Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

[Donald Reaver]

Very silent on my father's part, started up early with Grandmother's permission. Spent first year learning the trade on the Pacific Coast. Spent the rest of the war on R.C.N. corvettes across the Atlantic. Never ever talked about it. Lost friends is much as he said.

 

[Major Major]

There was also this - the Home Guard pike - and I am sure we can all guess whose idea this was - apparently not issued for fear of damaging morale

No, this is the Home Guard Pike.

 

[vetinari]

For dealing with bunkers (when tanks aren't available), what about a Universal Carrier mounting a Blacker Bombard?

Universal or as they were colloquially known as Bren carriers were not and were never used as Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Where they were, they invariably failed dismally. They were meant to be used as armoured transports on the battlefield.

 

[diesal]

The Charlton was never made to see front-line service, but rather, was made to equip the New Zealand Home Guard. Of course, with the Japanese stymied, it might never see the light of day to begin with, since there's no invasion panic.


I very much doubt a new cartridge is in the works, but a semi-automatic rifle in .303 might be viable. Possibly a run of Garands could be reworked to accept .303 cartridges?

Just on the subject of Rifles, surely the British if they wanted a Semi Automatic rifle in a calibre they used would want to develop something in 7.92 so it had the same supply chain as the Besa machine guns. Whilst you can make a semi automatic rifle that shoots rimmed ammunition why would you want to. With the additional industrial capacity that will be available from not suffering the string of calamities seen in 40-42 the British could re-equip some significant fraction to a semi automatic rifle.

 

[diesal]

George McDonald-Fraser, in Quartered Safe Out Here.

Such a fine writer and such a poignant book.

 

[MattII]

Universal or as they were colloquially known as Bren carriers were not and were never used as Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Where they were, they invariably failed dismally. They were meant to be used as armoured transports on the battlefield.

As long as it's proof against the 7.7x58mm Arisaka at 50+m, it should be able to get close enough to deal with Japanese bunkers.

Just on the subject of Rifles, surely the British if they wanted a Semi Automatic rifle in a calibre they used would want to develop something in 7.92 so it had the same supply chain as the Besa machine guns. Whilst you can make a semi automatic rifle that shoots rimmed ammunition why would you want to. With the additional industrial capacity that will be available from not suffering the string of calamities seen in 40-42 the British could re-equip some significant fraction to a semi automatic rifle.

The 7.92mm was good enough for tanks, because it could be stuck into their supply chain along with main-gun ammunition and spare parts, but mixing it in with infantry equipment is just asking for trouble IMO.

 

[Unorthed0x]

if you can't hit a tank with a mortar, then why are we arguing about it?

I should have mentioned they were using the Type 89 as a direct fire weapon.

 

[vetinari]

As long as it's proof against the 7.7x58mm Arisaka at 50+m, it should be able to get close enough to deal with Japanese bunkers.

When the Australian Army initially tried to use Bren Carriers as AFVs in the opening stages of the Battle of Buna, they proved a disaster and lasted less than half an hour. On Crete the British Army and New Zealand Army both tried to use Bren Carriers as AFV and they proved to be disasters. The British Army used to have a quiz that they gave infantry soldiers with the question, "Is the Bren Carrier an AFV?" The correct answer was, "No".

 

[diesal]

As long as it's proof against the 7.7x58mm Arisaka at 50+m, it should be able to get close enough to deal with Japanese bunkers.


The 7.92mm was good enough for tanks, because it could be stuck into their supply chain along with main-gun ammunition and spare parts, but mixing it in with infantry equipment is just asking for trouble IMO.

I was suggesting the 7.92 be used for just that reason it already exists in the supply chain for armoured units. If it was only used by attached infantry battalions it wouldn’t bugger things up so much.

 

[JWilly48519]

(...) Unfortunately all the principal arms manufacturers were already involved in building and refining conventional weapons, and the job of designing man portable anti-tank weapons, was left in the hands of amateurs. Whereas normally the military authorities would have placed a design requirement with a number of experienced suppliers, calling for paper design proposals, and having examined them, in committee. Called for a number of prototypes, which could be tested and examined, to eliminate the obvious faults and problems, before either choosing one design to go ahead into limited production and basic testing. Or the military might decide to take bits of one design and use them with bits of another, and call for this mix to be produced and tested. Once the final design has been developed, produced and tested, there will be a limited production run, that is sent off for prolonged field tests, and user feedback. Then the branch that is to be the user, will assemble a team to formalise the training process, of first the instructor’s that are going to train the instructor’s that are going to train the final users. Plus oversee the production of training aids, and instructional books/etc. All this takes time and given that completely new principles were being introduced, shaped changes, rocket propulsion, recoilless weapons, and spigot mortars, you would be looking at three or more years before you had a usable weapon. Instead you had a number of hastily designed and assembled weapons, sometimes by amateur weapons designers, literally in sheds, ordered of the drawing board. Handed out to front line troops, without the extensive testing and training needed, and these men were told to get on with it.

Two contrary examples:

The British #68 HEAT rifle grenade was designed by a properly delegated committee, and went directly to production, and went to the field toward the end of the 1940 fighting in France and Belgium, and worked substantially as expected and intended. No amateurs involved.

And, the Edgar Brandt company's 50mm HEAT rifle grenade was designed by Mssr. Brandt, his engineering staff, and his HEAT expert Hans (later Henry, in USA) Mohaupt Jr.; and was presented to the French high command, ordered, and went directly to production. It didn't go to the field because of command stupidity...French Army rules prohibited issuing a weapon for which the Army had not written, and then approved, the training manual, so 150,000 rounds of HEAT RGs sat in a Paris-area warehouse during the 1940 fighting...but that wasn't Brandt's fault. When used later in the war, it worked substantially as expected and intended. No amateurs were involved in its conceptualization and development.

By many historical reckonings, the #68 and the Brandt 50mm were the world's first two MANPATs, not counting AT rifles and simple HE charges and incendiary devices.

 

[Look More Closely Later]

Hmm. Original timeline Churchill made reference to something he called 'puff-balls' in a memo to General Ismay dated 6th May, 1942. There's a footnote that these were 'Aerial anti-tank bombs, invented by Colonel Jefferis'. (Reference in 'Appendix C' of Volume IV of Churchill's WW2 memoirs.)

Edit:
These may have been mentioned already in the past few pages. There have been quite a few posts since I last checked...

 

[JWilly48519]

For dealing with bunkers (when tanks aren't available), what about a Universal Carrier mounting a Blacker Bombard?

Blacker Bombard was a bit of an odd duck. AFAIK none were distributed outside of England and Libya, and it along with its ammo went out of production in early 1942 as QF two pounders became available again. I don't know that a mount for the Blacker onto a UC existed.

This two-inch-mortar-on-UC concoction however did exist, and had the advantage of using readily available ammo, including smoke rounds...such as the one the gunner below is holding in his left hand:

 

[MattII]

When the Australian Army initially tried to use Bren Carriers as AFVs in the opening stages of the Battle of Buna, they proved a disaster and lasted less than half an hour. On Crete the British Army and New Zealand Army both tried to use Bren Carriers as AFV and they proved to be disasters. The British Army used to have a quiz that they gave infantry soldiers with the question, "Is the Bren Carrier an AFV?" The correct answer was, "No".

Against mobile forces perhaps, but I'm talking about using them against Bunkers.

exists in the supply chain for armoured units. If it was only used by attached infantry battalions it wouldn’t bugger things up so much.

How do you keep some idiot in stores from mixing up the 7.62mm from the .303?

Blacker Bombard was a bit of an odd duck. AFAIK none were distributed outside of England and Libya, and it along with its ammo went out of production in early 1942 as QF two pounders became available again. I don't know that a mount for the Blacker onto a UC existed.

None were mounted to UCs IOTL. As to the deployment, the anti-tank H.E. rounds have an overall weight of 8.8 kg, and a filling weight of just a hair shy of 4 kg. I don't know if it would punch a hole in a bunker, but I'm pretty sure no-one inside would like the effect of being hit by one.

This two-inch-mortar-on-UC concoction however did exist, and had the advantage of using readily available ammo, including smoke rounds...such as the one the gunner below is holding in his left hand:

View attachment 897574
View attachment 897575

I'm not sure the ~1 kg shell those fired would have an appreciable effect on a bunker unless, by some miracle, they went through the firing port.

 

[Gryle]

Hmm. Original timeline Churchill made reference to something he called 'puff-balls' in a memo to General Ismay dated 6th May, 1942. There's a footnote that these were 'Aerial anti-tank bombs, invented by Colonel Jefferis'. (Reference in 'Appendix C' of Volume IV of Churchill's WW2 memoirs.)

Edit:
These may have been mentioned already in the past few pages. There have been quite a few posts since I last checked...

Puff-ball -> 9lb. AT Bomb

 

[AlanL]

That sounds normal for that generation. My Grandfather must had the most amazing stories about the war, from the Retreat to Dunkirk, to becoming an officer, to landing on Gold at D+2 and having to find a) paper for the daily 2nd Army newsletter and b) Calvados for a VIP who came to his HQ once (possibly Churchill, possibly not), to the aftermath of the Falaise Gap, to... Belsen. He never really talked about what he'd seen, except the occasional snippet to Mum.
The Greatest Generation was also the Silent Generation.

The generation before that too. My stepdad was aware that his dad had been on the Somme, but that was all he or anybody else were ever told.

 

[Mike D]

That sounds normal for that generation. My Grandfather must had the most amazing stories about the war, from the Retreat to Dunkirk, to becoming an officer, to landing on Gold at D+2 and having to find a) paper for the daily 2nd Army newsletter and b) Calvados for a VIP who came to his HQ once (possibly Churchill, possibly not), to the aftermath of the Falaise Gap, to... Belsen. He never really talked about what he'd seen, except the occasional snippet to Mum.
The Greatest Generation was also the Silent Generation.

My Granddad was one of the first ashore on Sword Beach and went all the way through to Bremen.

According to my Dad the only thing he ever said about the war was once when my Dad was a teenager and squared up to him after some argument. He just looked at my Dad, said "I've killed better men than you" and walked away.

 

[DaveyP1967]

Universal or as they were colloquially known as Bren carriers were not and were never used as Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Where they were, they invariably failed dismally. They were meant to be used as armoured transports on the battlefield.

Whilst I'd agree they were not perfect AFVs, they did have some use in their Wasp (Flame-Thrower, Transportable, No2) variant. Quite widely issued, for example by the end of Nov 1944 134 Wasp II and 73 Wasp IIc had been delivered to the First Canadian Army.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Universal or as they were colloquially known as Bren carriers were not and were never used as Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Where they were, they invariably failed dismally. They were meant to be used as armoured transports on the battlefield.

They were supposed to be the mechanical solution to the problem of moving men, equipment, heavy weapons (Vickers and mortars etc) and stores etc to and from the front line

In WW1 the effort of the same was almost always achieved by manpower alone and was often herculean in nature and utterly exhausting for the troops involved not to mention time consuming.

And several initial break throughs failed through the inability to bring up ammunition and sometimes even water resulting in the initial advances being lost

Best to think of them as a tracked Jeep and as you say defiantly not an AFV.

 

[Look More Closely Later]

Puff-ball -> 9lb. AT Bomb

Thanks! Is it known if they had a good track record when used?

 

[edgeworthy]

They were supposed to be the mechanical solution to the problem of moving men, equipment, heavy weapons (Vickers and mortars etc) and stores etc to and from the front line

In WW1 the effort of the same was almost always achieved by manpower alone and was often herculean in nature and utterly exhausting for the troops involved not to mention time consuming.

And several initial break throughs failed through the inability to bring up ammunition and sometimes even water resulting in the initial advances being lost

Best to think of them as a tracked Jeep and as you say defiantly not an AFV.

Strictly speaking a Carrier was about 3 times the size of a Jeep, several models were directly built on the mechanicals of a 15cwt truck.
(A Jeep being a 1/4 tonner)