British Post WWII AFV series 300: light tank family

uk 75

uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
5,744
Reaction score
5,626
The British Tank Museum did a brochure some years back on postwar British tanks which
contained a photo of an FV 301 light tank and related vehicles, including a 25pdr self
propelled gun version. The project was abandoned in the early 50s through lack of funds.

Would this programme have provided the BAOR with a family of vehicles as good as the FV432
series earlier, or was cancellation a good idea?

UK 75
 
uk 75 said:
Would this programme have provided the BAOR with a family of vehicles as good as the FV432
series earlier, or was cancellation a good idea?
Click to expand...

Of course they would have been better than nothing or old WW2 kit or using Saracen vehicles on the central front. But if cancellation meant the British Army could replace their Cromwells with Centurions then it was a good idea.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6569.0
 
The FV300 series seems to have formed the lighter end of the armoured vehicle fleet plan with the FV200 at the other end with both as universal platforms.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,6531.msg54677.html#msg54677
 
Would this programme have provided the BAOR with a family of vehicles as good as the FV432
series earlier, or was cancellation a good idea?
Click to expand...

After some reading it seems that this series was cancelled after a period of development due to the fact that it was too heavy to air transport and was considered too lightly armoured to survive on a modern (read European) battlefield. The implication being that cancellation was justified. Everytime the British came up with a new plan for a Tank or Carrier in the 40s/50s it was immeidately proposed in a multitude of variants few of which were ever prototyped (mostly Centurion SPG derivatives). The FV400 series saw a similar fate as did the Conquerer series (FV201 having apparently been cancelled, at least in part, after it was doscovered it would not fit in RN LST's amongst other issues). The Royal Artillery always placed a spanner in the works of these various efforts by wanting the engine at the front.

As a side note, it appears that the transmission for the FV301 series was further developed and incorporated into the Chieftain design.
 
Sealord thank you. This does fit in with the later projects. With your wide ranging interests you earn a purple rather than a dark blue handle. Cds or cgis?
 
The Henk of Holland master model builders webpage that I linked to in the FV 300 thread have been quite busy since then. Apart from adding a schematic of the FV 304 25 Pounder SPG they have built models of the FV 3805 (5.5"), FV 3802 (25 lber), FV 3807 (120mm AT) and others.

http://henk.fox3000.com/FV300.htm
 

Attachments

  • 01.jpg
    01.jpg
    36.6 KB · Views: 859
The caption suggests that the drawing has been taken from a book. Do you have any idea what book it could be?

Piotr
 
That gun barrel looks extremely long for a 25pdr?
 
Miss read the caption. Wouldn't care but only just got new glasses :rolleyes: .
 
FV303 has a rare “casement” gun mantlet. Casement is much simpler to build than the fully-rotating turret on Abbott or M109, but has limited traverse. Were Abbott’s or M109s ever fired with the gun aimed much off the centre-line?
Few other AFV proposals included gun “casements.” Did any casements get into production?
 
Last edited:
How would you regard the M53 155mm and M55 203mm SPG's, would that be regarded as a casement due to its limited traverse 30 degree's to left and right?
 
In Jane's book on Main Battle Tanks from the early 80's; in the section of the Vickers Mk1, it mentions the development of an earlier tank had led to the the Mk1, which I've always assumed was the FV301, but obviously this one.

I was interested with his statement that the main gun on the FV301 would have had an autoloader.

His suggestion that the position of the driver on the right side of the tank was due to which side of the road was driven on, its to make the reserve ammunition stored at the hull front accessible to the loader who is on the left side of the turret, so he could use his right arm to ram the shell home, look at the Leopard 1 & 2.
 
JohnR said:
In Jane's book on Main Battle Tanks from the early 80's; in the section of the Vickers Mk1, it mentions the development of an earlier tank had led to the the Mk1, which I've always assumed was the FV301, but obviously this one.

I was interested with his statement that the main gun on the FV301 would have had an autoloader.

His suggestion that the position of the driver on the right side of the tank was due to which side of the road was driven on, its to make the reserve ammunition stored at the hull front accessible to the loader who is on the left side of the turret, so he could use his right arm to ram the shell home, look at the Leopard 1 & 2.
Click to expand...
The Medium Cruiser Mk. 1 did not lead to the Vickers MBT Mk. 1, if that's what you're referring to.
 
JohnR said:
How would you regard the M53 155mm and M55 203mm SPG's, would that be regarded as a casement due to its limited traverse 30 degree's to left and right?
Click to expand...
Ahh, I thought I'd already replied to this, bit it seems not . . .
As I see it, if the gun is fixed to the box that contains the breech end in the sense of traverse, and thus the gun and box traverse together, it's a turret.
If, on the other hand, the box containing the breech end of the gun is fixed relative to the carrying vehicle, and the gun traverses independently of the box, it's a caseMATE.
Thus, in the case of the M53, it is a turret, as the gun house traverses with the gun, but only a limited traverse one . . .
See the attached diagram, hope this makes some sense . . .

cheers,
Robin.
 

Attachments

  • turret vs. casemate.png
    turret vs. casemate.png
    10.6 KB · Views: 109
robunos said:
JohnR said:
How would you regard the M53 155mm and M55 203mm SPG's, would that be regarded as a casement due to its limited traverse 30 degree's to left and right?
Click to expand...
Ahh, I thought I'd already replied to this, bit it seems not . . .
As I see it, if the gun is fixed to the box that contains the breech end in the sense of traverse, and thus the gun and box traverse together, it's a turret.
If, on the other hand, the box containing the breech end of the gun is fixed relative to the carrying vehicle, and the gun traverses independently of the box, it's a caseMATE.
Thus, in the case of the M53, it is a turret, as the gun house traverses with the gun, but only a limited traverse one . . .
See the attached diagram, hope this makes some sense . . .

cheers,
Robin.
Click to expand...
Where are you on barbette's?
 
In a barbette, the gun and shield move separately from the housing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom