The Universal Carrier

[Brian]

There used to be a trick question which was asked of all new British infantrymen during WWII, which is related by Chamberlain in his excellent little history of the British infantry carrier "The Carrier Story", which went:

"Is the universal carrier an AFV?"

Is it an AFV? CMBO certainly appears to think so, with the MMG carrier, which cannot dismount its Vickers MMG. Ditto for the Bren which many carriers carried.

In reality, British doctrine was not to attempt to use the Infantry Carrier as an Armoured Fighting Vehicle - rather it was merely an armoured transporter, designed to carry men and equipment to a point where they could then dismount and use their weapons.

Yes, it did mount the weapons in a fighting like manner but they were never intended to be used to fight from - a fact that too many games appears to miss (indeed, virtually everytime they were used as AFV's they usually ended up coming off the worse for the experience.

The really funny thing though, is that the 3in Mortar Carrier, which in CMBO must have the mortar dismounted to be used, could fire is mortar from some modified vehicles, from a mounting over the engine cover. :eek:

[David Aitken]

The same could be said for all halftracks in CM. They were essentially armoured transport, usually driven by the squad they carried and mounting the squad's LMG, but in CM they are taken into battle and used as IFVs.

It is a limitation of the game's engine that weapons cannot currently be used both mounted and dismounted. The SPW 251 cannot mount the squad MG42 for the AA role. Mortar halftracks cannot dismount their mortar.

Arguably no halftrack or carrier in the game should be armed; the drawback being that even when mounted they could not use the squad LMG or mortar, which arguably they would not do on the battlefield anyway. Maybe halftracks should also be modelled as assault boats, so that they cannot move unless mounted, as they did not always have their own driver.

Hopefully we shall see this modelled more correctly after the engine rewrite, but in the meantime we can be working out exactly what 'correct' is.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

The same could be said for all halftracks in CM. They were essentially armoured transport, usually driven by the squad they carried and mounting the squad's LMG, but in CM they are taken into battle and used as IFVs.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans and the British, respectively did assign a seperate driver to their transporters/carriers. I'd have assumed that the US Army did as well, am I mistaken?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

It is a limitation of the game's engine that weapons cannot currently be used both mounted and dismounted. The SPW 251 cannot mount the squad MG42 for the AA role. Mortar halftracks cannot dismount their mortar.

Arguably no halftrack or carrier in the game should be armed; the drawback being that even when mounted they could not use the squad LMG or mortar, which arguably they would not do on the battlefield anyway.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the 251 was designed to fire its mortar from within the vehicle, as was the US's half-track. The Australian army developed a similar variant of the carrier, with a turntable in the rear compartment (and the engine moved to beside the driver) but it was never produced in quantity, unfortunately.

I'd suggest that those two vehicles should be allowed to fire their mortars from within the vehicle.

As to the 251 and the US M3 half-tracks being equipped with MG's, both were. Indeed, in the early part of the war, many 251's actually carried 3 MG's - one mounted on the pintle, another in the shield and finally, a third which belonged to the section carried inside. US M3 half-tracks of course often bristled with MG's either .50 cal or .30 cal weapons on fixed, skid-rail or ring mounts.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Maybe halftracks should also be modelled as assault boats, so that they cannot move unless mounted, as they did not always have their own driver.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you sure of that? As I said, the German and British armies, did have drivers. What was lacking was a gunner to fire the weapons. Usually he came from the enbussed section. I'd much rather see movement but no firing without a section aboard than no movement.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Hopefully we shall see this modelled more correctly after the engine rewrite, but in the meantime we can be working out exactly what 'correct' is. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope the designers are listening then.

[David Aitken]

There was a big debate a few months ago about the US M5A1 halftrack. BTS originally allowed it to carry a full squad, but then decided that it was a command vehicle and only had space for six men. People provided numerous sources and pictures of the various different halftracks, their roles and capacities and whatever. One of the conclusions was that the vehicle was driven by a squad member, adding weight to the argument that there was space for a full squad.

The fact remains that in CM, the two or three squad members who drive the vehicle and/or fire the guns remain on board even though the squad is dismounted, which is much the same issue as you raise concerning the UC.

[ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: David Aitken ]

[David Aitken]

I might also point out that the carrier modelled in CM is actually a 3in mortar carrier. It has the mortar and tripod strapped to the back, and the passenger/cargo compartment is half full with bombs. It would be nice to see a basic UC, which would be more apparently a carrier rather than some kind of support vehicle.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

In reality, British doctrine was not to attempt to use the Infantry Carrier as an Armoured Fighting Vehicle - rather it was merely an armoured transporter, designed to carry men and equipment to a point where they could then dismount and use their weapons.

Yes, it did mount the weapons in a fighting like manner but they were never intended to be used to fight from - a fact that too many games appears to miss (indeed, virtually everytime they were used as AFV's they usually ended up coming off the worse for the experience.

:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why, then, were there 13 carriers in the Carrier Platoon?

While carriers were used to transport 6 pounder AT guns and 3 inch mortars in the infantry battalions, and also used by RQMS/CQMS staff to move wounded, rations, ammo, and equipment, the carrier platoon was used on occasion for recce, or even assaults. The Calgary Highlanders used them that way on at least one occasion during the fighting at the neck of the Beveland peninsula. I wonder if other regimental histories would not yield info about similar uses?

No doubt such use was limited, both in scope (even if all 13 carriers were used, it would still only be enough to transport a platoon or two) and in frequency - the attack by two companies up and two back was de rigeur for Commonwealth troops in NWE.

But the main point, I think, is that NO AFV - not even the fully tracked Kangaroo - was intended as anything more than an armoured bus. We had this discussion on German halftracks quite a while ago, and with the exception of breakthrough battles, infantry of all nations invariably dismounted to fight - be they Soviet tank riders, panzergrenadiers, US "armored infantry" or men of Commonwealth Motor battalions.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Why, then, were there 13 carriers in the Carrier Platoon?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I presume that was a rhetorical question as you appear to have answered it yourself. The carriers were used for a lot of things, from resupply, tractors, recce, transport and so on, through to command vehicles for the battalion commander and his (small) staff.

Basically they were designed to provide a certain degree of mobility across the battlefield with some protection against small arms and artillery splinters for the battalion's support elements.

Think of them as a bit of a mix between a truck, a helicopter and an APC, if you like.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I wonder if other regimental histories would not yield info about similar uses?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Without a doubt, but they were not intended to be actual fighting vehicles as so much as a means of transport. Indeed, the history of WWII is littered, particularly in the early part of where attempts were made to use carriers as AFV's when no others were available and they usually ended up, brewed up very quickly.

The other problem is that universal carriers were not the mainstay of the British carrier force - Loyde and other types were prevalent as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

But the main point, I think, is that NO AFV - not even the fully tracked Kangaroo - was intended as anything more than an armoured bus. We had this discussion on German halftracks quite a while ago, and with the exception of breakthrough battles, infantry of all nations invariably dismounted to fight - be they Soviet tank riders, panzergrenadiers, US "armored infantry" or men of Commonwealth Motor battalions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that is why the MICV was eventually developed from the 1960's onwards. Until, all APC's were just that - APC's - as you mention, the troops did dismount to assault their objective. Furthermore, they had to do so, even when in APC's in co-operation with other arms, such as tanks/assault guns, in order to be able to suppress the enemy's defences, in order to allow their APC's to survive long enough to get them to their objectives.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Why, then, were there 13 carriers in the Carrier Platoon?

While carriers were used to transport 6 pounder AT guns and 3 inch mortars in the infantry battalions, and also used by RQMS/CQMS staff to move wounded, rations, ammo, and equipment, the carrier platoon was used on occasion for recce, or even assaults. The Calgary Highlanders used them that way on at least one occasion during the fighting at the neck of the Beveland peninsula. I wonder if other regimental histories would not yield info about similar uses?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Carriers were used as assualt vehicles by the BritCom forces in the desert where space allowed them dispersion and some degree of protection.

When used in the "Battle of the Beachheads" (who can tell me where that was (grin) - give you a clue - think 1942/43) they were destroyed in minutes for no gain as the enemy could bring to bear weapons at from concealed positions at extremely close range.

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

When used in the "Battle of the Beachheads" (who can tell me where that was (grin) - give you a clue - think 1942/43) they were destroyed in minutes for no gain as the enemy could bring to bear weapons at from concealed positions at extremely close range.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buna and Sanananda.

I was also thinking of Crete.

[Hon John Howard MP LLB]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian:

Buna and Sanananda.

I was also thinking of Crete.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buna, Gona and Sanananda - north coast of NG.

An area where the bulk of the fighting was done by Australians and credited to the "septics" (remember - Blill Slim credited the first land defeat of the Japanese to the Australians at Milne Bay).

AFAIR Bren carriers (and they and the scout carrier would have the predominet types) were not used as assult vehles as there were a few Light Tanks Mk V or VI and A9/10 series mediums (but in any case with domination of the air by the LW any movement by vehicle have been problematical)

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hon John Howard MP LLB:

Buna, Gona and Sanananda - north coast of NG.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was right, two out of three. Gona was a minor affair though compared to the other two.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

An area where the bulk of the fighting was done by Australians and credited to the "septics" (remember - Blill Slim credited the first land defeat of the Japanese to the Australians at Milne Bay).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Favourite quote of mine actually - "until Milne Bay we didn't know the Japanese could be defeated."

Usually 'septics believe that Guadacanal was the first land victory in the Pacific war but in reality it was Milne Bay, which predated the end of the Guadacanal campaign by several months.

As to the credit, what do you expect with that blowhard Macarthur in command? He was more interested in getting his own footnote in history than in actually winning the war IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

AFAIR Bren carriers (and they and the scout carrier would have the predominet types) were not used as assult vehles as there were a few Light Tanks Mk V or VI and A9/10 series mediums (but in any case with domination of the air by the LW any movement by vehicle have been problematical)[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were several light tanks, about a troop of 'tillies and some carriers (unspecified) on Crete. There were no A9/10's.