allanpcameron
Donor
I've got family visiting this week, so probably no update till early next week. Sorry.
Allan
Allan
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
Donald Reaver
Donor
Enjoy your visit, I do hope you do not get some of the family drama I have seen. Are you taking them to see any local attractions they may not have seen? Only have passed through Glasgow once for two days.
25 September 1941. Palestine
allanpcameron
Donor
25 September 1941. Palestine
General Wavell and Major-General John Clark, GOC 10th Armoured Division, took the salute as the tanks of 8th Armoured Brigade drove past the reviewing stand. The Brigade was made up of one Regiment equipped with Stuart M3 Light tanks and two Regiments equipped with A15 Cruiser Mark VI. The parade marked the fact that the Brigade were now fully equipped with tanks. It would take another month or two for the Brigade to become proficient in their use, but it was a notable moment.
The delivery of 69 Stuart M3 Light Tanks from America in August, equipped the Scots Greys. The Nottinghamshire Yeomanry and Staffordshire Yeomanry had received their A15s delivered on the WS10 convoy in the same month. After the parade Wavell and Clark chatted about the future of the Division. The tired-out tanks that 8th Armoured Brigade had been training on, had been passed on to 5th Cavalry Brigade. The idea of turning those three Yeomanry Regiments (Yorkshire Dragoons, Yorkshire Hussars and Cheshire Yeomanry), into Lorried Infantry had been rejected. Instead, they would eventually be fully equipped with tanks.
The other Brigade (9th Armoured) had taken part in both the Iraq and Iran campaigns. They were still in Iran, under Lieutenant-General Quinan’s command, doing good work in the aftermath of the seizure of that country. Between 5th Cavalry Brigade in the process of being mechanised, and 9th Armoured Brigade detached, Clark noted that his 10th Armoured Division was incomplete. Not only did it need an Infantry Brigade, but the majority of its artillery was still being used in XIII Corps. General Wavell could well understand Clark’s frustration.
The news from Iran was very positive. Firstly, the A15 Cruiser Mark VI tank had been ‘bloodied’ in Iran and, while there were still teething troubles, it was generally well regarded by its crews. They considered that the speed and ride of the tank was good. They reported that the Liberty Engine wasn’t easy to service, and it really needed a close watch to be kept on it. Although the tanks hadn’t gone up against anything equivalent, its armour was seen as being ‘not bad’. The usual complaint about the poor HE capability of the 2-pdr gun was a well-known gripe. Since the two Regiments using the new tanks were Cavalry, they enjoyed the speed most of all.
Later, after lunch, Clark passed on a report from the Adjutant of the Household Cavalry Regiment. The HCR, in their Stuarts, had rendezvoused with the Soviets at Qazvin. The Soviet T26 tanks and the American built M3 Light Tanks were examined by each other. For the British, the hull of the T26 was clearly designed from the Vickers 6-ton tank of the early 1930s. The engine was a copy of the Armstrong Siddeley 90hp petrol engine. The turret however was quite different, the 45mm gun impressed the British tank crews.
The Soviets were very keen to see the latest American tank, designed just in the last year or so. It much taller than their own T26, over 30cm. The gun, at 37mm was considered inferior to their own 45mm. The fact that every tank had a radio was a surprise, and the quality of the engineering, especially of the engine, was admired. The American tank had better armour protection, and because of the bigger radial engine, was about twice as fast as the Soviet tank. The Soviet crews couldn’t understand why the British had removed the extra machine-guns from the hull sponsons. The British tried to explain that the crew over over-worked as it was, and that the co-axial and bow gun were more than enough firepower. The Soviets just shrugged, for them, firepower was firepower.
The report of the meeting between the new erstwhile allies, was interesting. As far as the intelligence coming from Iran was concerned, the Soviets had invaded with sizeable forces, they were talking about 1000 tanks. The reality confirmed to Clark and Wavell that the problems the Soviets were having against the German panzers. It was like using the Vickers VI Light Tanks against the Panzers, a recipe for disaster. The only difference was the Soviets had a 45mm gun which was a vast improvement over the Vickers .5-inch machine gun. Reports from Moscow, seemed to suggest that the Soviets were using the same three classifications of tanks that the British used. They had a heavy KV1, like an Infantry Tank. Something like a Cruiser, or cavalry tank BT-7, that used the same Christie suspension as the A15. There were rumours that there was a new tank, but there wasn’t much information about it. The T26 and BT-2 were light tanks.
Wavell mentioned that it was unfortunate that the HCR hadn’t been able to get any information about what else the Soviets were deploying. Clark expressed the hope that when cooperation between the countries was organised, that perhaps the Russians might share some of what they had up their sleeves. Wavell remembered back to when he and Giffard Martel had visited the Soviet Union in 1935 and seen the Red Army manoeuvres. Martel had been excited by the Christie Suspension, but Wavell had been aware that they’d only been allowed to see what their hosts wanted them to see. This would have been the same when foreign visitors came to British exercises, but Wavell felt that the Russians would be unlikely to share anything they had which their allies could use. Whereas, they would take everything they could get their hands on and barely say ‘thanks’. Wavell, looking at the reports coming from Russia wasn’t entirely convinced that they’d be able to stand up to Hitler’s advances.
With that in mind, and from a previous meeting with General Auchinleck, Wavell tried to assure Clark that 10th Armoured Division would have an important role to play. If the Germans did get to the Caucasus Mountains, then having an Armoured Division in Iran would be necessary. Hopefully it wouldn’t happen, but by spring 1942, Clark’s Division would be fully functional. Wavell still believed that spring 1942 was the soonest the Germans might be able to come towards the Middle East. 10th Armoured Division, he warned Clark, was likely to be one of the few armoured foundations that General Auchinleck would be able to draw on, if as C-in-C India, he needed a heavier punch. He also warned Clark, that Auchinleck had liked the model used by 22nd Armoured Brigade and 3rd Indian Motor Brigade as a ‘Mixed Division’. Wavell remarked that Clark might start looking for 8th Armoured Brigade to begin working closely with one of the Infantry Brigades in the area, he thought the Australians would be a good match. Major-General Clark agreed to look into it, though he had to admit that Brigadier Leslie Lloyd would have his work cut out, just getting his Brigade fully worked up in the new tanks.
General Wavell and Major-General John Clark, GOC 10th Armoured Division, took the salute as the tanks of 8th Armoured Brigade drove past the reviewing stand. The Brigade was made up of one Regiment equipped with Stuart M3 Light tanks and two Regiments equipped with A15 Cruiser Mark VI. The parade marked the fact that the Brigade were now fully equipped with tanks. It would take another month or two for the Brigade to become proficient in their use, but it was a notable moment.
The delivery of 69 Stuart M3 Light Tanks from America in August, equipped the Scots Greys. The Nottinghamshire Yeomanry and Staffordshire Yeomanry had received their A15s delivered on the WS10 convoy in the same month. After the parade Wavell and Clark chatted about the future of the Division. The tired-out tanks that 8th Armoured Brigade had been training on, had been passed on to 5th Cavalry Brigade. The idea of turning those three Yeomanry Regiments (Yorkshire Dragoons, Yorkshire Hussars and Cheshire Yeomanry), into Lorried Infantry had been rejected. Instead, they would eventually be fully equipped with tanks.
The other Brigade (9th Armoured) had taken part in both the Iraq and Iran campaigns. They were still in Iran, under Lieutenant-General Quinan’s command, doing good work in the aftermath of the seizure of that country. Between 5th Cavalry Brigade in the process of being mechanised, and 9th Armoured Brigade detached, Clark noted that his 10th Armoured Division was incomplete. Not only did it need an Infantry Brigade, but the majority of its artillery was still being used in XIII Corps. General Wavell could well understand Clark’s frustration.
The news from Iran was very positive. Firstly, the A15 Cruiser Mark VI tank had been ‘bloodied’ in Iran and, while there were still teething troubles, it was generally well regarded by its crews. They considered that the speed and ride of the tank was good. They reported that the Liberty Engine wasn’t easy to service, and it really needed a close watch to be kept on it. Although the tanks hadn’t gone up against anything equivalent, its armour was seen as being ‘not bad’. The usual complaint about the poor HE capability of the 2-pdr gun was a well-known gripe. Since the two Regiments using the new tanks were Cavalry, they enjoyed the speed most of all.
Later, after lunch, Clark passed on a report from the Adjutant of the Household Cavalry Regiment. The HCR, in their Stuarts, had rendezvoused with the Soviets at Qazvin. The Soviet T26 tanks and the American built M3 Light Tanks were examined by each other. For the British, the hull of the T26 was clearly designed from the Vickers 6-ton tank of the early 1930s. The engine was a copy of the Armstrong Siddeley 90hp petrol engine. The turret however was quite different, the 45mm gun impressed the British tank crews.
The Soviets were very keen to see the latest American tank, designed just in the last year or so. It much taller than their own T26, over 30cm. The gun, at 37mm was considered inferior to their own 45mm. The fact that every tank had a radio was a surprise, and the quality of the engineering, especially of the engine, was admired. The American tank had better armour protection, and because of the bigger radial engine, was about twice as fast as the Soviet tank. The Soviet crews couldn’t understand why the British had removed the extra machine-guns from the hull sponsons. The British tried to explain that the crew over over-worked as it was, and that the co-axial and bow gun were more than enough firepower. The Soviets just shrugged, for them, firepower was firepower.
The report of the meeting between the new erstwhile allies, was interesting. As far as the intelligence coming from Iran was concerned, the Soviets had invaded with sizeable forces, they were talking about 1000 tanks. The reality confirmed to Clark and Wavell that the problems the Soviets were having against the German panzers. It was like using the Vickers VI Light Tanks against the Panzers, a recipe for disaster. The only difference was the Soviets had a 45mm gun which was a vast improvement over the Vickers .5-inch machine gun. Reports from Moscow, seemed to suggest that the Soviets were using the same three classifications of tanks that the British used. They had a heavy KV1, like an Infantry Tank. Something like a Cruiser, or cavalry tank BT-7, that used the same Christie suspension as the A15. There were rumours that there was a new tank, but there wasn’t much information about it. The T26 and BT-2 were light tanks.
Wavell mentioned that it was unfortunate that the HCR hadn’t been able to get any information about what else the Soviets were deploying. Clark expressed the hope that when cooperation between the countries was organised, that perhaps the Russians might share some of what they had up their sleeves. Wavell remembered back to when he and Giffard Martel had visited the Soviet Union in 1935 and seen the Red Army manoeuvres. Martel had been excited by the Christie Suspension, but Wavell had been aware that they’d only been allowed to see what their hosts wanted them to see. This would have been the same when foreign visitors came to British exercises, but Wavell felt that the Russians would be unlikely to share anything they had which their allies could use. Whereas, they would take everything they could get their hands on and barely say ‘thanks’. Wavell, looking at the reports coming from Russia wasn’t entirely convinced that they’d be able to stand up to Hitler’s advances.
With that in mind, and from a previous meeting with General Auchinleck, Wavell tried to assure Clark that 10th Armoured Division would have an important role to play. If the Germans did get to the Caucasus Mountains, then having an Armoured Division in Iran would be necessary. Hopefully it wouldn’t happen, but by spring 1942, Clark’s Division would be fully functional. Wavell still believed that spring 1942 was the soonest the Germans might be able to come towards the Middle East. 10th Armoured Division, he warned Clark, was likely to be one of the few armoured foundations that General Auchinleck would be able to draw on, if as C-in-C India, he needed a heavier punch. He also warned Clark, that Auchinleck had liked the model used by 22nd Armoured Brigade and 3rd Indian Motor Brigade as a ‘Mixed Division’. Wavell remarked that Clark might start looking for 8th Armoured Brigade to begin working closely with one of the Infantry Brigades in the area, he thought the Australians would be a good match. Major-General Clark agreed to look into it, though he had to admit that Brigadier Leslie Lloyd would have his work cut out, just getting his Brigade fully worked up in the new tanks.
Last edited:
So the Crusaders have finally showed up! Good enough vehicles for second-line uses, but not the sort of thing you'd really want to put into a heavy fight, nor, from the sounds of it, a long, hard trek across less-than-perfect terrain. I wonder what the Soviets will think of the Valiant, once they get their hands on them?
Also, missing threadmark.
Also, missing threadmark.
Last edited:
Nice chapter and he isn't wrong about how tricky and exhausting it can be nursing an engine. Still though they have more tanks that can go east compared with OTL and the meeting with the Russians is intresting.
Crusaders though will probably see action out east while the Victor's and follow on Valiant Mark's along with the Centurions will probably see more action in the west.
Crusaders though will probably see action out east while the Victor's and follow on Valiant Mark's along with the Centurions will probably see more action in the west.
Last edited:
I think that might be down (in part) to it being a Liberty (or rather, a modified Liberty) engine in the back. The story doesn't seem to be suggesting that the Lion needs as much nursing.
The Valiant will probably be the preference for the Soviets to be sure.
"These tanks you are sending us? They are terrible!"
"Well, if you can't make good use of them, then we could-"
"Nyet, nyet. 10,000 more please. Preferably by next month?"
Scratches head.
Was actually talking about the Far East, Japanese army doesn't have much short of Arty that can do any damage to British tanks.
Fair still though have to wonder how it will handle the Burma, Malaysia or india at the end of the day. All that moisture in the air will really mess the engine if it sits cold and isn't turned when they aren't in service.
I believe Vickers was going to sent a team over this time around to get feedback from the command about specific changes that would be desired.
I know. Still, I suspect the main use for the crusader will end up being support roles (bridge-laying, mine-clearing, etc), rather than actual combat.
Probably not well. Fortunately, the tanks in Malaya at the moment are Matilda IIs, which should be within the ability of the Australians to maintain.
marathag
Banned
Now in an ATL where the Japanese do not cut off rubber exports, its not that hard to develop a US Rubber Block style 'Live' track replacement for more Commonwealth Armor.
Now the US track wasn't perfect, but they did run much quieter and had longer life, besides the resistance to shedding the track in a tight turn.
That same Eureka moment could also have happened on first inspection of the M3 Stuarts the UK received....why it didn't I'll leave to others with more knowledge than me to elaborate upon.
Far more likely:
the Tanks they saw in the US were brought by tank transporter to a exercise field, where they demonstrated their cross country abilities and only moved for very short durations over roads. Then in the UK they drive the tanks to/from exercise fields and notice the difference between the US and UK tank in wear & tear on the roads (as the repair bills for roads are a lot smaller with them for some reason).
2 October 1941. Farnborough, England.
allanpcameron
Donor
2 October 1941. Farnborough, England.
The success of the Birch Gun, a 25-pdr mounted on a Valiant I hull, as a self-propelled gun, was causing problems. The need for Valiant II and II* tanks meant that any that were set aside as SPGs or SPAAGs meant less tanks. Because the A15 project was now into full stride, and since the Valiants were the preferred tanks in most Armour Brigades, an alternative Birch Gun had been designed on the A15 hull. The results of the testing showed that the hull of the A15 was just a bit too narrow for the crew to man the gun and have an adequate store of ammunition to hand.
The alternative to the Vanguard SPAAG, mounting a 40mm Bofors gun was more acceptable. The gun was mounted on an open platform with its regular front flat shield. The Royal Artillery, whose Light AA Regiments would be equipped with this, were happy enough, it was basically just a mobile platform that would speed up its deployment. The Royal Armoured Corps were less impressed. If this was to be issued to support Armoured Regiments, to protect tanks from enemy air attack, then better protection for the crew was needed. Being on top of the hull would put the crew in danger from enemy ground attack. A four-side, open-top shield, wrapped around the gun was proposed, though it was thought this might hamper the crew, especially for reloading.
Another concept which was being tested was to use the A15 hull as a SPAAG, but instead of using the Bofors, it could carry two Oerlikon 20mm cannons. Nuffield noted that it would take them time to design a turret that would allow the guns to fire almost vertically. Three prototypes were ordered for testing. There was still a general shortage of Bofors guns, and so it was expected that production of the A15 AA wouldn’t start until 1942.
The other designs being tested were based on Major-General Hobart’s work on alternative uses for Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Sir John Carden’s work on the Command Tank, Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers, like the Birch gun and Vanguard, had been replicated on A15 hulls. The general impression of the command tank was positive. If an Armoured Regiment was equipped with the A15, it made perfect sense to have the Command Tank the same type as the rest. The Royal Engineers felt that the A15 was underpowered compared with the Valiant. To act as a bulldozer and have the ability to tow another tank, needed plenty of power. It made sense to have some of these AVREs using the same hull as the rest of a Brigade, so once again the Nuffield Organisation were invited to look at ways of improving the power of the prototypes.
For mine clearing, with the A15 hull quite low to the ground, the best system was an anti-mine roller attachment. The ‘thresher’, a spinning drum the chains beating the ground in front of the tank, was too difficult to mount on the A15.
The last prototype from the Nuffield stable had removed most of the upper superstructure of the A15 tank and replaced it with an armoured box. This was tested to see it if was of use as an alternative to the Carden/Loyd Tracked Personnel Carrier, known as the Vickers Viking. The Viking had been designed with the engine in front (like the Light Tanks) so that, using Horstman suspension, extended by extra bogeys, allowed an infantry section to be carried in the back, with a rear door to exit from. As much of the vehicle used much of the Universal Carrier components, as number of firms were producing these. The Infantry Officers weren’t keen on the A15 version. The rear mounted engine meant that the infantry couldn’t debus from the rear, under cover.
The Royal Artillery observers however could see the potential for its use in one of two ways. The first was as an armoured ammunition carrier. With the new Birch guns came the need for the artillery supply to be able to keep up, and possibly enter into danger to resupply. The second was to tow a gun, giving the crew and the ammunition some protection. The Quad tractor was a very good vehicle, but lacked protection. Pulling a field gun would be well within the A15’s capability. Another few prototypes for the Royal Artillery were ordered.
Vauxhall’s A22 was also being examined for the potential to use it for various tasks. The A15 Bridge Layer was soon to go into production, and it was obvious that the A22 would also be suitable for this role. Hobart had visited the Vauxhall design team on a number of occasions, looking at ideas and giving advice. As the A22 had very thick armour, it would be well suited for something like the Assault Tank role. There were all sorts of anti-tank defences that would need to be overcome, probably under heavy and direct fire. Having something more powerful than the current 3-inch howitzer would be needed, and so a team at Woolwich were working on an alternative. While waiting for that alternative, Vauxhall had been given a QF 3 inch (76 mm) 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun, and asked to use the A22 hull as a 'gun carrier'. The appearance in Greece and North Africa of some kind of self-propelled gun to support German troops had been noted. The A22 Gun Carrier would test out the pros and cons of such a vehicle, using the outdated AA gun which was surplus to requirements, but still powerful enough to deal with blockhouses or pillboxes.
Demolitions of concrete bunkers and other obstacles was high on the list of things that Hobart wanted to look at. The narrow turret ring on the A22 was disappointing, but the hull itself, although narrow, was relatively roomy. Information about a captured Italian flame-throwing tank had gripped the imagination of a few of Hobart’s staff. The first prototype put before the various War Office staff and other interested parties included the first attempt at a flame thrower. The 3-inch howitzer in the hull had been replaced with a Ronson flame thrower, and the ammunition stowage had given way to nitrogen tanks. The tank for the liquid to be ignited was carried on the rear of the tank in place of the extra fuel tank that could be carried there. Nobody wanted the inflammable mix within the crew compartment. As a proof-of-concept vehicle it was successful. Realistically, there would need to be a much greater range to the flame being thrown, it needed to reach at least 80 yards to be useful.
Unlike the A15 hull, the ‘thresher’ anti-mine equipment could be attached to the hull of the A22, this was demonstrated to the audience. There were still kinks to be ironed out, but it was clear that this adaptation could be very successful.
As the A15 and A22’s turret rings were so narrow, tests to see if they could mount the new 6-pdr had been disappointing. The only way they could realistically do so would include have to have a two-man turret, not something the RAC were keen on. The idea that the hulls of these two tanks might have other uses at least allowed some planning for future production figures.
The production of the Vulcan Matilda II was planned to decrease as the A22 came into service. News had come from Malta that one of the tanks sent there (1st Independent Squadron RTR) had been fitted with dozer blades to help repair and extend runways. The lack of suitable hydraulic rams had led to a bodge job that was suitable for the purpose, but not quite as efficient. The Royal Engineer in Malta who had come up the idea had sent back a full report with drawing and pictures. With hydraulic rams available, a Matilda II had been adapted by the Royal Engineers to see if the Malta experiment could be improved on. The other change they’d made on this version the turret had been removed. On Malta the turret had been retained in case it was needed for its main function, it wouldn’t take long to make the tank ready for action.
The space available from the removal of the turret had been used to provide the Engineers with a protected space for themselves and their tools. A basic armoured box had been fitted to the superstructure of the hull to increase head room, though this would be vulnerable to anything more than small arms fire or shell splinters. Without the weight of the turret and everything else that had been left off, the power to weight ratio of the Matilda II was adequate for the work such a vehicle would be required to do. The idea of being able to make field modifications was also being disseminated to all commands where the Matilda II was deployed. If necessary, more hydraulic rams would be made available for shipment to the far-flung reaches of the army, with instructions on how to make the necessary adaptations.
The success of the Birch Gun, a 25-pdr mounted on a Valiant I hull, as a self-propelled gun, was causing problems. The need for Valiant II and II* tanks meant that any that were set aside as SPGs or SPAAGs meant less tanks. Because the A15 project was now into full stride, and since the Valiants were the preferred tanks in most Armour Brigades, an alternative Birch Gun had been designed on the A15 hull. The results of the testing showed that the hull of the A15 was just a bit too narrow for the crew to man the gun and have an adequate store of ammunition to hand.
The alternative to the Vanguard SPAAG, mounting a 40mm Bofors gun was more acceptable. The gun was mounted on an open platform with its regular front flat shield. The Royal Artillery, whose Light AA Regiments would be equipped with this, were happy enough, it was basically just a mobile platform that would speed up its deployment. The Royal Armoured Corps were less impressed. If this was to be issued to support Armoured Regiments, to protect tanks from enemy air attack, then better protection for the crew was needed. Being on top of the hull would put the crew in danger from enemy ground attack. A four-side, open-top shield, wrapped around the gun was proposed, though it was thought this might hamper the crew, especially for reloading.
Another concept which was being tested was to use the A15 hull as a SPAAG, but instead of using the Bofors, it could carry two Oerlikon 20mm cannons. Nuffield noted that it would take them time to design a turret that would allow the guns to fire almost vertically. Three prototypes were ordered for testing. There was still a general shortage of Bofors guns, and so it was expected that production of the A15 AA wouldn’t start until 1942.
The other designs being tested were based on Major-General Hobart’s work on alternative uses for Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Sir John Carden’s work on the Command Tank, Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineers, like the Birch gun and Vanguard, had been replicated on A15 hulls. The general impression of the command tank was positive. If an Armoured Regiment was equipped with the A15, it made perfect sense to have the Command Tank the same type as the rest. The Royal Engineers felt that the A15 was underpowered compared with the Valiant. To act as a bulldozer and have the ability to tow another tank, needed plenty of power. It made sense to have some of these AVREs using the same hull as the rest of a Brigade, so once again the Nuffield Organisation were invited to look at ways of improving the power of the prototypes.
For mine clearing, with the A15 hull quite low to the ground, the best system was an anti-mine roller attachment. The ‘thresher’, a spinning drum the chains beating the ground in front of the tank, was too difficult to mount on the A15.
The last prototype from the Nuffield stable had removed most of the upper superstructure of the A15 tank and replaced it with an armoured box. This was tested to see it if was of use as an alternative to the Carden/Loyd Tracked Personnel Carrier, known as the Vickers Viking. The Viking had been designed with the engine in front (like the Light Tanks) so that, using Horstman suspension, extended by extra bogeys, allowed an infantry section to be carried in the back, with a rear door to exit from. As much of the vehicle used much of the Universal Carrier components, as number of firms were producing these. The Infantry Officers weren’t keen on the A15 version. The rear mounted engine meant that the infantry couldn’t debus from the rear, under cover.
The Royal Artillery observers however could see the potential for its use in one of two ways. The first was as an armoured ammunition carrier. With the new Birch guns came the need for the artillery supply to be able to keep up, and possibly enter into danger to resupply. The second was to tow a gun, giving the crew and the ammunition some protection. The Quad tractor was a very good vehicle, but lacked protection. Pulling a field gun would be well within the A15’s capability. Another few prototypes for the Royal Artillery were ordered.
Vauxhall’s A22 was also being examined for the potential to use it for various tasks. The A15 Bridge Layer was soon to go into production, and it was obvious that the A22 would also be suitable for this role. Hobart had visited the Vauxhall design team on a number of occasions, looking at ideas and giving advice. As the A22 had very thick armour, it would be well suited for something like the Assault Tank role. There were all sorts of anti-tank defences that would need to be overcome, probably under heavy and direct fire. Having something more powerful than the current 3-inch howitzer would be needed, and so a team at Woolwich were working on an alternative. While waiting for that alternative, Vauxhall had been given a QF 3 inch (76 mm) 20 cwt anti-aircraft gun, and asked to use the A22 hull as a 'gun carrier'. The appearance in Greece and North Africa of some kind of self-propelled gun to support German troops had been noted. The A22 Gun Carrier would test out the pros and cons of such a vehicle, using the outdated AA gun which was surplus to requirements, but still powerful enough to deal with blockhouses or pillboxes.
Demolitions of concrete bunkers and other obstacles was high on the list of things that Hobart wanted to look at. The narrow turret ring on the A22 was disappointing, but the hull itself, although narrow, was relatively roomy. Information about a captured Italian flame-throwing tank had gripped the imagination of a few of Hobart’s staff. The first prototype put before the various War Office staff and other interested parties included the first attempt at a flame thrower. The 3-inch howitzer in the hull had been replaced with a Ronson flame thrower, and the ammunition stowage had given way to nitrogen tanks. The tank for the liquid to be ignited was carried on the rear of the tank in place of the extra fuel tank that could be carried there. Nobody wanted the inflammable mix within the crew compartment. As a proof-of-concept vehicle it was successful. Realistically, there would need to be a much greater range to the flame being thrown, it needed to reach at least 80 yards to be useful.
Unlike the A15 hull, the ‘thresher’ anti-mine equipment could be attached to the hull of the A22, this was demonstrated to the audience. There were still kinks to be ironed out, but it was clear that this adaptation could be very successful.
As the A15 and A22’s turret rings were so narrow, tests to see if they could mount the new 6-pdr had been disappointing. The only way they could realistically do so would include have to have a two-man turret, not something the RAC were keen on. The idea that the hulls of these two tanks might have other uses at least allowed some planning for future production figures.
The production of the Vulcan Matilda II was planned to decrease as the A22 came into service. News had come from Malta that one of the tanks sent there (1st Independent Squadron RTR) had been fitted with dozer blades to help repair and extend runways. The lack of suitable hydraulic rams had led to a bodge job that was suitable for the purpose, but not quite as efficient. The Royal Engineer in Malta who had come up the idea had sent back a full report with drawing and pictures. With hydraulic rams available, a Matilda II had been adapted by the Royal Engineers to see if the Malta experiment could be improved on. The other change they’d made on this version the turret had been removed. On Malta the turret had been retained in case it was needed for its main function, it wouldn’t take long to make the tank ready for action.
The space available from the removal of the turret had been used to provide the Engineers with a protected space for themselves and their tools. A basic armoured box had been fitted to the superstructure of the hull to increase head room, though this would be vulnerable to anything more than small arms fire or shell splinters. Without the weight of the turret and everything else that had been left off, the power to weight ratio of the Matilda II was adequate for the work such a vehicle would be required to do. The idea of being able to make field modifications was also being disseminated to all commands where the Matilda II was deployed. If necessary, more hydraulic rams would be made available for shipment to the far-flung reaches of the army, with instructions on how to make the necessary adaptations.
allanpcameron
Donor
Inspiration for the final piece, the Matilda II bulldozer come from @sonofpegasus in his excellent Peerless Air Ministry timeline.
Here is how he put it:
Here is how he put it:
marathag
Banned
Long distance runs was an important part of early US Tank development. The Christie system, wheels and tracks, was important as the rubber road wheels didn't tear up surfaced roadways, same for the Knox designed rubber block track.
Knox 'won' from
1. Not being a jackass
2. Being in the Army, not a private contractor
3. Longer life track than Christie's long pitch steel track
4. Most importantly, A better system. No time needed to pull the tracks on and off depending on the ground you were going over. Just keep driving.
Christie suspension proponents like Barnes arguably made a huge mistake by not changing the track design and deleting the convertible system altogether. This would have saved up a lot of space, weight and cost and would have made the suspension far more attractive.