...I would've pushed harder to get the heavy M6 into production.

There were so many teething troubles with the prototypes,

but just like so many other tanks, field experience with the early models would've led to product improvements in later models (compare an M4A1 to an M4A3E8, for instance).

 

Just the idea of having thicker armor, and certainly the possibility of adopting a higher performance gun much sooner,

would've been a confidence-booster to troops whose early combat experience with the Sherman left them wanting more.

 

Would we have stuck with the 37mm coax to the 75mm?

Can't say for sure, but I'd at least have considered taking the US 37mm development much further (longer barrel, more powerful cartridge), perhaps it could've been used then as a secondary weapon against AFVs other than tanks that didn't need high performance 75mm or 76mm shells to defeat them.

 

Seeing the overall weight and dimensions of the M6, I'd also like to think that if it could initially accomodate a turret mounting both a 75mm medium power gun and a 37mm gun, with some ammo for each, then surely it would've taken to the Brits' 17-pdr much more quickly than any other design, if not a more powerful US 76mm , or even early attempts at a US 90mm as was fitted to the M26, along the lines of a US equivalent to the Tiger's 88/L56, but I don't know that I believe the US could've made a 90mm equivalent to the King Tiger's 88/L71 and fitted it to the M6 hull.

 

Still, the M6 hull might've been able to accomodate the weight of a heavier turret if only in trials, for a follow on heavy tank (something even beefier than the M26, which most likely though wouldn't have come about until well after the end of the War, late 1946 perhaps, but certainly in time for Korea.

There, a US heavy that would've been armed with the 90mm equivalent of an 88/L71 would've been an impressive and unstoppable adversary for even T34/85s.

And I'd bet it could've readily accepted the coming 105/L7 gun (M68), just as the Centurion went up from the 17-pdr to adopt it.

In the actual event, the specification of the 17pdr was given in 1941, while the design of the Centurion was not initiated until 1943. The simplest course of action would be to issue the requirement of the tank to match the gun in 1941. The  field prototype Centurion was shipped to units and ended up in place by May 1945. If I could shift that start date to the left two years, all else being equal, those prototypes would have had their field trials in Italy in 1943. That said, being cognisant that the greatest threat to Allied armour is German anti-tank guns, I'd need to press for a half-way useful HE round for the 17pdr. Something that, in reality, it lacked until late 1944.

In addition, I would be looking for a way to introduce a useable combat tank for the Armoured regiments in the interim. Even if I am hamstrung with the need to make something available in case the Germans invade (which means stalling the development of the 6pdr in favour of more 2pdrs) I would be certain to specify that any tank designed in the period 1940-1941 will be capable of mounting a 6pdr gun, even if they are initially fitted with a 2pdr. With a bit of pushing, we might be able to fit the 75mm based on the 6pdr. I will summarily execute key decision makers from the design team who would otherwise come up with the Covenanter and do terrible things to the civil servents who would give it the green light.  Best case is a Cromwell/Comet mounting a cut-down 17pdr and with good speed preferably the armour levels will be akin to the Cromwell but with chassis capacity to up armour to Comet levels. This should mean that when Centurion comes online, I can transfer the Cromets to armoured recce regiments, ditching some of the armour for a very respectable turn of speed and better cross-country mobility.

The real issue is do the Germans have someone else striving for a 1944 supertank? If not, I can be fairly safe in the knowledge that the Centurion is entirely capable of giving them a good slapping. If there is, all manner of craziness would ensue.

United States

With something like this, I think the war would have been over in 1943.

The M-43 'Crook' Medium Tank

Turret front - 5.5 inch (137.7mm) thickness sloped at 35deg angle.  

Turret sides/rear - 4 inch (101.6mm) thickness sloped at 45deg angle. 

Hull front - 4 inch (101.6mm) thickness sloped at 45deg angle.

I'd be happy to consider Carden-Loyd or even Christie leaf spring suspension if you think it would improve matters.  And besides, my understanding of the maintainance problems of the Panther were primarily in the Ausf A and D early models and could be attributed to rushed development and normal teething issues. By the time the Panther G came along in 1944, the gremlins had been worked out and it was a reasonably reliable tank. But if you insist, we can substitute the Sherman or T-34 suspension systems.

As for the armour/weight issue, let's add on another 5 tonnes, bringing the 'Crook's' up to 40 tonnes.  With a 750hp engine it still would have a reasonable power-weight ration and retain it's maneouverability. 

I still think it would have been a war winner, and within the requirment for contemporaneous technological limits.  But then, as long as I am in dream mode, why not throw in the Manhattan Project coming to fruition two years earlier and dropping a Fat Boy on the Wolfschanze in mid-1943?  Now THAT would have been cool!

FK; you would continue with the cruiser line of development? No room for a Churchhill at all.?

 

Solid Conservative: forget the double torsion bar suspension. That tracklaying interleaved wheel nightmare is something no sane American would ever contenance.

 

The MG42 was beyond US capacity at the time to duplicate. What makes you think the US could duplicate the far more complex MG34? The Browning 30 cals and 50 cals were quite effective and don't require us to dedicate scarce precision machinery to duplicate German weapons. Your armor package would overtax the 500 HP [372 Kwatt] gasoline tank engines actually available. Remember you are restricted to the available powerplants in the US technology tree. We won't have a decent tank Diesel until the Korean War. Until then, you are either going to have to settle for 40 tonne machines or be grossly underpowered or use gasoline engines.

 

Your armor scheme would result in a 47 tonne+ tank.

 

Jeff; I HATE the T-6. I think the M-3/M-4 line of development was the US correct line. I can see the Grierson coming earlier with the 9.0cm.L50 gun with maybe a pair of crucial decisions made in 1942. Whether that would be a torsion bar Grierson or the VVSS/HVSS Grierson I have no idea. Depends on if there was TIME. I would think that you would put your 3.7cm.L60 gun in your armored cars and let them shoot up,the soft skinned stuff. The armored car chassis of choice would have been the 6x6 used on the 2 1/2 ton truck. In a tank you use MGs and HE because you want to keep things simple. One last thing; the Germans had a 1937 headstart on the Tiger, don't expect them to vary widely from the wrong path they chose that far back.

 

Until I hear from the Russian camp; no comment.

 

Herald            

 

The Churchill is a real quandry. On one hand it was a real resource hog at the start of its existance and took a fairly long time to get the kinks straightened out. On the other hand, once sorted it proved invaluable as the basis for the funnies and mobility over steep terrain. IIRC, the report of the first German commander to face them in Africa claimed he had been force out of his position by "a mad tank battalion that had scaled impossible heights" In reality it was a single troop of Churchill MkIIIs. It was also a Churchill that scored the first tank-on-tank kill of a Tiger, though that was luck rather than judgement. Possibly I'd keep it, getting my resources from the abortive cruiser programmes (primarily Covenanter), but with that all-important larger turret ring, if possible. The best would be if it could mount a 77mm gun, like the Cromet detailed earlier or the Comet of real life.

That said, Centurion AVREs were good tanks, but I think that I'd keep Centurion for gun tanks and use the older chassis for engineering tanks, especially leveraging Churchills ability to deal with obstacles and terrain.

The trouble with turret rings is that you cannot simply make them larger. Cromwell became Comet well enough, but it also became Challenger, which was a dog of a tank. 

I'd try and get the Stuarts, Grants and Shermans from the US as a stopgap but I've still got a 6 month plus gap where I'm trying to deal with the Panzers with late marque cruisers and Crusaders. Maybe HE for the 2pdr and a more generous allowance of HE for the CS tanks would be a good idea so I don't lose so many to anti-tank gun screens.

For the far-out concepts, I wonder if it would be feasible to put engines in the sponsons of the Churchill - Kestrels, perhaps? - and make a big, fat, superbly armoured APC. A Polsten or a 2pdr on top and perhaps you have an APC. Probably just the Polsten though. Maybe even just a Vickers, but with the World's longest ammunition belt and a big tank of water for the jacket. And a PIAT, just in case.

USSR:  T-34/85

USA:  Sherman with 17 pounder

UK:  Ask for US engines in a 30 tonner with a 17 pounder.

 

Mass produce the heck out of these 3 designs and win the war.

id have invented chobham

go on then you jar-mans! have that!

First of all, apologies Dogg and Jeff! I got the two of you confused again!

 

Second, Replies to various.

 

FK, The best thing the Valentine had going for it was that it was reliable and it tended to work even when it was broken. I would actually would keep it in production as an engineer vehicle as well as see if I could mount a 25 pounder on it instead of the 17 pounder. The 17 pounder was such a short production item that given the crisis at hand I would make it the tank gun of choice. 

 

As to the Churchhill; this tank was just so useful as a Funny, that I'd have to keep it in production as an AVRE. If no other reason than as a tractor and as the Crocodile the Churchhill was just too useful.

 

Question about the 5.7cm.L60 gun [6 pounder]. From what I know, that gun could stilldefeat most German armor short of a Tiger at 500 meters throughout the war. Yet its HE explosive performance was terrible. Do you think that weapon would have been of more use on a heavy armored car than a tank? Or do you think that the gun would have been too much for say a Bearhound or an Alvis 6x6?

 

One more thing; I know that the British produced a 25 pounder howitzer version of Priest that they called Abbot. Is it possible that they might have used some of their midwar tanks to mount a 25 pounder howitzer to supplement the 17 pounder AT gun tanks?  

 

Comments about the Russian line of development. There is no way I would ever fit an early KV tank engine into anything besides that PoJ tank. Another thing I would do is gulag whoever designed Russian power trains then or now. Next to the early Panthers, the absolute worst transmissions in WW II tanks ever made were in the Russians KVs, the ISs and the midwar T-34s. Those things flaked off metal when you engaged them!   

 

But as to what the Russians needed to do? Scrap the KV production as soon the T-34s proved themselves. Ther 10cm.L50 was in too short supply and too hard to make in quantity at the time to produce into a T-44 tank in quantity. That means the 8.5cm.L50 for the same reason the Americans should have gone for the 9.0cmL50 gun. The Russians needed a good dual purpose gun in large numbers to kill German infantry, as well as to deal with the German armor they actually faced. Let's not fall into the myth that everything German clanking in Russia was a Tiger here. Most of the panzers were IIIs, IVs, StuGs and various armored cars and infantry carriers. The Russians could handle it all with a T-34/85 designed with a decent transmission and good oil filters.

 

Not much to say about the American tanks, that I haven't already said except that the US needed the two adjuncts to the American tank, a decent armored scout car, and a decent infantry carrier. Once again, my favorite solution is the 6x6 wheeled deuce and a half chassis. Engine's in front so the infantry can ride in the rear in an armored box with overhead cover. Not the best cross country performance, but it wouild have been production simple. Every second, third, and fifth 2 1/2 ton truck in the production queue could have been an armored car or a couple of armored personnel carriers.  

 

When you consider that the British at least thought about it with the Bren gun carrier and then adopted the Canadian invention of the Sherman Kangaroo, you also have to ask yourself why the Americans didn't Kangaroo war weary Shermans to replace the less than stellar White half tracks or build that decent wheeled APC that could have mechanized more of our infantry?    

 

Herald    

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah we mounted the 25 ponder on to the Valentine chassis and called it the Bishop, almost as bad as the KV-2.