That and the Cambridge were the ones I was thinking of - thanks
I know that they are not a Kangaroo but they are relatively cheap and it's not a massive leap from the Universal Carrier to something twice the size with some armour and overhead cover
WI/AHC: British adoption of APCs/IFVs in or before WW2
- Thread starter Tangles up aubergine
- Start date
-
- Tags
- apc britain british army ifv ww2
That and the Cambridge were the ones I was thinking of - thanks
I know that they are not a Kangaroo but they are relatively cheap and it's not a massive leap from the Universal Carrier to something twice the size with some armour and overhead cover
Yea.
Very effective counter insurgent weapon in mid 30’s Palestine
This is exactly the sort of vehicle I was invisioning. Thank you, Lord Wyclif, thank you very much!
EDIT: What were these things called? Just hoping for some additional info, thanks again.
Dragon, Medium Mark IV?
Based on the Vickers 6 Ton
These were used by the Siam Armed forces
Based on the Vickers 6 Ton
These were used by the Siam Armed forces
So perhaps the British developed the 6 Ton and in the late 30s as better AFV designs are built keep the 6 Tonner production line but use it for Prime mover and APCs - for the Mechanized Rifle Regiments (The Infantry Battalions in a Tank Brigade)
Which was worse:
..... Mid engine with front sprocket drive (ala. Bren/Universal Carrier)?
Rear engine with front sprocket drive (ala. Oxford Carrier)?
..... front engine with rear drive sprocket (ala. Canadian experimental Bobcat APC)?
They all wasted valuable cabin space. Bobcat proved frightfully noisey and clambering over the aft differential was difficult for heavily-laden infantrymen.
Building a serious APC/IFV earlier starts with asking poor bloody infantry what they want.
Cold War - and Gulf War - dogma says that APCs need front engine, front drive and rear ramp for easy exits.
That would require an enlarged, front-drive, front-engine Universal Carrier with a rear ramp. Add a complete second boggie and overhead cover. Maybe develop the infantry ramp from a mortar-carrier.
In other threads, I have speculated about a 6 x 6 wheeled APC based on a Canadian Military Pattern truck chassis ..... try to picture a CMP armoured ambulance enlarged to carry 9+ infantry under an armoured roof. Make doors wide enough for heavily-laden infantry they exit quickly.
Another thread speculates about Valentine Archer and (fictional) Bishop 2 SP guns de-frocked to carry ammo and gunners .... later infantry. Turning the driver’s seat the face the engine would free up the old glacis for decent-sized doors.
Side vision-blocks improve situational awareness for infantry.
Firing ports are great for morale, but kill few enemy. Far wiser to leave killing to a dedicated MG turret ...... .30 caliber minimum ...... Browning .50 caliber if that caliber is already coming through the existing supply chain.
..... Mid engine with front sprocket drive (ala. Bren/Universal Carrier)?
Rear engine with front sprocket drive (ala. Oxford Carrier)?
..... front engine with rear drive sprocket (ala. Canadian experimental Bobcat APC)?
They all wasted valuable cabin space. Bobcat proved frightfully noisey and clambering over the aft differential was difficult for heavily-laden infantrymen.
Building a serious APC/IFV earlier starts with asking poor bloody infantry what they want.
Cold War - and Gulf War - dogma says that APCs need front engine, front drive and rear ramp for easy exits.
That would require an enlarged, front-drive, front-engine Universal Carrier with a rear ramp. Add a complete second boggie and overhead cover. Maybe develop the infantry ramp from a mortar-carrier.
In other threads, I have speculated about a 6 x 6 wheeled APC based on a Canadian Military Pattern truck chassis ..... try to picture a CMP armoured ambulance enlarged to carry 9+ infantry under an armoured roof. Make doors wide enough for heavily-laden infantry they exit quickly.
Another thread speculates about Valentine Archer and (fictional) Bishop 2 SP guns de-frocked to carry ammo and gunners .... later infantry. Turning the driver’s seat the face the engine would free up the old glacis for decent-sized doors.
Side vision-blocks improve situational awareness for infantry.
Firing ports are great for morale, but kill few enemy. Far wiser to leave killing to a dedicated MG turret ...... .30 caliber minimum ...... Browning .50 caliber if that caliber is already coming through the existing supply chain.
The 4x4 is a Guy Lizard.
The 6x6 is an AEC Command vehicle
The tracked vehicle is as Cryhavoc101 says I’d the Dragon Type 76
Last edited:
You have to decide which of 3 classes it should be. Armoured lorry which can use rough tracks, battle taxi which can deliver troops across the same ground as tanks or a vehicle in the second class but capable of engaging the enemy with MMG and/or HMG fire.
e.g.
1. can be an armoured 6x6 or 4x4 eg OTL Deacon or Saxon sort of thing.
2. 6 ton Vickers with a box body.
3. long version of a Light MkVIc with extra width and power. The 15mm will deal with enemy light armour and AT gun shields plus penetrate ordinary dug in MG positions. In effect a swollen Light MkVIc with ten PBI in the back.
e.g.
1. can be an armoured 6x6 or 4x4 eg OTL Deacon or Saxon sort of thing.
2. 6 ton Vickers with a box body.
3. long version of a Light MkVIc with extra width and power. The 15mm will deal with enemy light armour and AT gun shields plus penetrate ordinary dug in MG positions. In effect a swollen Light MkVIc with ten PBI in the back.
Guy introduced the 'Warrior' 4-wheeled chassis, powered by a Gardner diesel engine, and the 6-wheeled 'Goliath', a development of the 'Warrior'. Both had driven rear axles, and 8 speed gear boxes. The 'Goliath' could accommodate a 22 ft. long body, and carry a 12 ton load.
The development of the all-important Guy military vehicles continued with the launch of 6-wheel and 8-wheel driven vehicles which could go almost anywhere, even across a 6 ft. wide trench, without falling into it.
Could imagine this 8x8 armoured up like the lizard. An early LAV.
The Universal and Lloyd Carriers are really too small to be APCs. To be worthwhile you probably need to carry at least 8 men in the back, twice what the carriers could. You need a better way of getting out than clambering over the side as well.
Everyone's been really helpful, with lots of very interesting ideas and an astonishing breadth of knowledge. I am truly grateful to all of you. I think I have a good PoD decided on, and some good ideas on where I could take this...
I will be researching for the foreseeable future, but I hope I will be coming back with some good content for those interested.
I will be researching for the foreseeable future, but I hope I will be coming back with some good content for those interested.