Hosted by Darren Baker
The Legacy of the Universal Carrier
long_tom
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 03:47 AM UTC
This is not a modelling question as such, but just about the British Universal Carrier in general. It always seemed to me a rather silly, quaint little vehicle which didn't seem very practical for any application, but I read that it was built because it was cheap. How useful and popular was this vehicle on the field? Is my view of it correct, or am I being unfair?
Delbert
#073
Joined: October 05, 2002
KitMaker: 2,659 posts
Armorama: 1,512 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 04:26 AM UTC
Hello.. a good question about an interesting vehicle.
there is a nice little history article at this link..
Bren Gun Carrier (Universal Carrier)
there is a nice little history article at this link..
Bren Gun Carrier (Universal Carrier)
AlanL
Joined: August 12, 2005
KitMaker: 14,499 posts
Armorama: 11,675 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 05:24 AM UTC
Hi Tom,
A prodcut of its time I'd say, it came in many varients and I suppose happened to be around at the time when fast tracked vehicles were in development and suddenly came into demand.
Delbert thanks for the link.
It was also air portable and could be carried in a Hamilcar, and was probably much better than walking or humping kit.
Al
A prodcut of its time I'd say, it came in many varients and I suppose happened to be around at the time when fast tracked vehicles were in development and suddenly came into demand.
Delbert thanks for the link.
It was also air portable and could be carried in a Hamilcar, and was probably much better than walking or humping kit.
Al
acav
Joined: May 09, 2002
KitMaker: 517 posts
Armorama: 290 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 07:36 AM UTC
Quoted Text
... the British Universal Carrier ... always seemed to me a rather silly, quaint little vehicle which didn't seem very practical for any application...
You might have a different opinion if you'd have been in an army which utilised that vehicle in many roles from combat and communications to support and supply.
The Universal Carrier might seem 'silly' and ''quaint' to today's jaded eyes, but it served a variety of useful roles.
No-one seems to have stepped up and described the Panzer 1 as either 'quaint' or 'silly' and I'd suggest the two are not light years apart in either engineering or utility...
$0.02
acav out
Halfyank
Joined: February 01, 2003
KitMaker: 5,221 posts
Armorama: 1,245 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 08:23 AM UTC
It has always seemed to me a pretty good idea for a little vehicle. It was a more effective weapons platform than say a Jeep, could go places a half-track couldn't always go, and made a very good jack of all trades for the infantry.
When you look at the German army schlepping so much of their equipment in horse drawn carts you've got to bet they'd have loved to have as many fully tracked vehicles like the Carrier.
When you look at the German army schlepping so much of their equipment in horse drawn carts you've got to bet they'd have loved to have as many fully tracked vehicles like the Carrier.
long_tom
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
You might have a different opinion if you'd have been in an army which utilised that vehicle in many roles from combat and communications to support and supply.
The Universal Carrier might seem 'silly' and ''quaint' to today's jaded eyes, but it served a variety of useful roles.
No-one seems to have stepped up and described the Panzer 1 as either 'quaint' or 'silly' and I'd suggest the two are not light years apart in either engineering or utility...
$0.02
acav out
Actually, the Panzer 1 was designed as a training tank and was never intended for combat. And yes, "quaint and silly" would describe those vehicles too, as they were based on the obsolete principle of tanks using no cannon but only machine guns. At least the Panzer 1 was completely enclosed, unlike the Universal Carrier with its open top making the crew vulnerable. If a successful enclosed version had been manufactured instead, the vehicle would have been much better.
ALBOWIE
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:23 AM UTC
The vehicle was NEVER designed as an AFV but as the name says , a CARRIER or put in that quaint term a Battle Taxi. It was an excellent scouting platform due to low profile , speed and cross country ability. It was never designed to take the fight to the enemy as an armoured vehicle but as a cross country carrier from the same period as the Pz 1.
It excelled in most roles and was still serving (Highly Successfully) in the Carrier Role with C'wealth Bde in Korea.
The Brit infantry formations in NWE preffered the Carrier to the US HT as it was a much smaller target. It also beats walking.
Cheers
Al
It excelled in most roles and was still serving (Highly Successfully) in the Carrier Role with C'wealth Bde in Korea.
The Brit infantry formations in NWE preffered the Carrier to the US HT as it was a much smaller target. It also beats walking.
Cheers
Al
LeoCmdr
Joined: January 19, 2005
KitMaker: 4,085 posts
Armorama: 3,917 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 10:33 AM UTC
In a time where armies were still using horses to pack equipment and soldiers walked into battle the Universal Carrier was very practical.
Many were used as weapons carriers, towing 6 pounder AT guns, or converted into flame throwers.
The vehicle was cheap to build and simple...good things in rapidly moving combat. It wasn't over engineered and under powered like lots of German equipment.
British Infantry tactics back then never envisioned using an AFV to roll up in battle with...Infantry was on foot and used tanks as support. The Universal Carrier provided that extra little bit of mobility that was required in bad terrain and in all weather conditions.
Many were used as weapons carriers, towing 6 pounder AT guns, or converted into flame throwers.
The vehicle was cheap to build and simple...good things in rapidly moving combat. It wasn't over engineered and under powered like lots of German equipment.
British Infantry tactics back then never envisioned using an AFV to roll up in battle with...Infantry was on foot and used tanks as support. The Universal Carrier provided that extra little bit of mobility that was required in bad terrain and in all weather conditions.
acav
Joined: May 09, 2002
KitMaker: 517 posts
Armorama: 290 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 12:34 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextYou might have a different opinion if you'd have been in an army which utilised that vehicle in many roles from combat and communications to support and supply.
The Universal Carrier might seem 'silly' and ''quaint' to today's jaded eyes, but it served a variety of useful roles.
No-one seems to have stepped up and described the Panzer 1 as either 'quaint' or 'silly' and I'd suggest the two are not light years apart in either engineering or utility...
$0.02
acav out
Actually, the Panzer 1 was designed as a training tank and was never intended for combat. And yes, "quaint and silly" would describe those vehicles too, as they were based on the obsolete principle of tanks using no cannon but only machine guns. At least the Panzer 1 was completely enclosed, unlike the Universal Carrier with its open top making the crew vulnerable. If a successful enclosed version had been manufactured instead, the vehicle would have been much better.
Well, I never knew that
Gee, y'live and learn, fancy me not knowing the Pz1 was a training tank and there's me only been reading and studying AFVs and modelling since 1968...
You miss my original point, sir, and that is that both vehicles were products of their time and to condemn them from the viewpoint of today's 20/20 hindsight is not only pointless, it is insulting to those who served in these vehicles.
acav out
again...
Drader
Joined: July 20, 2004
KitMaker: 3,791 posts
Armorama: 2,798 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 02:03 PM UTC
The Digger History page says nearly all that needs to be said really.
Not only was the Universal Carrier popular with its intended users (more so than the Loyd Carrier) it also saw a lot use in the hands of its opponents
Scroll down this page to the Carrier section
http://beute.pz1.ru/Beutepanzer/uk/uk.htm
David
Not only was the Universal Carrier popular with its intended users (more so than the Loyd Carrier) it also saw a lot use in the hands of its opponents
Scroll down this page to the Carrier section
http://beute.pz1.ru/Beutepanzer/uk/uk.htm
David
GeraldOwens
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,736 posts
Armorama: 3,697 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 02:52 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Actually, the Panzer 1 was designed as a training tank and was never intended for combat. And yes, "quaint and silly" would describe those vehicles too, as they were based on the obsolete principle of tanks using no cannon but only machine guns. At least the Panzer 1 was completely enclosed, unlike the Universal Carrier with its open top making the crew vulnerable. If a successful enclosed version had been manufactured instead, the vehicle would have been much better.
All APCs of the period were open-topped, so damning the carrier for lacking top cover is pointless unless we also condemn the M3 halftrack and SdKfz. 251. Until the introduction of proximity fuses for field artillery in December, 1944, airbursts were not regarded as that big a threat, though most armored personnel carriers built after that had roof armor. It compares poorly to an M3 halftrack in troop carrying ability, but it scores better than a Jeep when you compare armor protection. Was it "quaint?" Well, any piece of technology that's nearly 70 years old could fall into that category.
And the bit about the Panzer I being a training vehicle was invented by Guderian in his memoirs after the war. The original documents uncovered by Spielberger, Jentz, et al, are quite clear that it was intended as a battle tank when it was conceived (and it had armor piercing machine gun ammunition available that could penetrate a T-26's armor within 150 meters, so the Republican forces in Spain learned to engage the Panzers at longer range).
long_tom
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 04:52 PM UTC
Quoted Text
And the bit about the Panzer I being a training vehicle was invented by Guderian in his memoirs after the war. The original documents uncovered by Spielberger, Jentz, et al, are quite clear that it was intended as a battle tank when it was conceived (and it had armor piercing machine gun ammunition available that could penetrate a T-26's armor within 150 meters, so the Republican forces in Spain learned to engage the Panzers at longer range).
Ah, that's what I get for being taken in by a bit or revisionist history.
But it should be noted that the author of the Osprey book about the Universal Carrier gave the impression of not thinking highly of this vehicle, and was surprised it served with anybody after the end of WW2, but many were still around and they still had their uses for certain applications.
I do remember reading some time ago that there were soldiers who served with M3 halftracks who had negative opinions on them, and the SdKfz 251's that served with the postwar Czechoslovakian army were unpopular and known as "Hitler's Revenge." The Crusader tank was unpopular with its crews as well for mechanical unreliability, though that problem was largely caused by poor preparation of said tanks before being issued to combat units. That problem was later solved, but the damage was done.
tedmott
Joined: January 02, 2007
KitMaker: 75 posts
Armorama: 71 posts
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 05:32 PM UTC
i recently watched a documentary on a history chaneel and it just happened to show two carries litterally belting across the desert and through a bunch of old ruins, gooodness knows what speed they were doing but they looked great fun, and very handy for getting swiftly out of, or into, harms way
blackhand
Joined: July 13, 2006
KitMaker: 96 posts
Armorama: 70 posts
Posted: Friday, March 23, 2007 - 03:48 AM UTC
In a lot of units the only armour that was seen was the quaint little carrier & in one guise or other it was in action for 6 years the only other vehicle that could match that is the panzer iv ,they were also used in Korea. No doubt they did a lot of jobs they were not designed for because they were there !incidentaly they were used by the USSR & the USA .All the main Axis forces also used them , not quite as ubiquitous as the Jeep but not far behind.
long_tom
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Friday, March 23, 2007 - 04:40 AM UTC
The Egyptian army used hundreds of them in the 1940's and 1950's. I wonder how popular the Universal Carriers were with them?
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.