A Better Bren/Universal Carrier?

As above, use a front engine and the double bogie Hoorstman suspension of the Vickers Dutchmen or similar. The T16 showed that design could grow successfully. Do not forget the 26,000 or soo Lloyd carriers that were built as well. Building a variant of this design, which was value engineered to use existing parts and production capacity in 1939 using the front engine layout a coup
 
At risk of committing blasphemy.....
brencarrier.JPG

Starting at it's inception in 1934 up to the Munich crisis in 1938, could a somewhat improved version of the Bren/Universal Carrier be created? I choose those dates just to allow wiggle room for design enhancements but have the machines in the field in volume when the fighting starts.

Yes, I'm aware that more of those humble beasts of burden were produced than any other tracked vehicle, so I know I'm treading on hallowed ground...

Wasn't the Land Rover used for a lot of the Universal Carrier's duties post war.

Not armoured of course, but the long wheelbase Land Rover could/did haul people, light gear etc around a lot more cheaply and reliably, didn't it. Or am I deluding my self again.

Had Four wheel drive been invented yet.

Could this have been done instead.
 
Last edited:

Ian_W

Banned
Wasn't the Land Rover used for a lot of the Universal Carrier's duties post war.

Not armoured of course, but the long wheelbase Land Rover could/did haul people, light gear etc around a lot more cheaply and reliably, didn't it. Or am I deluding my self again.

Had Four wheel drive been invented yet.

What the Land Rover can't do as well is do those things in an area threatened by enemy artillery.

Remember, this was something put together by people who remembered 1914-1918 - and that meant getting stuff to or from the front meant lots of shell holes and occasional explosions.
 
Maybe some sort of self-entrenchment tool. It would be pretty neat for an infantry battalion to have organic trench dozers.
 
Better arming a Carrier is entirely barking up the wrong tree. Ian_W has it right in calling it too lightly armoured to be misused as a tank. The Carrier is a tracked pick up. It is only armoured enough to withstand SA fire in supporting it's unit. The engine/transmission layout allowed it to base itself on off the shelf (i.e. lorry parts turned around) concepts although that should not (no pun intended) be a driver in the design which was used as the most produced armoured vehicle ever.

The risk in designing a 'better' one is making it do more thus creeping the weight up. Then you need a bigger engine, stronger transmission, uprated suspension to carry the above until it is either too large and heavy to go everywhere a Carrier can go or uses up it's load carrying in carrying itself. The step up to an APC is a major one and becomes the weight and size of a early WW2 medium tank.

Certainly one can tweak a Carrier (and it was) to allow it a better layout etc. Myself I would eliminate the weapons on it at all other than those it carries in support eg a mortar and crew or MMG and crew or a towed light gun. By the time the 17 pounder overtook the 6 pounder the Carrier was replaced with Crusader tow vehicles.

The job of the Carrier was to go wherever an infantry company could go and cross bridges and terrain that would take farm vehicles but not road vehicles. It worked between the rifle companies and Company/Battalion echelons so made up for it's small concealable size with frequent repeat journeys. It was a brilliant concept but defeated in the end by the sheer bean counting cheapness of the small 4x4.

BTW the Carrier needed two men up front to leave the commander free to assess the direction and viability of the task and leave the driver free to pick the immediate route. Bad enough driving the b*gger without having to look ahead for tactical decisions and keep an all round awareness. This leaves you little space for a front engine. Loads must be in man portable sizes/weights if the ultimate users are to take them away from the Carrier once it has arrived so a full width load bed is unnecessary. Again this explains the Carrier layout. All in all the Carrier was a beautifully judged compromise tailored to it's role. A better Carrier would be one that uses better components and mechanicals but in the original format. Literally a better Carrier.
 
I would not really change it - it was fine as it was for the roles that it was used for

Very mobile and relatively light - ie a bunch of muddy squadies and some kind words would get it moving again if it did get stuck

During the BEFs short stay in Belgium and France in May 1940 its division and Brigade level Carriers often made the difference between the British getting to a Bridge or Cross roads first before the Germans cut them off! Often they were used to quickly move the Vickers MMG teams to cover gaps that suddenly opened up slowing down attempt to flank etc.

Also it was cheap - and relatively easy to replace, transport and maintain

I would however make a larger version complimenting the Carrier family capable of transporting 10 men, their equipment plus a driver in some discomfort. Can also be used as a gun tractor, combat engineer vehicle and tracked ambulance

Something like a larger Lloyds Carrier - perhaps a 3 bogie affair?

Front Engine - high sided with a rear door (Hence the Front Engine) - canvas top with 'hoops' to allow head room etv

Again its a transport not an AFV and while it can mount a units Bren or Boys ATR or even a Vickers MMG its job in battle is the move the troops quickly to a forming up point before retiring to a vehicle laager (is that how its spelled?) where it will wait often with much of the sub units kit - such as overcoats, Bren Cleaning kits spare ammo etc while retaining simple maintinence and decent cross country ability.
 
I would however make a larger version complimenting the Carrier family capable of transporting 10 men, their equipment plus a driver in some discomfort. Can also be used as a gun tractor, combat engineer vehicle and tracked ambulance

Something like a larger Lloyds Carrier - perhaps a 3 bogie affair?

The Lorraine 37L would’ve been perfect, it was designed to supply tanks with ammo and fuel via a trailer. An APC model the 39L could carry 8-9 men. Adapted by the Germans to mount 15cm and 10,5cm howitzers, Pak 40 anti tank guns. It was their primary self propelled gun platform and could do everything the Universal Carrier was too small to do.
 
Are we completely dismissing the idea of a British Carrier equivalent of the US M3/M5 or the German Sd.Kfz. 251 Hanomag?
 
Are we completely dismissing the idea of a British Carrier equivalent of the US M3/M5 or the German Sd.Kfz. 251 Hanomag?
The key thing is that a vehicle that can do this is in a different role to the Carrier. The Carrier is to service low level units. It is a tracked Landrover/Jeep/Toyota pickup. An M3/M5 is 3 times the weight of a Carrier. Literally a half tracked lorry. They can certainly carry more but do not have the mobility and are far larger targets and much slower over rough terrain. A 7 Tonner is not a better Landrover. It is a better lorry but not a better Landrover.
 
Top