British Army of the Rhine alternatives

[Yellow Palace]

It is generally a very good idea for any country to be able to make all their defense items in house. To the point that even the WTO doesn't consider it protectionism for buying your-country defense goods as long as the your-country goods are less than 50% more expensive than the international offer.

Generally a good idea - but when expecting the Red Horde to come pouring across the North German Plain, one starts asking whether it might be better to buy in less expensive equipment from the United States, so that one might afford more of it. There's no easy answer to that question.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 97 about This is the "tube artillery" of BAOR in July 1989 according to @OldBill17's PDF.

This is the "tube artillery" of BAOR in according to the first edition of "The Modern British Army" by Terry Gander, which was published in October 1980.

Artillery Division - 12 M107 as follows:

12 M107 - 5 Heavy Regiment, RA​

1st Armoured Division - 3 M110, 12 M109 and 24 Abbot as follows:

3 M110 & 12 M109 - 45 Field Regiment, RA​

24 Abbot - 49 Field Regiment, RA​

2nd Armoured Division - 3 M110, 12 M109 and 24 Abbot as follows:

3 M110 & 12 M109 - 27 Field Regiment, RA​

24 Abbot - 47 Field Regiment, RA​

3rd Armoured Division - 3 M110, 12 M109 and 24 Abbot as follows:

3 M110 & 12 M109 - 26 Field Regiment, RA​

24 Abbot - 19 Field Regiment, RA​

4th Armoured Division - 3 M110, 12 M109 and 24 Abbot as follows:

3 M110 & 12 M109 - 39 Field Regiment, RA​

24 Abbot - 25 Field Regiment, RA​

5th Field Force - 18 FH70 and 18 5.5in as follows:

18 FH70 - 7 Field Regiment, RHA​

18 Five-point-five-inch - 100 Field Regiment (V), RA or 101 Field Regiment (V), RA​

7th Field Force - 18 FH70 and 18 5.5in as follows:

18 FH70 - 40 Field Regiment, RA​

18 Five-point-five-inch - 100 Field Regiment (V), RA or 101 Field Regiment (V), RA​

Total 240 tube artillery pieces in 13 regiments as follows:

12 M110 in 4 batteries of 3 guns - one battery attached to each of the 4 M109 regiments.​

12 M107 in 1 regiment of 12 guns​

48 M109 in 4 regiments of 12 guns​

96 Abbot in 4 regiments of 24 guns​

36 FH70 in 2 regiments of 18 guns​

36 Five-point-five-inch in 2 regiments of 18 guns, which were to re-equip with the 105mm Light Gun​

However, by July 1989 there was a total 312 tube artillery pieces in 15 regiments as follows:

12 M110 in one regiments of 12 guns.​

24 M107 in 2 regiments of 12 guns​

96 M109 in 4 regiments of 24 guns​

96 Abbot in 4 regiments of 24 guns​

36 FH70 in 2 regiments of 18 guns​

48 L118 Light Gun in - 2 regiments of 24 guns​

See Post 97 for more details.

There had been an increase of 72 guns and 2 regiments as follows:

• The number of M110s was the same. However, in 1980 they were distributed amongst the armoured divisions and in 1989 they were consolidated into a regiment in the artillery brigade.
• The number of M107s had been doubled from 12 guns in one regiment to 24 guns in 2 regiments.
• The number of M109s had been doubled from 48 guns in 4 regiments to 96 guns in 4 regiments. However, the number of guns per battery was increased from 6 to 8 so the number of batteries was only increased from 8 to 12.
• The number of Abbots was the same, i.e. 96 guns in 4 regiments. However, there were four 6-gun batteries per regiment in 1980 and three 8-gun batteries per regiment in 1989.
• The number of FH70s hadn't changed and how they were organised hadn't changed. That is, there were 2 regiments of 18 guns in 1980 & 1989 and each regiment had 3 batteries of 6 guns in 1980 & 1989.
• 36 Five-point-five-inch in the 2 TA regiments had been replaced 48 105mm Light Guns. Each regiment still had 3 batteries, but the number of guns per battery had been increased from 6 to 8.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Generally a good idea - but when expecting the Red Horde to come pouring across the North German Plain, one starts asking whether it might be better to buy in less expensive equipment from the United States, so that one might afford more of it. There's no easy answer to that question.

Yes, that's a complication.

Originally, NATO was all supposed to use the exact same equipment. Everyone use the same rifle, same tank, same APC, etc ad nauseam. That didn't survive against the desire to keep the various national armories and tank factories going, so it went to "everyone use the same ammunition." Of course, that also took a hit when LtCol Rene Studler, US Army Ordnance Branch, refused to accept the .280 British caliber and the EM2 rifle, or any caliber less than .30 for that matter.

(deleted at request)

 

[Apophenia]

Is this "Next-Gen" FV43x built instead of the CVR(T) family of vehicles? In which case would there have been a tank version in place of Scorpion and Scimitar? Was your FV43x-based-IFV inspired by the FV432s that were fitted with RARDEN turrets taken from Fox scout cars?

No, not instead of the CVR(T)s. One exception would be the FV103 Spartan which had dubious utility as an APC. That would be more obvious with the arrival of the FV43x IFV (aka Mechanised Combat Vehicle) which carried the same or more dismounts while armed with a 30 mm gun.

FV101 Scorpion and FV107 Scimitar would still have a role as recce vehicles. The MCV role was more about accompanying MBTs and providing fire support to dismounts whose key role, in turn, was countering ATGM (and other AT) teams. Obviously, both FV107 and the FV43x IFV would use their L21s to tackle WarPac light armour.

The FV43x IFV would be a response to the Soviet BMP-1. The concept could be trialled with FV433 Abbot hulls temporarily fitted with FV101 Scorpion turrets. (In effect, pushing the MCV-80 concept back to c.1969-70.) Production vehicles would have a purpose-built hull and be powered by a Perkins V8 turbo-diesel. 3 x crew, + 6 x dismounts. (Were Canada to be involved, dismounts would drop to x 4 - to accommodate winter gear on either side of the turret basket.)

I know that 'user art' is frowned upon here but I'm including an image to get the key points across (Mods, please delete if deemed inappropriate). This 'MCV-69' mounts a modified Alvis turret and is fitted with external long-range diesel tanks. This would be an early production model with hullside firing points. I would imagine these being eclipsed by better armour protection in the second tranche.

 

[Apophenia]

I'm somewhat nonplussed by your statement, because I don't see why the UK having its WW2 load debt forgiven, would have made building more US military equipment under licence much more acceptable to those 'in the British Isles'.

For what it's worth my understanding (which may be completely wrong) is that the US loaned that money to the UK on rather generous terms. That is they charged a lower than normal rate of interest and allowed a repayment period that was longer than normal...

Quite so. But my footnote shouldn't be taken in isolation. I was not not arguing that US wartime loans should have been forgiven or that their terms were anything but generous. Rather, that all outstanding government debts need to be factored into the dire economic conditions that the UK found itself in 1976 (and, yeah, I know it gets worse later).

Nor am I suggesting that Britain didn't benefit from the Marshall Plan (to which I would add the forgiving of wartime loans from Canada). I am simply noting again that there is a direct connection between national debt levels and willingness to purchase foreign military goods (outright or licensed).

 

[Apophenia]

I disagree, because the FV430 family and Stalwart were purchased in an era when Blue Streak, Blue Water, P.1154 and TSR.2 were cancelled in favour of missiles and aircraft purchased directly from the USA. [...]

However, the USA might not allow the UK to sell 68 M108s to India ...

Disagree, by all means, but the fact that multiple British programmes had already be cancelled in favour of direct purchases from the US doesn't necessarily argue in your favour. Those direct purchases could just as easily be presented as an argument against further foreign procurements ... including licensings.

On the reselling of M108s, you've put your finger on a key downside to foreign purchases and the licensing of military goods. As has been discovered by multiple NATO countries wanting to donate equipment to Ukraine, your options as a sovereign state have been compromised by such purchases. Your government's freedom to sell, transfer, and - in some cases - even to scrap bought or licensed equipment will be decided in a foreign capital.

 

[alertken]

OO FLUNG DUNG. Q: Tubes: what did they fling? A: In BAOR, 12/8/60-15/6/92 some could fling AW.

POTUS Ike decided that if NATO was to grow mushrooms on the Central Front the locals better share the work, inc 500,000 W.German soldiers, who would frighten us all if they held AW. So 25/3/57 he worked out with UK the AW dual key Command and Control concept (for Thor and gravity Bombs), extended that to other NATO Allies (Turkey for Honest John was next*), and (started work, bequeathed to his successor, to be) Heidelberg Agreements (UK's 30/8/61) settled a remarkable arrangement that (I think) was never matched in WarPac. USArmy Munitions Custodials would be embedded in AW-capable Allied Units, under alien Command (though ultimately SACEUR) as fighting soldiers, under POTUS Command for AW Release Authority. (I do not know the post-Release disposition of USAF Custodials on Allied airfields).

I have BAOR M!/M115/W33, 12/8/60-1/11/72; (M109 briefly from 2/67, then) M109A/1/2/3/W48, 1971-15/6/92; M110/W33, 4/72-'87.
NATO NPG 10/83 Arms Limitation Montebello Decision was to reduce field AW, so by '87 MADMs and M110/AW were gone, M109A/AW down to 1AD/40 Fd R alone. I have seen suggestions that inventory was one load plus one reload per gun, held in USAREUR sites near each Kaserne and under USArmy/Ally joint guard v SPETSNAZ. A website shows some in use today as Nature Reserves and playing fields.

(* amended 7/2/24: W-7/HJ: Italy1/3/59; Turk/HJ 29/7/59).

 

[Scott Kenny]

OO FLUNG DUNG. Q: Tubes: what did they fling? A: In BAOR, 12/8/60-15/6/92 some could fling AW.

POTUS Ike decided that if NATO was to grow mushrooms on the Central Front the locals better share the work, inc 500,000 W.German soldiers, who would frighten us all if they held AW. So 25/3/57 he worked out with UK the AW dual key Command and Control concept (for Thor and gravity Bombs), extended that to other NATO Allies (Turkey for Honest John was next), and (started work, bequeathed to his successor, to be) Heidelberg Agreements (UK's 30/8/61) settled a remarkable arrangement that (I think) was never matched in WarPac. USArmy Munitions Custodials would be embedded in AW-capable Allied Units, under alien Command (though ultimately SACEUR) as fighting soldiers, under POTUS Command for AW Release Authority. (I do not know the post-Release disposition of USAF Custodials on Allied airfields).

I have BAOR M!/M115/W33, 12/8/60-1/11/72; (M109 briefly from 2/67, then) M109A/1/2/3/W48, 1971-15/6/92; M110/W33, 4/72-'87.
NATO NPG 10/83 Arms Limitation Montebello Decision was to reduce field AW, so by '87 MADMs and M110/AW were gone, M109A/AW down to 1AD/40 Fd R alone. I have seen suggestions that inventory was one load plus one reload per gun, held in USAREUR sites near each Kaserne and under USArmy/Ally joint guard v SPETSNAZ. A website shows some in use today as Nature Reserves and playing fields.

I would be very surprised if there was much more than that. Soon as arty starts throwing tacnukes around, their target priority goes from "high" to "delete them right TF NOW".

So you probably have just enough time to fire a second tacnuke before your grid square gets deleted.

 

[Hood]

I'm generally pessimistic about scenarios that hand over lock-stock-and-barrel the production to a foreign supplier, whether its licence-built or not.
Generally such deals are only worthwhile if you have access to IP and re-export rights. The best deals are where you can adapt and develop - see Sea King/Commando out of SH-3 or RB-57 out of Canberra.

Saying that I wouldn't give two figs about 68 Abbots or any alternative to India. 68 vehicles is a non-order really, a couple of million. And I suspect - like most Indian purchases - the UK govt actually put up the credit to buy them in the first place so you're not really making any money out of it.

M113 is basically an armoured box on tracks. FV432 is an armoured box on tracks. There is no reason why - given the Universal-Oxford-Cambridge-FV420 lineage that Britain could not build the FV432. There is fundamentally nothing wrong with the FV432 - beyond its original engine.
Yes the M113 chassis went on to greater utilisation but then the US MIC throws up more vehicles and opportunities. The FV430 chassis threw up less developments, which is a surprise given all the focus on chassis from the FV200 Universal Tank and FV300 Light Tank onwards.

I would say that overall the FV300 chassis was the missed opportunity but there was muddle. FV200 proved too big and its various chassis plans for SPGs and APCs never got off the ground. FV300 was too small for its planned SPGs and Instead Centurion was looked at for SPGs etc. but most of those never got built either.
Then came along Cambridge-FV420 and the load lugger/APCs continued on that lineage and all the FV200/FV300 APCs were history.
Not until CVT(R) did a true family of variants emerge - and as been pointed out, Spartan was too small and probably the chassis was too small and Stormer never really got off the ground.

My AU would:
1) Make Centurion the 'Universal' sooner and get the SPGs on that chassis.
2) Limit FV200 to a heavy tank
3) Get FV300 working, could have had FV300 scout tanks years before Saladin is ready, get the FV300 APC and cut out all the warmed-up top-loader Bren Carrier 2.0s (Uxbridge)
4) Get Alvis to get a move on FV600, nearly a decade lost tinkering around - get bloody moving! Get an engine.
5) 1960s - get CVT(L) - OTL Scoprion chassis - and CVT(H) - OTL Stormer - for a new range of tanks and APCs and other armoured little boxes on the hillside
6) "Get tha' 'sen some V-8 power in the Chiefy lad"
7) Buy M-109s and 110s - no point pissing about with 105mm lightweights
8) Get FV2111 operational, stop waiting about for Arab oil money and build it, could have a Chally 1-esque MBT by 1979
9) Develop a proper IFV, use Fox or Scimitar turrets, use off the shelf parts, use the V-8
10) New wheeled to replace Pigs, Ferrets and FV600 - I'd actually consider licence-building VAB or maybe MOWAG, plenty of wheeled kit on the market (no point poncing about with Shorland Land Rovers or truck-based Saxons).

I know that 'user art' is frowned upon here but I'm including an image to get the key points across (Mods, please delete if deemed inappropriate). This 'MCV-69' mounts a modified Alvis turret and is fitted with external long-range diesel tanks. This would be an early production model with hullside firing points. I would imagine these being eclipsed by better armour protection in the second tranche.

I like that a lot - it looks very good to me.

 

[Apophenia]

...
My AU would:
1) Make Centurion the 'Universal' sooner and get the SPGs on that chassis.
2) Limit FV200 to a heavy tank
3) Get FV300 working, could have had FV300 scout tanks years before Saladin is ready, get the FV300 APC and cut out all the warmed-up top-loader Bren Carrier 2.0s (Uxbridge)
4) Get Alvis to get a move on FV600, nearly a decade lost tinkering around - get bloody moving! Get an engine.
5) 1960s - get CVT(L) - OTL Scoprion chassis - and CVT(H) - OTL Stormer - for a new range of tanks and APCs and other armoured little boxes on the hillside
6) "Get tha' 'sen some V-8 power in the Chiefy lad"
7) Buy M-109s and 110s - no point pissing about with 105mm lightweights
8) Get FV2111 operational, stop waiting about for Arab oil money and build it, could have a Chally 1-esque MBT by 1979
9) Develop a proper IFV, use Fox or Scimitar turrets, use off the shelf parts, use the V-8
10) New wheeled to replace Pigs, Ferrets and FV600 - I'd actually consider licence-building VAB or maybe MOWAG, plenty of wheeled kit on the market (no point poncing about with Shorland Land Rovers or truck-based Saxons).

Nice! And now, the queries and inevitable oar-stickings-in ...

1) And work at a diesel powerplant? (from a chastened Napiers, perhaps?)
2) Just because of FV201 weight, probably need a few FV209 ARVs as well
3) So, ditching FV304 25 pdr & moving FV305 5.5 inch to Cent?
4) Is it true that Malaya shifted development emphasis from FV601B to FV603?
5) Do you mean 4 x dismount APCs like the RW FV103?
6) Eee, tha's reet grand, lad!
7) I'll agree to disagree
8) What was FV2111? (was it related to FV2181 Tank, Combat?)
9) Yass!
10) Agreed, give Landies/trucks to police, 'Anglo-VABs' to the military

 

[Elan Vital]

I would say that overall the FV300 chassis was the missed opportunity but there was muddle. FV300 was too small for its planned SPGs and Instead Centurion was looked at for SPGs etc. but most of those never got built either.
Then came along Cambridge-FV420 and the load lugger/APCs continued on that lineage and all the FV200/FV300 APCs were history.


My AU would:
1) Make Centurion the 'Universal' sooner and get the SPGs on that chassis.

3) Get FV300 working, could have had FV300 scout tanks years before Saladin is ready, get the FV300 APC and cut out all the warmed-up top-loader Bren Carrier 2.0s (Uxbridge)

8) Get FV2111 operational, stop waiting about for Arab oil money and build it, could have a Chally 1-esque MBT by 1979

FV 300 is quite strange as its 20-ton class chassis and 530hp 18L Meteorite (when fuel-injected) seems like a pretty close analogue to the 25-ton class chassis the French and Americans intended for heavy special vehicles like 155mm and 203mm SPHs. I am rather surprised that the British wasted that to carry a 25pdr gun. IMO Centurion is too heavy, big and expensive for that role, and the FV300 chassis is overkill for the APC work and would have had the same cost issues as American APCs built around 400-500hp engines.

Alternatively, I'd really just meet the early postwar SPH requirements with derivatives or even direct conversions of Cromwells and Comets as originally envisionned. The FV300 still isn't enough of an improvement in this regard IMO, though I believe it is justified because its light tank variant can neatly compete with the American M41 and allow Britain exports of a tank that is light enough for countries that can't operate Centurions.

I agree that the UK was far too indecisive regarding its Chieftain replacement and I know for certain it had the technology to do as well and indeed better than Chally 1 before its actual introduction. The FV4211 in its original state however is the wrong solution as it still is a completely new hull and turret but retains too many Chieftain parts (suspension and engine). The "desired" FV4211 configuration with a CV12, hydrogas, 110mm gun and improved FCS should be the baseline but luckily the decision to start doing that could have been taken in 1968 when MVEE suggested the development of a new V12 engine.

The rest is otherwise fine.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm generally pessimistic about scenarios that hand over lock-stock-and-barrel the production to a foreign supplier, whether its licence-built or not.
Generally such deals are only worthwhile if you have access to IP and re-export rights. The best deals are where you can adapt and develop - see Sea King/Commando out of SH-3 or RB-57 out of Canberra.

Yes, that's why the WTO doesn't call it illegal protectionism to take a domestic defense contract, even if it's just short of 50% greater cost than the international offer. (50% greater is the dividing line in the treaties)

Not least because it keeps locals working, and paying taxes, and generally dumping money into the economy.

But license-built M113s with significantly better engines than the FV432s is a general improvement. As would be license-built M109s.

 

[Hood]

1) And work at a diesel powerplant? (from a chastened Napiers, perhaps?)
2) Just because of FV201 weight, probably need a few FV209 ARVs as well
3) So, ditching FV304 25 pdr & moving FV305 5.5 inch to Cent?
4) Is it true that Malaya shifted development emphasis from FV601B to FV603?
5) Do you mean 4 x dismount APCs like the RW FV103?
6) Eee, tha's reet grand, lad!
7) I'll agree to disagree
8) What was FV2111? (was it related to FV2181 Tank, Combat?)
9) Yass!
10) Agreed, give Landies/trucks to police, 'Anglo-VABs' to the military

1) Maybe, hadn't really given it much thought but it would be a good idea
2) Yes a few 209s, I'm no big fan of the FV200 series, it just a case of keeping a few around to keep up with T-10s
3) In effect yes
4) Not sure, would have to dig into that.
5) My CVT(L) would be the turret tanks, Striker, possibly a few of the other specialists with everything else needing more internal space in the larger Stormer chassis
8) Sorry I meant FV4211 - all these numbers blend into one eventually!

FV 300 is quite strange as its 20-ton class chassis and 530hp 18L Meteorite (when fuel-injected) seems like a pretty close analogue to the 25-ton class chassis the French and Americans intended for heavy special vehicles like 155mm and 203mm SPHs. I am rather surprised that the British wasted that to carry a 25pdr gun. IMO Centurion is too heavy, big and expensive for that role, and the FV300 chassis is overkill for the APC work and would have had the same cost issues as American APCs built around 400-500hp engines.

True, being a 1945 chassis its not really tuned for post-war needs and is probably not well defined for all the tasks asked of it.

Alternatively, I'd really just meet the early postwar SPH requirements with derivatives or even direct conversions of Cromwells and Comets as originally envisionned. The FV300 still isn't enough of an improvement in this regard IMO, though I believe it is justified because its light tank variant can neatly compete with the American M41 and allow Britain exports of a tank that is light enough for countries that can't operate Centurions.

Linked to the above answer, I don't know enough about artillery projects in this era but it feels to me that relying on pre-war 25pdr and 5.5in was probably not the way to go. Beyond the 105mm OTO pack howitzer and then the home-grown 105mm light gun it feels to me that British artillery design more or less petered out post 1940 with tweaks to existing guns. This is why I feel ultimately just buying M109 and M110 makes sense as it covers the larger calibres.
The wisdom of designing a highly mobile piece of field artillery and then deciding to mount it on a vehicle anyway feels wasteful to me. Few other nations bothered to mount 105mm onto SPGs post the early 1950s, and if you really wanted to do it I am sure there are cheaper options.

The FV300 was a powerful light tank, Comet armament on a pocket hull. It could have picked up some sales I think - especially places like Switzerland, Sweden and Austria (post-55).

The FV4211 in its original state however is the wrong solution as it still is a completely new hull and turret but retains too many Chieftain parts (suspension and engine). The "desired" FV4211 configuration with a CV12, hydrogas, 110mm gun and improved FCS should be the baseline but luckily the decision to start doing that could have been taken in 1968 when MVEE suggested the development of a new V12 engine.

I agree the basic 4211 wasn't the real deal, but was always a tech demonstrator. But it showed the way to go. It feels like turning over most of the UK's tank manufacturing capacity to fulfil the Shah's dream wishlists was not the smartest idea. We eventually got Chally 1 out of it, but it feels like had the Shah not been around or hadn't ordered Shir 2 then the British Army would have been more or less stuck with Chieftain until after the Berlin Wall came down - I honestly don't believe the Thatcher government wouldn't have funded MBT-80 to fruition.
I'm in two minds about the 110mm gun, I think the way things turned out (L30A1) was probably the better end result perhaps.

 

[Elan Vital]

Linked to the above answer, I don't know enough about artillery projects in this era but it feels to me that relying on pre-war 25pdr and 5.5in was probably not the way to go. Beyond the 105mm OTO pack howitzer and then the home-grown 105mm light gun it feels to me that British artillery design more or less petered out post 1940 with tweaks to existing guns. This is why I feel ultimately just buying M109 and M110 makes sense as it covers the larger calibres.
The wisdom of designing a highly mobile piece of field artillery and then deciding to mount it on a vehicle anyway feels wasteful to me. Few other nations bothered to mount 105mm onto SPGs post the early 1950s, and if you really wanted to do it I am sure there are cheaper options.

Yeah. Light guns really only have a value for applications where manual handling or airtransportable applications impose a weight well below that of 155mm pieces. Even then heavy mortars have shown to be competitive with some 105mm systems. Self-propelled light guns might at best be useful for big helicopters or very small transport planes (below C-130). Otherwise M109 shows 155mm systems can be light enough to fill the bill and for infantry divisions, towed 155 doesn't seem to have been too problematic.

The FV300 was a powerful light tank, Comet armament on a pocket hull. It could have picked up some sales I think - especially places like Switzerland, Sweden and Austria (post-55).

Yes. I think its value is that it probably wouldn't have many of the ergonomic and maintenance/reliability issues of AMX-13s, and it has a few advantages over the M41 such as greater range. So it has a good chance of selling if it existed.

I agree the basic 4211 wasn't the real deal, but was always a tech demonstrator. But it showed the way to go. It feels like turning over most of the UK's tank manufacturing capacity to fulfil the Shah's dream wishlists was not the smartest idea. We eventually got Chally 1 out of it, but it feels like had the Shah not been around or hadn't ordered Shir 2 then the British Army would have been more or less stuck with Chieftain until after the Berlin Wall came down - I honestly don't believe the Thatcher government wouldn't have funded MBT-80 to fruition.
I'm in two minds about the 110mm gun, I think the way things turned out (L30A1) was probably the better end result perhaps.

I think the idea of Shir was crazy even from an industrial perspective because it required the entire British tank industry, preventing any parallel orders both foreign and British, and it was very unlikely that the British could even maintain this gigantic industry after that with Leopard 2 and M1 being firmly entrenched by the time the Iranian order is finally completed. It was putting way too many eggs in one basket and indeed when it all came down in 1979 the consequences were already severe, and would have been even worse if it had happened when mass production of Shir 2 was firmly underway with all the tooling bought and the workers hired.

I completely agree the British were far too indecisive in the 70s, they wanted to secure a partner (Germany and then Iran) but at the same time refused to compromise for the components by offering the Germans only all-British concepts. Not that Germany was likely to compromise either since the British didn't have particularly interesting components to offer either.

On a technical level, Challenger was too reliant on Chieftain heritage to make much sense since it kept many defects while still entering service over 15 years later, meaning it can't offer the advantages or longevity that clean-sheet designs normally offered after this time. Some of the proposed 70's Chieftain replacements had the same issues (FV 4211, FV4222 which was just Challenger with an aluminium hull and 110mm gun, early FMBT-70 proposals). Honestly a lot of the development programs were already there to develop a clean-sheet tank and all that needed to be added was a more serious FCS/GCE and optics package than IFCS, and the odd obsolescent parts replacements. So something more like the FMBT-A1 from 1976 which was scheduled to enter service even before the historical Challenger (1982 instead of 1983), but with an earlier start of development.
It's worth contrasting the British case with the Germans and Americans which started component development in 1965 for the MBT-70 and mostly refined these components for M1 and Leo 2, some 5-7 years before the British truly started new component developments of their own.


I'm still very ambivalent on the 110mm. The somewhat earlier configurations basically offered 120mm L11 firepower in a more compact and lighter package, while later ones apparently exceeded its performance somewhat. I have the feeling neither of them really made sense for the British and that a 120mm with their features was necessary for a new tank anyway. As it is German-American trials showed that the Rh 120 with APFSDS was absolutely essential to have actual growth potential against Soviet tanks, a late 110mm would have been still insufficient and completely insane in the early 70s when the British were still aiming at APDS ammo.

110mm seems to have made more sense for countries which weren't too wedded to a 105mm + L52 APDS combo and urgently needed an upgrade. Even then the difference was still a bit too small. Its greatest value by far would have been directly in the late 50s instead of the L7 (since 110 basically exploited the full outnecking potential of the 20pdr case which had been necked out to 105 first), as long as all parties involved accepted the new mounting and the extra steel needed to maintain proper safety factors. But that would mean rejecting the ease with which the less extreme L7 could replace existing 20pdr and 90mm guns in old vehicles. Granted, it seems to have been a problem with Centurion only as all other L7 users had clean sheet tanks to take a new gun or used new mountings for the 105 anyway.


L30A1 is not really the best outcome from the L11 and 110mm, especially not for the time it was introduced. Even if a rifled design was kept, British engineers had recommended many other improvements over the design we finally got:
- shorter, stiffer and more built-up barrel like the Rh 120, proposed for MBT-80. Pretty obvious since it provided better accuracy and a closer center of gravity than the L55 guns, at the same power since the thicker barrel could handle the wear needed to propel projectiles at the same velocity.
- single-piece stub case for KE ammo but two-piece for other types. Proposed because it allows a more precise primer design for accuracy and velocity, and allows APFSDS to protrude into the cartridge case and removes the length limit for British APFSDS. Retains the packaking benefits of two-piece combustible case for other ammo types.
- alternatively you accept single-piece stub case for everything but obtain much more conventional and safer breech and obturator designs. But arguably at this point you might as well go smoothbore.

 

[Yellow Palace]

FV 300 is quite strange as its 20-ton class chassis and 530hp 18L Meteorite (when fuel-injected) seems like a pretty close analogue to the 25-ton class chassis the French and Americans intended for heavy special vehicles like 155mm and 203mm SPHs. I am rather surprised that the British wasted that to carry a 25pdr gun. IMO Centurion is too heavy, big and expensive for that role, and the FV300 chassis is overkill for the APC work and would have had the same cost issues as American APCs built around 400-500hp engines.

There was a 5.5-inch howitzer version of the FV300 family planned, which was the British counterpart to the American M114 155mm howitzer. The 25pdr version was, I suspect, based on the assumption that the FV400 family - basically an overgrown Universal Carrier - would enter service as a light tracked vehicle. It would probably have struggled to be a self-propelled gun of any kind, so the FV300 platform was the next largest available for the 25pdr. The larger FV430 platform could take a 105mm, so no issue there.

 

[uk 75]

The large army Britain maintained in World War 2 had used substantial amounts of US equipment.

BAOR was the first time the UK had maintained a large modern army in peacetime. The rest of the British Army was still mainly infantry used for colonial policing or territorial defence.

The Centurion tank was the most successful armoured vehicle Britain produced. Somehow the same formula was only repeated by the CVR(T) family and the 105mn Light Gun.

Chieftain like Conqueror was a long range rifle and more of a tank destroyer than a tank.

The US and West Germany learnt from the disastrous MBT70 and both developed main battle tanks around the 105mm and then the German smoothbore 120mm.

Austere Leopard 2 should have become the NATO battle tank. Had the US Army adopted it instead of the XM1 the UK should then have done likewise.

Faced with choosing between Leo 2 and M1 the UK stuck to its Conqueror/Chieftain tank destroyer line with Challenger. Perhaps expwrience with all three in Ukraine might answer this dilemma.

Ajax shows how not to buy a CVR(T) replacement. But all Western nations seem to have these problems. Germany has Puma.

 

[uk 75]

FV432 or "The Bonk" as someone told me it was called is still soldiering on with the British Army. It may even outlast Warrior.

The FV4300 series provided BAOR with everything from 105mm SP guns to Swingfire ATGM launchers. An MICV version with 30mm Rarden served in small numbers in West Berlin.

Replacing troop carriers with MICVs took everyone in NATO except for W Germany.(HS30, Marder) a long time.

The UK never accepted the idea of infantry fighting from the vehicle and Warrior would unload its infantry just as FV432 had. Germany and the US later removed the firing ports from Marders and M2/3.

FV432 and Warrior were ok but the Saxon van always put me in mind of something the Home Guard might have cobbled together.
Would it have been better to refurbish Saracens and even Humber Pigs?

 

[robunos]

FV432 and Warrior were ok but the Saxon van always put me in mind of something the Home Guard might have cobbled together.
Would it have been better to refurbish Saracens and even Humber Pigs?

I seem to recall that the Humber 'Pigs' were sold off after withdrawl from service, and had to be bought back when needed for use in NI . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Re the "mixed reviews" that my proposal to build M108, M109, M113 & M548 under licence instead of building the FV430 family & Stalwart in the UK and purchasing M109s directly from the USA received.

For what it's worth my second choice is as follows:

• 3,000-odd FV432s are still built by GKN.
• 1,000-odd Stalwarts are still built by Alvis.
• The "Super Abbot" self-propelled gun is built by Vickers instead of the "Ordinary Abbots" & M109s that were built by Vickers & purchased from the USA respectively in the "Real World".

"Super Abbot" was a bigger version of the "Ordinary Abbot" which used as many FV432 components as possible and a larger turret that could accept the "Real World's" 105mm gun or a 155mm gun. Think of it as a British analogue to the M108 & M109 which had a common chassis using as many M113 components as possible.

In the "Real World" the British Army's M109 were fitted with longer barrels known as M185. Two were fitted with them for trials in 1975 and the rest had them fitted in 1978. In this version of history two "Super Abbots" would be fitted with FH70s for trials in 1975 and the rest of the fleet would have received the gun from 1978 onwards.

The British Army also purchased some new M185 armed M109s and the money spent on them & SP70 in the "Real World" was spent on restarting "Super Abbot" production at Vickers in this "Version of History". By 1989 each of the 12 field artillery regiments (10 regular & 2 TA) in BAOR had 24 "Super Abbots" armed with 155mm guns. In the "Real World" BAOR's 12 field regiments consisted of: 4 with 24 M109s; 4 with 24 Abbots, 2 with 18 FH70s, and; 2 (the TA regiments) with 24 Light Guns. That's a total of 288 guns (all SP 155mm) instead of 276 (consisting of 96 SP 155mm, 36 towed 155mm, 96 SP 105mm & 48 towed 105mm).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

PS

I forgot to mention the "Super Falcon" twin 30mm SPAAG which used the "Super Abbot's" chassis.

Would it have been an improvement on the "Ordinary Falcon" twin 30mm SPAAG which used the "Ordinary Abbot's" chassis?

As I understand it the Falcon of the "Real World" didn't carry enough ammunition and I thought the larger chassis of this "Version of History's" Falcon might allow enough ammunition to be carried.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I assume that there's no AS90 in either of my scenarios? That's because the UK-built M109s purchased instead of the Abbots & US-built M109s remain in service to the present day (in common with the M113-family vehicles built instead of the FV430-family) in my first choice and the "Super Abbots" built instead of the "Ordinary Abbots" & US-built M109 remain in service to the present day (in common with the FV430 family in the "Real World") in my second choice.

If that is correct, a considerable sum of money would have been saved. What would it have been spent on? My thoughts are more Warriors so the number purchased is closer to the number originally required or more Challengers which would include some built instead of the "Stillbrew" Chieftains.

In both of my choices the UK isn't part of the SP70 programme. Would France & Italy have developed it on their own? My guess is that if they had done so Germany would still have pulled out of the project in 1985. That's when & why the project was cancelled in 1985 according to its article on the Global Security website. The same article says that the UK spent £88 million on the project.

SP70 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[Hood]

I'm still very ambivalent on the 110mm.

I share that ambivalence for the same reasons.
I somehow doubt the 110mm would ever oust the L7 given its popularity, it was just a sweet spot of a gun for most vehicles and most of its export users - to be fair - wouldn't really have cared about a few more % in the penetration tables given most of them were facing T-55s or export-grade T-72s. As you say, it would be a niche product.

On a technical level, Challenger was too reliant on Chieftain heritage to make much sense since it kept many defects while still entering service over 15 years later, meaning it can't offer the advantages or longevity that clean-sheet designs normally offered after this time.

Very true, but then to be truthful a lot of British tank design right from 1916 was heavily reliant on evolution rather than revolution.
FMBT killed off the production FV4211. 'Kinship' interim Chieftain on Chobham ended up too complicated, then came the 'new' FV4222 with aluminium hull and 110mm and CV12 engine (but with Chieftain IFCS) but that was based on FV4030/3 for Iran which was also described as being a 'new' vehicle.
But then there was also UK2 which seems to have evolved into MBT-80 (FV4601). I'd question how much of FV4601 would have been 'new'; prototype ATR1 used FV4211 and Chieftain automotive components, ATR2 used a steel front hull married to an FV4030 aluminium rear hull and 4030 running gear and powerpack. This opens the possibility of the FV4601 actually not being that different from Challenger 1 - though with a more advanced turret, fire-control and possibly a better gun.
It may also explain why the cheaper, and quicker, expedient of simply completing the ex-Iranian FV3040/3 as the FV3040/4 for the Army was taken.

There is a lot of "chicken and egg" paradox behind a lot of these developments, a good decade of overlapping work with each strand feeding DNA into the other and (for me at least) its difficult to get a grasp of exactly what was wanted. The Future Studies designs were extensive and add yet another layer to the mix. Perhaps there was just too much design work going on and a consequent lack of focus?

"Super Abbot" was a bigger version of the "Ordinary Abbot" which used as many FV432 components as possible and a larger turret that could accept the "Real World's" 105mm gun or a 155mm gun. Think of it as a British analogue to the M108 & M109 which had a common chassis using as many M113 components as possible.

In the "Real World" the British Army's M109 were fitted with longer barrels known as M185. Two were fitted with them for trials in 1975 and the rest had them fitted in 1978. In this version of history two "Super Abbots" would be fitted with FH70s for trials in 1975 and the rest of the fleet would have received the gun from 1978 onwards.

I like this idea a lot.
It wouldn't necessarily preclude a complete exit from SP70 - Britain could present Italy and Germany with a workable FH70 turret and say "here you go lads, put this on whatever chassis you want" and leave them to mess about with Leopard 1 hulls.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I like this idea a lot.

Thank you.

It wouldn't necessarily preclude a complete exit from SP70 - Britain could present Italy and Germany with a workable FH70 turret and say "here you go lads, put this on whatever chassis you want" and leave them to mess about with Leopard 1 hulls.

If the Global Security article is to be believed the Leopard 1 hull was was a strength rather than a weakness.

West Germany did a splendid job on the development of the chassis and automotive aspects. The chassis is custom built by Porsche using proved Leopard tank components, but substantially modified. The powerful diesel engine from the firm MTU gave the gun a level of mobility as good as that of a main battle tank, but it also provides two other major advantages: there is power to spare for any weight increases caused by future product improvement; and, secondly, being understressed for most conditions of use, its reliability is excellent. As the main power plant, the new self-propelled gun was supposed to receive an 8-cylinder Daimler-Benz MB781 diesel engine with a capacity of 1000 hp. The engine was made as a single unit with a hydromechanical transmission, a cooling system, etc. In addition, the prospective SPH received an auxiliary power unit with a capacity of 35 hp. It was supposed to be used to supply power to various electrical systems with the main engine off. The power to weight ratio is better than 22 brake horsepower (bhp) per metric ton, with its turbo-charged, liquid-cooled, V8, 100-bhp diesel engine.

And.

Testing and fine-tuning of various automatic systems continued for several years. When compared to the equipment which the SP70 is to replace in the armies of the three countries, the SP70 undoubtedly had a vastly improved performance. Semi-automatic loading and fast ramming have increased the rate of fire substantially; with an unassisted firing range of 24 kilometers and a rocket-assisted projectile firing range of 30 kilometers, it meets the range requirement of the future battlefield. Automotively, the SP70's high power-to-weight ratio gives it mobility comparable to that of the modern battle tank and infantry fighting vehicles; and its improved reliability, availability, and maintainability make it now ready to meet the users' needs for the 1990s.

SP70 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've been surfing the net to find information on the FV420 family to see if it could have been built instead of the Saracen.

That was to no avail, but in the process I did come across FV109 Workhorse in the lists of list of FV series military vehicles on Wikipedia, which said it was a replacement for the FV432. Was this the genesis of the FV4333 Stormer?

 

[Hood]

In his book Chobham Armour William Suttie lists FV109 as "Unconfirmed but some sources give this as FV432 replacement."
I'm not expert on armoured designations but presumably there was a reason to designation Stormer as FV4333 well outside the FV100-series?

Suttie gives two pages to the FV420. Brief synopsis here:
Requirement raised in 1954 for an unarmoured tracked vehicle as a truck alternative for nuclear warfare conditions.
Concept work June 1954-July 1955. Mockup built.
Based on FV401 Cambridge running gear with an additional road wheel. Engine was a 160bhp Rolls-Royce B80 Mark 2f. Used the same Cletrac steering unit from FV401 but beefed up. Whole engine, transmission and cooling unit could be removed through the rear of the vehicle. Was to be amphibious. Armoured versions would have 14mm all-round but no roof protection. The FV420 used pannier system (e.g. 40x boxes of .30 ammo, 180x 20pdr rounds, 134x 105mm rounds)
GKN Sankey got the contract, 4 prototypes and 10 trials vehicles, delivery in 1958. The prototypes were of FV420 and 421, went on field service trials in BAOR and Middle East. Interim report in January 1960 and final report in August 1962 but by then interest in unarmoured versions had gone.

Versions:
FV420: cargo carrier (5 tons)
FV421: personnel carrier (20 troops)
FV423: command vehicle
FV424: Royal Engineer vehicle
FV425: REME vehicle
FV426: Orange William anti-tank missile launcher (never built as missile cancelled in 1959)

One of the 420 prototypes supported winch development for FV437 and trialled a prototype earth anchor that evolved into the one used on the FV120 Combat Engineer Tractor. In 1961 one FV420 had its superstructure cut down and a 105mm gun mounted on it for firing trials to support the Armoured Vehicle Reconnaissance (AVR) (Saladin replacement) programme which included a limited-traverse 105mm concept.

FV432 was basically developed from FV420 from 1959 by GKN Sankey. By 1962 the prototypes were with BAOR and they liked it and found it more mobile than Saracen. GKN got the production order the same year.

I guess we're returning to my earlier comments - how much revolution was really going on? A lot of design DNA going back into the 1940s. Cambridge had been trialled in 1953-56 but no production undertaken (despite strong Australian and Canadian interest). Already superseded it seems by the FV420 concept work of 1954-55. Prototype testing 1959-62 and again already superseded (as an APC) by 1959 by FV432.

The FV430 series had included the FV431 Trident armoured load carrier but only a prototype was built as it was decided to build FV620 Stalwart instead (entered service in 1963).

As to your idea of replacing Saracen, it would seem Saracen was already starting production early 2 years (December 1952) before the FV420 concept work even began.

The question for me is - ignoring the FV431 Trident - whether the tracked amphibious unarmoured FV420 would have been better (or no worse) than the wheeled amphibious unarmoured FV620 Stalwart?
It seems both could carry 5 tons - though Stalwart could handle up to 7.5 tons.
A thousand Stalwarts were eventually built, I suspect the FV420 might have been pricier but essentially being a FV430 chassis to all intents and purposes it opens possibility of dual production of FV430 and 420 series side-by-side.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The FV430 series had included the FV431 Trident armoured load carrier but only a prototype was built as it was decided to build FV620 Stalwart instead (entered service in 1963).

The question for me is - ignoring the FV431 Trident - whether the tracked amphibious unarmoured FV420 would have been better (or no worse) than the wheeled amphibious unarmoured FV620 Stalwart?

It seems both could carry 5 tons - though Stalwart could handle up to 7.5 tons.
A thousand Stalwarts were eventually built, I suspect the FV420 might have been pricier but essentially being a FV430 chassis to all intents and purposes it opens possibility of dual production of FV430 and 420 series side-by-side.

I suggested FV431 or M548 (depending upon whether the British Army bought FV432 or M113) instead of Stalwart in Post 106.

@Apophenia wasn't keen on it, because Stalwart was better able to self-deploy and was amphibious, which isn't a criticism of him as they are valid points.

I though of a "Super FV431" based on the "Super Abbot" after uploading Post 139. My guess is that it would have been able to carry more than 7.5 tons. However, the reason why I suggested FV431 instead of Stalwart was to reduce the unit building cost of the FV430 family, i.e. 4,000-odd units built by GKN instead of 3,000-odd by GKN plus 1,000-odd Stalwarts and because I thought having one vehicle instead of 2 would reduce the operating costs. It might not be possible to build "Super FV431" on the same production lines as the FV432 & it will have a different engine, which reduces the potential building & operating cost reductions.

After uploading Post 139 it also occurred to me that a "Super Abbot" carriage without the turret might be able to take the 175mm and 203mm guns. In which case they'd be purchased instead of the M107 & M110. There would also be an ARV version of the "Super Abbot" that would be purchased instead of the M578.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The British Army also purchased some new M185 armed M109s and the money spent on them & SP70 in the "Real World" was spent on restarting "Super Abbot" production at Vickers in this "Version of History". By 1989 each of the 12 field artillery regiments (10 regular & 2 TA) in BAOR had 24 "Super Abbots" armed with 155mm guns. In the "Real World" BAOR's 12 field regiments consisted of: 4 with 24 M109s; 4 with 24 Abbots, 2 with 18 FH70s, and; 2 (the TA regiments) with 24 Light Guns. That's a total of 288 guns (all SP 155mm) instead of 276 (consisting of 96 SP 155mm, 36 towed 155mm, 96 SP 105mm & 48 towed 105mm).

Not sure how much of the British Army has a role like the US 82nd and 101st, but if an airborne/airmobile/mountain unit exists then it's probably worth retaining those towed 105mm Light Guns in the TA.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Not sure how much of the British Army has a role like the US 82nd and 101st, but if an airborne/airmobile/mountain unit exists then it's probably worth retaining those towed 105mm Light Guns in the TA.

In the summer of 1989 the British Army had 4 regiments (2 regular & 2 TA) and one independent battery.

The 2 TA regiments were:

• 100 (Yeomanry) Field Regiment RA (V) with 24 Light Guns in 3 batteries.
• 101 (Northumbrian) Field Regiment RA (V) with 24 Light Guns in 3 batteries.

The 2 regular regiments and one independent battery were:

• 29 Commando Regiment RA with 24 Light Guns in 4 batteries (3 regular and one TA) in 3rd Commando Brigade.
• 7 Parachute Regiment RHA with 18 Light Guns in 3 batteries in 5th Airborne Brigade.
• 5 (Gibraltar 1779-83) Field Battery (part of 94th Locating Regiment RA) with 6 Light Guns assigned to the AMF(L).

The TA regiments were equipped with 5.5in howitzers before converting to the L118 Light Gun in the late 1970s they re-equipped with the FH70 in the early 1990s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Not sure how much of the British Army has a role like the US 82nd and 101st, but if an airborne/airmobile/mountain unit exists then it's probably worth retaining those towed 105mm Light Guns in the TA.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you mean 100 & 101 Field Regiments should retain their 105mm Light Guns to support the airborne regiments? These regiments were part of the 2nd Infantry Divisions which was part of BAOR.

Or do you mean equip other TA field artillery regiments with the displaced Light Guns? Because 100 & 101 Regiments were the only field artillery regiments in the TA.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you mean 100 & 101 Field Regiments should retain their 105mm Light Guns to support the airborne regiments? These regiments were part of the 2nd Infantry Divisions which was part of BAOR.

Or do you mean equip other TA field artillery regiments with the displaced Light Guns? Because 100 & 101 Regiments were the only field artillery regiments in the TA.

I'm saying that if there's units in the British Army (entire, not just BAOR) that have an RDF type mission, then the British Army should keep some 105s to support them.

I'd guess that there might be some Air Assault type missions (pick up and move an entire regiment by helicopter) for reinforcements in the BAOR which would suggest needing some 105s in the BAOR.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm saying that if there's units in the British Army (entire, not just BAOR) that have an RDF type mission, then the British Army should keep some 105s to support them.

The British Army had 4 units with a RDF type mission and 3 of them were referred to in Post 148.

The 3 units referred to in Post 148 were:

• 3rd Commando Brigade which had the 24 Light Guns belonging to 29th Commando Regiment RA supporting it.
• 5th Airborne Brigade which had the 18 Light Guns belonging to 7th Parachute Regiment RHA supporting it.
• The Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (Land) or AMF(L) for short included one British infantry battalion which was supported by the 6 Light Guns belonging to 5 (Gibraltar 1779-83) Field Battery RA.

The fourth unit was 1st Infantry Brigade. This was the United Kingdom Mobile Force (UKMF). I didn't mention it before because its artillery regiment (47th Field Regiment RA) was equipped with 24 FH70s rather than the Light Gun.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The British Army had 4 units with a RDF type mission and 3 of them were referred to in Post 148.

They 3 units referred to in Post 148 were:

• 3rd Commando Brigade which had the 24 Light Guns belonging to 29th Commando Regiment RA supporting it.
• 5th Airborne Brigade which had the 18 Light Guns belonging to 7th Parachute Regiment RHA supporting it.
• The Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (Land) or AMF(L) for short included one British infantry battalion which was supported by the 6 Light Guns belonging to 5 (Gibraltar 1779-83) Field Battery RA.

The fourth unit was 1st Infantry Brigade. This was the United Kingdom Mobile Force (UKMF). I didn't mention it before because its artillery regiment (47th Field Regiment RA) was equipped with 24 FH70s rather than the Light Gun.

Okay, then I agree that there's no point to keeping any 105s in BAOR. Get that all standardized!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 122 about the "tube artillery" of BAOR in according to the first edition of "The Modern British Army" by Terry Gander, which was published in October 1980.

Total 240 tube artillery pieces in 13 regiments as follows:

• 12 M110 in 4 batteries of 3 guns - one battery attached to each of the 4 M109 regiments.
• 12 M107 in 1 regiment of 12 guns.
• 48 M109 in 4 regiments of 12 guns - which also had a battery of M109s (see above) and a battery of Blowpipe SAMs.
• 96 Abbot in 4 regiments of 24 guns.
• 36 FH70 in 2 regiments of 18 guns.
• 36 Five-point-five-inch in 2 regiments of 18 guns, which were to re-equip with the 105mm Light Gun.

In my first choice the there would have been 144 British-built M109s in this "Version of History" instead of the 48 M109s (which were built in the USA in the "Real World") and the 96 Abbots.

In my second choice there would have been:

• 144 "Super Abbot" 155mm SPGs instead of the 48 M109s & 96 "normal" Abbots.
• Twelve 175mm guns mounted on modified "Super Abbot" carriages instead of the 12 M107s.
• Twelve 203mm guns mounted on modified "Super Abbot" carriages instead of the 12 M110s.
• A number of "Super Abbot" based ARVs serving instead of the American-built M578 ARVs which used the same carraige as the M107 & M110.

There were the same number of tubes as the "Real World" in both "Versions of History", but there were 96 fewer 105mm SPGs & 96 more 155mm SPGs than the "Real World" in both "Versions of History".

All other things being equal the 144 M109s or "Super Abbots" would have been organised into 2 types of regiment, on of each being assigned to each of the 4 armoured divisions in BAOR. That is one regiment of 24 guns in four 6-gun batteries and the other having 12 in two 6-gun batteries, plus a battery of six 203mm SPGs & a battery of Blowpipe SAMs. However, I think all other things would not have been equal and instead all 8 regiments would have had eighteen 155mm SPGs in three 6-gun batteries with one half of them also having a battery of six 203mm SPGs & the other half also had a battery of Blowpipe SAMs.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is BAOR's artillery order of battle in March 1956 according to Pages 31 to 37 of "The British Army in Germany (BAOR and after): An Organizational History" by Graham E. Watson and Richard A. Rinaldi.

Directly under HQ I British Corps

24th Medium Regiment RA (2, 51 & 128 Batteries) with towed 5.5in howitzers.​

58th Medium Regiment RA (118 & 175 Batteries) with towed 5.5in howitzers.​

94th Locating Regiment RA (112 Battery)​

5th Army Group Royal Artillery (Anti-Aircraft)

30th HAA Regiment RA (76, 77 & 85 Batteries) with 3.7in HAA guns.​

44th HAA Regiment RA (46, 153 & 154 Batteries) with 3.7in HAA guns.​

77th HAA Regiment RA (29, 37, 41 & 221 Batteries) with 3.7in HAA guns.​

35th LAA Regiment RA (90, 92 & 99 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

72nd LAA Regiment RA (6, 42, 44 & 91 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

74th LAA Regiment RA (200, 202, 230 & 231 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

2nd Infantry Division (4th Guards, 5th Infantry and 6th Infantry Brigades)

29th Field Regiment RA (8, 79 & 145 Batteries) with towed 25pd gun/howitzers.​

41st Field Regiment RA (85, 105 & 165 Batteries) with towed 25pd gun/howitzers.​

45th Field Regiment RA (70, 116 & 176 Batteries) with towed 25pd gun/howitzers.​

22nd LAA Regiment RA (47, 48 & 53 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

115th Locating Battery RA​

'Z' Light Mortar Battery RA​

6th Armoured Division (20th Armoured and 61st Lorried Infantry Brigades)

1st Field Regiment RHA (A, B & E Batteries) with Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzers.​

5th Field Regiment RHA (C, G & K Batteries) with Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzers.​

16th LAA Regiment RA (26, 30 & 32 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

156th Locating Battery RA​

7th Armoured Division (7th Armoured and 31st Lorried Infantry Brigades)

4th Field Regiment RHA (F, N & P Batteries) with Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzers.​

6th Field Regiment RA (H, V & W Batteries) with Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzers.​

12th LAA Regiment RA (T, 9 & 34 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

204th Locating Battery RA​

11 Armoured Division (33rd Armoured and 91st Lorried Infantry Brigades)

2nd Field Regiment RHA (I, L & O Batteries) with Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzers.​

10th Field Regiment RA (Q, X & Y Batteries) with Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzers.​

53rd LAA Regiment RA (56, 106 & 110 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

157th Locating Battery RA​

That's a total of 71 batteries distributed amongst 22 Regimental Headquarters (RHQs).

• 33 batteries of tube AA artillery distributed amongst 10 RHQs.
  • 10 HAA batteries distributed amongst 3 RHQs.
    • The book didn't say what their equipment was, buy my guess is that they had 3.7in guns.
  • 23 LAA batteries with Bofors 40mm guns distributed amongst 7 RHQs.
• 33 batteries of tube medium and field artillery distributed amongst 11 RHQs.
  • 5 medium batteries of towed 5.5in howitzers distributed amongst 2 RHQs.
  • 18 batteries of Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzers distributed amongst 6 RHQs.
  • 9 batteries of towed 25pdr gun/howitzers distributed amongst 3 RHQs.
  • One independent battery of mortars.
• 5 locating batteries and one RHQ.

Unfortunately, I don't know the number of guns per battery and therefore I can't calculate the total number of guns.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is BAOR's artillery order of battle in September 1957 according to Pages 39 to 43 of "The British Army in Germany (BAOR and after): An Organizational History" by Graham E. Watson and Richard A. Rinaldi.

Directly under HQ I British Corps

24th Medium Regiment RA (2, 51 & 128 Batteries) with towed 5.5in howitzers under the operational control of 4th Infantry Division.​

58th Medium Regiment RA (Z, 118 & 175 Batteries) with towed 5.5in howitzers under the operational control of 2nd Infantry division.​

94th Locating Regiment RA (112 Battery)​

12th LAA Regiment RA (T, 9 & 34 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

5th Army Group Royal Artillery (Anti-Aircraft)

30th HAA Regiment RA (76, 77 & 85 Batteries) with 3.7in HAA guns.​

44th HAA Regiment RA (116, 153 & 154 Batteries) with 3.7in HAA guns.​

77th HAA Regiment RA (29, 37 & 41 Batteries) with 3.7in HAA guns.​

35th LAA Regiment RA (90, 92 & 99 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

72nd LAA Regiment RA (6, 42, 44 & 91 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

150th AA Control Battery RA​

19th AA C&A Troop AA​

2nd Infantry Division (4th Gds, 5th Inf & 6th Infantry Brigades)

40th Field Regiment RA (78, 109 & 129 Batteries) with towed 25pd gun/howitzers for the Close Support of 4th Guards Brigade​

41st Field Regiment RA (88, 105 & 165 Batteries) with towed 25pd gun/howitzers for the Close Support of 6th Infantry Brigade​

45th Field Regiment RA (70, 116 & 176 Batteries) with towed 25pd gun/howitzers for the Close Support of 5th Infantry Brigade​

12th LAA Regiment RA (T, 9 & 34 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

115th Locating Battery RA​

4th Infantry Division (10th, 11th & 12th Infantry Brigades)

2nd Field Regiment RHA (I, L & O Batteries) with towed 25pd gun/howitzers for the Close Support of 12th Infantry Brigade.​

6th Field Regiment RA (H, V & W Batteries) with towed 25pd gun/howitzers for the Close Support of 10th Infantry Brigade.​

10th Field Regiment RA (Q, X & Y Batteries) with towed 25pd gun/howitzers for the Close Support of 11th Infantry Brigade.​

53rd LAA Regiment RA (56, 106 & 110 Batteries) with Bofors 40mm LAA guns.​

157th Locating Battery​

6th Armoured Division

1st Field Regiment RHA (A, B & E Batteries) with M44 self-propelled 155mm howitzers.​

7th Armoured Division

4th Field Regiment RHA (F, N & P Batteries) with M44 self-propelled 155mm howitzers.​

21st Independent Infantry Brigade

5th Field Regiment RHA (C, G & K Batteries) with Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzers.​

​

That's a total 62 batteries distributed amongst 20 Regimental Headquarters (RHQs).

• 25 batteries of tube AA artillery distributed amongst 8 RHQs.
  • 9 HAA batteries distributed amongst 3 RHQs.
    • The book didn't say what their equipment was, my guess is that they had 3.7in guns.
  • 16 LAA batteries with Bofors 40mm guns distributed amongst 5 RHQs.
• 33 batteries of tube medium and field artillery distributed amongst 11 RHQs.
  • 6 batteries of M44 self-propelled 155mm howitzers distributed amongst 2 RHQs.
  • 6 batteries of towed 5.5in howitzers distributed amongst 2 RHQs.
  • 3 batteries of Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzers distributed amongst a single RHQ.
  • 18 batteries of towed 25pdr gun/howitzers distributed amongst 6 RHQs.
• 4 Locating & AA Control batteries distributed amongst a single RHQ.

Unfortunately, I don't know the number of guns per battery and therefore I can't calculate the total number of guns.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Continuing from Posts 154 and 155 ...

I posted the artillery order of battle at March 1956 because this when BAOR was at its peak strength with 3 armoured divisions & one infantry division plus corps & army troops.

This was reorganised into 2 armoured divisions & 2 infantry divisions plus corps & army troops on 1st April 1956. (Although the armoured divisions were now little more than armoured brigade groups.) 21st Independent Infantry Brigade was added sometime between April 1956 & September 1957. The new structure continued until September 1957, which is why I posted the artillery order of battle at that date.

The difference between March 1956 and September 1957 was 2 RHQs and 9 batteries.

• The reductions were:
  • 1 HAA battery. This was 221 Battery in 77th HAA Regiment RA, which disbanded on 1st July 1957.
  • 2 LAA RHQs & 7 LAA batteries, which included the 2 regiments & 6 batteries in 6th & 7th Armoured Divisions.
  • 2 locating batteries, which formerly belonged to 6th and 7th Armoured Divisions.
  • 1 mortar battery (in 2nd Infantry Division) which converted to a medium battery and transferred to 58th Medium Regiment RA. (See below.)
• The additions were:
  • 1 AA control battery.
  • 1 medium battery was added to 38th Medium Regiment. It had been a mortar battery in 2nd Infantry Division. (See above.)
• There were 9 RHQ and 27 batteries of field artillery on both dates. However, the mix of self-propelled and towed guns had been reversed from:
  • 6 RHQs & 18 batteries of self-propelled guns and 3 RHQs and 9 batteries of towed guns in March 1956.
    • To.
  • 3 RHQs & 9 batteries of self-propelled guns and 6 RHQs and 18 batteries of towed guns in September 1957.

Except that:

• 12th LAA Regiment RA is in the September 1957 list twice.
  • It was directly under HQ I British Corps and part of 2nd Infantry Division.
    • And.
  • It was part of 7th Armoured Division in the March 1956 list and that division didn't have a LAA regiment in the September 1957 list because the armoured divisions lost their LAA regiments in the reorganisation of April 1956.
  • 22nd LAA Regiment RA which was 2nd Infantry Division's LAA regiment in the March 1956.
    • It isn't in the September 1957 list and the book usually details the movements of units between March 1956 and September 1957, but it gives no explanation for this regiment's disappearance.
    • Therefore, I thought 12 Regiment in 2nd Infantry Division was a typo for 22nd Regiment, but according to the "British Army Units from 1945 on" website, it moved to England in February 1957, so it can't be that.
  • The next part of the book details the changes between September 1957 and April 1958. In that section 12 Regiment is still directly under HQ I British Corps and 2nd Infantry Division didn't have a LAA regiment.
  • Therefore, my guess is that 12 Regiment moved, first from 7th Armoured Division to 2nd Infantry Division and then from 2nd Infantry Division to being directly under HQ I British Corps, but the book omits the dates of these changes.
• 74th LAA Regiment RA is in the March 1956 list and isn't in the September 1957 list.
  • As written above, the the book usually details the movement of units between those dates, so I thought that it's absence from the September 1957 list may have been an error of omission.
  • Except, that according to the "British Army Units from 1945 on" website, the regiment moved from Germany to Hong Kong in 1955.
  • Therefore, it shouldn't have been in the March 1956 list.

All the artillery units in BAOR in the March 1956 list were equipped with World War II vintage weapons. The only improvement in September 1957 was that 2 field regiments had converted from the Canadian Sexton self-propelled 25pdr gun/howitzer to the American M44 self-propelled 155mm howitzer.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is BAOR's artillery order of battle in April 1958 according to Pages 45 to 49 of "The British Army in Germany (BAOR and after): An Organizational History" by Graham E. Watson and Richard A. Rinaldi.

Directly under HQ I British Corps (5th AGRA (AA) was disbanded in March 1958)

24th Medium Regiment RA (2, 51 & 128 Batteries)​

58th Medium Regiment RA (L, Z, 118 & 175 Batteries)​

94th Locating Regiment RA (112 Battery)​

12th LAA Regiment RA (T, 9 & 34 Batteries)​

35th LAA Regiment RA (90, 92 & 99 Batteries)​

150th AA Control Battery RA​

2nd Division (6th & 11th Inf Bde Gps)

6th Infantry Brigade Group​

41st Field Regiment RA (88, 105 & 165 Batteries)​

11th Infantry Brigade Group​

19th Field Regiment RA (25, 28 & 67 Batteries)​

4th Division (4th Gds, 5th Inf & 20th Armd Bde Gps)

4th Guards Brigade Group​

40th Field Regiment RA (78, 109 & 129 Batteries)​

5th Infantry Brigade Group​

45th Field Regiment RA (70, 116 & 176 Batteries)​

20th Armoured Brigade Group​

1st Field Regiment RHA (A, B & E Batteries)​

5th Division (7th Armd & 12th Inf Bde Gps)

7th Armoured Brigade Group​

4th Field Regiment RHA (F, N & P Batteries)​

12th Infantry Brigade Group​

2nd Field Regiment RA (L, N & O Batteries)​

That's a total of 36 batteries distributed amongst 12 Regimental Headquarters (RHQs).

• 6 LAA batteries with Bofors 40mm guns distributed amongst 2 RHQs.
• 28 batteries of tube medium and field artillery distributed amongst 9 RHQs.
  • 6 batteries of M44 self-propelled 155mm howitzers distributed amongst 2 RHQs.
  • 7 batteries of towed 5.5in howitzers distributed amongst 2 RHQs.
  • 15 batteries of towed 25pdr gun/howitzers distributed amongst 5 RHQs.
• 1 locating distributed amongst a single RHQ.
• 1 independent AA control battery.

The net reduction since September 1957 was 26 batteries distributed amongst 8 RHQs.

• The reductions (which totalled 27 batteries and 8 RHQs) were:
  • 9 HAA batteries and 3 RHQs.
  • 10 LAA batteries and 3 LAA RHQs.
  • 6 Field Batteries and 2 field RHQs.
    • 3 field batteries and 1 field RHQ was equipped with the Sexton SP 25pdr gun/howitzer.
    • 3 field batteries and 1 field RHQ was equipped with the towed 25pdr gun/howitzer.
  • 2 Locating batteries.
• The sole addition was one medium battery, which was added to 58th Medium Regiment RA in November 1957.

Most of the reductions were to BAOR's anti-aircraft capability, because the number of HAA batteries had been reduced to nothing and the number of LAA batteries had been reduced by 62.5%. The number of field batteries and RHQs had been reduced from 27 & 9 to 21 & 7 respectively, which was in line with the reduction in the number of brigades from 9 to 7. As already noted the only increase was one medium battery and that wasn't to be for long.

There were no improvements to its equipment.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Most of the reductions were to BAOR's anti-aircraft capability, because the number of HAA batteries had been reduced to nothing and the number of LAA batteries had been reduced by 62.5%.

What did the UK have for heavy AA options then? I mean, it should have been painfully obvious that you needed missiles for heavy AA work, and light AA needed to be radar guided 40mm-75mm guns with proximity fuses.

 

[Yellow Palace]

What did the UK have for heavy AA options then? I mean, it should have been painfully obvious that you needed missiles for heavy AA work, and light AA needed to be radar guided 40mm-75mm guns with proximity fuses.

Thunderbird for heavy work, and the Bofors 40mm L70 for light work. Red King/Red Queen was supposed to fill the light role, but it died in the late 1950s.

As is typical for the British Army, both were then replaced by Rapier, effectively abandoning the heavy anti-aircraft role.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Thunderbird for heavy work, and the Bofors 40mm L70 for light work. Red King/Red Queen was supposed to fill the light role, but it died in the late 1950s.

As is typical for the British Army, both were then replaced by Rapier, effectively abandoning the heavy anti-aircraft role.

Surprised that the UK didn't get any M51 Skysweepers or equivalent like the 3"/70 naval gun. Doesn't have the sheer rate of fire of the Bofors 40mm/L70, but the bigger shells allow proximity fuses.