British create armoured personnel carriers in 1940s
- Thread starter SCOUT 5249
- Start date
Troop carrier 2
Service in the far East.
Several vanguards and buffalo were trialled in Malaya, India and Burma in 1940. The vehicles were largely unhindered by the thick jungles aside from a few difficulties which was further expanded by a trial of several A10 cruisers in Malaya this alone playing significant role when the Japanese imperial army invaded in 1941
In the jungle the mules were often pressed into impromptu infantry support during the japanese invasion of Burma, the invaders lacking anti tank weapons of their own allowing many a vanguard aid British troops under attack. The troop carrier also provided many a squad with a dry place during the monsoon (though care was taken to close the hatches lest the crew end up with an unwanted guests). During the later years a number of vanguards had their Vickers changed for a 20mm cannons if only to further increase firepower usually these vanguards were supplemented by hornet SPAA.
Australian Service
After the Japanese bombing raid on port Darwin new zealand only had handful of the vanguard troop carriers 12 some were armed with bofors 40mm. New vanguards and their variants were also sent to Australia.
By late 1944 the mule was still supporting commonwealth troops in the far East and the CBI theatres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay I may be pushing the vanguards being trialled in the far East.
But we will get to variants
Several vanguards and buffalo were trialled in Malaya, India and Burma in 1940. The vehicles were largely unhindered by the thick jungles aside from a few difficulties which was further expanded by a trial of several A10 cruisers in Malaya this alone playing significant role when the Japanese imperial army invaded in 1941
In the jungle the mules were often pressed into impromptu infantry support during the japanese invasion of Burma, the invaders lacking anti tank weapons of their own allowing many a vanguard aid British troops under attack. The troop carrier also provided many a squad with a dry place during the monsoon (though care was taken to close the hatches lest the crew end up with an unwanted guests). During the later years a number of vanguards had their Vickers changed for a 20mm cannons if only to further increase firepower usually these vanguards were supplemented by hornet SPAA.
Australian Service
After the Japanese bombing raid on port Darwin new zealand only had handful of the vanguard troop carriers 12 some were armed with bofors 40mm. New vanguards and their variants were also sent to Australia.
By late 1944 the mule was still supporting commonwealth troops in the far East and the CBI theatres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay I may be pushing the vanguards being trialled in the far East.
But we will get to variants
Troop carrier 3
Variants
It was not surprising that the Vickers vanguard troop carrier would become a whole family of vehicles.
bishop
Borne from an experiment and post Dunkirk the bishop was Britain's first self propelled gun using the vanguard to mount the 25 pounder. It proved to be valuable asset against the Italians and Germans, in the far East it was perfect as it didn't get bogged down in the muck of jungle.
Atlas(Thank you @cry havoc 101)
The Vickers atlas was a tank recovery and engineer vehicle. Proved it's worth in north Africa and Europe when tasked with recovering damaged vehicles and towing them off the field.
overseer
A command vehicle, troop bay was replaced by powerful radio equipment relaying real time information.
Hornet A self propelled anti aircraft gun variant introduced in mid 1943 mounting twin 20mm cannon or a single 40mm bofors in a revolving structure. Saw action in support of ground forces in far East and Italy. Particularly well liked by Soviet forces.
Starfire A dozen vanguard troop carriers were converted to carry the new RP.3 rockets in rack that carried six such weapons and were trialled at Normandy alongside Hobart's funnies proving to be a devastating if inaccurate weapon with later groups firing salvos as artillery.
Vanguard II Featuring a thicker armour, improved suspension and a bigger armament a 20mm cannon. The vanguard II main weapon proving useful in assault and defence often prompting surrenders when ever it appeared.
Vanguard crocodile Armed with twin flamethrower guns, the crocodile proved its worth in sicily and in the far East.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay where did I go wrong?
What would the German and Russian versions be like?
It was not surprising that the Vickers vanguard troop carrier would become a whole family of vehicles.
bishop
Borne from an experiment and post Dunkirk the bishop was Britain's first self propelled gun using the vanguard to mount the 25 pounder. It proved to be valuable asset against the Italians and Germans, in the far East it was perfect as it didn't get bogged down in the muck of jungle.
Atlas(Thank you @cry havoc 101)
The Vickers atlas was a tank recovery and engineer vehicle. Proved it's worth in north Africa and Europe when tasked with recovering damaged vehicles and towing them off the field.
overseer
A command vehicle, troop bay was replaced by powerful radio equipment relaying real time information.
Hornet A self propelled anti aircraft gun variant introduced in mid 1943 mounting twin 20mm cannon or a single 40mm bofors in a revolving structure. Saw action in support of ground forces in far East and Italy. Particularly well liked by Soviet forces.
Starfire A dozen vanguard troop carriers were converted to carry the new RP.3 rockets in rack that carried six such weapons and were trialled at Normandy alongside Hobart's funnies proving to be a devastating if inaccurate weapon with later groups firing salvos as artillery.
Vanguard II Featuring a thicker armour, improved suspension and a bigger armament a 20mm cannon. The vanguard II main weapon proving useful in assault and defence often prompting surrenders when ever it appeared.
Vanguard crocodile Armed with twin flamethrower guns, the crocodile proved its worth in sicily and in the far East.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay where did I go wrong?
What would the German and Russian versions be like?
The Russians would do a straight copy, the Germans would likely just up production of their half tracks while trying to develop something with the Pz 38(t) chasis.
or come up with something truly horrifically dumb like this...
https://preview.redd.it/gifyduv8ppo...bp&s=beb2a1d8930e2aace8d89d64e33c18dca78e62f6
SwampTiger
Banned
Looks good. I would expect the AA variants wlould start with the 2 Pdr Pom Pom and quad Vickers .5 inch, before going to a single Bofors and twin 20 mm by 1942.
Wheeled APC's were a certainty for the motorized infantry divisions.
Wheeled APC's were a certainty for the motorized infantry divisions.
I think that some might make it to France in 1940 which would prove the concept in European conditions. The desert was an unusual theatre and IMHO slowed down all arms cooperation due to the terrain favouring tanks. The most intriguing thing about this TL is the sending of APC's and some lighter tanks out to the far east pure December 1941. Does this reduce the raw Indian troups tank panic as they would have seen friendly examples? Also the Japanese tanks make British Criuser tanks look good! Could even a handfeull of Cruisers aided by the APC's turn the tide or at least slow it down? OTL Malaya was a closer run thing then we tend to admit here.
Japanese tanks would probably be vulnerable to the Vickers VI C's 15mm BESA.
In Malaya the major issue other than lack of Airpower was that the 3 Principle British Divisions aside from being of poorer quality than a first team commonwealth division was that each only possessed of 2 Brigades not the 3 a fully leaded commonwealth division would expect.
Also they were far poorer in Artillery compared to a Division of the first team and as any of you already know Artillery represents the majority of a Brigade / Divisions firepower.
What really confounded this issue was when relatively light Japanese forces infiltrated behind a given commonwealth unit and setup road blocks (felling trees etc) that was then obliged to fall back / retreat - due to these roadblocks the given unit was often obliged to abandon its heavier equipment and transport etc and bypass the roadblocks on foot.
These roadblocks were so sturdy that even Universal carriers could not cross them, Wheeled transport certainly could not and being covered as they were with LMGs, rifle fire and knee mortars, it was very difficult for the Commonwealth units to deal with them.
This is often why you hear stories of the wounded being left behind during the campaign because there was no realistic way of getting them out once the MSR behind said unit was blocked.
This left the said Battalion / Brigade and ultimately division stripped of its heavier equipment and transport making it suddenly far far less effective than it might as well been.
Having AFVs even light tanks would have enabled the Commonwealth forces to deal with such tactics - such as they did with just a 100 odd M3 Stuarts during the retreat from Rangoon - which would likely have been an absolute disaster had they not been there.
Indeed the relatively lightly armed Stuarts made a mockery of IJA road blocks
Also on the day of the Japanese invasion of Malaya one of the Indian Army Brigades was 'poised' to advance towards the Kra Isthumas but dithering by both the OC Gen. Percavil and the Brigade commanders ended up with them doing nothing and ultimate further dithering by the units commanders resulted in the entire Brigade getting overrun sitting in their transports by the Tank led Japanese Vanguard and effective destroyed.
So the defenders were immediately a Brigade down in the opening hours.
So British tanks and even heavier APCs had they been available in the Malaya campaign would have made a massive difference to the conduct of the campaign.
Also they were far poorer in Artillery compared to a Division of the first team and as any of you already know Artillery represents the majority of a Brigade / Divisions firepower.
What really confounded this issue was when relatively light Japanese forces infiltrated behind a given commonwealth unit and setup road blocks (felling trees etc) that was then obliged to fall back / retreat - due to these roadblocks the given unit was often obliged to abandon its heavier equipment and transport etc and bypass the roadblocks on foot.
These roadblocks were so sturdy that even Universal carriers could not cross them, Wheeled transport certainly could not and being covered as they were with LMGs, rifle fire and knee mortars, it was very difficult for the Commonwealth units to deal with them.
This is often why you hear stories of the wounded being left behind during the campaign because there was no realistic way of getting them out once the MSR behind said unit was blocked.
This left the said Battalion / Brigade and ultimately division stripped of its heavier equipment and transport making it suddenly far far less effective than it might as well been.
Having AFVs even light tanks would have enabled the Commonwealth forces to deal with such tactics - such as they did with just a 100 odd M3 Stuarts during the retreat from Rangoon - which would likely have been an absolute disaster had they not been there.
Indeed the relatively lightly armed Stuarts made a mockery of IJA road blocks
Also on the day of the Japanese invasion of Malaya one of the Indian Army Brigades was 'poised' to advance towards the Kra Isthumas but dithering by both the OC Gen. Percavil and the Brigade commanders ended up with them doing nothing and ultimate further dithering by the units commanders resulted in the entire Brigade getting overrun sitting in their transports by the Tank led Japanese Vanguard and effective destroyed.
So the defenders were immediately a Brigade down in the opening hours.
So British tanks and even heavier APCs had they been available in the Malaya campaign would have made a massive difference to the conduct of the campaign.
Interesting...how much sooner is "far sooner" in your estimation. And, would the HESH ammo be available? With HEAT, HESH, and WP, that would be one capable system...
Funnily enough, considering that Burnley was also responsible for the HESH round, him spending more time on the recoilless rifle might actually delay HESH rather that expedite it. Still, considering that effective shaped charge weapons were in service by mid 1943, this isn't really going to be that much of an issue.
A bit longer than it needed to be and quite heavy with a needlessly complicated rear end but would be a real improvement on either the PIAT or Bazooka. We seem to have strayed off topic though.
marathag
Banned
The Italians seemed to have unintentionally made a HESH round with their 'Effetto Pronto' that was HEAT with severe fuze issues, too slow and the HE charge would detonate against the plate, rather than at the dsigned stand off distance
troop carrier 4
The American response
While the troop carrier had proved its worth with the British army in France, north Africa and Greece. It was however subject to debate across the Atlantic.
In the United States mechanized infantry was nothing new having learned from observation German blitzkrieg of Europe there was a considerable divide as to whether to use half tracks or armoured personnel carriers (APC) in battle both vehicles had their down sides.
The T24 armoured personnel carrier used the body of an M2/M3 Stuart light tank as the basis armed with single fifty calibre at commanders cupola and a single bow .30 machine for self defence. It low silhouette and thinner armour improved speed. The first M40 APC were sent to Britain proving to reliable as the vanguard. There were no M40 APC stationed overseas.
The M40 was later replaced by the M42 using M3 and M4 medium tank allowing it to carry double the amount of troops from eight to twelve.
-------------------------------------------------------
Okay where did I go wrong here?
I may stretching it with the M40 and M42.
While the troop carrier had proved its worth with the British army in France, north Africa and Greece. It was however subject to debate across the Atlantic.
In the United States mechanized infantry was nothing new having learned from observation German blitzkrieg of Europe there was a considerable divide as to whether to use half tracks or armoured personnel carriers (APC) in battle both vehicles had their down sides.
The T24 armoured personnel carrier used the body of an M2/M3 Stuart light tank as the basis armed with single fifty calibre at commanders cupola and a single bow .30 machine for self defence. It low silhouette and thinner armour improved speed. The first M40 APC were sent to Britain proving to reliable as the vanguard. There were no M40 APC stationed overseas.
The M40 was later replaced by the M42 using M3 and M4 medium tank allowing it to carry double the amount of troops from eight to twelve.
-------------------------------------------------------
Okay where did I go wrong here?
I may stretching it with the M40 and M42.