Tanks post-2022: what now?

[WARSPITER]

Autonomy sometimes has its upsides.

 

[Gary Cain]

Black Prince was a project started to put a 17lber and new turret on a Churchill which was scrapped once the Sherman was modified to the Firefly.

Centurion was originally to be a larger version of the cruiser tanks and expanded after rail size restrictions were lifted.

Challenger was designed to be mainly used to protect and support infantry. The rifled barrel was kept to enable use of the HESH
round which is very good against strongpoints as well as armour.

Yeah, it was a vague memory so I wasn't sure about the lineage.

 

[Gary Cain]

To be fair, the British 120mm gun was a generation before the Rheinmetall 120 smooth bore. When it entered service the British 120mm gun was the best tank gun in the world, and in an era of thinly armed Pattons, Leopards and T-55s, with the Chieftain the British had the best protected/armed (and slowest, lol) MBT available.

The British have finally decided to ditch their gun and go with the Rheinmetall 120mm smooth bore on the Challenger 3. Considering the regressive progression of Britain's tank numbers, it will be interesting to see how many Challenger 3 tanks get produced (or converted from Chally2s).

Cheifttan - 900 operated by British army (996 others exported)
Challenger 1 - 420 operated by British army (before all sold to Jordan)
Challenger 2 - 227 (out of 386 delivered) operated by British army (others to Oman and Ukraine)
Challenger 3? - my guess is under 200 operated by the British army. Likely the last British tank before the UK switches to whatever replaced the Leo2.

No argument, but the smooth bore was being developed at the time the Brits decided on theirs. Add to that the non fixed ammunition and I always thought that was a very strange decision.

 

[Admiral Beez]

No argument, but the smooth bore was being developed at the time the Brits decided on theirs. Add to that the non fixed ammunition and I always thought that was a very strange decision.

Apparently it came down to HESH rounds and its need for rifling. Britain wanted to use HESH because it's good for destroying both armoured vehicles and structures. I guess doctrine drove the design.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Autonomy sometimes has its upsides.

The chaps at SAAB trying to sell their Gripens must hit a US gov't wall at every sales meeting.

 

[Gary Cain]

Apparently it came down to HESH rounds and its need for rifling. Britain wanted to use HESH because it's good for destroying both armoured vehicles and structures. I guess doctrine drove the design.

Pretty much. The Brits do have a history of making bad policy decisions!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Pretty much. The Brits do have a history of making bad policy decisions!

Yep. As far as WW2 RAF combat aircraft, all they needed was Spitfires, Mosquitos and Lancasters in vast quantities. But no, they had to make a cornucopia of competing and/or mediocre designs. And tanks, why put a 2pdr with no HE round into your tanks? The US put both HE and canister rounds in their 37mm.

 

[Gary Cain]

Yep. As far as WW2 RAF combat aircraft, all they needed was Spitfires, Mosquitos and Lancasters in vast quantities. But no, they had to make a cornucopia of competing and/or mediocre designs. And tanks, why put a 2pdr with no HE round into your tanks? The US put both HE and canister rounds in their 37mm.

40MM HE certainly existed, the Bofors used copious amounts of it!

 

[Admiral Beez]

40MM HE certainly existed, the Bofors used copious amounts of it!

Indeed. Very true. But not for the tanks. I do not believe the ammunition is interchangeable.

"This QF 2-pounder was distinctly different from the QF 2 pounder "pom-pom" gun naval anti-aircraft gun used by the Royal Navy which was a 40 mm autocannon."

2-pdr HE rounds – again

The general view on the issue of 2-pdr high-explosive (HE) is that there was none, and that the guns were only equipped with armour-piercing (AP) rounds. While sometimes one comes across references…

rommelsriposte.com

 

[Gary Cain]

Indeed. Very true. But not for the tanks. I do not believe the ammunition is interchangeable.

"This QF 2-pounder was distinctly different from the QF 2 pounder "pom-pom" gun naval anti-aircraft gun used by the Royal Navy which was a 40 mm autocannon."

2-pdr HE rounds – again

The general view on the issue of 2-pdr high-explosive (HE) is that there was none, and that the guns were only equipped with armour-piercing (AP) rounds. While sometimes one comes across references…

rommelsriposte.com

The ammunition isn't. However the projectiles are. It would have been a simple thing to load the 2pdr with the 40mm HE from the Bofors guns. There is no need for the higher pressure used in the AP ammunition, so the loading could have been regulated quite easily.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The ammunition isn't. However the projectiles are. It would have been a simple thing to load the 2pdr with the 40mm HE from the Bofors guns. There is no need for the higher pressure used in the AP ammunition, so the loading could have been regulated quite easily.

I had a dream once that the Valentine tanks made in Canada swapped out their 2pdrs for USA 37mm and instead of shipping to Russia, shipped to Malaya - along with thousands of HE and canister rounds. Even if we stick with the 2pdr, we'll tear up the thinly armoured Japanese tanks. Unfortunately I also need to change the calendar a little for the tanks to arrive on time, since the very first Canadian-built Valentine rolled off the production line in May 1941.

Valentine tank

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

The ANZACs did well with their Valentines in the jungle. I believe they'd got the 6pdr version with its HE round.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7zh4nGFSh0

 

[Gary Cain]

I had a dream once that the Valentine tanks made in Canada swapped out their 2pdrs for USA 37mm and instead of shipping to Russia, shipped to Malaya - along with thousands of HE and canister rounds. Even if we stick with the 2pdr, we'll tear up the thinly armoured Japanese tanks. Unfortunately I also need to change the calendar a little for the tanks to arrive on time, since the very first Canadian-built Valentine rolled off the production line in May 1941.

Valentine tank

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

The ANZACs did well with their Valentines in the jungle. I believe they'd got the 6pdr version with its HE round.

View attachment 722240


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7zh4nGFSh0

Yes, in the jungle the small size of the Valentine was significant. They were basically the same size as the Japanese tanks of the same weight, but FAR more capable. Just an FYI, the tank in the jungle is a Matilda 2 of the 2/4th Aussie Armored Regiment.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Would that be a "Waltzing Matilda", then?

 

[Gary Cain]

Would that be a "Waltzing Matilda", then?

More like a "clanking Matilda"!

 

[WARSPITER]

Yep. As far as WW2 RAF combat aircraft, all they needed was Spitfires, Mosquitos and Lancasters in vast quantities. But no, they had to make a cornucopia of competing and/or mediocre designs. And tanks, why put a 2pdr with no HE round into your tanks? The US put both HE and canister rounds in their 37mm.

Germany wasn't any better when it came to it. Started with tanks having 20mm and 37mm guns with the Pz IV having a short close
support 75mm. Aircraft wise they had more dead ends than bureaucrat designed street system.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Germany wasn't any better when it came to it.

Germany found their success with Blitzkrieg waves of highly mobile medium weight tanks. They're the last combatant you'd expect to resort to slow, immobile tanks and what are essentially pillboxes on tracks.

 

[WARSPITER]

And yet by 1943 that is exactly what they were heading for.

 

[Admiral Beez]

And yet by 1943 that is exactly what they were heading for.

Indeed. What they needed was an easy to produce and reliable tank with an excellent gun. Skip all the Tigers, Elephants, Nashorns, Maus, etc. Just make as many simplified Panthers or even just the Panzer IV Ausf. H/Js as you can. The latter's 75-mm KwK 40 L/48 gun can kill any T-34 or Sherman at reasonable range - though the Panther's was much better. The ideal German tank is a T-34, quick to produce, reliable, armed with the Panther's 75mm and excellent German radios and optics.

 

[Gary Cain]

Indeed. What they needed was an easy to produce and reliable tank with an excellent gun. Skip all the Tigers, Elephants, Nashorns, Maus, etc. Just make as many simplified Panthers or even just the Panzer IV Ausf. H/Js as you can. The latter's 75-mm KwK 40 L/48 gun can kill any T-34 or Sherman at reasonable range - though the Panther's was much better. The ideal German tank is a T-34, quick to produce, reliable, armed with the Panther's 75mm and excellent German radios and optics.

The Panthers gun wouldn't fit in a T-34. Even the T-34/85 was too small.

And, all of the German tanks were maintenance nightmares. Beautifully engineered, but a pain in the butt to work on.

A friend owned a Stug IIIG a while back. We spent far more time working on it then driving it. Like 25 hours of work to one hour of driving.

 

[wlewisiii]

All tanks are maintenance intensive. That's a given. The only real advantage that, say, US tanks had was we only needed the three most important tools:

A tanker's bar
A sledge hammer
A roll of 100 MPH Tape.

That'll get you back to the motor pool