Armoured Personnel Carriers

The Katzchen seems a good choice, but like a lot of German inovations, it came at a time when they lack the resources to deploy them in large numbers and the initative to use them to the fullest.

 

That's pretty much what we have today. The U.S. Army with the Bradley/Stryker and the Marine Corps with the AAV/LAV, Soviet BMP/BTR, etc. Wheeled vehicles have lower operational costs, require less logistical support, less maintenance, better road performance and speed, so in certain areas they do have benefits.

CrazyD wrote:

I'd go with the M3 halftrack. Better cross country performance because the front wheels were driven, not so in the 250/251. Better road performance because of the rubber tracks. Simpler suspension and tracks had greater durability and less maintenance. The 250/251 had better ballistic performance vs the M3 because while the armor thickness was comparable the 250/251 had a better ballistic shape. This was largely negated though because of the weapons carried. The M3 normally mounted, 1x.50 cal and 2x.30 cal mg's, the German vehicles mounted mg34/42's. While this gave the Germans a firepower advantage in terms of ROF the 34/42's couldn't readily penetrate the M3's armor while the MaDeuce .50 cal could easily penetrate that of the 250/251. The M3 also came in a great number of variants like the 250/251.

Classically, enough to defeat enemy small arms fire and artillery fragmentation. It evolved to include a degree of protection against some man portable AT weapons, but still even most modern APC/IFV's don't have nearly the protection of a tank. (The Soviets and Israeli's are two countries that have recently produced an APC/IFV with tank level armor protection, but on a limited basis and intended for use in urban combat and to combat IED's) Overhead protection is something that virtually all WWII era APC's lacked and something that became standard in post war types.

Yes sir, I agree brother!!!

 

Here's the Canadian C15TA, a widely used wheeled carrier related to the Otter armoured car;

and the Australian LP-4 (LP=Locally Produced, but this was a design and not an improvised model as such)

 

And some soviet examples;

The Zis-6 (background vehicle, not the front one - the soviets also used many of their larger armoured cars with turrets removed)
Zis-5
The B3 Half Track prototype (some sources say quite a few were made?)
and again
The Komsomolets Tractor (cavalry style carrier)

 

Good stuff, Spartan. The above point is what I was thinking of in terms of armor; did the Kangaroo essentially overdue it with unnecessary armor (that likely limited ability to include more space for troops, possibility for more customization), or would that have been the ideal?
More of a food-for-thought rhetorical thing. Thinking and typing out loud, as it is!

USMCPrice- great point on the M3. I currently don't have a functional home computer (sorta) and have had trouble from work, so I wasn't able to really look into a good deal of info. Based soley on the automotive characteristics you note, that would seem a big advantage for the M3.

:cheers:

(And here's hoping I don't have to resort to the 8-year-old laptop to post this weekend!)

 

The various kangaroo models carried between 11 and 13 men usually, so space wasn't too much of an issue. Looking at what has happened since the war it is only since the Bosnian situation that APCs have been equipped with armour approaching that of tanks, except maybe a few isolated vehicles and prototypes. The Israelis have been the leaders in producing tank based APCs in recent years as USMCPrice says, but they are not really designed for open battlefield use.

As a 'what if' the kangaroos could have been modified to perhaps have the engine towards the front and higher armoured sides or side doors etc, but that would have probably been more work than building new ones. The main reason for the kangaroos introduction was not particularly so there was a more heavily armoured carrier, although it proved useful and some of the purpose built models were noticeably underarmoured. It was merely a quick and cheap way to get many more infantry under armour in a hurry, and considered economical due to the availability of hulls. There was a sudden change of thought on the need for APCs of any type that came about probably as a result of North Africa or Sicily, but driven by Canadian losses in the early part of Normandy.

As far as the ideal goes, I'm sure anyone under fire wants the thickest armour possible, but the cost, weight and logistic support requirements of heavier vehicles means it isn't the norm.

 

Interesting Russian/Soviet/USSR collection everything from WTF? to hillbilly armour to German themed to UC variant. Did they go to the APC buffet?

 

Just look at the British/Commonwealth list - much wider selection

And theres still plenty more to come

 

Hope you can work something out, I am sure you'll improvise, adapt and overcome.

 

Here's some more US late war prototypes which weren't pursued;

T17
T17
T19
T3
T3

 

These types appear wider, looking for more space?

 

I think more ground contact was the main issue - there is definitely an increase in size but i don't think anywhere as near as much as it appears at first look

 

Struggling to find photos, sorry, but heres pictures of the;
UK Carrier, Cavalry, Mk1 and the
Carrier, Scout Mk 1

 

The first one reminds me of the African Queen! The second seems to have a anti-tank rifle I am guessing. Mounted like that it would seem more wishfull thinking than anything else. Was it detachable?

 

Of the types listed:

The carrier types like the universal or French UE are simply too small to be really useful. They carry only a very limited number of men and equipment and, they are very vulnerable to enemy fire. Their towing capacity likewise is limited. Basically, they are too complex and expensive for what they deliver.

Wheeled APC's are not a wholly bad alternative. They certainly have advantages in operational movement over greater distances. Their biggest disadvantage is obviously their vulnerability to enemy fire with regard to the wheels. Of course, armored cars suffered from a similar problem and this apparently did not make them unsuccessful. Properly designed, they could be used off road in most conditions too.

The halftrack for WW 2 offers the best choice. It has a combination of decent mobility on and off road, is reasonably economical to build and can carry a considerable load.

The tracked solution would be best but, converting older AFV into personnel transports is a half measure. While a Kangaroo-type APC gives its passengers a fair degree of protection their having to unload over the side under fire is a big disadvantage. This is also a problem loading and unloading material to or from the vehicle. It would have to wait until post war for tracked APC's to really gain ground and become successful.

 

Just an FYI, the 251 has better cross country/off road performance due to a larger track area (take a look at side profiles of the M3 vs 251), lower ground pressure and lighter weight.
I know an American General said something about the front wheel drive being an issue, I take that with a heavy grain of salt considering the obvious that you can see and having played with tracks in the mud before.

The same may be true of the 250, thats a different animal than the M3 and 251 though (much smaller).

 

Germany converted obsolete tanks to munition haulers by adding a simple steel box on top of the chassis, could they have not done the same for an APC application, at little added cost? They don't seem much taller than the PanzerJagaers like the Marders or Nashorn.

 

They had much higher priorities for the captured and obsolete tanks. Even captured APCs didn't stay as APCs, they became haulers or SP artillery etc.

 

Yes - the Boys rifle was actually the most common weapon to find on the Loyd type carriers of all types, and easily dismountable. It stayed on strength of almost all British units even well after the Piat was introduced - IIRC until about 1950. The bren was more likely to be mounted on a pintle in the rear compartment as pictured than in the front box.

You quite often see the Boys rifle mounted on other models as well, including kangaroos.
(probably an anti-tank rifle thread to happen later on)

 

You're absolutely right, the German 3/4 tracks beat the M2 and M3 hands down off road, unpowered front wheels notwithstanding.

In hard off road conditions the M2/3 was quite adequate though. (middle east/tunisia etc.)