I found my Osprey book on the Universal Carrier and its author seemed to go out of his way to say how terrible they were.

I found my Osprey book on the Universal Carrier and its author seemed to go out of his way to say how terrible they were. Yes, some vehicles manufactured during wartime turned out to be lemons, but it seems that the Universal Carrier must have had some value since it was actually present out in the field (unlike the useless Centaur tank). So what's the story?

So who does the author of the book claim "reviled" this fine little vehicle?

Multi-purpose, mechanically simple using proven parts, reliable, fast and maneuverable, built in huge numbers. If a little on the small side.

So who does the author of the book claim "reviled" this fine little vehicle?

Multi-purpose, mechanically simple using proven parts, reliable, fast and maneuverable, built in huge numbers. If a little on the small side. I suspect the Americans didn't really understand it, in the same way that they also misunderstood the Dingo and later Ferret. Or indeed any small scout vehicle.

It is easy to criticise that which is not understood without perhaps appreciating the benefits seen by others. It's easy for modern authors to academically criticise half-century-old equipment they never had to use with the rear window of 20:20 hindsight. Where is the supporting revulsion evidence from contemporary users?

Quoted Text

---

It is easy to criticise that which is not understood without perhaps appreciating the benefits seen by others. It's easy for modern authors to academically criticise half-century-old equipment they never had to use with the rear window of 20:20 hindsight. Where is the supporting revulsion evidence from contemporary users?

---

D-A: Spot ON!

Folks often speak critically about stuff that they have never actually used or perhaps even experienced in any way. The facts of the "carrier" speak quite loudly: LOTS of them were produced, and they were generally appreciated by the USERS. And those USER opinions may be the ONLY opinions which really count! Throughout history, it has really largely been the opinions from the USERS that have most driven retention and continuation of most military equipment kept in service - NEVER the opining of folks AFTER THE FACT. When the real USERS complain enough, the stuff often gets fixed or changed. Many troopies used the carrier, and many found it useful for whatever they felt it was to be used for. Yes, as we who have been there sometimes say "you run what you brung" - you use what you have, no matter what you may feel about it - but user opinions figure prominently to get stuff updated, changed, improved. So, when I hear and see the USERS down-talking the stuff, I tend to listen to what they say. When I see and hear the post-facto arm-chair NON-USER folks criticizing the stuff used in the past..., I accept that perhaps these critics MAY have some "technical info" that allows some valid technical comparisons of old to current, but I give no credence to their opining about how bad something was back when it was being used. They don't have any actual KNOWLEDGE about its adequacy or utility at that past time - only OPINIONS. And as we all know, opinions are like bodily orifices - everybody has at least one! By today's standards, the carrier may well appear rather "flawed". By 1940's in-action standards, it was definitely a useful and appreciated piece of equipment. If anyone wants to KNOW if something was "reviled" by its users, go ask those USERS. Of course, that is just my OPINION on the matter!

Cheers! Bob

PS: Consider a vehicle which WAS REVILED by many of its users - the M4 Sherman. And note that many crew complaints were addressed over time- going from "dry" to "wet", adding supplemental armor, up-gunning. And of course, NEW tanks were designed to replace that M4 entirely. NONE of these changes came about because some academic egg-head back in America suddenly thought "out of the blue" that the change was needed. Crew - USERS - recognized the faults and clamored for help.

I tend to title threads in a way that I think will draw attention. I wasn't really shocked that people have come to say that Universal Carriers were actually good; I was going by what the Osprey book implied. I couldn't imagine even the stupidest manufacturer producing so many vehicles if they were no good.

If you think the Centaur was bad, at least it made the battlefield, unlike its predecessor the Cavalier (500 made) which only made it as an Observation Post tank and the Covenanter. One of them was apparently destroyed in Canterbury by a stray German bomb during an air raid and was the only tank of its type to be destroyed by enemy action. At least it stopped something useful being damaged.

Dennis; FWIW.....

Aside from finding the carrier rather fun to drive, I cannot comment to its true reliability or, for that matter, its actual abilities as used by the many folks who used them. Ditto regarding the M4 Sherman (haven't even driven one of those!). And I have no dog in any debate about what or how different countries viewed "Recce roles", nor any dog in any debates about whose equipment was better suited for whatever role(s) it ended up being appointed to or used for.

My underlying POINT actually goes back to the thread byline and the initial query regarding whether the universal carrier was actually "reviled" - and perhaps if so, why. The evidence seems to point out that it was largely NOT reviled by its many users.

You did mention a couple of salient properties of the Sherman - it was indeed regarded as being pretty mechanically reliable, and mostly relatively easy to repair. These same properties may reasonably apply to the carrier. And there is perhaps little debate that many German tanks may well have suffered in both reliability and ease of repair (noting that the Panther engine, for example, was expected to "live" for perhaps 900 - 1500km of moderate service before needing replacement or rebuild!).

But it's also probably worth noting that most German crews were extremely proud of their machines and confident in their abilities relative to the challenges enemies offered... Maybe even overly so, and despite the true adequacy issues many of those vehicles had. There is little out there to suggest that many of those users "reviled" their equipment (but there were a couple of notable type exceptions - the jagdtiger among them ). On the other hand, Sherman users often did "revile" their steeds - generally because of their poor longevity and survivorship when meeting up with the enemy. So maybe FEAR would be the better term! But military folks "run what they brung". Better a Shermy that could suddenly brew up when shot to no tank at all!

It's interesting that you bring up Gen. McNair... One of many examples of some high-positioned guy removed from both the real in-the-dirt scene and the consequences of folks pushing their naive viewpoints being the one to say what will be done! Patton's issue with crew-added improvised armor is another such case. George apparently concluded that somehow tanks could actually advance faster without a bit of added protection for the guys who were doing the advancing. I've long wondered what, if any, "data", informed his decision... (We all KNOW that added weight will slow down the vehicle. But harping on that is really disingenuous - rate of advance is not really dependent upon how fast you can drive, if there happen to be enemies present!)

Cheers! Bob

Maybe it is also a case of criticising something for not being able to be what it was never intended to be.
The Bren carrier was not an Sd.Kfz 222, it wasn't an Sd.Kfz. 250 or 234/1 either.
It would be similar to criticising a screw driver for being useless when hammering in big nails.
If it had been useless it would have been taken out of service sooner. It was more or less a lightly armoured tracked jeep, it was definitely not a light tank.
If the suspension had been prone to faults or the engine kept breaking down ...

/ Robin

I never understand the raging flame wars about whose stuff is better.

If the Sherman was a great tank design, why did the US abandon it even before the war was over? Unlike the T-34, it did not inform the next generation(s) of US-designed vehicles. If anything, the Panther tank left a larger mark.

Armament design is constantly evolving, since the "enemy" comes up with ways to work around your stuff's strengths. Was it Stalin who spoke about "the quality of quantity"? The T-34 was crude but like the AK-47, you could abuse it and keep on fighting. It was cheap to produce, didn't require a PhD to operate, and lived on for 30 years after the war.

The German tanks OTOH were over-designed, under-powered and often out-of-gas. Germany fought the wrong war with the Allies because the Soviets had more, and the US and Britain had control of the air. Imagine the Falaise Pocket without the P-47, Tempest and precision daylight bombing?

Random observations, since I don't really care which tank anyone thinks is the greatest.