# Best light AFV of WW2



## Soren (Dec 20, 2009)

Okay, guys let the debate begin


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2009)

We could start off with a good contender, the Sdkfz.234/2 Puma


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2009)

Puma would look good even in 21st century.

Soren, please define some boundaries, like weight, or complexity degree, should we take nomenclature in account etc.


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

Well lets say it can't be over 25 tons in weight for one, I'd say that is the only boundary we need.

And yes, the Puma is a very good candidate, thats why I mentioned it  But it's far from the only candidate, there are a bunch of other vehicles both axis allied which need to be considered as-well.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2009)

If the 25 tons is the limit, then Pz-IVs and StuGs are the top contenders 

But for a wheeled wehicle, the British AEC armoured cars are strong contenders: converted truck hulls, turrets featuring nice cannons, and armor up to 60mm. While not so sexy as Puma, I'd say 2 AECs could be produced for one Puma.

And Daimler Dingo is a neat vehicle, if one wants that a recon vehicle performs a recon job, and run away in case enemy aims to destroy it.

Out of tracked jobs, under 20 tons, M3/M5/M24 (depends of the year we talk about) are good types. And JgdPz 38(t) a.k.a. Hetzer was very useful.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 21, 2009)

maybe that being italian i see high already a 15 tons limit...


----------



## davebender (Dec 21, 2009)

That includes almost every armored vehicle in the German Army except Panther and Tiger tanks!

Vehicles of the Wehrmacht
I would like to nominate the Sd.Kfz.251/21 light flak vehicle. It cost roughly 1/5th the price of a Panther or Panzer Mk IV tank. The triple MG151/20 pedestal mount is a serious threat to enemy aircraft and also useful vs ground targets. Unlike the early war Sd.Kfz.7/1, the weapons crew of the late war flak vehicle were well protected against small arms fire and artillery fragments.

The Sd.Kfz.251 series half track and MG-151/20 were standard German weapons for most of the war. In my opinion the Wehrmacht took much too long merging them to produce an inexpensive and highly effective light flak vehicle.


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

Hehe, I meant 15 tons ofcourse, just hit the wrong number. A 25 ton vehicle can be a medium tank, not really what you'd describe as a light AFV


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2009)

German half-tracks really have that something 

As pointed out by dave, Germans could've married a decent weapon on a decent chassis in late 30's. Eg. 15cm howitzer on it's half-track (what was the name, Sdkfz 7?), then 10,5cm on some lighter ones, then Czech guns on Pz-35 Pz-38... But, to be fair, other countries lagged behind them in such enterprises.


----------



## Lucky13 (Dec 21, 2009)

I'd to go with the Puma as well me think....

Edit....

*Weight* 10,500 kg (23,148 lb) 
*Length* 6.02 m (19 ft 9 in) 
*Width* 2.36 m (7 ft 9 in) 
*Height* 2.10 m (6 ft 10 in) 
*Crew* 4 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Armor* 9-30 mm (.35-1.18 in) 
*Primary armament (Puma)* 1x50mm L/60 KwK 39/1[2]
(234/1) 1x20mm autocannon
(234/3) 1x75mm K51 
*Secondary armament* 1x7.92mm machinegun 
*Engine* 14,825 cc (905 in3) Tatra 103[1] V12 diesel 157 kW (210 hp) 
*Suspension* wheeled 
*Operational range* 1,000 km (625 mi)
*Speed* 85 km/h (53 mph)


----------



## davebender (Dec 21, 2009)

Considering the massive Allied superiority in airpower, SP flak is a lot more important then almost any other type of German light armor. I'd rather have towed 10.5cm field howitzers protected by Sd.kfz.251 light flak then Wespe SP 10.5cm field howitzers without flak protection.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 21, 2009)

Puma is probably going to win this one. Nobody has the combined package that is as good. All other armored cars are too lightly amored and armed and every else's weapons platforms just can't stand up. The Puma could take on a tank with a chance of success. No other Armored Car (which what we're talking about) fits in that realm. 

Better question parameters would include light tanks. Then, you've got more to work with.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2009)

Part of the problem we have here is thqat there were so many types of light AFV for many different purposes. 

If you want a Recce A/C then the Daimler Armoured Car is probably unmatched. 
If you want an A/C to take on a tank, then there are only two real options, the Puma with its 50mm gun or the AEC Armoured car with either a 6pd gun or the 75mm depending on type.

If you want light tanks then there are a number of options as there are AA tanks or A/C's

You pay your money and take your choice but I think you might want to break it down by role and weight. 25 tons isn't what most people would call light.


----------



## Juha (Dec 21, 2009)

Hello Tim
In fact British 2pdr with Little-John adapter had better penetration power than 5cm L/60 of Puma even with APCR ammo. Of course if the adapter was in the place 2pdr could not use HE shell, so it lacked flexibility. But even without the Little-John adapter 2pdr with APCBC shot could just penetrate PzIVs turret front from 500y or Panther’s turret sides around the same distance

The AEC armoured cars which Tomo mentioned were armed: Mk I 2pdr, Mk II 6pdr, which was more powerful A/T weapon than 5cm L/60 and MK III 75mm ala Sherman, which while not as good hole puncher as 6pdr was still better than 5cm L/60. Of course their off road mobility were not as good as that of Puma.

So a good contender is IMHO Daimler Armoured Car, not as powerful as Puma but probably cheaper. And I also like the Daimler Scout Car


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

Dave,

The Sdkfz.251 is more of an APC than an AFV in my opinion, and I don't really think it belongs here. That having been said the Sdkfz.251 is without a doubt the best APC of the war.

Another candidate might be the Pzkpfw.II Ausf.F Luchs:





*Armament:* 20mm KwK38 L/55 autocannon (460 rpm) 7.92mm MG34 machinegun (900 rpm)
*Armour:* 10 to 30mm
*Speed:* 60 km/h
*Range:* 290 km
*Crew:* 4

Wouldn't wanna run into one of those.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 21, 2009)

I think Glider has hit it, the best way to figure this thing out is either make it more refined (best vehicle by role) or less restrictive (best armored vehicle under 25 tons). 

If you go based on weight, then you could toss in the M18 Hellcat and the M24 Chaffee. If I had a choice, I'd rather be in a Hellcat than a Puma.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 21, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Tim
> In fact British 2pdr with Little-John adapter had better penetration power than 5cm L/60 of Puma even with APCR ammo. Of course if the adapter was in the place 2pdr could not use HE shell, so it lacked flexibility. But even without the Little-John adapter 2pdr with APCBC shot could just penetrate PzIVs turret front from 500y or Panther’s turret sides around the same distance
> 
> The AEC armoured cars which Tomo mentioned were armed: Mk I 2pdr, Mk II 6pdr, which was more powerful A/T weapon than 5cm L/60 and MK III 75mm ala Sherman, which while not as good hole puncher as 6pdr was still better than 5cm L/60. Of course their off road mobility were not as good as that of Puma.
> ...




Juha. Didn't know about the APCR called Little John. Thanks for the info. I guess a case of making the best of a bad situation. 2lb wasn't much of a round but the upgrade obviously helped. Still, wouldn't want to be wandering NW Europe in 1944 with a 2lb (or 37MM, 57MM, ect )weapon as my main armament. I know the US M3/M5 tanks had those as Main Gun and that had to be depressing to the crew. 

You bring up a good point, tangentally, about armored vehicles. Price and ease of use. The Puma was probably a maintainence heavy vehicle, especially when considered vs a M8 or similar.


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

Timshatz I wrote 25 tons purely by mistake, it was meant to read 15 tons. At 25 tons we're in the medium tank weight range. So the M10 M18 don't hold here.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 21, 2009)

Soren said:


> Timshatz I wrote 25 tons purely by mistake, it was meant to read 15 tons. At 25 tons we're in the medium tank weight range. So the M10 M18 don't hold here.



Ok, that knocks a lot of TDs out of the box. Still, a few oddballs may sneak in under that weight. Especially the light tanks. Could probably get the M5 in there. Maybe a few of the Soviet cruiser tanks of earlier vintage. 

But I'm still favoring the biggest gun in this one. Read on wiki the Sd.Kfz. 234/4 had a 7.5cm gun. That'll do it.


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 21, 2009)

TheCoventry armoured car I am not sure if it ever got into action but was built from late 1944 on. All the experience gained with the Daimler armoured car went into designing this and the French made very good use of it post war during its colonial wars


----------



## Juha (Dec 21, 2009)

Hello Tim
Little-John adapter made 2pdr a squeeze gun, similar than German 2.8cm sPzB 41, the conical barrel “squeezed” so called “collars”, made from light metal, away around the tungsten core, and so it was possible to achieve very high mv. APCR was the best, but rare, AP ammo for 5cm, it had tungsten core inside light alloy body, it also had high mv but lost its velocity much faster because it was lighter to diameter.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2009)

If you want the Pz II I would more than happily take the Daimler A/C.


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

I'd prefer the Pz.II Luchs over the Daimler A/C to be honest, gives abit better protection, offroad handling and I dare to say fire power with a 20mm automatic cannon firing at a rate of 460 rpm. A nightmare for any opposing infantry. In a rare one on one duel the Daimler's armour is also so thin than the Luchs will be able to puch rounds straight through from considerable distance, and taking the massive rate of fire of the KwK38 into account the Daimler A/C will quickly turn into a burning wreck. That is ofcourse unless the Daimler gets in the first shot, in which case the 2 pdr has plenty of punch to take out the Luchs at a good distance.


----------



## Juha (Dec 21, 2009)

Hello Soren
460rpm for KwK 38 was cyclic, not practical rof.

If we talk light tanks, IMHO M24 was the best, with 2 mgs, plus the .5hmg for the commander, it could produce enough firepower to keep infantry down, and 75mm HE could destroy rather substantial targets. It also had capacity to hurt enemy tanks even if tank duels were not the role of recon troops. But the optium heavy recon vehicle weapon depends on doctrine, UK, USA and USSR in 50s and 60s preferred 76mm gun, Germans stick on the 20mm automatic cannon. 

Juha

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2009)

Certainly go for the M24 as the best light tank. As for the Daimler vs Pz II its take your pick time. As Soren points out the first on the trigger is likely to win the day


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 21, 2009)

Glider said:


> Certainly go for the M24 as the best light tank. As for the Daimler vs Pz II its take your pick time. As Soren points out the first on the trigger is likely to win the day



M-24 it's out of weight, ... all italian medium tanks are lighter of the "light" M-24 (it's true that development in italy was stopped before of first M-24 was built)


p.s. weight of light AFV change with years, in '40/41 15 tons tank were medium


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 21, 2009)

That 480 rounds per minute slows down an awful lot when the 10 round magazine goes dry. 

I think by the time the Daimlers were in Europe they had HE ammunition for the 2pdr. Not great stuff but....

The 5 gears in reverse helps in getting out of trouble too


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> 460rpm for KwK 38 was cyclic, not practical rof.



Juha when discussing guns you usually always list the cyclic rate of the weapon, and that quite simply because practical rate of fire is a loose term to say the least. The practical rate of fire of a MP5 might be 120, 200 or 300 rpm, depending on the situation, but the gun cycles the rounds at a rate of 800 rpm, and this last figure is what the manufacturer lists. 



> If we talk light tanks, IMHO M24 was the best, with 2 mgs, plus the .5hmg for the commander, it could produce enough firepower to keep infantry down, and 75mm HE could destroy rather substantial targets. It also had capacity to hurt enemy tanks even if tank duels were not the role of recon troops. But the optium heavy recon vehicle weapon depends on doctrine, UK, USA and USSR in 50s and 60s preferred 76mm gun, Germans stick on the 20mm automatic cannon.



You gotta stay within the 15 ton limit Juha.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 21, 2009)

How about the Hetzer? One source says is was 15tons, another stated it was 16 tons.


----------



## davebender (Dec 21, 2009)

Fair enough. Let's pay five times as much and purchas a much more powerful flak panzer. It just barely squeaks under the 25 ton weight limit for a "Light" AFV.






*(Leichter) Flakpanzer IV (3cm) Kugelblitz*
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/kugel.jpg
25 metric tons.
2 x 3cm Mk103 AA guns in a completely enclosed turret.

*3cm Mk103 Autocannon.*
MK 103 cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
380 to 420 rounds per minute (per gun)
A single Minengeschoss shell will cripple any aircraft. Also deadly against soft ground targets.

Alternately the AP-T(WC) rounds will penetrate up to 100mm of armor @ 300 meters. At point blank ranges they can defeat even medium tanks like the American Sherman and Soviet T-34.

Unlike the Sdkfz.251, the Kugel Blitz has serious armor protection. As good as a typical WWII era medium tank.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 21, 2009)

unlucky the limit is 15 tons... (and i continue to think it's too heavy already, oh yes i'm too heavy)


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> Fair enough. Let's pay five times as much and purchas a much more powerful flak panzer. It just barely squeaks under the 25 ton weight limit for a "Light" AFV.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Again a great vehicle no doubt, but now the problem is that the weight has to be within 15 tons. And for the third time I wrote 25 tons purely by mistake, 1 is close to 2 you know  You gotta read the posts mate 

25 tons is within the medium tank range, or atleast very much on boundary, most medium tanks ranging from 25 to 50 tons in weight. A light AFV can't weigh much more than 15 tons.


----------



## davebender (Dec 21, 2009)

The specifications keep changing in order to favor certain weapon designs and exclude others that are more capable. You must work for the government.


----------



## Soren (Dec 21, 2009)

davebender said:


> The specifications keep changing in order to favor certain weapon designs and exclude others that are more capable. You must work for the government.



Specs only changed once because of a typo.

Weight limit is 15 tons. Now go find your crate


----------



## davebender (Dec 21, 2009)

Achtung Panzer! - Prototypes !


> In November of 1944, it was accepted to utilize Hetzer's chassis as a base for Flakpanzer 38(t) Hetzer mounted with Kugelblitz's turret, but it was never materialized due to the war situation.


That should get the weight down to about 15 tons. Less armor then the Panzer Mk IV version but otherwise just as effective. And probably less expensive to mass produce.

Flakpanzer 38 (d) Kugelblitz/Project [KR7238] - 28.90EUR : Tracks&Troops, On-line Shop


----------



## parsifal (Dec 21, 2009)

A pretty good link to give people something to think about.....

Armoured Cars Equipment Page

I dont think there is a more misunderstood concept than the role of armoured cars. They were not main battle tanks, or even expected to fight it out with the enmy to any great extent. They had to be cheap, yet incorporate into that basic premise a level of survivability. Survivability does not necesarily mean big thick armour, either, in fact in most cases having a massively armoured AC is going to work to the detriment of the more important elements of the role. Generally, the ability to scoot quickly is more important than armoured protection.

This idea of having the biggest meanest AFV has been translated postwar into most of the mechanized armies. At one extreme we have the Bradleys and the Marder III MICV, at the other extreme there are the unarmoured recons like landrovers and the like. Having massively expensive, but well protected MICVs like the Marder means your infantry is somewhat more well protected, but the costs of equipping and fielding Infantry formations goes through the roof. The same argument can be levelled at the SDKFZ 251 and similar. They were well engineered (though they generally required a lot of maintenance, and the half track generally did not do so well in the Russian winters) but in terms of cost, they were just too expensive, for the germans at least. Thats why, on average, only one company per division were equipped with halftracks....the rest were reliant on trucks, and later still, on bicycles

The next most important element was mobility and All terrain capability. They had to get to all manner of positions and observe....that was their role.

Good communications is another element that has to figure highly 

The mounting of the biggest, meanest guns is about the lowest priority and the heaviest armour is another idea that runs counter to the whole armoured car concept.

My choice, I think for the best overall, might be some of the less exotic types. Im partial to the Panhard 178 (for its time....1940) or the SDKFZ 231. I like the Italian Autobelinda series as well, though they did suffer from some reliability issues. On the other hand they were easily the most mobile in any of the armies that deployed into the deseert, with those big sand tyres that they used.

Late war, its a bit harder....if the cost issue is ignored, I think it will go to a German type, but if this is included, I think a German type would be my last choice


----------



## Glider (Dec 22, 2009)

I don't think that you are going to get a decent tank for 15 tons so its the AEC armoured car with the 6pd if you want a shoot out. 
Armour a max of 65mm and a 6pd gun should do the job.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2009)

What about the Soviet SU-76, weighs in at 10.2 t, and armed with a variety of weapons, ranging from the 76.2 field gun, the Rumanian 75mm resita gun (they claim is superior to the 75mm fitted to the Mk IV), 57mm AT gun, and I believe quad 20mm AA (but Im not sure)? There are better AFVs, but none were built more cheaply, or went from design to front line service so quickly. They were very versatile, able to provide indirect fire support to the fast moving mech formations, but also able to engage targets with direct fire, including effective AT fire. They are not Recce vehicles, completing a completely different role, but they are nevertheless perhaps the best value light AFVs of the war.


----------



## davebender (Dec 22, 2009)

SU-76 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> nicknamed 'suka' (bitch)


I don't think that was a term of endearment. The Su-76 may have been cheap to produce but that was about the only good point.

The 11 ton Wespe SP 10.5cm howitzer (based on Panzer Mk II chassis) was a much more successful light armored vehicle. And it was just as cheap to produce as the Su-76.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 22, 2009)

davebender said:


> SU-76 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> I don't think that was a term of endearment. The Su-76 may have been cheap to produce but that was about the only good point.
> 
> The 11 ton Wespe SP 10.5cm howitzer (based on Panzer Mk II chassis) was a much more successful light armored vehicle. And it was just as cheap to produce as the Su-76.



Err., I suggest you learn a a little russian before jumping to the conclusion that this termm, in the context used, is a derogatory term. It is actually a term of endearment in the context used

Also relevantly, the wiki article says this about the Su76...."Crews loved this vehicle for its simplicity, reliability, and ease of use, although it was sometimes nicknamed 'suka' (bitch), 'Suchka' (little bitch) or 'Golozhopiy Ferdinand' (bare-arsed Ferdinand) for its relatively thin rear armour." 

The main production type was the Su76M which weighed in at just under 11 tons

By comparison, the Wespe was about the same weight, had better HE capability, and about the same, or worse AT capability. Optics communications and reliability were all better. The SU76 had better range, and had an estimated unit cost about 1/5 that of a Wespe, due to its far lower standards of finish.

It is significant I think to note that whereas only 676 Wespes were produced, over 14000 Su-76s were produced. This was because of the ease of manufacture of these vehicles

Both vehicles were very useful, and I would be the first to admit the Wespe was probably superior to the SU76....but if I could have 5 SUs over one Wespe, I know which vehicle i would choose every time


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 22, 2009)

Russkies produced their light tanks in automobile/bus factories, and produced them like hot rolls. So when they figured out that T-70 is outclassed on the battlefield, they constructed SU-76 (76,2mm zis-3 cannon was produced in 100 000 pcs during 3 years  ). Et voila, one has a design that is both usable and lends itself to be produced in 'ordinary' factories - while Germans produced similar stuff in 'proper' heavy-machinery factories.

The SU-76 chassis was a base for development of M-60 APC for ex-Yu army.


----------



## Juha (Dec 22, 2009)

Hello Soren
IMHO automatic cannon is a bit different thing than smg. I don’t know of Germans and Danes, but we Finns tended to be practical people and usually mentioned both the practical and cyclic rof when talking on automatic cannon, if only one is given it is usually the practical one. I think mainly AAA cannons. I think also British publications tended to give both.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Dec 28, 2009)

No'one considered the M5 stuart?


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 28, 2009)

I did  
It was a great light AFV, used by many armies post WW2 too.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> No'one considered the M5 stuart?



AFAIK it's over the limit, already M3 was too near to limit


----------



## Soren (Dec 28, 2009)

The M5 Stuart weighs 14.7 tons I believe, so just within the limit.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> No'one considered the M5 stuart?



I did as well. Not a bad little tank for the early part of the war but it just didn't change enough in a positive way to cover the upgraded opposition. It was fast, but not fast enough. Armed, but not armed heavily enough and armored, but not enough to matter when you needed it. The German SK Armored cars had all the same qualities but did it better (IMHO) when it came to Recon. 

The Chafee was a better call for that job but it's too heavy for this thread.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 28, 2009)

Soren said:


> The M5 Stuart weighs 14.7 tons I believe, so just within the limit.



AFAIK this is weight of late M3, M5 it's over 16


----------



## Glider (Dec 28, 2009)

The M5 must have had its problems as the turret was often removed partly to reduce its height and partly because the 37mm was not effective


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 28, 2009)

The winner must be between the Luchs and the Bren carrier.


----------



## Juha (Dec 28, 2009)

Hello Glider
IMHO the removal of turret was a British phenomenom, it suited their doctrine, a la scout car, recon by stealth not so much by force. US 37mm had less penetrating power than British 2pdr but better HE round.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Dec 28, 2009)

On M5
not a great fan of it but M3 series wasn't bad earlier on, too high maybe. IMHO M5 didn't produce enough advance but still a decent light tank.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 28, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Glider
> IMHO the removal of turret was a British phenomenom, it suited their doctrine, a la scout car, recon by stealth not so much by force. US 37mm had less penetrating power than British 2pdr but better HE round.
> 
> Juha



I admit that I thought that both the USA and the UK used to remove the turret. When I have checked I will get back.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 28, 2009)

I think when it comes to APC, it's difficult to beat the LVT. The only thing the Sdkfz.251 had on it was road speed (40 km/h vs 52.5km/h).

Overall, I have to go with the Hetzer, strong gun and a small target to hit.

Armament: 75mm Antitank gun 7.92mm MG
Armour: 60mm max
Speed: 42 km/h
Range: 110 km
Crew: 4


----------



## Glider (Dec 29, 2009)

Glider said:


> I admit that I thought that both the USA and the UK used to remove the turret. When I have checked I will get back.



I had a look and the USA called them T8 recce


----------



## timshatz (Dec 29, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> I think when it comes to APC, it's difficult to beat the LVT. The only thing the Sdkfz.251 had on it was road speed (40 km/h vs 52.5km/h).
> 
> Overall, I have to go with the Hetzer, strong gun and a small target to hit.
> 
> ...



I took a look at the Hertzer but didn't think it made the cut due to weight. Is it under 15 tons?


----------



## Soren (Dec 29, 2009)

Best candidates atm are IMO the Luchs Puma, but what about the British AEC ?


----------



## Soren (Dec 29, 2009)

Glider said:


> I don't think that you are going to get a decent tank for 15 tons so its the AEC armoured car with the 6pd if you want a shoot out.
> Armour a max of 65mm and a 6pd gun should do the job.



The AEC had a 2 pdr AFAIK?


----------



## Glider (Dec 29, 2009)

Soren said:


> The AEC had a 2 pdr AFAIK?



The Mk 1 had a 2pd, the Mk II a 6pd and the Mk III a 75mm. Together with 65mm of armour it was pretty potent for its size


----------



## Soren (Dec 29, 2009)

Glider said:


> The Mk 1 had a 2pd, the Mk II a 6pd and the Mk III a 75mm. Together with 65mm of armour it was pretty potent for its size



Yeah, also one of the few (if not the only) armoured car with a powered turret. Not that it matters a lot, just a funny little fact.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Dec 29, 2009)

timshatz said:


> I took a look at the Hertzer but didn't think it made the cut due to weight. Is it under 15 tons?



Honestly I'm not sure, I've read where it was slightly under 15 tons and I've read it was slightly over 15 tons.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 29, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Honestly I'm not sure, I've read where it was slightly under 15 tons and I've read it was slightly over 15 tons.



Guess it depends who and when the calibrated the scale


----------



## Juha (Dec 29, 2009)

Hello Glider
interesting, while IIRC T number means that it was not standard issue equipment, it might well be used in combat. Anyway my understanding is that British and Commonwealth turretless Stuarts were field modifications. For ex. they were common in 11 ArmDiv but the Guard ArmDiv shunned to that kind of disfiguration of King's property.

Juha


----------



## fastmongrel (Dec 30, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Glider
> Anyway my understanding is that British and Commonwealth turretless Stuarts were field modifications. For ex. they were common in 11 ArmDiv but the Guard ArmDiv shunned to that kind of disfiguration of King's property.
> 
> Juha



Surely they would be property of Uncle Sam if they were Lend-Lease

Has anyone mentioned the British Universal Carrier/Bren Carrier. Not strictly an AFV but more were built than any other tracked vehicle and it seems that every photo of WWII British and Commonweralth troops has a Universal carrier in it.


----------



## Juha (Dec 30, 2009)

Hello Fastmongrel
Good catch, but I think that the Guardsmen didn't take into account that kind legal details.

Yes, carriers were very numerous and while good towing machines for 6pdr AT guns, I'm not great fan of them, IIRC they were rather noisy for recon work, IMHO too small to be effective transport for mortar crews, IMHO German and US armoured half tracks were more useful in that role. 

I like the British Scout Car Daimler AC combination for recon work with a couple AECs and some infantry in M3 h-ts as back up.

BTW, combat weight of Hetzer was 16 tons.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 30, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Glider
> interesting, while IIRC T number means that it was not standard issue equipment, it might well be used in combat. Anyway my understanding is that British and Commonwealth turretless Stuarts were field modifications. For ex. they were common in 11 ArmDiv but the Guard ArmDiv shunned to that kind of disfiguration of King's property.
> 
> Juha



You could be right I really don't know one way or another.


----------



## Juha (Dec 31, 2009)

A few more points on carriers. Good point was that they were reliable and IIRC worked well also as MMG carriers. Also in some jobs their smallness and low height was a plus. And fully tracked vehicle had its clear advances when operating off road.

Juha


----------

