Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Something in back of my mind keeps signaling track width with UK and German tanks.

I know that British tanks were designed to be able to go on rail transport with the minimum of fuss, which was a big drawback when they designed the Churchill tank, as it was too narrow or something like that.

its a advantage for rapid deployment and transportation. Tanks wear out tracks quickly so making them easy to use rail networks was a useful ability

 George Spiggott wrote:
Liddel-Hart's mention in Achtung Panzer was supposedly put there as a favour by Guderian. Fuller was a crank and a fascist who was sufficiently politically suspect during WWII that he wasn't brought back into the army. It's not surprising that his role has been diminished.

If I remember correctly, Liddel-Hart was the one who interviewed Guderian after the war. The man was stone broke because Germany wasn't paying pensions to "Nazis". So Liddell-Hart paid him well to basically say it was all his idea.

It was the TIger Tank that was too wide for a standard rail wagon and had to have special narrow tracks fitted to be driven on to wagons for long distance rail movement. This also required the crew to remove the outer layer of road wheels.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Something in back of my mind keeps signaling track width with UK and German tanks.

I know that British tanks were designed to be able to go on rail transport with the minimum of fuss, which was a big drawback when they designed the Churchill tank, as it was too narrow or something like that.

its a advantage for rapid deployment and transportation. Tanks wear out tracks quickly so making them easy to use rail networks was a useful ability

I think it was something to do with the turret ring being too narrow as a result of the Churchill being designed for rail transport, and it made it hard to mount the 6 pdr or something.

I need somebody who knows more about British tanks than me!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It was the TIger Tank that was too wide for a standard rail wagon and had to have special narrow tracks fitted to be driven on to wagons for long distance rail movement. This also required the crew to remove the outer layer of road wheels.

It was also too wide for Belgian bridges as well!

I once watched a good documentary about restoring a tiger tank - what a mechanical nightmare. Hell, it made British Leyland look good

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Thailand drives on the left, like the UK and Japan, so it made sense to buy British tanks.

The basic format of the tank is the same as the early Renault. The reason why the British didn't build turretted tanks in WW1 was that they needed to reserve their turret ring manufacturing capacity for naval use.

1. Right hand driver seat is one reason, but not the biggest. By the 1930, The Vickers 6 ton mark E is one of a few tanks in the world market ... actually with Germany arms exports banned after the end of WW1. Brits and the French rushed the gap left behind by the defeated competitors. In the weapons market of early 1930s, Only Brits, French and the United States were big exporters,.... yet by then there were not many tank productions in the U.S.... in fact there were no real reasons to reactivate tank program, but the Japanese colonial wars against the RoC will be a wakeup call. .... so only small arms and MGs were exported from there. Thus the choices fell to either French or British armor choices.

By 1930s , The french only offered FT-17s and rubber track upgraded versions... the NC. AFAIK no heavier kins available outside domestic uses. The British did somehow sells medium tanks (to Japan... in small numbers), and 'Heavy prototypes' (to Soviets), for many countries. heavier tanks were too expensive to buy or build, and the infrastructures weren't readily support the heavier kins so the 6-tons were bought
2.

The Germans managed to sell some Panzer Is and a bunch of other equipment to the Chinese (Nationalists). Some of it ended up in the hands of the Japanese.

The Churchill problem was getting a 17pdr onto the narrow chassis/turret ring. It was finally solved by widening the hull for the Black Prince variant.

17 pounder, now that's a decent gun, it was very hard to fit on a firefly Sherman. Required alot of modification to point it was a new model gun of the same calibre. Changed recoil, side mounted, turret modifications, moved radio box, then changes to let the massive rounds be loaded...

That would of been a good tank

Fun tank fact: British tanks of WW2 were fitted with machine-guns that fired standard German 7.92mm ammunition. This was because the design was licenced from a Czech company, like the Bren gun, but it was considered too difficult to redesign it to work with standard British ammunition. However, since the Royal Tank Corps had a separate supply chain to the rest of the army, it was not too much of a logistical problem to supply the German type of rounds.

Another fun fact..

Some British tanks had a two pounder armour piercing gun during the Africa campaign that could pierce the armour of the German tanks.

However they never actually gave these tanks many anti tank rounds, many of them were actually used for firing smoke.

 George Spiggott wrote:
The Germans managed to sell some Panzer Is and a bunch of other equipment to the Chinese (Nationalists). Some of it ended up in the hands of the Japanese.

The Churchill problem was getting a 17pdr onto the narrow chassis/turret ring. It was finally solved by widening the hull for the Black Prince variant.

Got it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_I

Between 1935 and 1936, an export version of the Panzer I Ausf. B, named the L.K.B. (Leichte Kampfwagen B), was designed for export to Bulgaria. Modifications included up-gunning to a 20-millimeter gun and fitting a Krupp M 311 V-8 gasoline engine. Although three examples were built, none were exported to Bulgaria, although a single Panzer I Ausf. A had previously been sold. In 1937, around ten Ausf. As were sold to China during a period of Sino-German cooperation until 1941, which were used in the Battle of Nanjing by the 3rd Armored Battalion of the Chinese Nationalist Army to fight against the Japanese Imperial Army.

^ Yet by the 1929-1930. Germany wasn't rearm itself yet. Nazis did not come to power until sometimes later so by then Weimar Republic still respected the Treaty of Versailles. With that treaty was still in effect, Germany may not enter weapons markets. leaving French and British weapons avaiable options in the market.
Personally many aspiring nations with strong militarism mentality are eager to acquire most modern weapons once the government can affort these. Especially the success of British Rhomboid tanks in WW1 sparked the interests in this new weapons, especially the active participants. While many new nations or revolutionary governments (as in case of the Bolshevicks, which created Soviets after winning the civil war) bought (or loot) these weapons before the end of 1910s decade. Lesser or non-industrial nations only get tanks once they were able to buy one, or the required transportation infrastructures were met, or the national military buildup plans were met.. In case of Siam. I beleved that the reasons we didn't buy any tanks BEFORE Vickers began to market Carden Loyd Mk IV because while the WW1 opened up myriads of military upgrading options. Navy and Aerial powers got the first priorities.... The French gunboat diplomacy in 1887 (can't remember which year) was still a fresh memory where Coastal Batteries armed with Armstrong Dissappearing guns failed to stop French fleet. So the strategists focus were put on strenghtening navy.. even submarines were considered very early. While the conflicts were expected to occur on land and sea (and air), the Siamese believed that the land warfare will involves the French uses of Colonial troops. the aim for the land warfare was to take out French (white) officiers and the rests will fall--which means less challenge... even if the French employed tanks, they firmly believed that their arty pieces of various sizes (especially 5cm Krupp mountain guns) can handle these (and the Air Force will be useful against this opponent, By then no one thins of Tanks VS tanks as a primary combat scenarios I think). The naval warfare however, were expected that the French will sail their dreadnoughs all the way from Europe... not just rely on colonial fleets which also employed heavy warships) and the best bet were that the sizable modern, up to date navy (using British or Japanese-made ships, of course!), and the existence of air force were prioritized. At that time aircrafts were made of wooden hull and ply wings. so aircrafts can be domestically produced (actually assembled--because engines, gears, steering shafts, guns.. and other metal parts were needed to be imported) and many countries at that time raised their Air Forces this way, The armored units were initially raised in similar ways... Armored cars were made simply by improvising either cars or (preferrably) trucks--crafting turret rings or MG mounts and adding steel platings and here ya go. (the very first armored cars in Siam were actually improvised cars made domestically, same went to other nations as well, the armored vehicle imports weren made until late 1920s). so by then the Army only got Adrian helmet and MGs (originally Browning M1917 made to fire 8X52mm rounds, and Madsen LMGs) and some decent cannons. Navy got most funding because warships had to be imported entirely. (the Royal Siamese Navy preferred Anti-Battleship tactics so any fast ships with big firepowers (Usually cruisers) were considered first.. some of the best ships were bought by the massive fundraisings where regular budgets did not cover the ship prices.). By then Soviets did buy additional FT17s from France (adding to the looted ones), and a handful of multiturret tank from Britain , Renault also exported the FT-17 upgrades (or upgraded FT-17)... to Yugoslavia and Poland, The Japs constantly bought a handful of British tanks to reverse engineer.... P'rhaps maybe these early 1920s tanks were more expensive than Vicekers exports of the late 1920s, yet inferior.

Yet by the 1929-1930. Germany wasn't rearm itself yet. Nazis did not come to power until sometimes later so by then Weimar Republic still respected the Treaty of Versailles. With that treaty was still in effect, Germany may not enter weapons markets. leaving French and British weapons avaiable options in the market.

Another fun fact. Vickers had to pay royalties to Krupp as they were using their patents to manufacture shells. This was suspended during WW1 as you can't pay directly to support the enemy in wartime, but afterwards there were legal actions over the next decade by Krupp to recover this and they eventually settled for some tens of thousands - that would have helped germany rearm for WW2.