LP2 wheels

[Lynn Eades]

David, I have no doubt about the desperation of the time, but there was a big difference in the desperation of 1939 versus 1944. As you know, there was also a world of difference (production pressure wise) between an English 1941 U.C. and a T16 (that never made the battle field until the end of the war)
At the wars start much of the population (U.K. and colonies) were pretty much still horse and cart orientated. By the time of the T16 things had changed.
An example from this end, is that N.Z. had new vehicle number plates made in the U.K.(yearly)
In 1940 we were kindly told to F.O. Because of the war effort.
The result was that the 1939 plates were used for the next 4 or 5 years. We were totally reliant on mother England.
Australia was obviously further ahead than little N.Z. however it would have been relative.
My point was really to praise the Australians.
While in their infancy in the area of design and mass production they came up with a very practical carrier . I assume the biggest reason why it never saw more active service was also in the interests of standardization.
As an aside: The Eastern War Council ordered LP2a's from N.Z. but during production cancelled them in favour of Canada filling the order. (same reason?)
When you compare details of the LP2 with a British or Canadian carrier, you realize how much they improved on the faults of the riveted carrier while simplifying the construction.
BTW: this was their second effort. The Australian Govt. had bought a Machine gun carrier from England prior to the war from which they'd built the LP1. (Qty. 161) They had done away with the warp steering, which lead to brake issues. However I believe some of the T16 details were "acquired" from the LP1. No evidence, just my opinion.

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

My point was really to praise the Australians.

Point taken. *places in pocket for future use*