British Armored Cavalry

[MCPO-MagicalGeek]

Inspired by these two

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...n-of-apcs-ifvs-in-or-before-ww2.465647/page-4
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ed-personnel-carriers-in-1940s.466512/page-11

It might tie in with the the thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/bundeswehr-in-1938.468060/
----------------------

What if the British adopted two APCs, one is the Vickers A14 Troop carrier vanguard from @SCOUT 5249 thread and a BTR-152 or BTR-40 style APC.

How would this affect WWII, what about the the half track, and how likely is the BTR-152 and BTR-40 style APCs be adopted?

 

[Some Bloke]

With a full tracked APC before the war, I don't think half tracks will last as long in military service as they did IOTL.

 

[Some Bloke]

If the Cavalry essentially become armour/mechanised infantry, it could lead to more technically minded officers later.
What's the exact PoD, more cavalry support for the Experimental Mechanised Force project? Or greater interest in mechanised warfare from the cavalry afterward in a bid to keep themselves relevant?

 

[Cryhavoc101]

For a BTR type setup perhaps using the AEC Matador 6 x 6 chassis or even the 4 x 4 chassis (The AEC Armoured Car used the same chassis)

The British did make the 'Dorchester' Armoured Command Truck using the Matador 4 x 4 chassis

Rommels mobile command post for the entirety of the Desert campaign was made up from 2 captured 'Dorchesters'

The Scammell Pioneer might make a better choice as it was in service from 35+ although it was not as good a truck as the Matador

 

[Michele]

I think it's difficult. However, if it came to pass, it would affect the British doctrine significantly, as well as their armor's early war performance.
In OTL, they had the infantry tanks, which would accompany/be accompanied by infantry, but for that very reason they'd never operate at the pace of a Panzerdivision; and the cruiser tanks, which, especially in the early stages of the desert war, were hamstrung by their not being a combined arms force - frequently committed without infantry (and without artillery), or with poor coordination with the latter two arms.

If a cavalry brigade is a thing having both cruiser (later, light and medium) tanks and armored infantry, and to boot the latter travels in fully tracked APCs, there is a better alternative to both situations.

 

[MCPO-MagicalGeek]

With a full tracked APC before the war, I don't think half tracks will last as long in military service as they did IOTL.

I am also following @SCOUT 5249 idea, the fully tracked APCs are not in full production due to the Treasury not wanting to pay for it, while the BTR style Wheeled APCs. Since much cheaper was excepted.

If the Cavalry essentially become armour/mechanised infantry, it could lead to more technically minded officers later.
What's the exact PoD, more cavalry support for the Experimental Mechanised Force project? Or greater interest in mechanised warfare from the cavalry afterward in a bid to keep themselves relevant?

Cavalry would focus on speed to keep themselves relevant, Scout Cars, Light Armored Vehicles and IFV would become their next train of thought. So the Experimental Mechanized Force becomes a Cavalry thing as they try to make sure they don't loose their role.

For a BTR type setup perhaps using the AEC Matador 6 x 6 chassis or even the 4 x 4 chassis (The AEC Armoured Car used the same chassis)

The British did make the 'Dorchester' Armoured Command Truck using the Matador 4 x 4 chassis

Rommels mobile command post for the entirety of the Desert campaign was made up from 2 captured 'Dorchesters'

The Scammell Pioneer might make a better choice as it was in service from 35+ although it was not as good a truck as the Matador

Like these babies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Beaver-Eel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C15TA_Armoured_Truck, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison_concrete_armoured_lorry or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrapin_(amphibious_vehicle)

I think it's difficult. However, if it came to pass, it would affect the British doctrine significantly, as well as their armor's early war performance.
In OTL, they had the infantry tanks, which would accompany/be accompanied by infantry, but for that very reason they'd never operate at the pace of a Panzerdivision; and the cruiser tanks, which, especially in the early stages of the desert war, were hamstrung by their not being a combined arms force - frequently committed without infantry (and without artillery), or with poor coordination with the latter two arms.

If a cavalry brigade is a thing having both cruiser (later, light and medium) tanks and armored infantry, and to boot the latter travels in fully tracked APCs, there is a better alternative to both situations.

Infantry Tanks are still a thing, they are for the regular infantry, while the Cavalry would focus on speed, and to exploit breakthroughs. So the line of thinking is still the same, but the Cavalry wanted to keep them selves relevant so they wanted to hog all the Cruiser Tanks, while the Infantry still get their Infantry Tanks.

 

[fastmongrel]

The India Pattern Carrier which was a sort of wheeled Universal Carrier might have been a good base for an APC. Lengthen the vehicle possibly add another axle and provide a side door capable of allowing a soldier to enter and exit without climbing over the side..

 

[Dorknought]

I like wheeled transport

Perhaps when the Spice Girls have finished with it they can give it to the army...

At least by not being tracked, you can't pretend its a tank.

 

[MCPO-MagicalGeek]

Lets keep it to Second World War Tech gentlemen.

 

[yulzari]

Experience showed that wheeled transport (even 4x4) could neither follow tanks routes nor keep up with them. Hence the conversions to Kangaroos which could. Wheeled vehicles in the assault are true battle taxis. They have to dismount their infantry before the general engagement. Obviously one can find instances on good ground with cover where they succeeded but not normally. Even half tracks could bring infantry to the start line but not accompany tanks under fire.

Where wheeled WW2 armoured infantry transport is an engineering or financial necessity doctrine will have to take the above into account. Armoured wheeled cavalry could form part of an aggressive reconnaissance battle group as was effectively done in 1944/45 but armoured cavalry in the assault role need tanks and support as armoured tracked vehicles. Ironically in 1939/40 an IFV with, say, a 0.5 Vickers and/or 0.55 Boys or 15mm Besa could probably take on a PzI or II so could form a dual role. Not so later when it can expect to meet a PzIII or IV. However, the assault opposition is more likely to rely on AT guns than tanks so cavalry tanks would need indirect fire support. Mortar teams as well as dismount infantry.

So there has to be a doctrine of an all arms group at Brigade level before armoured cavalry gets beyond simply giving the donkey wallopers tanks, and they get the infantry and the indirect fire armoured arms of an all arms group. Wheeled infantry (with their support weapons too) can follow up the advance by occupying and holding ground taken.

Given that IOTL cavalry regiments would not take on the lessons learned by the oily mechanics of the RAC I don't see them aping the PBI either. It would need draconian higher commanders to force them to comply otherwise they will (and did) revert to 'get 'im Kev' mode. However organic indirect fire will tame this in the Western Desert when they were, IOTL, obliged to stop in cover or charge forward to close fast with AT guns in the absence of HE capacity to engage dug in AT guns.

It implies a farther reaching doctrinal change across the board of all arms and risks diluting concentrated fire at divisional level by penny packets of mortars organic to brigades.

Wheeled armoured troop transport are armoured taxis. An incremental but not game changing introduction. Tracked ones should drive wholesale changes to doctrine. It won't happen pre 1942 without the lessons of experience and the industrial capacity to deliver and a wholly wartime devoted economy.

To complicate things further, until 1942 tracked reliability of British tank chassis was poor and wheeled vehicles were more likely to actually make it to the battle. Maybe a transition from lorried to armoured wheeled APCs to tracked APCs from pre war to 1943/44?

 

[SwampTiger]

CMP Chevy C15 Otter for the longer 160 inch wheel base 6x6

Modify the CMP Chevy C15 Otter with 101 inch wheel base on a 160 inch wheelbase and with 6x6 rather than 4x4. This should carry 10-12 men.

 

[MCPO-MagicalGeek]

To answer some questions, about tracked APCs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_IX_tank it was already an idea. I wanted to know what if the British expanded on the idea and decided to experiment on Wheeled based APCs as a Cheaper stopgap.

 

[L4a1]

If the Cavalry essentially become armour/mechanised infantry, it could lead to more technically minded officers later.
What's the exact PoD, more cavalry support for the Experimental Mechanised Force project? Or greater interest in mechanised warfare from the cavalry afterward in a bid to keep themselves relevant?

To get the Cavalry away from horses you really need a PoD that removes the colonial policing requirement for horse mounted Cavalry. Because as long as there is this peace time Colonial Policing requirement everyone in the Cavalry Regiments need to be trained in this role. IOTL units were converted to Armoured and then converted back to horses and rotated overseas to fill the Colonial Policing role with the units returning from overseas being converted to Armoured.

 

[MCPO-MagicalGeek]

To get the Cavalry away from horses you really need a PoD that removes the colonial policing requirement for horse mounted Cavalry. Because as long as there is this peace time Colonial Policing requirement everyone in the Cavalry Regiments need to be trained in this role. IOTL units were converted to Armoured and then converted back to horses and rotated overseas to fill the Colonial Policing role with the units returning from overseas being converted to Armoured.

Trying to find a way to get that to work, from Motorcycles to Armored Cars to the maintenance price of using an all horse Cavalry force to a mix force to an all mechanized force

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Britain did have an alternative to cavalry patrols for colonial work, and it worked really well. The RAF called it Air Control and the Army hated it.

 

[MCPO-MagicalGeek]

Britain did have an alternative to cavalry patrols for colonial work, and it worked really well. The RAF called it Air Control and the Army hated it.

Overkill, Air Patrols are useless without Ground Patrols, Ground Patrols are effective because they could engage with minimal collateral, while Air Force would cause collateral.

 

[yulzari]

We look at the capital cost of vehicles in mechanisation but cavalry are also expensive. They always need new horses, vast amounts of feed and bedding, stabling, paddocks, troop time in care, veterinary care and the logistics of feed in the field dwarf POL for vehicles. Relying of foraging in the field involves time, reducing mobility and is variable from too rich for working horses to finding none when they are hard worked. I have no figures but it would not surprise me to find that mechanisation, over time, is cheaper.

Not to mention that teaching a recruit to drive is much faster than teaching him to be an effective horseman. My father's army driving lesson i the 1930's was 10 minutes in a field then being told 'you have the idea, carry on'. Increasingly recruits would come with driving experience anyway.

 

[fastmongrel]

We look at the capital cost of vehicles in mechanisation but cavalry are also expensive. They always need new horses, vast amounts of feed and bedding, stabling, paddocks, troop time in care, veterinary care and the logistics of feed in the field dwarf POL for vehicles. Relying of foraging in the field involves time, reducing mobility and is variable from too rich for working horses to finding none when they are hard worked. I have no figures but it would not surprise me to find that mechanisation, over time, is cheaper.

Not to mention that teaching a recruit to drive is much faster than teaching him to be an effective horseman. My father's army driving lesson i the 1930's was 10 minutes in a field then being told 'you have the idea, carry on'. Increasingly recruits would come with driving experience anyway.

In the First World War fodder for horses was the biggest item in tonnage transported to the BEF

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

And most of it was to feed the horses and mules that were moving the fodder so they could then feed the horses with the fighting arms, and this was in France where fodder grows at the side of the roads. The problem gets much worse in the Middle East and on the North West Frontier.

 

[L4a1]

We look at the capital cost of vehicles in mechanisation but cavalry are also expensive. They always need new horses, vast amounts of feed and bedding, stabling, paddocks, troop time in care, veterinary care and the logistics of feed in the field dwarf POL for vehicles. Relying of foraging in the field involves time, reducing mobility and is variable from too rich for working horses to finding none when they are hard worked. I have no figures but it would not surprise me to find that mechanisation, over time, is cheaper.

Not to mention that teaching a recruit to drive is much faster than teaching him to be an effective horseman. My father's army driving lesson i the 1930's was 10 minutes in a field then being told 'you have the idea, carry on'. Increasingly recruits would come with driving experience anyway.

Cavalry Regiments recruited people who could already ride, most Officers had experience ridding in the hunt which is such good training for moving cross country at speed over unknown terrain that in some British Cavalry regiments up to at least the 1980's riding in the hunt counted as paid training. ORs were mainly from farming families who had grown up working with horses. Training Drivers to drive cross country at speed tactically and maintain their vehicles is not a 10 minute job.

Maintaining vehicles in the field requires a lot more than just POL. You need spare tires, spare parts, drivers trained to carry out daily maintenance, vehicle mechanics in the units to deal with minor faults, field workshops to carry out more serious work, and base workshops for major work up to completely rebuilding vehicles.
I'm not saying that you are wrong just over simplifying what you need to maintain a mechanized army.

Anyway if mechanization is so great why does the British Army have more Horses than Tanks today?