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?
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).
That thing looks like it was built by a pollack.
>That thing looks like it was built by a pollack.
Mike, you're drunk! You hack.
A pollack is a fish you subliterate kneegrow.
POLACK is the slang term for Poles.
How the frick are you this stupid?
>stupid
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
>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.
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.
Well, naturally a halftrack can carry heavier weapons, its what, three times the weight and size of a universal carrier?
What's wrong with the Bren? It was very effective in panzer general.
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.
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.
Its a tracked jeep, of course it is not a tracked truck.
Why do you think a halftrack is better?
>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?
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
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.
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.
>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.
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.
It's almost like... It's a universal... Carrier of things?
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.
>having fewer vehicles is always better
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.
>3 times the capacity
Not all job need that capacity.
Do halftrack tow 3 AT guns at a time?
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.
It and the truck had greater cargo capacity. Trucks were far more important than either.
>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.
>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.
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
>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
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
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.
OP, consult pic name.
Clearly better than a half-track but even the U.S. with it's industrial might didn't go fully-tracked at the time.
>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
The UCs were basically mobile machinegun nests with useful light cargo carrying capability. They served this role well.
>universal carrier
>useless
Thing was so good literally everyone used it. Even the Germans.
Nazis used everything they could get their hands on, even the biggest garbage.
true lmao
I still think the UC was awsome tho
Not so bad in 39-40.
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
It was for carrying a bren gun crew and perfect for that
Why do you need a vehicle for a LMG?
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?
>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
>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.
warriorfart thread
S to spit
I'm now filtering every thread that mentions vehicles because of him. He's a cancer on this board.
>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
Keep in mind that the Bren Universal Carrier weighed only 3 tons. This means it's more of a tracked jeep than an APC>.
>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.
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.