# The Best Armored Troop Carrier/Reconnaissance Fighting Vehicle of WWII???



## Lucky13 (Jan 3, 2008)

Which would you consider to be the best armored fighting vehicle of WWII? I'm thinking of troop carriers and reconnaissance vehicles... Would it the SdKfz 250, 251 the M2/M3, the M8, the Humber Mk4 or the Sd.Kfz. 231 etc...etc...?

Which had the better chance of survival, the better armour, dependability, serviceability, weapons etc.....the list goes on.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2008)

I'm going to think about this question, but I have to make you aware that AFV refers to tanks also. 

A quick answer from would be the amazingly adaptable and reliable Sd.Kfz. 251 - the amount that was put on that chassis is amazing. It was the perfect support vehicle for the tanks.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 3, 2008)

Just thought of that after I had posted this one...maybe one of the Mods wouldn't mind too much to have it changed to a more appropiate title?


----------



## Derfman (Jan 3, 2008)

For all its weakness and outdated nature, the M3 Stewart was OUTSTANDING in its intended role, due to its rugged reliability and excellent performance. Sort of the same principle as the success of the Swordfish. A vehicle that to all appearances seems hopelessly outdate, but still does a a stellar job regardless.

Later in the war, the Chaffee was absolutely outstanding in just about every regard as a Recon AFV.

On a related note, I've always thought the Soviet T60/T70 "looked" great for a recon AFV, but I've not heard about it being used much in that regard.

On the German side, I've heard good things about the PzII Lynx, and a variety of wheeled recon vehicles they used, but dont know the details.


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2008)

If we're talking about armoed support or transport vehicles then I'd have to say the Sd.Kfz. 251, mainly because of its adaptability good protection. 

The Puma gets an honorable mention, it was an excellent recon vehicle.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 3, 2008)

The M3 was a successful design and it was used in every theatre of the war. It was the first American AFV to see combat when it was sent to the 8th Army in July '41. By Operation _Crusader_ there were 163 M3s in British service. The M3 model was modified in British service with the introduction of British pattern smoke dischargers, extra sand shields and removal of the practically useless sponson machine guns (the machine guns were removed in the M3A1). 
The Soviet Union received 1676 M3 Stuarts and while the advantage of gyroscopes was appreciated, the high silhouette was criticised and the hull machine guns were openly mocked. :note: The Soviets' delivery was not all Guiberson diesel engined models as some histories state; as only 500 M3 (Diesel) were made as well as 211 M3A1 (Diesel). 

The M3 was obviously a big success as over 14,000 were built. The M3 Light Tank was a tank though so surely it cannot be included in the discussion, or else we would have to include the M5 Light Tank which was quite clearly a superior design; having many minor improvements as well as better armour protection while maintaining the same speed. Redundant M5s were converted to T8 Reconnaisance Vehicle in '44 by removing the turret and replacing it with a gun ring mounting for a Browning .50 cal. The M24 Light Tank 'Chaffee' was probably the best light tank of the war and was produced in enough numbers to merit a mention (4,415 vehicles by wars end) but it cannot be compared to the Sd.Kfz.251; for the simple reason that it was light tank armed with a 75mm M6 cannon and the Sd.Kfz.251 was a troop carrier half-track. 

I don't mean to be annoying but really, half-tracks, recon vehicles and light tanks would have to be kept seperate for comparison.


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2008)

For recon and infantry support, give me this baby:

*The Sd.Kfz. 234 Puma*






It was totally unmatched in its class and way ahead of its time. Top speed was 80 km/h and range an incredible 900km.

For armored transport and light infantry support I choose the Sd.Kfz. 251.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 3, 2008)

Soren said:


> For recon and infantry support, give me this baby:
> 
> *The Sd.Kfz. 234 Puma*
> 
> ...



Gotta go with Soren (again) on this one . . . . the Sd. Kfz. 234/2 was an almost perfect balance of firepower, armor mobility, especially for an armored car. German armored cars were, in general, years ahead of everybody else's, especially the 234-series. Many of the design features found on the 234-series of armored cars were later incorporated into the armored car designs of the Allied countries after the War.


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2008)

Another armored recon vehicle that we must not forget is the Sd.Kfz. 222, it was an excellent design also ahead of its time, and an absolutely devastating foe for any unsupported enemy infantry unit.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 3, 2008)

Tiger tank. That had great armor and a 88mm gun


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 3, 2008)

Troop carriers ohh sry i say M8


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2008)

The M8 wasn't a troop carrier, it was an armored recon car which wasn't very well armored or armed.


Btw guys, small correction, the Sd.Kfz. 234/2 Puma was apparently able to reach 85 km/h.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 3, 2008)

Recon w/e


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 3, 2008)

my knowledge about AFV is minimal but would like to propose the Kangaroo


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 4, 2008)

Hey, I've got a question for all you WWII AFV/armor buffs out there: I took a picture of my son in an armored car last summer at a Boy Scout Camporall (basically, a really big campout with hundreds of other Boy Scouts). Can anyone identify this armored car for me? All I know is it's British, and it had a .30-cal machine gun in the turret; here it is:










P.S. My son's a goofball!


----------



## plan_D (Jan 4, 2008)

I have all the Sd.Kfz.234 series being able to reach 80 km/h. The whole series was impressive for recon and infantry support, I would not argue against them. The Sd.Kfz.234/2 being the most able, but not forgetting the Sd.Kfz.234/3 and 4 which both mounted 75mm (KwK51 L/24 and PaK40 L/46 respectively) which could pack an unexpected punch for any Allied recon or light armour.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Jan 4, 2008)

SoD, looks like a Ferret. This would make it a post WW2 armoured car.


----------



## Soren (Jan 4, 2008)

Its definitely a Daimler Ferret.


----------



## Glider (Jan 4, 2008)

I admit to being in two minds on this. The 234 Puma is an exceptional machine, the only problem I have with it. For Recce work its too big.

For Recce the Daimler is a good balance of size and cross country ability, but has the 2pd.

Really too close to call.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> Its definitely a Daimler Ferret.



Excellent! Thanks Glider Soren. I thought it might be a Cadillac-Gage, but that's definitely the same car.


----------



## Trautloft (Jan 4, 2008)

i go with the Puma ,if i gt choose a 4x4, the Panhard 178 maybe maybe superior,but the Wehrmacht integrated them immadiately and they been used for recce or as mobile railway guards

http://www.czolgiem.com/francja/foto/pan178_03.jpg


----------



## Goodrapid (Jan 8, 2008)

I'll pick the M3 and a toolbox. That should be sufficient to get from the beaches to Berlin without too much fuss.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 9, 2008)

How about the SdKfz 250 then?


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2008)

As recon vehicle, Daimler Scout Car


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2008)

I'd want some armament if I was going on recon... 

The Sd.Kfz. 222 has everything one could wish for as a recon vehicle. I like the ability to return some potent surpressive firepower if attacked.


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2008)

IMHO best recon is unnoticed so that the chances to be able to make a proper attack with surprise is bigger. Of course if one had to penetrate a screening line some armament is preferable but shooting alarmed the enemy. And after all Scout Car had a Bren. And Daimler armoured car had 2pdr and IMHO was also otherwise better than SdKfz 222. And after all British in 44 thought that NW Europe wasn't suitable enviroment for armoured cars and the Armoured divs fighting in NW Europe had Cromwell based Armoured Recon Rgt in place of the Armour Car Rgt in Normandy. Even that wasn't enough and Armoured Recon Rgt of these Armoured Divs were replaced by an extra armoured regiment, read battalion, from Aug 44 onwards. So in NW Europet your 222 would met a Cromwell or a couple of them alongside a scout car or turretless M3 light tank. And in a shooting match I bet the Cromwell would have upper hand.

IMHO 222 was OK armoured car but IIRC it lacked long range radio and I don't like the open-topped turret, it made 222 vulnerable, especially in wooded or buil-up enviroment or simply enviroment with height differences.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2008)

Juha, recon vehicles aren't supposed to fight anything other than infantry, and that the Sd.kfz. 222 was good at.

The Daimler armoured car is allot heavier than the Sd.Kfz. 222 so you can't compare them. The Puma was faster, had better armour and a powerful high velocity 50mm main gun compared to the Daimler armoured car, plus 8 wheel drive ofcourse.


----------



## Juha (Jan 11, 2008)

Soren
if one cannot compare 222 and Daimler how you can compare Panther and Sherman or Panther and T-34? Panther was a lot heavier. Keep a line that one can compare only exactly same weight AFVs or accept that one can compare light armoured cars or medium tanks even if there are some weight difference between types in same category. Funny thing is that after saying that one cannot compare light armoured cars you compared a light armoured car to a heavy armoured car, You selectiveness is sometimes amazing.
234 was a heavy armoured car and IIRC only 101 234/2 ie Pumas were made and I bet that British made more than 101 AEC heavy armoured cars armed with 6pdr or 75mm gun. Most common 234 were 234/1s with the same 20mm automatic cannon than in 222s. That said I really think that 234 series was the best heavy armoured car in service during WWII which I can recall and I don't have a high oppinion on AECs but at least they out-gunned Puma.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2008)

When talking recon vehicles you need to compare types of similar weights, otherwise why not just vote for a tank ? Heck if weight is of no importance then give me a Panther, hey then I might even be able to stay put a mangle the opposition singlehandedly! Or should we stick with the much lighter and differently tasked armoured cars?

The Sd.Kfz. 234 was also armed with a 75mm PaK40 Juha, a gun much more powerful than the 6 pdr or those short puny 75mm guns mounted on Allied armoured cars. The Sd.Kfz.234/2 Puma is the best armoured car because it has better armour mobility than comparable sized Allied armoured car's and a gun more than capable of knocking out any Allied armoured car and some Allied tanks as-well. However you cannot compare the Puma to the Sd.Kfz. 222, they are different class vehicles with different tasks - something which can't be said about many tanks.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 13, 2008)

The thought was troop carriers and reconnaissance vehicles and not tanks... Just put up the "wrong" title by mistake...hopefully one of the Mods or Ads can change it to a more suitable one...

The Germans must have been the leaders in the field though....


----------



## Juha (Jan 14, 2008)

Soren
234/4 yes, but AEC and Coventry had turrets so 360deg traverse. Daimler was also capable to pierce Puma's armour at NW Europe battle ranges and also the side armour of Pz IV and even that of Panther but the latter only from some 400-500y.

IMHO 222 and Daimler armoured cars had same functions. Pumas, 234/3s and 234/4s on the other hand same as AECs ie to support lighter armoured cars. In fact IIRC 222 was designed to support 221 but lets say that 222 and Daimler had same function. British just opted heavier but AP specialist gun and a bit heavier armour. IMHO 20mm automatic cannon might have been better solution but OTOH 2pdr was capaple to pierce side armour of medium tank.

Juha


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 14, 2008)

Changed the Title of the Thread....


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> 234/4 yes, but AEC and Coventry had turrets so 360deg traverse. Daimler was also capable to pierce Puma's armour at NW Europe battle ranges and also the side armour of Pz IV and even that of Panther but the latter only from some 400-500y.



And the Sd.Kfz. 234/2 was capable of penetrating the Daimler, AEC Coventry's armor at long ranges, plus it was better offroad than all of them, much better. The 234/4 couldn't traverse its gun 360 degree's but unlike the others it could take on any Allied tank head on at long ranges, the same you cannot even come close to say about the AEC, Coventry or Daimler. 



> IMHO 222 and Daimler armoured cars had same functions. Pumas, 234/3s and 234/4s on the other hand same as AECs ie to support lighter armoured cars. In fact IIRC 222 was designed to support 221 but lets say that 222 and Daimler had same function. British just opted heavier but AP specialist gun and a bit heavier armour. IMHO 20mm automatic cannon might have been better solution



The 2 pdr was useless, don't you get it ?? It was lunacy to put such a gun on a recon vehicle of such size as its mostly going to be facing infantry and is meant to retreat if any enemy tank shows up (I mean look at what tanks the Allies were faced with, they were never easy nuts to crack). A fast firing 300 - 400 rpm 20mm gun is light years more effective in this role, being an absolute terror weapon against infantry. 



> but OTOH 2pdr was capaple to pierce side armour of medium tank.



Yes, at suicide range! Plus the 2 pdr was such a small gun that even if one of its rounds managed to pierce the side armour of any German medium tank it would most likly do very little to no damage at all - and you didn't get second chances up close against German panzers, so even attempting such a thing (esp. against any medium tank) would be almost suicidal.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 15, 2008)

I would go with the 8 Ton SdKfz 7 Personnel Carrier. Very adaptable.

_pictures from_ Brazil


----------



## pbfoot (Jan 15, 2008)

How can we be ignoring this innovative piece of gear it could haul 10 ten troops inside looks almost like a modern APC its called the Kangaroo
here is a cut and paste from their website

"Enter the eclectic Canadian Lieutenant General Guy Simonds, then OC, 2nd Canadian Corps. His appreciation of the problems in getting the infantry across the Start Lines and keeping them up with the armour for mutual support, led to the seven-day overhaul and conversion of 72 U.S. M-7 Priest self-propelled guns then in service with artillery units of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division. 
Each had its howitzer removed, and the resulting gap in the front armour plated over with whatever steel could be found. Dubbed 'Kangaroos', which was the code name for the 2nd corps Army Workshops Detachment (AWD) which converted them, these robust vehicles were assigned a single driver as the only crew, and loaded with ten or more infantry, crossed the start line for Operation TOTALIZE on the night of 7 August 1944. 
M7 Priest 

The vehicles, and the tactics, were an immediate success. It had been demonstrated that carrying troops behind armour significantly reduced casualties, as well as increased morale within the hard-pressed infantry. In addition, the ability of these vehicles to keep pace with the tanks increased the security of both elements." 
1st Canadian Armoured Carrier Regiment Association


----------



## Soren (Jan 15, 2008)

Not a bad idea at all PBfoot, I can imagine that vehicle was very useful. When no German panzers where around the Kangaroo could be used like a moving pillbox against German infantry. It would be hard to knock one out with a Panzerschrek or Panzerfaust was it protected by infantry, which it most surely 99% of the time would've been.

Very useful vehicle, no doubt.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 15, 2008)

Didn't know about that one, Pb. Nice.

Was the Priest based on the Sherman? Look similar. (I'm not well versed on armour )


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 15, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> Changed the Title of the Thread....


Cheers Les, much appreciated!


----------



## Glider (Jan 16, 2008)

Soren said:


> And the Sd.Kfz. 234/2 was capable of penetrating the Daimler, AEC Coventry's armor at long ranges, plus it was better offroad than all of them, much better. The 234/4 couldn't traverse its gun 360 degree's but unlike the others it could take on any Allied tank head on at long ranges, the same you cannot even come close to say about the AEC, Coventry or Daimler.


I don't know about the AEC and Coventry but the Daimler had remarkable cross country ability and the advantage for recce purposes of being a small machine. Its basic design can be seen in the Ferret which stayed in service in many countries until the 90's.
There is no doubt that the 234 was a remarkable machine but it tended to be in the support role supporting the smaller machines for which it was ideal. The Puma was I would suggest the best version, the 234/4 had three problems
1 As mentioned the turret had a limited traverse, which in a potentially fast developing situation as often happened on recce missions is a disadvantage
2 They only built I believe around 90 of them
3 They only carried around 15 rounds 

The 2pd was pretty useless as an anti tank weapon but sufficient against other armoured cars, SPG's and other light veihicles. It was improved in some machines by the use of a littlejohn adapter but this meant it couldn't fire HE shells which was a significant disadvantage compared to the small increase in penetration. 
Any Daimler suddenly finding itself in front of a German tank would almost certainly fire the smoke dischargers and run. This was easy to do as the commander had a duplicate steering wheel and controls so he could drive it backwards, no need to turn around!! 
This is why in a British Armoured car regiment ,the Daimler recce troops were supported by a heavy troop armed with a 6pd or 75mm gun depending on the Armoured car in question.

I don't disagree with the idea that a 20mm would have been better bet probably a matter of six of one and half a dozen of another. The British did have Humber Armoured Cars armed with a 15mm Bessa HMG plus a co ax LMG and I have never heard that they suffered because of it.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 16, 2008)

Yes, Njaco, the M7 "Priest" was based on the M4A3 Sherman chassis. The original plan was to build it upon the M3 "Grant" chassis, but the M4 production had superseded the M3. The M3/M4 chassis were extremely adaptable - the M10, M36, M12 and M40 (slight widened M4A4 HVSS) were based upon it, amongst many other variants.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 16, 2008)

Thanks. So it wasn't only the Germans who played around with their tank designs.


----------



## plan_D (Jan 17, 2008)

Certainly not, no. Every nation in the war adapted tank chassis for many other means. The Sherman has every kind of modification you can think of from ditch digger to bridge layer to rocket launcher. The British even modified a Matilda II to become a lighthouse !


----------



## Njaco (Jan 17, 2008)

> The British even modified a Matilda II to become a lighthouse !



I think the Germans made that modification to the Matilda as well!


----------



## Juha (Jan 17, 2008)

Soren
I'm still in a hurry, so just a couple notes.

"The 2 pdr was useless, don't you get it ?? "

That you think something doesn't prove anything. As I wrote in AT gun thread a German report stated that 2pdr was excellent AT gun at ranges up to 800m against Pz IIIs and IVs with 30mm armour, which happened to be Puma's frontal armour, Puma's side protection being only 8-10mm. What more by mid 42 2pdr also had H.V. ammo which was able to pierce Pz IV's 30mm side armour up to 1700y. Source same table than given in AT gun thread. Now 1700y isn't to me a suicide range.

"if one of its rounds managed to pierce the side armour of any German medium tank it would most likly do very little to no damage at all "

Now individuals are different but I wouldn't like to be in an armoured box with plenty of ammo around when a 40mm shot come through one of the walls. I predict that the situation was likely to be unhealthy.

But I'n still in opinion that 20mm automatic was maybe a better solution than 2pdr for armoured car. But 2pdr had its good points.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

Juha said:


> "The 2 pdr was useless, don't you get it ?? "
> 
> As I wrote in AT gun thread a German report stated that 2pdr was excellent AT gun at ranges up to 800m against Pz IIIs and IVs with 30mm armour, which happened to be Puma's frontal armour, Puma's side protection being only 8-10mm.



Hey I wasn't talking about against the Puma, what I was talking about was against medium tanks. But also like I said the Puma was capable of taking out all the Allied armoured cars, including the Daimler, at even longer ranges, and it was even a serious threat to the Sherman at 1,000m! 



> That you think something doesn't prove anything.



Come on Juha, think for a second here, what good is a 40mm AT gun as an anti-personnel weapon ? Thats right, its useless. The 2 pdr has ZERO HE capability, thus to fight enemy infantry with it you have to aim at single individuals to take them out (Not very effective).



> What more by mid 42 2pdr also had H.V. ammo which was able to pierce Pz IV's 30mm side armour up to 1700y. Source same table than given in AT gun thread. Now 1700y isn't to me a suicide range.



The Pzkpfw. IV as of late 1943 was usually fitted with side skirts, increasing the side armor protection, and thus the 2 pounder didn't pose much of a threat from 500m and out, esp. not if any angle was applied.



> Now individuals are different but I wouldn't like to be in an armoured box with plenty of ammo around when a 40mm shot come through one of the walls. I predict that the situation was likely to be unhealthy.



Haha, I didn't say anything about it being likable Juha  Any round penetrating the armor of one's vehicle would be very unappriciated by that person, that we can definitely agree on. The point is however that the round of a 2 pdr didn't do much damage if it penetrated the side armour of a tank (Unless it hit the crew ofcourse), and thus the chances of that tank returning fire was VERY great. So now again I don't know about you Juha, but the thought of the enemy tank having a good chance to return fire and blow you and your entire vehicle to pieces with a 75mm APHE shell, wouldn't be a very attractive thought to me was I to make the decision of whether to attack that tank or not. 



> But I'n still in opinion that 20mm automatic was maybe a better solution than 2pdr for armoured car.



Maybe ?? Yet again I don't know about you but I'd feel a whole lot safer knowing that it would take the enemy AFV 2-3 seconds to reload after each shot than having to be pounded away at by a 20mm automatic cannon firing at 350 to 400 RPM!



> But 2pdr had its good points.



No, not on a recon vehicle.


----------



## Glider (Jan 17, 2008)

The 2pd did have a HE shell in 1944 and this was issued to the Daimler A/C's


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

Glider said:


> The 2pd did have a HE shell in 1944 and this was issued to the Daimler A/C's



Not that I'm doubting you Glider, but I'd really like to see that. Sure you're not mistaking an incendiary round as a HE round ??

Also I can't really imagine a HE round from the 2 pdr being very effective against infantry.


----------



## Glider (Jan 17, 2008)

As mentioned in my previous posting the Daimler could be fitted with the Littlejohn adapter that increased the penetration but this was either left off or only fitted to one of the two A/C's in the troop because it stopped the HE shell being used.

The following is a quote from a site followed by the link to the whole article.

_In fairness, the 2 PR remained useful in the Far East against the thinly armoured Japanese tanks and also enjoyed a more successful life as an armoured car and light tank weapon. In the latter application, its armour-piercing performance was boosted in 1943 by the addition of the Littlejohn squeezebore adaptor. This was designed by a Czechoslovak called Janecek (Littlejohn in English) and consisted of an attachment screwed onto the muzzle which squeezed specially designed 0.45 kg tungsten-cored skirted shot down to about 33mm calibre, increasing the muzzle velocity to 1,280 m/s and the armour penetration to 88mm at 450m. The result was a precursor of the armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) tank ammunition, but it had the significant disadvantage that HE shells could not be fired unless the adaptor was unscrewed; not always practical in the heat of battle!_

37MM AND 40MM GUNS IN BRITISH SERVICE

Its also worth noting that the 6pd also had an HE shell in 1944 something that is normally not noted.

Hope this helps


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

I think you left out some really telling parts Glider;

_During the 1930s the machine gun was regarded as the main tank weapon against troops; the cannon was required only to deal with opposing tanks. It was therefore logical to fit a cannon which would give the best anti-tank performance. This meant a relatively small calibre, firing solid shot at a high velocity in order to improve the chance of hitting and achieve effective armour penetration. No use was foreseen for high explosive shells. This reasoning led to the adoption in 1936 of the 2 PR No.2 gun as the standard tank as well as anti-tank weapon, replacing the 3 PR (47mm) gun of the interwar Vickers Medium tank, which in its turn replaced the 6 PR 8 cwt of the First World War tanks (this was of 57mm calibre: the "8 cwt" is the gun weight, about 400 kg). The 40x304R case had a much higher performance than the naval weapon, firing a 1.09 kg solid shot at 850 m/s, later replaced by a 1.22 kg capped shot at 790 m/s.

There is no doubt that the 2 PR No.2 was a very effective anti-tank gun when it was introduced. The larger calibre, with its correspondingly larger case, gave armour-piercing performance well above that of most 37mm guns; penetration of 53mm or armour plate at 60 degrees at 450m was achieved, compared with 30mm for the contemporary German 37mm weapon. The main drawback of the British gun was its weight of 800 kg, complexity (to achieve all-round traverse) and therefore cost. As a tank gun it was unsatisfactory because of the lack of an HE shell to deal with enemy anti-tank gunners, although one was eventually produced rather late in its useful life. In both applications, increasing tank armour thickness soon made it obsolescent and it remained in front-line service for far too long before being replaced by a high-velocity 6 PR 7 cwt from 1942_

Now that only reinforces that it wasn't very effective with HE shells, one being made available late in the war, but when isn't mentioned.


----------



## Glider (Jan 17, 2008)

Soren 
I left nothing out. We were talking about Daimler A/C's in 1944. Of course the 2pd tanks didn't have an HE shell, I never claimed that they did. 

Besides, how many british tanks in 1944 had a 2pd or how many A/T units still had the 2pd in 1944?

You asked for evidence that the Daimler had an HE shell and I gave it, you cannot complain at that.

Re effectiveness, I made no claims on that either and in my earlier posting didn't disagree that it would have been better with a 20mm. I even pointed out that the British had A/C's with a 15mm Bessa HMG with a co-ax LMG and had never heard any complaints about it being poorly armed.

Read the postings and remember about what we are talking about before getting carried away.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

Yes Glider you did leave something out, we were talking about the 2 pdr's HE shells right ? Then how come you left that part out ? Also nothing is ever mentioned about t being availabel to the Daimler AC's in 1944, so where did you get that from ?

So who really got carried away here Glider ??


----------



## Glider (Jan 17, 2008)

Did you read this bit?

_The result was a precursor of the armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) tank ammunition, but it had the significant disadvantage *that HE shells *could not be fired unless the adaptor was unscrewed; not always practical in the heat of battle!_

If there were no HE shells, then all the Daimlers would have kept there Littlejohn adapter as the penetration of 88mm at 450 yards will give you a good chance of destroying the side of most German Tanks. They would have been kept on, as without HE, there was no point in taking them off!!

As mentioned in my previous posting Daimlers were not designed to take on tanks they would almost certainly run and they were designed to do just that. Infantry and A/T guns were a much bigger danger, so they left the Littlejohn adapter off so they could fire HE. Simple really.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

But where did you get the info of the HE shells being made available in 1944 ? That was my question Glider.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 17, 2008)

and another thread takes a dump.


----------



## Soren (Jan 17, 2008)

I don't see that at all Njaco.


----------



## Juha (Jan 18, 2008)

double post, sorry


----------



## Juha (Jan 18, 2008)

Hello Soren
"The Pzkpfw. IV as of late 1943 was usually fitted with side skirts, increasing the side armor protection, and thus the 2 pounder didn't pose much of a threat from 500m and out, esp. not if any angle was applied."

Source of that 500m, please. I have doubts on that, it is difficult to believe that 5mm soft steel would have dropped the penetration ability of 2pdr H.V. shot from over 1500m to merely 500m, and I don't believe that wire mess could do that, some german skirts were merely wire-mess. At some angles 5mm skirt was able to decap Soviet 14,5mm AP shot but 2pdr shot was much bigger and anyway I really doubt that 5mm soft steel had very big effect at angles near perpendicular or what you call that which we here in finland call 90 deg.

And 2pdr would be deadly against 222, 221, 250, 251 and Puma. I could pierce with H.V. round Puma's frontal armour up to 1500-1600y. 

And while penetrating armour a shot/shell not only come through but also break from armour hot splinters which might ignite for example ammo and anyway the bad thing in armoured box is that if something gets in it doesn't easily exit but tends to richore around if it had not force to punch another hole to opposite wall.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Jan 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> But where did you get the info of the HE shells being made available in 1944 ? That was my question Glider.



I have to admit that I don't have the books now. Its a bit sad but when I was young (around 30 years ago) I did a fair bit of wargaming and had the best part of an Armoured recce regiment plus A/C units in 1/300 scale. As you might expect I read everything I could. This included a number of contact reports and unit histories that I read at the Imperial War Museum which mention the firing of HE and the problems with using the Littlejohn adapter in combat. 

All I can offer is anecdotal evidence. The Littlejohn adapter was issued in 1943 and by 1944 all Daimlers were equipped. Once the invasion started Daimlers were in action and as you might expect, had the HE round as well. All I can suggest is that if you look at pictures of the Daimler in action you will hardly ever see one with the adapter fitted. Again as mentioned before, had there been no HE then they wouldn't have taken the adapter off as there was nothing to lose.
The adapter was normally fitted only when there was a direct threat from tanks. As mentioned before, some units had one Daimler with it fitted and the other without (Daimlers normally operated in pairs) to cover both eventualities but this was less common.


----------



## Lucky13 (Feb 5, 2008)

Was Germany the country that invested most in these vehicles?


----------



## Glider (Feb 5, 2008)

Has to be either Germany or Britain. Both countries had a number of A/C's of different sizes to cover all eventualities.
The USA only used the Greyhound which had the disadvantage of being a large target combined with only having the 37mm and an open top turret. They did have light tanks to fulfill the role but these tended to be noisy with tracks, which for obvious reasons can be a liability.


----------



## Murray B (Feb 8, 2009)

plan_D said:


> The Soviets' delivery was not all Guiberson diesel engined models...



It should be noted that the Guiberson was a radial aircraft engine. A significant number were produced but they do not appear to have been used in aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2009)

If the APC is the issue, then the Kangaroo is the best around. Just too bad for the Germans they haven't produce something like that based around Pz III or -IV chassis.

For recce work it's the British AEC series; the latest ones did have 75mm aboard.


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 9, 2009)

I'll go *M24 Chafee* as the best recon vehicle/light tank of WWII.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 16, 2009)

Often overlooked, I think the italian Autoblinda series are worth a second look. 

They were certainly the most mobile in the desert, given their large sand tyre configurations, and for a 1941 vintage recon vehicle were exceptionally well armed with a number of combinations including MGs, 20mm, 37mm and most commonly 47mm+2 MG variations.

Ranges varied 9not least because of conditions) but typically could range from about 600 km through to over 1800 km

One important thing about recons is that they should not represent an over-investment. They should have the armament to fend off trouble, and the mobility to get in and out of trouble quickly. And if lost, they should be cheap enough to be considered expendable....which are all reasons why you dont use Tigers or Panthers for recon purposes


----------



## parsifal (Feb 16, 2009)

Another interesting recon from the minors was the Hungarian Csaba . Designed and built in 1939-40, it was a bit short ranged (150 km) but represented excellent value for money. It served the hungarians very well throughout WWII


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 17, 2009)

Good point about recons being low price stuff, parsifal. That' why I rate british stuff (Daimler cars, AEC series) so high. Plus they did have nice combat qualities. 
AEC MkII receives a subjective bonus being part of the "1st armored brigade" of Tito's partisan army back in 1944, along with Stuarts and 6pdr AT guns*. One of AEC managed to destroy a former Italian tank, receiving 3 hits in the proces, but still managed to retreat in safety on its own power**.

Along with AB-41 and Csaba there goes Panhard 178, French vehicle that Germans also used.


* The "2nd armored brigade" was equipped by Soviets.
**Happened in Nevesinje, Bosnia, 30th november 1944; source Militaria Croatica 2001


----------



## Watanbe (Feb 23, 2009)

What about the Soviet offerings? I know very little of Soviet armour!


----------



## parsifal (Feb 23, 2009)

Ther were two main types, the BA-10, and the BA-64. Both were workanle but not outstanding.

Perhaps the worst aspect of the Red Army's operations wwas its approach to battlefield recon. It was often don hapahazardly, or worse, not at all. The results were thyat the russians often attacked into the unknown, and heavier casulaties were the result of this lack of attention.

The poor showing for Soviet recon was shown in the mediocre quality of their vehicles. Here are the broad details that I know of:

The Ba-64 was introduced in mid 1942 and was built on the chassis of the GAZ-64 jeep. The superstructure, which was built onto the chassis, was constructed from welded sheet steel and was designed with sloped armour that had some similarities to the German SdKfz 222 design. It had an open roof, which was fitted with a pintle mounted 7.62mm DT machine gun. The vehicles construction was also influenced by experience gained during combat conditions. It was the first Russian armored car to feature all wheel drive and was also adapted so that low grade oils and gasolines could be used without affecting its perfomance. The engine was protected by an internal armored shield to reduce the risk of combat damage. The Ba-64 was nicknamed 'Bobik' (Bobby) by its crews and possessed good traction properties on a variety of terrains. However, one serious design flaw due to its narrow chassis, was that it was top heavy and could easily overturn on rough terrain. The crew compartment was extremely cramped and the vehicles combat effectiveness was reduced with the commander also acting as the gunner.A further variant, the Ba-64B, was also introduced, which could be converted to travel on rails with the fitting of steel disc wheels. These vehicles were often used in the composition of armored trains, with a speed of up to 80kmh achievable.
In 1943, an improved version, the Ba-64B was introduced, based on the GAZ-67B jeep. It was designed with a wider wheelbase to prevent the risk of overturning on rough terrain. This model also had a small machine gun turret added. Another variant was introduced, the Ba-64DShK, which was fitted with a 12.7mm DShK mg. In early 1943, a further variant, the Ba-64SKh was introduced. It was fitted with a small caterpillar track instead of rear wheels. Early vehicles of this type suffered from insufficient maneuverability and speed. The type was further modified and fitted with widened tracks and improved suspension.
The Ba-64 was produced until the end of the war, remaining in service throughout

Armour: 12mm

Weight: 2.4 tons.

Armament: 7.62mm DT Mg.

Speed: 80kmh (50mph) on road and 26kmh (16mph) cross country.

Range: 350km (280miles) on road and 194km (121 miles) cross country.

Crew: 2, comander/gunner and driver.





The Ba-10 armored car was introduced in 1938. It was similar in design to its predecessors the Ba-6 and Ba-9, however it used the chassis of the GAZ-AAA truck. The superstructure, which was built onto the chassis, was constructed from welded sheet steel. The truncated cone turret housed the 37mm M1930 gun and a ball mounted DT machine gun. A second DT machine gun was located in the frontal hull plate, to the right of the driver. Another innovation in the Ba-10's construction, were the freely rotating spare wheels suspended at the sides of the hull. The spares prevented the car from bottoming out and assisted in the traversal of trenches and ditches. 
An improved variant, the Ba-10M was introduced in 1939. It was fitted with the larger 45mm M1932 gun and carried 49 rounds of ammunition. A further variant, the Ba-10ZD, was also introduced, which could be converted to travel on rails with the fitting of steel disc wheels.
All vehicles in the series suffered from poor off road performance and this lead to their early phasing out. The BA-10 remained in use until 1942, when many were converted into armored personnel carriers. Large numbers of BA-10's were captured by the Germans and used for anti-partisan duties. The Germans designated these captured vehicles Panzerspahwagen BAF 203(r).

Armour: 15mm

Weight: 5.1 tons.

Armament: 37mm M1930 gun (34 rounds) and 2 x 7.62mm DT Mg's.

Speed: 53kmh (20mph) on road and 17kmh (11mph) cross country.

Range: 350km (218miles) on road and 180km (109 miles) cross country.

Crew: 4, commander, gunner, loader and driver.


----------



## parsifal (Feb 23, 2009)

Some images of the Soviet Armoured Cars


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2009)

Sovitet vehicles were not poor nor excellent; it was the harsh reality of the Eastern front that required them to go to combat they weren't designed for, and push from brass that required the similar thing.

There were two main models of tracked recon vehicles, the T-37 and T-40, both being amphibious. Those were lightly armored and armed (7,62 and 12,7mm MGs respectively), but the package was superior to anything west produced in the same job time frame. 

T-37 tank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
T-40 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------

