Armoured Personnel Carriers

Strangely enough - the Bren Gun Carrier was actually quite successful as an AFV in 1940 in France! Looking through Montefiore's Dunkirk, there are at least half a dozen instances of German troops being put to flight by "attacks" by British armour I.E. bren gun carriers!

I suppose THAT early in the war, to an infantryman any armour that came at you and fired an MG at you in the absence of decent "personal" AT weapons was to be feared....

 

Very true - almost all the German infantry was on foot or in soft skins at the time
and AFAIK the carriers more often carried a Boys than a Bren in France anyway

 

I can agree with that, the German Pz I's and II's were effective against French Infantry well out of purportion to their true lethality. The available French Anti-tank guns could easily take out one of these. The fear of a tank played a stong part.

 

About time we should introduce some of the US half tracks if nobody else wants to;

The T7 - an early model - could be called the forerunner of all the US half tracks
The M2A1 the slightly smaller member of the family
M3 - the 13 man squad vehicle
M3 from above showing crew seating arrangements
T16 - a late war prototype that aimed to increase the track contact to a 3/4 track for improved cross country performance after seeing the German models in action - not put into production due to a planned move to fully tracked carriers and tractors

The M2 and M3 went through numerous minor modifications in service, the ones shown are representative. There were also the M5 and M9 which were almost identical visually, although not mechanically, built largely for lend-lease by IH as opposed to the M2/3 which were made by White/Diamond/Autocar.

 

Third pic, 10 boxed of ammo for the MG, are they expecting trouble?

 

Crossing the Seine, so maybe although the gunner is obviously not that concerned about the sky - I guess the bridge site had it's own air cover and AA.

It looks like the shelf was purpose designed for that amount

 

Certainly does look that way, first time I have seen that modifcation.

 

Third pic, 10 boxed of ammo for the MG, are they expecting trouble?

Or maybe just not expecting resupply anytime soon. I also vote halftrack, for a reason I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned yet, the ability of the troops to debark at the rear with some degree of cover from the vehicle. Most of the other tracked types, passengers had to climb in or out over the sides, not to mention loading cargo or wounded. Rear entry is near universal in modern APCs.

If I had to pick one I would have to go tracked, but there are certainly situations and terrains in which wheeled APCs can be as useful or more economical. I could see a major army having a mix of wheeled and tracked.

 

good point about the access - there were a couple of full tracks and wheeled machines with back doors however. i'll post some pics later - having keyboard problem at moment so having to use on screen one which is getting tedious

strangely you often see pics of German troops debussing over the side. i wonder if that's a staged photo thing or if the Russians perhaps targeted the back? maybe just took too long to all get out the back or there was some design flaw with the door?

 

I think it has to be for speed of egress. Here's the 251 in normal transport mode...




...look at the HEIGHT of the landsers inside compared with the overall height of the vehicle; when going into combat they were almost crouched inside - to get out the back they had to turn then get out by twos at best, all crouched and carrying all their war kit...

But getting out over the side meant they could all get out in a few seconds...

 

I am just guessing but for the two at the back going thru the doors made sense, but the others just want to get out fast before a anti-tank gun draws a bead.

 

Best i can tell from scale drawings the back door opening is around 90 cm high only, not much different on different ausfs. some photos showing the problem;

 

and no real difference in the US models;

 

It does seem the US types do not have the headache bar across the top of the back exit, but just as narrow.

 

the gangway between the seats is much wider which must help a lot too. Not found many pics of men getting out of m2s and 3s either way compared to the Germans. Wonder if that indicates a significant difference in tactics?

 

The photo of the German troops in riding on top of the halftrack is misleading. I believe that is due to carrying excess equipment and may also be because there is more fear of mines and less fear of direct small arms fire. Riding on top is better for rapid dispersal in the event of figher-bomber attack.
I'm 6'2" and the side of the 251 comes up several inches above my belt line when standing, and over my head when seated.
More comfortable than a Bradley I might add.

 

For sure in Phylo's photo they are mostly sitting on the lip/standing on the seats. From scale plans about 120cm looks like floor to lip height.

 

Here's some pics of the German Katzchen, one based on the 38 (t) chassis and one on a panther components set up, although smaller than the panther. Apart from these couple of prototypes it seems that the dilution of tank production would have been too much to go into series production.

 

SdKfz 250 and 250 would seem prime candidates. Pretty wide availability, easily customized for unique needs, and the halftrack design would seem to provide more mobility. Main problem being armor- not too much of it. Would the armor on the SdKfz 150/1s even stop heavier caliber rifle/MG fire?

How important is protection in an Armored Personell carrier would seem to be one of the main issues. How much armor does one need to be "effective"?

Neat thread though, with some great examples and photos. And, let's face it- between all the different vehicles and variations of such, APCs are just... cool.

 

Will get onto all the variations in a later thread Crazy - Maybe more than one thread as there are so many

The issue of how important armour for infantry is can be best looked at from the point of view of the changes in tactics seen over the period from 1918-45.

At the end of ww1 there was a need to reduce infantry casualties, and also to give them a way to keep up with the ever faster tanks, which were seen quickly to need infantry with them at all times.

The British experimental force in the tween war period established that if you were going to use tanks in a breakthrough role, then infantry needed to be able to move with them, and trucks were a poor solution. The military and technical debate was based around the tankette, the APC, the truck and the 'independent' tank option. The shortage of funds meant that this problem was never really solved.

The Germans then developed their ideas based on a lot of the British findings, which largely used tanks to manouver independently of infantry, with infantry and AT guns on foot or with trucks occupying the ground that was captured and protecting flanks, and it was only after the experiences of Poland that they started looking seriously about close cooperation between the arms in mobile warfare rather than just set piece assaults.

Later the allies developed the true combined arms concept, especially in Normandy, which has led to our modern APC usage, where infantry has to be at least as mobile as tanks, and protected as best can be achieved, so there need be no separation between them in operations.

Most APC armour in ww2 was effective only against rifle calibre small arms and shell fragments, except the kangaroos. Their crews thought themselves lucky.