Australian WWII Armour options

[Volkodav]

An obvious wiff to the save Singapore scenario is the deployment of a regiment or more of Matildas.  The type was lend leased to the USSR in time for the Battle of Moscow meaning they were well and truly available in time for Malaya.  Thinking on it, even the Matilda I would have been a handful for the Japanese as if the Germans needed 88s and 105mm howitzers to kill them, what would the Japanese have had to do to counter them?

[Rickshaw]

An obvious wiff to the save Singapore scenario is the deployment of a regiment or more of Matildas.  The type was lend leased to the USSR in time for the Battle of Moscow meaning they were well and truly available in time for Malaya.  Thinking on it, even the Matilda I would have been a handful for the Japanese as if the Germans needed 88s and 105mm howitzers to kill them, what would the Japanese have had to do to counter them?

If your referring the counter-attack at Arras the British were using a mix of 'tilly Is and IIs.  The 88mm guns (actually 105mm guns) were required to stop the 'tilly IIs, not the Is.   If the Allies had, had 'tillies in Malaya, they'd need a new set of tactical thinking to use them effectively, otherwise they would have been limited to the roads and only to the roads.  However, you're right that the Japanese would have problems facing them.  Their Type 88 75mm AA guns might have been sufficient but I don't think they trained them at that stage of the war to use direct fire and they'd only have a handful.   Their 105mm field guns would have been sufficient, if they had armour piercing ammunition available for them.  Again they had only a handful of them.  The British might have slowed the Japanese advance but that is about all.  More than likely they would have been forced to use them in dribs and drabs and primarily as moveable pillboxes.  Lacking a HE round for their 2 Pdrs would have prevented them being effective.  Their Besa MGs would have been useful though, and their armour would make them hard to knock out, if they could be protected by sufficient and well enough motivated infantry.

[Volkodav]

Actually, and I was surprised to discover this, the Matilda I had armour protection that was second only to the Matilda II and were only be taken out by the 105mms.  Being armed with a .303" Vickers, cramped internal arrangements and mechanical unreliability, made it just better than useless in Europe, but as a cheap, mobile pill box, that was impervious to Japanese fire, operating in direct support of the infantry, it could have made a real difference, especially if operated in conjunction with the Matilda II.

I am not suggesting that these were ideal but rather am looking at what could reasonably have been expected to available and fit with the doctrine of the day.  The Matilda I was meant to be available in numbers to directly support the infantry, being impervious to enemy fire and able to close with and take out their support weapons, while providing suppressive fire.  Not the best concept for western Europe but would have worked just fine in the plantations in Malaya.  Also being cheap and looking like a tank, I could see Australian politicians loving the things and even arranging local production pre-war with the intent of issuing them on a scale of six or eight per infantry battalion as a replacement for the Vickers MMG.

The Matilda II would be much better and was available in the time frame.  Having a cast hull and turret it would even be a local production possibility for Australia, but maybe with local expediencies.  One thought that comes to mind is the Matildas engine bay was actually quite large and could probably have fit the GM 6046 (originally developed for the proposed US built Matilda II) and GM had facilities in Australia at the time that were producing DH Gypsy Major engines.  Then there is the possibility of Australian production of the 2pdr HE round that the developed in the UK but never issued, it would have made perfect sense for Australia.

[Rickshaw]

Actually, and I was surprised to discover this, the Matilda I had armour protection that was second only to the Matilda II and were only be taken out by the 105mms.  Being armed with a .303" Vickers, cramped internal arrangements and mechanical unreliability, made it just better than useless in Europe, but as a cheap, mobile pill box, that was impervious to Japanese fire, operating in direct support of the infantry, it could have made a real difference, especially if operated in conjunction with the Matilda II.

I am not suggesting that these were ideal but rather am looking at what could reasonably have been expected to available and fit with the doctrine of the day.  The Matilda I was meant to be available in numbers to directly support the infantry, being impervious to enemy fire and able to close with and take out their support weapons, while providing suppressive fire.  Not the best concept for western Europe but would have worked just fine in the plantations in Malaya.  Also being cheap and looking like a tank, I could see Australian politicians loving the things and even arranging local production pre-war with the intent of issuing them on a scale of six or eight per infantry battalion as a replacement for the Vickers MMG.

The Matilda II would be much better and was available in the time frame.  Having a cast hull and turret it would even be a local production possibility for Australia, but maybe with local expediencies.  One thought that comes to mind is the Matildas engine bay was actually quite large and could probably have fit the GM 6046 (originally developed for the proposed US built Matilda II) and GM had facilities in Australia at the time that were producing DH Gypsy Major engines.  Then there is the possibility of Australian production of the 2pdr HE round that the developed in the UK but never issued, it would have made perfect sense for Australia.

Australia undertook their own production of their own, independently designed, base-fused round in 1942, starting to issue it in 1943.  It was designed, unlike the British designed nose-fused round, primarily to penetrate Japanese log bunkers encountered during the Battle of the Bridgeheads on the north coast New Guinea and in the Islands campaign.   The British designed round was intended to destroy materiale and AT guns, so it had a nose-fuse, which detonated on contact, the Australian round was designed to penetrate the bunker wall and then detonate inside the bunker.   So, we knew how to build HE rounds but it took at least 12 months to get them into the vehicles.

The 'tilley I was mechanically unreliable and would have been hell to crew in the tropics.  It would have worked as a mobile pillbox though.  It was a direct outgrowth from the British "ethos" (as against something as firm as a "doctrine") which held that it was the role of Artillery to suppress the enemy and allow the Infantry onto their positions.  This "ethos" was created during WWI. Armour's role was to promote the Infantry's advance across no-man's land and suppress the enemy's defences, directly engaging the enemy's support weapons (and if necessary, the enemy's own armoured forces).   Hence the creation of the 25 Pdr, whose round was designed to suppress the enemy's forces rather than destroy them like a heavier round like the 105mm would do.

The 'tilley II OTOH was mechanically reliable, well armoured and well armed - to meet opposing armour.  If they had their 2 Pdrs replaced with 3in support howitzers, which was a relatively easy conversion, they'd be a relatively effective vehicle.  The 3in had an adequate HE round but didn't have an effective AT round.  So it would a case of choosing which weapon you were going to use.  That was something I'd forgotten about, BTW. 

[Volkodav]

There has been quite a bit that I had forgotten, or had never realised that I have come across recently in relation to this and other topics.  For instance the 6pdr not only had better penetration than the 75mm used on British tanks (same ammo as the Sherman 75mm) it also had better penetration than the 3" the Brits used on the Churchill GMC.  Logically then, a local production Matilda II with a Churchill III or IV turret and 6pdr gun (GM 6046 and VVSS) would be a very affective medium tank and could have served the CMF post war well into the 50s with suitable mods.

[GTX_Admin]

Indeed.  Peter Beale puts it starkly:

 "In 1939 the population of Australia totalled approximately seven million. The estimated Australian workforce in 1939, however, was a mere three million people. That workforce had to meet the requirements of at least the major employment categories of rural, including agriculture, forestry, and mining; manufacturing; services including health, retail, utilities, education; and the armed forces. The rural sector had to produce food for export as well as for internal consumption; manufacturing had to maintain supplies for normal civilian needs and also had to produce munitions of all kinds for the armed forces of Australia and her allies. Civilian services had to maintain a reasonable standard of living in the country. At the same time there was massive demand for personnel for the three armed services. A rule of thumb suggested that an industrial nation such as Australia could spare one in ten of its population for the armed forces."

Simply put, the Sentinel program was just a stretch too far. If anything the U.S. Supplying tanks was a godsend.

[Rickshaw]

A lot of the issue is that there were just so few of them, the industries that had stated to develop before WWI had withered and died between the wars because of economic pressure and short sighted stupidity.  Cruisers had been built in Australia during WWI and destroyers assembled and built, submarines and aircraft were seen as the next step but then nothing.  No work, no trained people and a steeper, more difficult leaning curve to get back to where your were, let alone to where you needed to be.

Not quite true.  The industries which were developed in the 1930s - designed expressly for defence purposes - mining, chemical, smelting, etc. were quite well developed by 1940.  Read A.T Ross's excellent work, "Armed and Ready" for a history of Australian defence industries during WWII.

[Volkodav]

A lot of the issue is that there were just so few of them, the industries that had stated to develop before WWI had withered and died between the wars because of economic pressure and short sighted stupidity.  Cruisers had been built in Australia during WWI and destroyers assembled and built, submarines and aircraft were seen as the next step but then nothing.  No work, no trained people and a steeper, more difficult leaning curve to get back to where your were, let alone to where you needed to be.

Not quite true.  The industries which were developed in the 1930s - designed expressly for defence purposes - mining, chemical, smelting, etc. were quite well developed by 1940.  Read A.T Ross's excellent work, "Armed and Ready" for a history of Australian defence industries during WWII.

Entirely true, rearmament in the late 30s, post Munich, is an entirely different matter to the disarmament and deindustrialisation post WWI.

[M.A.D]

OK gent's, so as per my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT', I had up until this great topic been set in my way of having Australia developing and refining the AC Sentinel series to the point that it was going to be in Australian Army service, armed with QF 17-pounder up until and during the Korea War!; but then Peter Beale and your good selves have just about convinced me that it is not really strategically sound to develope and field an indigenous tank during the Second World War ........ But because my 'Alternative ADF ORBAT' is only post-WWII (alas with many important lessons derived from WWII experience!!), what tank would you suggest the Australian Army should have sourced and modified from Britain - Matilda II / QF 6-pounder or Valentine  QF 6-ponder??? (keeping in mind that either of these tanks would serve admirably against Japanese forces in the Pacific Theatre, but naturally replaced with a more modern and effective design almost immediately at the end of WWII (I'm thinking Comet's, then Centurion's.......)


M.A.D

[Rickshaw]

Both vehicles have advantages and disadvantages, as do all vehicles.

The Matilda is a bit of a dead end.  I cannot see it going beyond a 75mm gun.  It's armour is adequate and its automotive performance is quite good.  It was simply too small to be easily developed.

The Valentine offers several opportunities for improvement.  The chassis was easily modified to carry up to a 17 Pdr. as an SPG.  It could and did carry a 25 Pdr. as an SPG (agreed, not a terribly successful one).  It could take up to a 75mm gun in a standard tank turret.  Its armour was adequate ad its automotive performance was adequate.

Choice is really yours.  It's your what-if.  Personally, I'd tend to choose the Valentine simply because of its adaptability.

[M.A.D]

Both vehicles have advantages and disadvantages, as do all vehicles.

The Matilda is a bit of a dead end.  I cannot see it going beyond a 75mm gun.  It's armour is adequate and its automotive performance is quite good.  It was simply too small to be easily developed.

The Valentine offers several opportunities for improvement.  The chassis was easily modified to carry up to a 17 Pdr. as an SPG.  It could and did carry a 25 Pdr. as an SPG (agreed, not a terribly successful one).  It could take up to a 75mm gun in a standard tank turret.  Its armour was adequate ad its automotive performance was adequate.

Choice is really yours.  It's your what-if.  Personally, I'd tend to choose the Valentine simply because of its adaptability.

Thank you for your input Rickshaw, it's greatly respected and appreciated!
I'm think it would be sensible in pursuing a vehicle which offers a degree of growth potential, on top of its operational attributes.


M.A.D

[Volkodav]

The matilda served quite well into the 50s along side the Grant and Churchill, the Brits used Cromwell and Churchill post war as well with their 75mm, so it is conceivable that a 75mm armed (maybe a 95mm CS version too) Matilda could have served well into the 50s as an infantry support tank.

I quite like that concept of cavalry units being permanently (or at least semi permanently) embedded in infantry battlegroups, covering off tank destroyer, reconaisance / flank protection, direct fire support (DFS) roles.

[tankmodeler]

Given that the Matilda was historically in Australian service it make sense to start there, but there are options to up gun that actually existed, if not on the Matilda. AS mentioned, the Valentine XI turret would probably fit(or nearly so) on the Matilda as would (I do believe) the 75mm armed Crusader turrets actually fitted to Staghound Mk III tanks in Canadian service in NW Europe very late in the war. The end of the war would have meant that both turrets would have become available from demobbed European stocks, likely for the price of shipping.

A Matilda with the angular turret from a Crusader armed with the Brit 75mm would be an interesting thing for Australia. Re-engine it with later and even more powerful and reliable diesels in the 50s and they could be relatively viable for slow infantry work. But, really, useless as a more universal tank to deal with the expected faster enemies of the post war period. Of course, the Valentine was no faster.

Paul

[M.A.D]

Given that the Matilda was historically in Australian service it make sense to start there, but there are options to up gun that actually existed, if not on the Matilda. AS mentioned, the Valentine XI turret would probably fit(or nearly so) on the Matilda as would (I do believe) the 75mm armed Crusader turrets actually fitted to Staghound Mk III tanks in Canadian service in NW Europe very late in the war. The end of the war would have meant that both turrets would have become available from demobbed European stocks, likely for the price of shipping.

A Matilda with the angular turret from a Crusader armed with the Brit 75mm would be an interesting thing for Australia. Re-engine it with later and even more powerful and reliable diesels in the 50s and they could be relatively viable for slow infantry work. But, really, useless as a more universal tank to deal with the expected faster enemies of the post war period. Of course, the Valentine was no faster.

Paul

Thank you Paul for your input.

The reality (the way I see it after reading this intriguing post) is as per real-world history should have it, is that the Australian Army forces will still prodomantly be facing Imperial Japanese forces in the Pacific Theatre by the time Australia pulled it's finger out in terms of seriously seeing merit and gaining tanks in real numbers regardless. So I'm thinking (correct me if you view diffentlty) that a 6-pounder (57mm) gun will probably suffice against any Imperial Japanese actions? Also the importance and priority has to be placed on the development, manufacturing and fielding of a 2-pounder and 6-pounder HE round!! (Note, I still for the life of me can't comprehend the ignorance and neglect of Britain/Australia not developing and fielding HE rounds!!  )
I'm also guessing, that by the end of the Second World War, either the Matilda II or Valentine designs will be obviously in a  state of block obsolecene, in terms of being seriously effective and hence needing replacement by a modern design (and alas loaned or leased) like say the Comet, until the likes of the Centurion have matured and proven itself effective and reliable to purchase and field as new.


M.A.D

[Rickshaw]

Au contraire, Australia actually fielded it's 2 Pdr HE round earlier than the British did.   The Australians had theirs in vehicles and on guns in early-mid-1943.   The British didn't really field it until late 1943 - despite having developed the round in the late 1930s.  The Australian round was completely different to the British one.  The Australia round was base fused, which allowed it to penetrate bunker walls before exploding, while the British round was nose fused which meant it was optimised for the destruction of personnel and materiale'.

The problem was the that the British Army was riven by what we would call today, "turf wars".  The 2 Pdr was classed as an artillery weapon in it's towed form and crewed exclusive by Royal Artillery Corps crews.  The Artillery was willing to use the HE round but the Infantry didn't see a value in and the Armour crews weren't provided with any.   The tank/armoured car crews were simply ignorant of the HE round's existence.

Just when the British Armoured Car crews received the 2 Pdr nose fused rounds, they were also equipping with the "Little John Adapter" - a squeeze bore attachment which prevented them from firing HE rounds and which substantially increased the armour penetration of the 2 Pdr.   So, in order to use HE rounds, either the crew had to exit the vehicle, unscrew the Little John and then fire the HE rounds or leave the Little John off completely.   What happened was that often one or two Armoured cars in a troop or at Squadron HQ didn't have their Little John attached.  It was simply easier to have armoured cars with a 75mm gun in the turret - which is basically what replaced the 2 Pdr.   Interestingly, after the war, a HECR round was developed which could be fired from the Little John equipped guns.  Of course no one was really interested 'cause no one really used 2 Pdrs any more.

Downunder, we never adopted the Little John so had no qualms about issuing HE rounds and using them in the Islands.

[M.A.D]

Some interesting and relivent stuff there thank you Rickshaw

Especially in the case of my want and need your comment:
 

The British didn't really field it until late 1943 - despite having developed the round in the late 1930s

. 

So technically speaking, Australia would/could be in good stead to request license production of this 2-pounder HE round or even upsize it to 6-pounder/57mm at the beginning of the Second World War or there abouts 😯



M.A.D

[tankmodeler]

The reality (the way I see it after reading this intriguing post) is as per real-world history should have it, is that the Australian Army forces will still prodomantly be facing Imperial Japanese forces in the Pacific Theatre by the time Australia pulled it's finger out in terms of seriously seeing merit and gaining tanks in real numbers regardless. So I'm thinking (correct me if you view diffentlty) that a 6-pounder (57mm) gun will probably suffice against any Imperial Japanese actions? Also the importance and priority has to be placed on the development, manufacturing and fielding of a 2-pounder and 6-pounder HE round!! (Note, I still for the life of me can't comprehend the ignorance and neglect of Britain/Australia not developing and fielding HE rounds!!  )
I'm also guessing, that by the end of the Second World War, either the Matilda II or Valentine designs will be obviously in a  state of block obsolecene, in terms of being seriously effective and hence needing replacement by a modern design (and alas loaned or leased) like say the Comet, until the likes of the Centurion have matured and proven itself effective and reliable to purchase and field as new.


M.A.D

The 57mm (6 pdr) was always a much better anti-armour weapon than the Yank 75mm or the Brit 75 (with it's slightly lower muzzle velocity) but the 75 was more than adequate to deal with any Japanese armour fielded and had a much, much better HE round than any developed for the 6 pdr.

I don't see any reason why Aussie troops would select the better AT performance while losing significant HE performance based on the fact that the 75mm was more than adequate to see off any Japanese tanks while be a far superior bunker buster.

Given the choice, I'd image they would always select the 75mm over the 6 pdr unless the Japanese are expected to field significantly better thanks than they actually did. In which case, by the end of the war, they'd probably go straight to the 17 pdr and have done with it.

Paul

[GTX_Admin]

Why not simply have Australia get some Shermans?

[GTX_Admin]

The M3 medium and the M4 medium were more than adequate to deal with Japanese armour and fortified positions.  Their major problem was weight and size. 

Maybe a combination of M4s and some M24 Chaffees then or even just M24s?  The M24s could be primarily used for Pacific operations with still being plenty to deal with what was ranged against them.  Given the Australian War Cabinet agreed to the cessation of the Sentinel tank production program in mid July 1943, it would quite conceivable to have them look around for alternatives around that time.  This would lend itself to an initial acquisition (either by direct buy or lend-lease) of M4s in late '43 followed by M24s in '44 (noting that the M24 entered US service in '44).  This would also make sense in that there would be commonality with their U.S. pacific allies.

Maybe post war have them either replaced with M41s or even given updates akin to the later NM-116 program?

On a different matter, given this thread has strayed a bit, I wonder if a split of topic is in order with a new "Alternative Australian Armour options" thread being needed?  Thoughts?

[M.A.D]

The M3 medium and the M4 medium were more than adequate to deal with Japanese armour and fortified positions.  Their major problem was weight and size. 

Maybe a combination of M4s and some M24 Chaffees then or even just M24s?  The M24s could be primarily used for Pacific operations with still being plenty to deal with what was ranged against them.  Given the Australian War Cabinet agreed to the cessation of the Sentinel tank production program in mid July 1943, it would quite conceivable to have them look around for alternatives around that time.  This would lend itself to an initial acquisition (either by direct buy or lend-lease) of M4s in late '43 followed by M24s in '44 (noting that the M24 entered US service in '44).  This would also make sense in that there would be commonality with their U.S. pacific allies.

Maybe post war have them either replaced with M41s or even given updates akin to the later NM-116 program?

Interesting and some valid points GTX!

On a different matter, given this thread has strayed a bit, I wonder if a split of topic is in order with a new "Alternative Australian Armour options" thread being needed?  Thoughts?

Yeah, I'm undoubtedly principly to blame for this  Sorry


M.A.D

[GTX_Admin]

Taking my above idea a little further (and ignoring some of the real world trials done by the Australian Army during the war) we could have the following scenario:

July 1943 - Australian War Cabinet agrees to cease Sentinel Tank Program to develop and indigenous Australian tank.  Despite this, the desire to develop a better tank force is still there.

Sep/Oct 1943 - a decision is made to acquire tanks under the Lend-Lease program from the USA.  Apart from the ability to get tanks relatively quickly, this option also allows for commonality with Australia's primary ally in the Pacific.

Nov 1943 - following investigations, a decision is made to purchase two primary types:

    - initially a force of M4A3(76)W tanks
    - following on from this, a larger number of the new M24 tank of s to be acquired

Mid 1944 - the first tanks arrive
1945 - following introduction of the first M24s, Australia also adopts the concept behind the Light Combat Team and also places orders for the associated M19 and M41.
Post War - Australia keeps all the tanks in service and uses them in Korea.


Some info:

[Logan Hartke]

If there was a WWII tank that would be a good fit for the Australian military in the postwar period, I think the M24 was probably one of the best. They're still in use today, so it could definitely last for many years. It would be one of the most strategically deployable options. Postwar, you could even convert M37s into mortar carriers or APCs in the style of the Priest Kangaroo.

Hmm, now I wonder what an M24 with a Delco 25mm turret might be like... Impractical, but neat!

Cheers,

Logan

[Logan Hartke]

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I didn't scale the components, because I just kludged together the pieces from a couple illustrations on Tanks Encyclopedia, but it gives an impression of the thing.

Cheers,

Logan

[Volkodav]

I'm a fan of the M-24 and Australia did trial them.  The only doubts I have are that the M-3 Stuart light tank also served and though used in combat was found to be generally inferior to the matilda in terms of mobility and combat effectiveness (I'm not sure but I believe concerns over the Grants performance in the types of terrain in the theatre were such that it was never deployed in combat by the RAAC). 

Multiple trials led to the adoption of the Churchill over the Sherman and Cromwell (even though there had previously been a preference for cruiser / medium tanks) suggesting that actual combat experience highlighted protection and mobility through difficult terrain over speed and mobility over open (or less challenging) terrain.


Perhaps there was a case for an infantry tank providing close support to the infantry divisions and different vehicles, cruisers/mediums for cavalry/armoured regiments/brigades, and light tanks in divisional reconnaissance regiments.

[Rickshaw]

The M24 was found to be literally too light for use in the Islands.  It was not able to push through the Jungle.  This had also been found with the M3 Stuart in the fighting around Buna during the Battle of the Bridgeheads.  The USMC had also discovered it, when they first started using Stuarts.  Often the problem was that the vehicle would find itself "hung up" on stumps left by the artillery barrage before/during a battle.  Occasionally that would also lead to a loss of a vehicle as the stumps pierced the belly armour of the vehicles.  The performance of the M24 in Korea also left a great deal to be desired as well - however that was more because of their misuse as faux mediums than anything else.

The M24 was a fine vehicle for European conditions as a light tank.  It was not a medium and couldn't be used as one.   It did lead the way with the concept of the "light combat team".  Something which the US Army later developed further using their various vehicles to create whole families of specialised versions.

I still think that the M4 Sherman would have been the best choice.  The Churchill was simply too heavy.   The M4 OTOH was about right and would have provided a fine vehicle late war-post war for the RAAC.  The RAAC preferred the Churchill because of it's reliability and maneuverability (primarily because of it's gearbox) - it could climb hills impassable to most tanks.

[GTX_Admin]

The M24 was found to be literally too light for use in the Islands.  It was not able to push through the Jungle.  This had also been found with the M3 Stuart in the fighting around Buna during the Battle of the Bridgeheads.  The USMC had also discovered it, when they first started using Stuarts.  Often the problem was that the vehicle would find itself "hung up" on stumps left by the artillery barrage before/during a battle.  Occasionally that would also lead to a loss of a vehicle as the stumps pierced the belly armour of the vehicles.

Err...no.  The trials the Australian Army did showed the tank to be generally excellent (see actual report extract below).  The main issue was that in the envisaged role of infantry support, it would not be suitable due to its inability to be used in a slow infantry support role.




Now, obviously for the above mentioned scenario to be valid there would need to be something different occur - say maybe Australia decided they wanted a different role focus or perhaps they were looking beyond WWII.

BTW, here is also a good summary of the Sherman tank trials conducted by Australia:  http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoured%20Vehicles/shermansdownunderph_1.htm

You can also see videos of both the Sherman trials and the M24 trials here:

https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F07352/
https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F07353/

Finally, in relation to Korea, the M24s performance needs to be viewed in the correct context in that initially they were the only armoured option available:  On 7th July 14 tanks from the battalion were sent north to support the 24th Division, which was fighting near Jeonju (Chonjui) on the Geum River. The 24th Division had been fighting further north, at Osan, but was forced to retreat towards the Geum. The first clash between the M24s and the T-34/85 came on 10 July just north of Geum. Neither side performed especially well during this clash. The M24 struggled to damage the T-34s, and most of their shots bounced. One T-34 was disabled. In return the North Koreans failed to knock out any of the Americans, but two M24s were lost after their gun recoil systems failed. The Americans were unable to hold the line of the river, and by 24 July the UN forces had been pushed back to the Pusan perimeter. A significant number of the M24s were lost during the retreat and the balance of power was only restored after the arrival of M4 Shermans and M26 Pershings in August.

[GTX_Admin]

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I didn't scale the components, because I just kludged together the pieces from a couple illustrations on Tanks Encyclopedia, but it gives an impression of the thing.

Cheers,

Logan

Love your work

[Rickshaw]

Thank you, Greg.  Your posting is interesting and requires further consideration.  The M24 was a good Recce vehicle - no doubt about it - but that was all it was good for, as the report confirms...

[Volkodav]

The M-24 would also have been good for direct and indirect fire support in open and wooded (but not dense jungle) terrain.  As  I see it the M-24 would have been great issued to divisional cavalry regiments in the rec role but also as a light armoured addition to individual infantry battle groups to give them extra hitting power and an element of flexible for protection, guarding flanks and providing overwatch etc.  They would not have been able to do everything but working in conjunction with tank destroyers, SPGs / assault guns and engineering vehicles, they would do very well.

It could be argued the jungle use was so specialised that maybe a heavily armoured engineering vehicle would have been better.  A demolition gun with a short barrel, heavy vehicle weight, integral dozer blade, perhaps even a flame system in place of the bow gun or coaxial to the main gun

[tankmodeler]

And, of course, there is my attempt at an indigenous Australian AFV based not on the Sentinel, but positing that Australia decided to base a new vehicle on the Churchill. Using Australia casting capability (shown on the Sentinel) is has a cast hull and new turret. The turret gun is a slightly lengthened 25 pdr providing adequate capability against Japanese armour and excellent HE capability against fortifications and infantry targets. The thick armour would have been especially useful in the close quarters fighting experienced in the SWPA.

[img width= height=]https://gallery3.kitmaker.net/data/29743/top17.jpg[/img]
[img width= height=]https://gallery3.kitmaker.net/data/29743/Right_F_3-4.jpg[/img]

[Logan Hartke]

I do still love that build.

Cheers,

Logan

[kim margosein]

I don't know much about armor, especially the Pacific Theatre.  However, it seems to me that Japanese tanks were inferior to Allied tanks both in quantity and quality.   Their default medium tank was not much better than the US M-2 medium tank, and was produced at the rate of 300 to 500 tanks per year.   A tank like the M-3 would seem to be more than adequate in the Pacific, with a 75mm used like artillery with mostly HE ammunition, and at the ranges in the Pacific the 37mm used as anti-tank would be adequate.  How about something along of an updated M-3, or an updated Churchill like you envision but keeping the howitzer like the earlier versions.
 

[tankmodeler]

I don't know much about armor, especially the Pacific Theatre.  However, it seems to me that Japanese tanks were inferior to Allied tanks both in quantity and quality.   Their default medium tank was not much better than the US M-2 medium tank, and was produced at the rate of 300 to 500 tanks per year.   A tank like the M-3 would seem to be more than adequate in the Pacific, with a 75mm used like artillery with mostly HE ammunition, and at the ranges in the Pacific the 37mm used as anti-tank would be adequate.  How about something along of an updated M-3, or an updated Churchill like you envision but keeping the howitzer like the earlier versions.

Japanese armour quality was, as you say, inferior throughout the war and something like the American or British 75mm guns was more than sufficient. However the 3" howitzer fitted to British CS (Close Support) versions was, essentially, a breech loaded 3" mortar with a muzzle velocity of only 600 ft/s, too low to even pop most Japanese armour, and there was no AT ammo for it, ever, for that very reason.

I chose the 25 pdr for my "what if" mostly because it had an outstanding HE round, much better than the 75, and quite adequate AP performance with solid shot and the supercharge powder increment. It was also being manufactured in Australia during the war, unlike either of the 75mm guns. I then added 10% to the length of the tube to increase the muzzle velocity a wee bit without overstressing the breech to bump up the AP performance a bit more. I also posit that, for tank service these rounds would have to be fixed as opposed to the semi-fixed nature of the normal 25 pdr rounds, but that's not a huge deal at all. The AP rounds would be the same a s the super-charge rounds and the HE rounds would have something like a charge 3 amount of propellant for adequate, but not long range HE firing, they're not artillery, after all. A smart design team would ensure that the actual cartridge and shell of the semi-fixed rounds could be used in the new tank gun chamber in a pinch to retain the ability to use artillery ammo if available or when indirect firing was desired as was sometimes done with tanks during the war.

As you can see, I've given this far too much thought... 

[Rickshaw]

The "normal" length 25 Pdr was more than sufficient to penetrate most Japanese medium tanks and would go in one side and out the other of most light tanks.   Lengthening the barrel might be required when faced by a mythical heavy tank - which were developed but never placed into production.

The Churchill was an excellent vehicle despite it's early troubles mechanically.  Once the British decided in 1943 to remanufacture all the Churchills they had, to rebuild their suspension, their engines and their gearboxes, they created quite a useful vehicle - just in time for D-Day.  Even before that, the Churchill could climb hills which other tanks would not even attempt.  Their use in Tunisia and Italy was extraordinary by all accounts.   What it lacked was a powerful enough engine to push the vehicle at a high enough speed to make it really useful.  Although as someone I know liked to point out, when the British used the Churchill in NW Europe as a standard tank, it's road speeds were not much lower than what their cruisers could achieve in the same advance across northern Germany.

In the jungle, it's lack of engine power would have likely told against it on extended operations.  In the Japanese home islands, it would have been an excellent Infantry Tank with a more than adequate 75mm gun.

Were you aware that the British took Churchill AVREs to Korea with their Centurions and the two outperformed the American Shermans and Pershings.   The AVREs were all equipped to become Crocodiles however they were never issued with their fuel trailers or flame guns.

[tankmodeler]

Lengthening the barrel might be required when faced by a mythical heavy tank - which were developed but never placed into production.

In the land of WHIF, a sufficient reason for lengthening the barrel, no? 

And it's performance at Longstop Hill was one of the reasons I posit that the Aussies would like it for the occasionally mountainous terrain in the SWPA, including New Guinea and the volcanic islands.

Were you aware that the British took Churchill AVREs to Korea with their Centurions and the two outperformed the American Shermans and Pershings.   The AVREs were all equipped to become Crocodiles however they were never issued with their fuel trailers or flame guns.

I was. 

Paul