WesWorld

A look at the forthcoming equipment for the British Army.

(Also my RAF and Army pages now have pictures!)


Light Tank Mk VII (A21): Modified Mk VI with sloped armour, new turret armed with a 2pdr gun and co-axial MG and hydraulically assisted steering. Designed in 1940 by Vickers the Mk VII is powered by a 148hp Meadows petrol engine for a top speed of 30mph and 125 mile road radius. Armour is 38-6mm thick and three crewmen are carried. 150 were ordered in early 1941 and production was handed to Metropolitan-Cammell.


Alecto (A22): a mobile anti-tank gun with a 6pdr gun mounted low in a Mk VII hull with an open top. Four crewmen are carried and the engine and armour is unchanged. The Alecto II is armed with the new Ordnance 3.7in Mortar QF Mk II (95mm Howitzer) and the Alecto III will be armed with the 25pdr field gun. In early 1941 orders were placed for both the Alecto I and II. The Alecto II will not enter production until 1942.

Crusader I AA Mk II (1941): Twin 20mm Orkileon in enclosed turret with 25-15mm armour and stabilised sights
Crusader I ARV (1941): Modified tank with turret removed, demountable A-frame jib and winch in turret space


Cruiser Tank Mk VII Centaur (A19): Improved Crusader with bigger turret ring (for guns up to 75mm) and new turret and thicker armour with a Thornycroft RY14 500hp engine. Fitted with 6pdr Mk IV with a muzzle brake and 95mm howitzer (mod 3.7in) in the CS variant; designed 1940 by Leyland as interim Cromwell type. Production of 250 Centaur tanks was undertaken by Leyland during 1941-42. Armour is 76-20mm; dimensions 20ft 10ins long, 10ft wide, 8ft 2ins high; battle weight 63,300lbs; maximum speed 30mph and 18mph cross-country and a road radius 165 miles. Fording depth is 3ft; vertical obstacle 3ft and trench crossing 7ft 6ins.

Cruiser Tank Mk VIII Cromwell (A20): Design work begins in 1941 by Leyland and CC&F.


Infantry Tank Mk III Valiant (A24): designed by Vickers in 1941 as an improved Valentine with cast sections, new turret with 95mm howitzer or 6pdr gun, AEC diesel engines in prototypes. Armour is 114-10mm; dimensions 17ft 7ins long, 9ft 3ins wide, 7ft high; battle weight 60,480lbs; maximum speed 18mph and 8mph cross-country and a road radius 85 miles. Fording depth is 3ft; vertical obstacle 2ft 9ins and trench crossing 7ft 6ins.

Ordnance BL 5.5in Gun Mk III, Weight in action is 12,768lbs, shell weight 100lb (there is a lightweight 80lb shell), muzzle velocity is 1,675fps and maximum range is 16,200 yards. The carriage has 60 degrees of traverse and 40 degrees of elevation. Shell types are HE, concrete-piercing, fletchette, smoke and illumination. Under development from 1939 and entry into service planned for 1941.

Ordnance QF 3.7in Mk IV with totally new ancillary equipment, automatic fuze setter and automatic loader.

Ordnance QF 6pdr Mk VII with an improved mounting


Ordnance 17pdr QF Mk II: Calibre 77mm, weight of shot 17lbs (AP, APC, APCBC, HE), muzzle velocity 2,600fps and penetration 131mm at 1000 yards. Weight in action is 2,605lbs; traverse is 90 degrees and elevation -5 to +15 degrees. Under development from May 1940 as a towed version of the Ordnance 17pdr QF Mk I tank gun for RA units. Service entry due late 1941.

.280 Rifle No.5 Mk III; after trials during 1938-39 the Army has chosen the Enfield Lock .280 7mm cartridge and the Vickers Rifle No.5 Mk I. The rifle will be refined and will use the .280 cartridge and will enter production during 1941 as the Rifle No.5 Mk III.

Someone got doodling on how the new Cromwell might look...

.303in Rifle No.2 Mk IV; a conversion of the Lee-Enfield to semi-automatic fire as a private venture. In 1939 to engineers G.T. Buckham and AT Dawson began work on converting Lee-Enfield rifles to semi-auto configuration and Enfield Lock have now developed a finished model. The Rifle No.2 Mk IV is a gas-operated selective fire weapon with an automatic cyclic rate of fire of 250 rpm. Other changes include the addition of a pistol grip on the stock, as well as a foregrip. In addition the butt is modified slightly (lowered to clear the modified action), the rear third of the barrel has new cooling fins, the sights are modified to those of the new Rifle No.5 Mk III and the magazine well altered to accept the 20-round (Vickers ‘K’ and Light Machine Gun No.3 Mk I) boxes but also still able to use the standard Lee-Enfield magazine. The fore-end is shortened to allow more cooling of the barrel and fit the gas operation with the foregrip being attached to the gas tube shroud. Barrel length is also slightly modified and a muzzle brake fitted. A clip-on bipod can be added. The Army has recognised that production on the Rifle No.5 will be slow and therefore wants to convert 1,500 Lee Enfield rifles to semi-automatic fire in the short term. The weapon is available for export as well.

An interesting design.

Does it fire the .303-in rimmed round? From the description I'd think it would but it's not entirely clear.

Bruce, yes it does.

This is the OTL Charlton Machine Gun developed in New Zealand based on the work by Buckham and Dawson by Philip Charlton. It was planned to convert 200 rifles a month but only 1500 were produced during the entire war, mainly becuase the Owen SMG was built instead.

I hope to procure more than the inital 1,500 I've stated here as a 1941 order, I might go as high as 5-8,000 in total but of course I'm committed to the new .280 Rifle No 5 and this is really a way of getting the last "juice" out of the rimmed .303in and the old Lee Enfield.

I hope to introduce this weapon to other Lee Enfield users as a cheap way to get a modern gas-operated auto rifle. By the end of 1941 it might get into all sorts of export markets (the Phillippines and LONAFF forces are two likely candidates in the short-term, Egypt, Iraq, Canada, Australia, possible Ireland too are likely to get a slice of the action too).

Thanks for the clarification; I thought it sounded like something I had read of but forgotten the name of.

It may find a niche market in the Commonwealth and in other British dependencies - however I fear the need to adopt a new cartridge - the .303R - will put off some potential customers.

I'm confused.

OTL, the Charlton was designed as a way to create a production-expedient light machine gun using parts from old Enfields, as the available quantities of Bren guns and Vickers LMGs were restrictive; but Britain doesn't need expedient LMGs since they're not in a war. They especially don't need LMGs that are semiautomatic only. It almost sounds like you're trying to turn the project into a sort of semiautomatic rifle - in which case, the weight of the Charlton makes it an extremely poor option (it's over twice the weight of the Enfield and only six pounds lighter than the Bren Gun).

Perhaps if you were madly attempting to arm colonial/Commonwealth troops to stave off a million screaming Zulus, this would make some more sense; but I fail to see why this project would be pursued in peacetime.

*Goes off to whip up a million screaming Zulus*

Well I do have that other wacky Vickers 'K' semi-auto rifle that you dimissed on the same grounds. That fulfills a support role like the BAR but of course without sacrificing the LMG firepower of the platoon and offering a way of increasing firepower to other units that lack LMGs.

This was more of a way to use some older rifles and make them into more of a useful semi-auto rifle. I had seen it more as a rfile than an LMG but as you say it crosses the boundaries. It might make some export use anyway...

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
Well I do have that other wacky Vickers 'K' semi-auto rifle that you dimissed on the same grounds.

Uh.... I don't remember that?

To jog your memory;
".303in Vickers Light Machine Gun No.3 Mk I, based on the Vickers-Berthier Light Machine Gun No.2 Mk I this is another squad-level support weapon. By 1935 foreign armies had begun to develop semi-automatic rifles and the War Office felt the need to look into a British version of the BAR concept. The Light Machine Gun No.3 Mk I has a lighter stock, new grip, shorter barrel, the bipod and carrying handle were removed, simpler sights fitted and the breach-block has been altered to load vertically from below and is used with new 20 round boxes. It weighs 20.5lbs, is 40ins long, muzzle velocity is 2,450ft per sec and rate of fire, cyclic, is 450-600rpm. Both single shot and automatic fire can be selected. This weapon will replace one rifle in every infantry squad and mortar and anti-tank crew complement from 1937."

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
To jog your memory;
".303in Vickers Light Machine Gun No.3 Mk I, based on the Vickers-Berthier Light Machine Gun No.2 Mk I this is another squad-level support weapon. By 1935 foreign armies had begun to develop semi-automatic rifles and the War Office felt the need to look into a British version of the BAR concept. The Light Machine Gun No.3 Mk I has a lighter stock, new grip, shorter barrel, the bipod and carrying handle were removed, simpler sights fitted and the breach-block has been altered to load vertically from below and is used with new 20 round boxes. It weighs 20.5lbs, is 40ins long, muzzle velocity is 2,450ft per sec and rate of fire, cyclic, is 450-600rpm. Both single shot and automatic fire can be selected. This weapon will replace one rifle in every infantry squad and mortar and anti-tank crew complement from 1937."

Ah, I was able to find the the original post. I actually didn't respond to that at all, it appears, which is why I don't remember 'dismissing it'. Link.

Still, now that I know about that LMG, I kinda feel even more that the Charlton really doesn't make sense in peacetime. There's no new capabilities it introduces and the industry expedient nature is not really a factor since these guns won't last very long anyway - as I understand it, you're just going to use them until more semiauto rifles and LMGs get into service in a few years, so you're still procuring the newer weapons eventually. Wouldn't it make more sense to use the money to help along the production of more regular semiauto rifles or regular LMGs, rather than spending a dribble on a substandard conversion?

That said, if you still want to make it, I expect you could probably get some sales to Iraq and Egypt since they'd love to save some money; but they might be pretty cross when they have to spend that money again in five years to by a Vickers as a replacement. As for the Irish, I've already got the Breire in service, and I think that's a much better choice than the Vickers-Berthier, Vickers LMG, or Charlton LMG... so Ireland's not really interested, thanks.

I was looking at the British Army order of battle in the encyclopedia and noticed two 21st East Africa Infantry Brigades. I know is a copy paste error but I would not like for the British Empire either to leave their East African territories unprotected or have an understrength commitment to the protection of Baluchistan if compared with the Indian presence in Baluchistan. or perhaps is just propaganda and that is what happen, East Africa is ripe for the taking.

With Britain its a dare....

Damn he's found my nefarious Clone Army!

...nah, it's just a cut 'n' paste error.

Brigades rotate through Baluchistan and during 1941 the 21st East African will be in both places during the year with a 9 month deployment to Baluchistan. It will retain an organsation in East Africa for local recruitment and training etc. A suitable replacement will be sent to the region from Britain or maybe another part of Africa.

A good excuse to raise the two African Divisions. One Brigade fully ready for deployment in East and West Africa with the other Brigade at cadre level. Then they could rotate; for example sent the West African Brigade, followed by the other East African Brigade and in succession.

You're right, both will eventually become full divisions, probably before 1943.

Africa is odd in WW, there are a lot more European colonies in some areas and vast areas are under the Kongo/ SAE control bloc. SAE and Kongo don't seem threatening so far so there's no call for massive armies to defend what we have there. The terrian and climate alone makes invasions difficult.
Kongo and SAE probably tend to make things more stable than OTL and in WW Africa is the quietest and most stable continent in WW (apart from Antarctica).

9mm Machine Carbine No.2 (Sten); designed by Major R.V Shepherd and H.J. Turpin at Enfield Lock whose names gave the weapon the name Sten. It has been designed for cheap mass production and ease of use. The basic Mk I is made up of a steel-tube body and steel tube butt with a flat buttplate. The barrel is also a steel tube with either two or six rifled groves and the whole gun is held together by welds, pins and bolts. The trigger mechanism is covered by a steel box. The magazine holds 32 rounds and fits into the left side of the gun. When the magazine is removed the housing can be swung downward to prevent dirt ingress. The barrel can be unscrewed for cleaning. It can fire either British 9mm rounds or 9mm Parabellum (Mk IP).
The Mark II intended for British Army use has some refinements; a wooden butt, pistol grip, bayonet fitting and the foresight from the Rifle No.3 Mk I. The Sten is 30in long, weighs 8.16lbs, rate of fire (cyclic) is 550 rpm and muzzle velocity is 1,200 ft/sec.

This is a most interesting development.

Heretofore the British Army appears to have looked on the submachinegun as a rare specialist weapon. By developing a 'mass-market' weapon, I wonder if this signals that the British Army will field such weapons in large quantities, alongside its new Rifle No.5, or whether the weapon is aimed at colonial forces and the export market?

The Sten is designed for the export market and colonial use. The Mk I is the basic wartime Sten we all know but of better overall finish and qaulity but still being a basic and hardy weapon. This is the main export model, cheap 'n' cheerful.
The Mk II is the OTL Mk.V and has all the trimmings to please the Army. I see around 250,000 being purchased for the Army, there are so many roles where troops need guns but rifles aren't the answer, nor are the cumbersome attempts at making auto-rifles from LMGs and the new .280 Rifile No.5 is going to take time to get in qaunity. The Sten is easy to stow too inside tanks etc, also it'll do well in jungle work.

Aside from that I can think of no reason why I should hold back on introducing it any longer.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
It can fire either British 9mm rounds or 9mm Parabellum (Mk IP).

What's "British 9mm" if it's not 9mm Luger/Parabellum? Ahistoric cartridge?