End of an era in Tyneside - Vickers factory closes

#4
Good!

Maybe now we'll get tanks and AFV's designed for actually military requirements rather than what Vickers are able to design.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#5
Munitions? I thought that was the stuff fired rather than the stuff firing?
Anyway its the way of the world, make stuff that sells and be a success, Armstrong certainly did!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#7
One would hope at least a heritage centre might be created to recall some of these once great capabilities before they were mismangaed into oblivion.
Obviously the jobs needed to be moved to Wales and to the South Coast.
After all MoD can then be home for tea!!
Whhat jobs moved? BAE doesnt have any armaments plants down on the south Coast, Vickers in Crayford shut shortly after ww2 and Wales is a wasteland that not even Labour and PFI can help!
there are no jobs because BAE cant win any of the few UK contracts, its buildinng planes for Johnny Foreigner now as they can afford them!
Tanks and Guns? Well we dont even make our own propellant any more let alone the guns to fire it!
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#8
That said the NE does Heritage alright, Beamish is a shining example!
 
#9
Good!

Maybe now we'll get tanks and AFV's designed for actually military requirements rather than what Vickers are able to design.
Funnily enough was readingMechanised Force- British Tanks between the wars (HMSO) and that was a complaint going back to 1927 from the Army.
 
#10
Good!

Maybe now we'll get tanks and AFV's designed for actually military requirements rather than what Vickers are able to design.
Thats complete bollox.

Vickers were/are more than capable of building armoured vehicles better than anyone on the planet.
It was not the fault of Vickers that the MOD are incapable of spending money wisely


Vickers designed and built what was aked of them
 
#11
Funnily enough was readingMechanised Force- British Tanks between the wars (HMSO) and that was a complaint going back to 1927 from the Army.
Probably the best thing about the M1 Abrams was the way the designers specifically future proofed the design. They took the then fully working 105 as the baseline for the MoiA1, but they designed in the ability to switch with only minor mods to the them under development 120 smooth bore cannon. It will probably be cheaper to buy new tanks than convert the Challenger 2 to take a smooth bore cannon.


Vickers were/are more than capable of building armoured vehicles better than anyone on the planet.
Which is why we used people like Leyland to design our tanks during WWII and onwards.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#12
To be fair the Carden Lloyds and Vickers Lights were of their age, we fought the German Mk2s in France with Mk1 Matildas that they couldnt knock out. We fought the Italians in the desert with A13 cruisers (I dont mean a cortina either) and until the arrival of the Mk1V German we were ahead of the game. The Germans first reliable tank came with the aquisition of the Czech T26 (I Think) which showed them how good a light tank could be.
The British efforts were hampered as much by the designs as the feedback and the time taken to get designs into the field let alone updated!
Some blame Monty for championing the Sherman when we needed a Heavier tank.
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#13
The Valentine ( a private venture by Vickers) was the 3rd. most produced tank, by the British in WW2. Used to great effect in Italy and the Russians got the rest.

Monty did not champion the Sherman, he took what he was given, the 300 hundred that turned up in NA were damned useful and helped to sort out the AK.

300 cruisers or if they had been available Churchill would not have been so useful given that they were undergunned and especially the cruiser, unreliable. The Churchill was also very slow.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#14
The Valentine ( a private venture by Vickers) was the 3rd. most produced tank, by the British in WW2
And very successful until the advent of the long barrelled 75mm in the Mk1V I believe. even its less than fantastic 2 pounder gun could achive mobility kills!
 
#15
You can't blame Vickers for the tanks they required. The MOD has a list of requirements, if something fits these it's in the running. If the requirements are wrong then it's the MOD's fault.

My grandfather was a foreman at vickers. When I was a little bloke my old man used to drive me over the Scotswood Bridge so we could look down into their tank park to see the odd for export vehicles. Sad day, but them's the breaks.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#16
Vickers did well, an MBT to India? Just needed to make sales to israel and they would have been laughing!
 
B

bokkatankie

Guest
#17
And very successful until the advent of the long barrelled 75mm in the Mk1V I believe. even its less than fantastic 2 pounder gun could achive mobility kills!
The 2 pounder was detested by the poor folk that had to fight it, penetration was pathetic (unless you were shooting at an Italian tank, in which case a hot knife would have been fine).

The ridiculous Lee Grant, did, at least, have a gun that could penetrate the German armour (so long as the tank was pointed in the right direction), the Sherman with the short 75 was a capable tank against anything up to a Mk4 Special and then Panther / Tiger.In NA there were very few of any of those.

But the slowness of introductiuon of a capable tank gun is one of the abiding disasters of WW2, the 6 pounder was obsolete even as it was being introduced, the 17 pounder was a great gun but someone forgot to invent the chassis until Black Prince and then Centurion.
 
#18
To be fair the Carden Lloyds and Vickers Lights were of their age, we fought the German Mk2s in France with Mk1 Matildas that they couldnt knock out. We fought the Italians in the desert with A13 cruisers (I dont mean a cortina either) and until the arrival of the Mk1V German we were ahead of the game. The Germans first reliable tank came with the aquisition of the Czech T26 (I Think) which showed them how good a light tank could be.
The British efforts were hampered as much by the designs as the feedback and the time taken to get designs into the field let alone updated!
Some blame Monty for championing the Sherman when we needed a Heavier tank.
Unfortunately, armed with their magnificent .303 machine gun and their sturdy 8mph top speed, the Mk1 Matildas couldn't really knock out the PzKwII's even if they could catch up with them - and when they ran into PzKwIII's… ouch!

Sherman? in 1942, the Sherman was a throughly excellent tank, it's only flaw was it was kept on past it's sell by date, Summer 1943, without being comprehensively upgunned and up armoured. Firefly proved to be a pretty formidable weapon right through to the end of the war..
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top