians went along with them, but preferred Jumbuck, the Australian nickname for a ram.
Last edited:
A small correction here. It was the New South Wales Government Railway. Otherwise an interesting change to the mobilisation of Australia’s railways in wartime.
allanpcameron
Donor
So obviously this is speculative. The Ram and Sentinel tanks were developed OTL independently. As mentioned previously, because Canada are a bit ahead TTL, the Australians looked to Canada as well as the USA for ideas. The AC3 had the 25-pdr, the Ram was the basis for the Sexton SPG, with 25-pdr. Working together will have brought the project forward, though the divergence from using the American M3 hull, engine, suspension etc for the Ram, will have delayed the Canadian side of things.
Using the Valiant's engine etc, but changing from the dated suspension to the Hotchkiss type, makes the new tank look more like the Sentinel, (or Thunderbolt as I saw the ACIII named sowewhere.), than the Ram ( which I keep wanting to type as RAM!).
Using the Valiant's engine etc, but changing from the dated suspension to the Hotchkiss type, makes the new tank look more like the Sentinel, (or Thunderbolt as I saw the ACIII named sowewhere.), than the Ram ( which I keep wanting to type as RAM!).
Well in a lot of ways this is a departures from OTL it seems like Canada is really hitting its stride with the armour production as well as some very good idea and I have to wonder if Carden will share notes with his other half's in Canadian and Australian design teams, would be intresting to see how the universal tank concept will develop.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Does the Ram / Jumbuck (that name is going to be changed in the field - "jumbo"?) have a coax machine gun? No machine gun is going to leave it like the early Stug III and it will probably need to be retrofitted.
Wouldn't mind betting these Rams get to Europe as well when the effectiveness of the Stugs are noticed.
No. Jumbuck won't be changed in the field. At least in Australian service where the name is used. Though expect jokes about theft.
I'm pretty sure the Coax is staying.
Emphasis on hull mounted. They're deleting the hull machine so they can fit more Stonks Main gun rounds. Given how large the turret ring is, I'd bet on there being plenty of room for a Coax.
allanpcameron
Donor
It is difficult to give a firm answer, Chamberlain & Ellis British and American Tanks of WW2 says yes to co-axial, as does Tanks Encyclopedia. The Official Australian History however says the coaxial was eliminated. Now, that may have been in the AC1 trial of the 25-pdr, it doesn't mention it in AC3. I was thinking that since the Aussies are getting Stuarts and Grants, that they might move to a .30 Browning, just as the Canadians did with the Ram. I would imagine the Browning would take up less space than the Vickers as originally used.
Allan.
Edited to add my apologies that the Sentinel won't have the casting for the hull MG, something that the Aussies thought was pretty funny. see attachment.
Last edited: