Development of the British Tank Arm, 1918-1939

Blimey.
We were actually a bit more on the ball than I thought. Shows what could have happened with thoughts on tracked artillery, IFV', command vehicles and all that gubbins. We could have seriously blacked Jerry's eye in France.
They did suffer from swollen bollocks at the battle of Arras when the BEF showed off their matildas.
 
I wonder if the Japanese used them (captured Carriers) ? Would be interesting to find out.


A most interesting little vehicle I'd dearly like to find out more about.
Captured in Surabaya. Blatantly used by the SNLF, then captured by some local resistance movement (IIRC commies) when the situation became messy at the end of the war. But past that, I'm very curious.

Blimey.
We were actually a bit more on the ball than I thought. Shows what could have happened with thoughts on tracked artillery, IFV', command vehicles and all that gubbins. We could have seriously blacked Jerry's eye in France.
Quite a few modern historians have been saying it for a few years. However the legacy of the Second World War, and a few easy scapegoats so as not to dent British pride have caused serious problems. It's not helped by some more famous historians going on about how everything British was crap. Which I suppose is a bit of national trait.
 


A most interesting little vehicle I'd dearly like to find out more about.
Captured in Surabaya. Blatantly used by the SNLF, then captured by some local resistance movement (IIRC commies) when the situation became messy at the end of the war. But past that, I'm very curious.



Quite a few modern historians have been saying it for a few years. However the legacy of the Second World War, and a few easy scapegoats so as not to dent British pride have caused serious problems. It's not helped by some more famous historians going on about how everything British was crap. Which I suppose is a bit of national trait.
I have, in the past, checked the NL MoD and colonial office photo archives for Dutch East Indies photos and not seen any ex-Japanese carriers. I will check the forums. It looks a decent conversion.

Edit: additional angle:

12362320_439361799592212_760263297_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Umm... Yes? More handsome than you thought?
I was expecting a chieftain tagline but then on this site I guess thats been used everyway possible! Really enjoy you work please keep it coming.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
 
I have, in the past, checked the NL MoD and colonial office photo archives for Dutch East Indies photos and not seen any ex-Japanese carriers. I will check the forums. It looks a decent conversion.

Edit: additional angle:

View attachment 372730
Nice I'd not seen that second image.

Looks liek its still an in action shot, and someone might have been trying to recover it?
 
They did suffer from swollen bollocks at the battle of Arras when the BEF showed off their matildas.
My problem with the design establishment, is their insistence on using that stupid 2lb pop gun.
Now I know that British Armour was limited to size because of the insistence that it fits on the standard Railflat car. Bit more fore thought ......
 
Nice I'd not seen that second image.

Looks liek its still an in action shot, and someone might have been trying to recover it?
It was captioned as a British soldier taking cover behind the carrier during fighting against the Indonesian nats. Away at mo but Pathe have a few vids of fighting in Dutch East Indies which I will trawl through soonest (when back in WiFi range).
 
My problem with the design establishment, is their insistence on using that stupid 2lb pop gun.
Now I know that British Armour was limited to size because of the insistence that it fits on the standard Railflat car. Bit more fore thought ......
At the time, we needed tank guns & anti tank guns & in large numbers.
The 6pdr was ready for production but we didn't have the spare manufacturing capacity to start that up without ceasing 2pdr production, which would have meant no new guns at all for a period when we'd just lost most of what we had in France..
What could have helped would have been supplying the tanks with some 2pdr HE for use when facing anti tank guns.
 
At the time, we needed tank guns & anti tank guns & in large numbers.
The 6pdr was ready for production but we didn't have the spare manufacturing capacity to start that up without ceasing 2pdr production, which would have meant no new guns at all for a period when we'd just lost most of what we had in France..
What could have helped would have been supplying the tanks with some 2pdr HE for use when facing anti tank guns.
2Lbr's had HE rounds. It was used for certain in 1941, I've got a first hand account where the gunner specifically states he used HE rounds as the solid shot was too good, and over penetrating. I think they existed earlier than that, I'll have to make enquiries. Granted the early HE was a little bit light on Bang, but that happens when you've got a superb Atk gun, bit like what happened with the 17lbr.

We didn't lack Atk performance either. Name me one tank in 1940 service that the 2pdr couldn't put a hole through? There for a delay was perfectly sensible. I mean yes, it'd be a great opportunity to jump ahead a bit and get everyone a 6pdr in 40-41. But it was hardly a desperate need.
Also calling it a pop-gun (As @robinrocket111 did) is a bit of a lie. Again what is the normal calibre of tank guns in the period?
 
2Lbr's had HE rounds. It was used for certain in 1941, I've got a first hand account where the gunner specifically states he used HE rounds as the solid shot was too good, and over penetrating. I think they existed earlier than that, I'll have to make enquiries. Granted the early HE was a little bit light on Bang, but that happens when you've got a superb Atk gun, bit like what happened with the 17lbr.

We didn't lack Atk performance either. Name me one tank in 1940 service that the 2pdr couldn't put a hole through? There for a delay was perfectly sensible. I mean yes, it'd be a great opportunity to jump ahead a bit and get everyone a 6pdr in 40-41. But it was hardly a desperate need.
Also calling it a pop-gun (As @robinrocket111 did) is a bit of a lie. Again what is the normal calibre of tank guns in the period?
I've been looking for evidence of 2pdr HE being issued for years & have yet to see a corroborated account stating such.
IIRC the round that was developed was pretty much a case of replacing the AP projectile with an impact detonating version of the 2pdr Pom-pom shell.
Agreed; the 2pdr was a perfectly adequate tank/Atk gun through from its introduction to early/mid '41 but it's replacement by the 6pdr was unfortunately delayed past that point & this cost us in the desert campaign.
 
I've been looking for evidence of 2pdr HE being issued for years & have yet to see a corroborated account stating such.
IIRC the round that was developed was pretty much a case of replacing the AP projectile with an impact detonating version of the 2pdr Pom-pom shell.
Agreed; the 2pdr was a perfectly adequate tank/Atk gun through from its introduction to early/mid '41 but it's replacement by the 6pdr was unfortunately delayed past that point & this cost us in the desert campaign.
Take it you mean this
QF2pdrVickersHVShell1943.jpg
 
2Lbr's had HE rounds. It was used for certain in 1941, I've got a first hand account where the gunner specifically states he used HE rounds as the solid shot was too good, and over penetrating. I think they existed earlier than that, I'll have to make enquiries. Granted the early HE was a little bit light on Bang, but that happens when you've got a superb Atk gun, bit like what happened with the 17lbr.

We didn't lack Atk performance either. Name me one tank in 1940 service that the 2pdr couldn't put a hole through? There for a delay was perfectly sensible. I mean yes, it'd be a great opportunity to jump ahead a bit and get everyone a 6pdr in 40-41. But it was hardly a desperate need.
Also calling it a pop-gun (As @robinrocket111 did) is a bit of a lie. Again what is the normal calibre of tank guns in the period?
I was always under the assumption, that there was no HE round for the 2 pounder. Just solid shot.
So what year did the 6 pounder start development. I thought it was around 37/8.
The poor old Matilda ll, was deserving of a better main weapon. In fact the vehical hull should have been the base design for future models.
ps. I do agree that the gun was fine for action against the eyeties tanks, but not against the Panzer lll. Even in its early form it stood up to the 2 pounder.
 
Last edited:
Matilda II's hull was just too damned small. No way you could reasonably get a bigger gun into it. The trial with the 6pr turret was an ugly, ungainly thing, and given the trouble of putting the 6pr into the larger Crusader turret resulting in what I would consider an unacceptable configuration, I see no way a 6pr Matilda II would have been practicable.

6pr was designed in 1938, prototypes were tested 1939, then the design sealed for future use.



As to the HE round, it was the Shell, HE, Mk2T. As I understood it, it was only issued to towed AT Guns (Ian Hogg says "it appears not to have been issued to tanks"). The reasoning that I have heard (i.e. not seen substantiated in documentation with my own two eyes) being that lobbing HE shells at people was properly the job of the Royal Artillery, the MG on the tank wasn't much less useful than the tiny HE round, and if you really needed to lob a HE round from a tank, the CS tank might have a more useful HE round stowed somewhere in amongst all those smoke rounds.
 
Matilda II's hull was just too damned small. No way you could reasonably get a bigger gun into it. The trial with the 6pr turret was an ugly, ungainly thing, and given the trouble of putting the 6pr into the larger Crusader turret resulting in what I would consider an unacceptable configuration, I see no way a 6pr Matilda II would have been practicable.



As to the HE round, it was the Shell, HE, Mk2T. As I understood it, it was only issued to towed AT Guns (Ian Hogg says "it appears not to have been issued to tanks"). The reasoning that I have heard (i.e. not seen substantiated in documentation with my own two eyes) being that lobbing HE shells at people was properly the job of the Royal Artillery, the MG on the tank wasn't much less useful than the tiny HE round, and if you really needed to lob a HE round from a tank, the CS tank might have a more useful HE round stowed somewhere in amongst all those smoke rounds.
I think I should have been clearer, the Matildas hull shape/form should have been the basis for a future vehicle. As you pointed out CT, not just sticking a bigger turret and gun on the thing.
Just looking at that picture of that prototype it would have been a lot higher the turret basket extremely narrow, I guess the gunner would be sitting squewiff and as for the poor bl00dy driver. He'd have had a night mare getting in and out of that.
 
I think I should have been clearer, the Matildas hull shape/form should have been the basis for a future vehicle. As you pointed out CT, not just sticking a bigger turret and gun on the thing.
In, IIRC, 1938 we looked at a medium tank based on the Matilda hull. But it was a very brief look and nothing happened to the idea.

As to the HE round, it was the Shell, HE, Mk2T. As I understood it, it was only issued to towed AT Guns (Ian Hogg says "it appears not to have been issued to tanks"). The reasoning that I have heard (i.e. not seen substantiated in documentation with my own two eyes) being that lobbing HE shells at people was properly the job of the Royal Artillery, the MG on the tank wasn't much less useful than the tiny HE round, and if you really needed to lob a HE round from a tank, the CS tank might have a more useful HE round stowed somewhere in amongst all those smoke rounds.
That is more than possible on the rational. CS tanks of the period however didn't generally have a HE round. Well the 15-pounder Tank mortar didn't, the 3" might have had one. But that didn't see service until the early years of the war. While the 15lbr was around since the mid to late 1920's.


I hate to do it. I've been trying to avoid plugging it, but I've got about 20k words on the period under discussion, about our medium tank projects, cruiser tanks, CS tanks and infantry tanks development in my book. (ARRSE review)
 
I've been looking for evidence of 2pdr HE being issued for years & have yet to see a corroborated account stating such.
IIRC the round that was developed was pretty much a case of replacing the AP projectile with an impact detonating version of the 2pdr Pom-pom shell.
Agreed; the 2pdr was a perfectly adequate tank/Atk gun through from its introduction to early/mid '41 but it's replacement by the 6pdr was unfortunately delayed past that point & this cost us in the desert campaign.
This is the battle I was thinking of, a good googling should provide the interviews for the Gunner.
The battle of Maur.

 
In CT film he mentioned the 3 pounder fitted to the mid 20s medium, was that not a Anti Tank weapon.
Very much so. In fact the British were the first to adopt the policy of "the best way to defeat a tank was with another tank." The 3Pdr was the result of that policy. Ineed I have the creeping suspicion it only fired solid shot, or at least HE shell was issued to tankers.

Basically this is the point where Britain took a lead in tank guns, which it maintained until the early 2000s.
 
Blimey.
We were actually a bit more on the ball than I thought. Shows what could have happened with thoughts on tracked artillery, IFV', command vehicles and all that gubbins. We could have seriously blacked Jerry's eye in France.
Not sure about Command Tanks in 1918 but the BEF had tanks specifically for carrying infantry, resupply tanks and self propelled artillery. Certainly the spg wasn't so successful but it's fascinating to see such ahead of their time ideas being investigated.
 

Latest Threads

Top