British create armoured personnel carriers in 1940s

[SCOUT 5249]

The German wolf hound

During the battle of France and the subsequent battles in Greece and north Africa the German army expressed a keen interest in the British vanguard and APC in general, a few captured examples proved to be superior the SD.KFZ. 250/251 half having overhead protection and very reliable.

A proposal was made to make a version for the army, two prototypes the VK 14 and VK 20 were created the first had a leaf spring spring suspension like panzer II and IV, the VK 20 featured interleaved suspension system. The VK 14 and VK 20 was armed with only two mg 34 one at the commanders cupola and bow.

The VK 14 were put into production and named the wolf hound on Hitler's orders and used in Operation Barbarossa performing admirably when other half tracks were bogged down by the Russian mud the wolf hound could still move.

Needless to say despite the impressive production and variants the wolf hound was outnumbered by the 251 half tracks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay truth is that Germany put way too much money in too many vehicles.

 

[SCOUT 5249]

Land lease armoured personnel carriers.

When the Germans stormed into Soviet territory the USSR and the red army were in desperate need of vehicles as production facilities were relocated. Among the various vehicles sent by the US and Britain vanguard and M40 troop carriers were arrived in Russia.

The appearance of these odd vehicles caused much discussion among the red army, troop carriers were unheard of in Soviet army but nonetheless the vehicles were used in combat. The vanguards engine placement meant that it kept troops warm during winter operations.

Vanguards and the American M40 were dependable. But there was complaints the vanguards tracks were found prone to breaking and the Vickers and .50 machine guns were changed for local weapons sometimes 20mm cannon were fitted for extra armour, some were converted tank destroyers armed with the 76.2MM cannon. A significant portion were had rail systems for katyusha rockets installed.

Post war saw vanguard being produced under the title of GAZ 220
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will continue this and let's face the vanguard would fit the Russian standard which is reliable.

 

[perfectgeneral]

Clickable

I don't think a troop transport Universal Carrier is likely to be perfect to start off with. Here I've illustrated a slightly larger vehicle with canvas roof rails. This could get plates added to them in the field. Once the improvised version is seen to help...

The extra wheel means this ~10,000lb (5 ton) vehicle can carry eight men in the back, two crew at the front. Towing a six pounder AT gun would be no problem. An HMG/Bren position firing over the crew area is another possibility. All round firing with a ring mounting.

 

[fastmongrel]

Seems like the Oxford Carrier would be ideal if fitted with overhead protection.
https://images.app.goo.gl/W2XA3KwYrGcdufjy5

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...x/im#h=601&imgdii=y_HB0_2c2acvGM:&vet=1&w=800

 

[SCOUT 5249]

View attachment 456935 Clickable

I don't think a troop transport Universal Carrier is likely to be perfect to start off with. Here I've illustrated a slightly larger vehicle with canvas roof rails. This could get plates added to them in the field. Once the improvised version is seen to help...

The extra wheel means this ~10,000lb (5 ton) vehicle can carry six men in the back, two crew at the front. Towing a six pounder AT gun would be no problem. An HMG/Bren position firing over the crew area is another possibility. All round firing with a ring mounting.

doesn't have to be the carrier the MK VI tank would work.

 

[perfectgeneral]

doesn't have to be the carrier the MK VI tank would work.

The industrial capacity isn't really there to pump out thousands of Mk VI tanks as carriers or they would have made more tanks.

Canada had the Windsor, shown here towing a six pounder AT gun. A little more enclosure and rear access and you have an APC.

Ford Motor Company produced 13,893 Universal Carriers for British Commonwealth nations at its Somerville, MA remote assembly plant. Ford of Canada in Windsor

Quotes from https://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/ford.htm

This WWII photo shows several of the 33,988 Universal Carriers on the railroad dock at the Windsor, ONT Ford plant.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The production of MK VI as APC's wouldn't come at the expense of tank production, but rather production of some of the universal or loyd carriers. Considering the carriers were built in the tens of thousands even diverting production of 10% will give thousands of APC's at no real cost to the war effort. In many of its roles the carrier could easily be replaced by the tilly or a lend lease jeep.

 

[phx1138]

Every single one of the 1700+ Covenanters built was a pure waste of steel, and tied up three factories in the production of that abortion.

Using that hull as a basis for an APC would not have been a waste

I would disagree slightly. IMO, using a tank chassis for an APC is overkill, so it is wasting material.

Using the factory space & manpower allotted to Covenanters to produce a tracked APC, OTH, makes emminent sense.

That said, I have to ask, why not build a wheeled APC? Given how stingy Treasury is, it'd be an easier sell, & not enormously less effective in Europe (or even North Africa, mostly).

So, what about a modified Lanchester armored car adapted to APC? Or a 6x6/10-wheeler truck with armor?

 

[Aber]

Or a 6x6/10-wheeler truck with armor?

Spoiler: Bison

 

[phx1138]

Spoiler: Bison

A bit more like this, actually:

Two seperate engines, in tandem, along the side of the hull

You can stack Ford flatheads

Be advised, twin engines had a habit of not delivering equal performance/engine: one tended to be more powerful, even in identical tune. Go figger. (What car is that, BTW?)

Better option is a variety of A57 (multibank) engine.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Well Britain's got the chassis to build it on, though it's only a 6 X 4 not 6 X 6.

 

[Some Bloke]

The production of MK VI as APC's wouldn't come at the expense of tank production, but rather production of some of the universal or loyd carriers. Considering the carriers were built in the tens of thousands even diverting production of 10% will give thousands of APC's at no real cost to the war effort. In many of its roles the carrier could easily be replaced by the tilly or a lend lease jeep.

Not to mention replacing the Lloyd and Universal carriers altogether, more capable and more flexible.
My guess is that production for the other carrier types will have wound down by the time the Vanguard II enters service.

What do they call the British Battleship ITTL or is she butterflied away?

 

[duckie]

I think that a stretched Mk IV has better off road performance. But in the 1930's APC are a solution that seeks a problem. Mayby the path could be as follows.

a. Vickers develops a modification for the Mk IV, to solve the pitching problem. They build a prototype (mild steel) and it works well in the trails, but it is not accepted because the Treasury nixt the idea.

b. The hull of the prototyp is lying in some corner of the Vickers Plant and is grabbed by the workers that need a transport in the testing ground (trucks get stuck in the mud). They install some benches for seating and space for recovery gear.

c. Because it can follow the tanks in all sorts of terrain, it also used by Vickers to transport VIP's around.

d. Visiting officers are very interested in the prototyp because it can keep up with the tanks in every sort of terrain and offers an solution to the problem of the difference in speed between the tanks and the infantry.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Not to mention replacing the Lloyd and Universal carriers altogether, more capable and more flexible.
My guess is that production for the other carrier types will have wound down by the time the Vanguard II enters service.

What do they call the British Battleship ITTL or is she butterflied away?

She'd probably still be called HMS Vanguard. Britain did produce the (bloody awful) prototype Valiant Infantry Tank while the battleship HMS Valiant was in service.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I would disagree slightly. IMO, using a tank chassis for an APC is overkill, so it is wasting material.

Using the factory space & manpower allotted to Covenanters to produce a tracked APC, OTH, makes emminent sense.

That said, I have to ask, why not build a wheeled APC? Given how stingy Treasury is, it'd be an easier sell, & not enormously less effective in Europe (or even North Africa, mostly).

So, what about a modified Lanchester armored car adapted to APC? Or a 6x6/10-wheeler truck with armor?

Instead of Covenanters build Valentines? Another 1200-1700 would have been very useful scattered around the Empire and used in the UK for training

With an early enough POD all it would take is a dedicated factory/s to build whatever type of vehicle was required - whether based on a vickers 6 ton chassis/MKVI chassis/enlarged Loyd Carrier.

For me I am falling on the side of an enlarged Loyd carrier - big enough to carry 10 men and simple enough to be maintained by the support units in a given infantry battalion/Brigade like the Universal carrier was while at the same time being useful as a prime mover, radio/command vehicle, ambulance, recce.

Oh and it would be cheaper than a modified tank chassis and purpose designed rather than modified from an turreted AFV.

 

[StevoJH]

Didn’t most of the Valentines or at least a very large portion get sent to Russia?

 

[phx1138]

With an early enough POD all it would take is a dedicated factory/s to build whatever type of vehicle was required - whether based on a vickers 6 ton chassis/MKVI chassis/enlarged Loyd Carrier.

For me I am falling on the side of an enlarged Loyd carrier - big enough to carry 10 men and simple enough to be maintained by the support units in a given infantry battalion/Brigade like the Universal carrier was while at the same time being useful as a prime mover, radio/command vehicle, ambulance, recce.

That works for me. The freed factory space turned over to them, too. Besides APCs, they might be basic crew trainers, too.

I lean to a turreted quad .50, myself, but a couple of flex mounts might be all you really need.

I kind of like the idea of "strap on" rockets, kind of like Maultier packs on either side: maybe 4x7.2"/side? Or maybe roof-mount Hedgehog? I picture these as bunker-busters, useful especially at Anzio & Normandie.

 

[phx1138]

Okay where did I go wrong?

Minor quibbles. IMO, shouldn't be Bishop (butterfly away the OTL name for something else; Crozier?) or Starfire (too modern; Pipeorgan?)

Otherwise, I like it.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Didn’t most of the Valentines or at least a very large portion get sent to Russia?

Slightly less than half the total Production went to Russia who valued its relaibility - and it was the Russians who asked for its produciton to continue beyoind its 'obsolecence' and they used it to the end of the war.

It became the Principle Infantry tank used in North Africa from 41 replacing the Matilda II - and given its reliability over the Cruser tanks - rapidly became the Principle 'Tank' and served in 'Armoured' regts (which at the time would have had Crusiers).

Virtually the Entire Canadian production went to Russia (32 retained for training) via the Pacific 1,388 were sent to the Soviet-Union, with 2,394 exported from Britain.

6,855 units were built in the UK.

 

[marathag]

Be advised, twin engines had a habit of not delivering equal performance/engine: one tended to be more powerful, even in identical tune. Go figger. (What car is that, BTW?)

Vintage Dragster.
Late '50s/early '60s multiple engines was allowed by NHRA