(Near) Useless Armored Vehicles

Why didn't the British simply build a light armored half-track using the same engine, driveline, tracks and boogie wheels as the Universal/Bren Carrier, the result being a much more capable and useful vehicle and a far better return on the investment?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier

For that matter, why didn't the Brits just adopt and manufacture the U.S. half-track, with a native engine and trans?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKS

    Now the Poles didn't have much money but again, a (slightly) smaller number of better vehicles would have been of more benefit (in an ultimately unwindable war for them, but still).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That thing looks like it was built by a pollack.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >That thing looks like it was built by a pollack.
        Mike, you're drunk! You hack.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A pollack is a fish you subliterate kneegrow.
        POLACK is the slang term for Poles.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How the frick are you this stupid?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >stupid

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, you do realise that "Military vehicle" just means vehicle used by the military and not vehicles designed specifically to kill people, right?
        The purpose is explained entirely in the name.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Probably because they made a frickton of them before the war I'm guessing? They even lend leased them to the Soviets in big numbers. One of my old neighbors in Georgia used to have one he used for plowing his field.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Probably because they made a frickton of them before the war I'm guessing?

      "The seven mechanized divisional cavalry regiments in the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) in France during 1939–1940 were equipped with Scout Carriers – 44 carriers and 28 light tanks in each regiment. There were 10 Bren Carriers in each infantry battalion in the same period.[12]

      The Reconnaissance Corps regiments – which replaced the cavalry regiments in supporting Infantry divisions after 1940 – were each equipped with 63 carriers, along with 28 Humber Scout Cars.

      Universal Carriers were issued to the support companies in infantry rifle battalions for carrying support weapons (initially 10,[13] 21 by 1941,[14] and up to 33 per battalion by 1943[15]). A British armoured division of 1940–41 had 109 carriers; each motor battalion had 44.[16]"

      They didn't actually build a frickton (at least in the run up to the war) and could have easily converted to a half-track design or adopt and manufactured the U.S. half-track.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Half-tracks can't go where full-tracks like the uni can. Sure, it's a flawed vehicle, but it was closer to the full-tracked APCs of the 50s that would follow than the glorified deuce & a half with a track that the army dropped like a rock after Korea.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There is nothing wrong with the UC, and there is a reson 100 000+ of the little things were produced.

    Name one halftrack that comes even close to those numbers, ill wait.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >there is a reson 100 000+ of the little things were produced
      The scale of production during WW2 always blows my mind. Doubt we'll ever see something like it again.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Halftracks was an inherrently flawed concept that combines the worst part of using tracks with the worst part of using wheels and there is a reson they dissapeared after WW2.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Halftracks was an inherrently flawed concept

      Nonsense, they were in fact vehicles combining the _best_ parts of fully-tracked (but expensive) vehicles with (cheeper but less capable) wheeled vehicles. They disappeared after WWII because militaries were now outrageously overfunded and could afford both fully tracked and wheeled vehicles in huge numbers.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They combined the cost and ocmplexity of tracked vehicles with the inferior off-road performance of wheeled vehicles. They dissapeared after WWII because everyone recognised them for the inferior stopgap solution they always had been and now had the opportunity to do away with them. You're moronic.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >They combined the cost and ocmplexity of tracked vehicles with the inferior off-road performance of wheeled vehicles

          Again, /k/ ignores the _historical context_ where at the time in the Depression and run up to WWII, fully-tracked vehicles were expensive, unreliable and maintenance heavy. A half-track gave better off-road performance then a truck but at a lower cost then fully-tracked vehicles.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      During the Battle of Bataan the US military stole a transport ship full of Canadian Bren Gun Carriers and pressed them into use along with their M2 halftracks. They found that the Bren Gun Carriers were better able to travel into the jungle, but the halftrack could carry heavier support weapons like the 75mm gun.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well, naturally a halftrack can carry heavier weapons, its what, three times the weight and size of a universal carrier?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What's wrong with the Bren? It was very effective in panzer general.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because halftracks are a shit compromise that was only adopted for cost reasons and the Brits could afford superior all-tracked light transports like the Universal Carrier. Simple as.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because they were good and in fact not useless, moron. Every single country that had them during the war, that being almost all of them, loved them and used them even if they small number captures.
    They're not even directly comparable since the UC is half the weight and size of halftracks like the M3. Even then, the UC and other fully tracked vehicles had better offroad mobility while regular ass cars and trucks were better on road, halftracks conceptually are just inherently inferior and only made sense in that brief window of history.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its a tracked jeep, of course it is not a tracked truck.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you think a halftrack is better?

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >decently mobile
    >resistant to rifle fire
    >can haul a few men around
    >or lug some supplies
    >can mount an LMG
    What else do you even need in an APC before like 1960?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      as other people have mentioned, the UC and half-track dont even have the same role so its dumb comparing them

      the UC is closer to an armored jeep while the half-track was an armored studebaker
      the UC can only carry a single section, so it wasnt used for infantry transport, but for units with small squad sizes and a lot of gear, then having a small transport was perfect

      so the bren gun section and the vickers gun section of a motor rifle battalion all got their own UC each
      the US and germans put 2 sections in one half-track instead, and while this does cut down on the number of drivers and technicians needed, its a much less flexible arrangement since the 2 sections are each supporting a different platoon and so need to walk once dismounted while having 2 UCs for 2 sections means they can continue forward as they plase

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A Brit carrier had six seats max but in practice only carried four troops, meaning three (3) carriers were needed, compared to one U.S. half-track.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The UC was not a dedicated troop transport, it was a general purpose (hence Universal) support vehicle. I'd rather have a whole bunch of those cheap frickers to tow artillery around than have big expensive trucks to do it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The UC was not a dedicated troop transport, it was a general purpose (hence Universal) support vehicle.

            You still needed 3X the number of carriers to do what a half-track did, that's not a good thing.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              For the price of one truck you can have three artillery gun towing units, which can also shift troops, ammunition, and assorted supplies around more flexibly than a single truck that may be limited by certain terrain because it's not FRICKING FULLY TRACKED.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's almost like... It's a universal... Carrier of things?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You still needed 3X the number of carriers to do what a half-track did, that's not a good thing.

                One halftrack cant be in three different places at the same time, so there is that to consider. Hence why everyone had both jeeps and 6x6 trucks, not only trucks. Bongs just decided to invent a tracked jeep.

                fitting both machine gun sections and the section leader in one half-track was more space-efficient but it was less efficient in planning
                since the half-track could only support one section at a time after dismounting which would be an issue if the guns dispersed after dismounting

                the UC was not used in the same manner as the half-track in the first place
                its comparing a jeep to a 6x6

                british mostly used UCs for section-sized units and trucks or actual lend-lease half-tracks for squad sized units
                which was handy for units like anti-tank or machine gun sections who would want a small, handy vehicle like a UC

                The half-track was also a "universal carrier" as well as a troop transport and weapon carriage and did all these things better then the Brit carrier and when you factor in the necessity to have triple the number of carriers to do the same job, it's a piss poor return on the investment.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >having fewer vehicles is always better

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                By using your logic is the truck, 1⁄4‑ton a useless vehicle? You need 3x as many to do the same job as a single halftrack.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >3 times the capacity
                Not all job need that capacity.
                Do halftrack tow 3 AT guns at a time?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It did all of these thing sworse than the Universal Carrier, being more expensive, less flexible and less capable of dealing with off-road conditions.

                >and when you factor in the necessity to have triple the number of carriers to do the same job
                1. You don't.
                2. And even if you did, it would still be a better return on investment than a shitty halftrack.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It and the truck had greater cargo capacity. Trucks were far more important than either.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >For the price of one truck you can have three artillery gun towing units,

                Price citation and context? The M2 is a truck chassis with a tracked rear.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >You still needed 3X the number of carriers to do what a half-track did, that's not a good thing.

              One halftrack cant be in three different places at the same time, so there is that to consider. Hence why everyone had both jeeps and 6x6 trucks, not only trucks. Bongs just decided to invent a tracked jeep.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              the UC was not used in the same manner as the half-track in the first place
              its comparing a jeep to a 6x6

              british mostly used UCs for section-sized units and trucks or actual lend-lease half-tracks for squad sized units
              which was handy for units like anti-tank or machine gun sections who would want a small, handy vehicle like a UC

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >You still needed 3X the number of carriers to do what a half-track did
              thats like saying jeeps are useless because you need 3 of them for each 2.5 ton truck

              UCs were used for PIAT, vicker guns, and bren gun sections who were manned by 2-4 men each and used a single weapon
              also used by HQ sections for getting around without getting machine gunned
              using a half-track per section would result in a lot of wasted space per vehicle and using a single half-track for all sections at once means that they are foot mounted after dismounting

              this wasnt an issue for the US, for whom the M1919s were essentially paired with the infantry squad they were supporting and would slog it with them in the field
              but british guns were commanded independently under the section leader and would prefer the extra versatility

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          fitting both machine gun sections and the section leader in one half-track was more space-efficient but it was less efficient in planning
          since the half-track could only support one section at a time after dismounting which would be an issue if the guns dispersed after dismounting

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As someone who owns a couple of M35s (two A2s and an A3) and a bunch of other surplus motor pool shit, having asking around about a conversion of an M35A2 to a half track, it introduces a shitload of extra complexity not present on either the base truck nor it's contemporary tye M113, while only being marginally more capable than the M35A2 with good tires. Half-tracks are fundamentally a stop gap that don't really excel. I don't know that much about the UC but a simple tracked vehicle fundamentally would be way more capable in a lot of ways in really shit terrain. Having the steering wheels be wheels with tires and not part of the tracks is a huge, huge compromise and problem that maybe the Brits didn't like.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP, consult pic name.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Clearly better than a half-track but even the U.S. with it's industrial might didn't go fully-tracked at the time.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >universal carrier
    >useless
    pick one
    it was one of their most successful vehicles

    >For that matter, why didn't the Brits just adopt and manufacture the U.S. half-track, with a native engine and trans?
    they used tons of those too
    they got nearly 8000 half-tracks
    of which 2000 were specialized variants like the quad .50 AA

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The UCs were basically mobile machinegun nests with useful light cargo carrying capability. They served this role well.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >universal carrier
    >useless
    Thing was so good literally everyone used it. Even the Germans.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Nazis used everything they could get their hands on, even the biggest garbage.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        true lmao

        I still think the UC was awsome tho

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Not so bad in 39-40.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I watched pentagon wars last night, and I don't think this bradley is going to be useful in any real war situation. cant believe they spent 14b on that thing, even israel saw it was a death trap

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It was for carrying a bren gun crew and perfect for that

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why do you need a vehicle for a LMG?

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The universal carrier fills the same role as the Jeep does in American service. It was used to carry mortars, heavy machine guns and gave an infantry company a mobile unit in the carrier platoon. It doesn't fit the same role as the halftrack.

    Plus the UK was getting the M9 & M5 halftracks via lend-lease so why would they need to produce their own?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >makes a thread about useless vehicles
    >uses one of the most produced and successful armored vehicles in history as an example
    you're not gonna make it OP

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Thread complaining about British equipment that completely misunderstands the purpose of the vehicle, compares it to other vehicles of a completely different role and seems just to be an exercise in Anglophobia over any logical discussion
      Stop me if you've heard this one before.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    warriorfart thread
    S to spit

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm now filtering every thread that mentions vehicles because of him. He's a cancer on this board.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >more capable and useful vehicle
    lol no
    just a vehicle with different pros and cons
    as a matter of fact the main advantage of a half track is being cheaper
    >adopt
    they did
    >manufacture
    don't know about that, but it's not easy to retool production lines, unlike in hoi4, it actually takes over a year to get back up to speed

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Keep in mind that the Bren Universal Carrier weighed only 3 tons. This means it's more of a tracked jeep than an APC>.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't the British simply build a light armored half-track using the same engine, driveline, tracks and boogie wheels as the Universal/Bren Carrier, the result being a much more capable and useful vehicle and a far better return on the investment?

    Because the engine has half the horsepower of a decent halftrack with half the weight of one for a start.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As transport it was useful. It's not a tank. Remember tracks work better than wheels on poor ground, but troops HATE maintaining tracks and wheels can be blown off yet the vehicle still get home.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *