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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.

 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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....
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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

pictures from Brazil
 

Attachments

  • 41I4pPLjOQL__SS500_.jpg
    29.3 KB · Views: 120
  • Bra-SdKfz6.jpg
    24 KB · Views: 121
  • SdKfz-7.jpg
    8.6 KB · Views: 127
  • yhst-94511236631939_1983_54078875.jpg
    50.5 KB · Views: 137
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
 

Attachments

  • 9.jpg
    30.1 KB · Views: 136
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.
 
Didn't know about that one, Pb. Nice.

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

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

WWII Reconnaissance Vehicles?
Replies
16
Views
883
Thumpalumpacus
Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
21K
Reluctant Poster
R
WWII Destroyers?
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
Z
Cleaning up after WWII
Replies
7
Views
875
special ed
S
I
Help needed with the translation of my WWII Japanese Going To War Banner
Replies
8
Views
1K
ironmannf
I
Menu
Log in
Register