"AFV Profile" Series Pictures

[Lynn Eades]

Rob, Can you post the pictures to go with the designations?

[Rob Beale]

Source: "Making Tracks, British Carrier Story" by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis Profile Publications 1973

[Nigel Watson]

You'll see this in print shortly but thought you may like to know now!
Bren No.1 Mk1 was made of mild steel throughout with no backrest or rear flap for 3rd crewman.
Bren No.2 Mk1 had its hull made of bullet proof riveted plate with armoured engine covers and rear folding flap for 3rd crewman.
Bren No.2 Mk2 was an improved version of the Mk1 with different hull plates etc.

Nigel

[Rob Beale]

that clarifies the issue of nomenclature for the pre-universal carriers for me.

I now note that the picture above of the Carrier MG No 2, Mk I has the triangular plate for non armoured on its side: perhaps this is the pilot vehicle?

Now any leads on the 65bhp vs 85bhp issue for the universal No1 Mk I?

Rob

[Lynn Eades]

Is the 65 hp motor the basic short stroke motor as fitted in the English Ford Pilot cars?

[Adamicz]

Originally posted by Rich Payne
If the first combat use was in May 1940 then it was probably in Belgium as British Forces advanced to the Dyle line to meet the Germans. Some reconnaisance units went further.

The three mentioned earlier in this thread might have been among the first to come close to action.http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/sh...&threadid=1429

Now I'm confused.. you're talking about Bren Gun Carriers, right? Cause I need to know the UNIVERSAL carrier first use in combat. Were they used in Europe before evacuation of Dunkerque? If not, where they were first used? In Africa? I can't find that information anywhere.

[Rob Beale]

I don't have hard evidence, but the first contracts for "Universal carriers" were dated 1 April 1939 according to David Fletcher in "Universal Carrier 1936-48"

The often quoted recommendations of the committee reviewing the performance of carriers in France in 1940 seem to have been pre-empted by the above contracts.

Probably only photographic evidence will determine if universals were with the BEF.

David Hayward may know more about delivery dates for the above contracts: presumably it took time to set up tooling and source materials and components from suppliers, but would it take a year???

Rob

[Adamicz]

Maybe due to the impasse in Europe they've decided to not deploy new universals.

[Rich Payne]

Following on a thread on WW2talk where Richard Harrison pointed out that there were Universals in use with the 2nd BEF at least (52nd Infantry Division at Cherbourg in June)

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/1940/85...arkings-4.html

I remembered this thread and an image that I saved recently from the history site of the town of Poperinge. It shows T8134 which Nigel Watson lists as a Nuffield UC Mk1. The image is dated 27th May 1940.



Sorry for the clumsy screen save.

According to the War Diaries of HQ GS for 2nd Div, most of their transport was abandoned at Poperinge but in view of the confusion, this one could have been used by other units.

[Rich Payne]

Here is Sentinel Wagons Universal MkI on the beach at Malo-Les-Bains after the evacuation, The second carrier seems to be wearing the 4th Infantry Division formation sign and shares a '4' AoS sign suggesting 30th Field regt. R.A.

It would seem that there was a reasonable number of Universals with the BEF.

[RichardT10829]

excelent photo's Rich on the last pic for some reason they have removed an engine cover which can be seen lying against the track.... i had made a minor error in my decription on the ww2 forum, but none the less the vehicles were as stated.

[Lynn Eades]

Are you talking about WW2 Talk? If your a regular there then maybe you could try to undo the b.s. thats printed there, that is put across as fact.
eg.AOP's were only for transporting the crew to a site from where the "observing was carried out, ex the carrier.If that was the case, why were they fitted out, to enable the job to be carried out, in the carrier?
It also reads that the Scout was a derivative of the Universal,and does not differentiate between a Bren, and a Universal. If the writer is an authority, then he needs to get a little closer to the facts. Unfortunately I cannot believe any of the other screeds of stuff he has written about, that which I do not know, because he has blown his credability, around that which I know a little bit about.

[RichardT10829]

Lynn i have not seen the thread you refer to, i will try and dig it out, but as i am myself a mere student when it comes to carriers i dont know if i am the right person to make the corrections......... those lads helped me a great deal with my research for grandad, and there are a few actual ww2 veterans there. granted there are often errors on vehicles etc. but for example Rich here is a major enthusiast on ww2 motorcycles and knows a great deal, there are other AFV owners on the forums too.

even our very own Nigel has had inputs on threads for vehicles.

it was my understanding that the whole point of the AOP was a protected Armoured Observation Post... the idea being the boys could rig up an op quickly from the vehicle, run lines out for comms and if they were "bumped" as it were, they could make a sharp exit whilst protecting the crew. without looking is that not what AOP stands for ?

as for scouts. i think (and that is all its a guess)

in order of appearence.

proto type VA D50

scout carrier and bren

Universal carrier mk1 (and variants)

Universal Carrier Mk2 (and variants)

Univesal Carrier Mk3 (and variants)

T16

obviously there are Loyds and Windsors etc to fit in the chain but loosly translated without grabbing nigels books this is what i understood the progression to be. And as i say i myself am a student.


Didnt realise you held such hatred for that forum buddy

[Lynn Eades]

I dont Hate anything, but there are some things I don't like.
There is a locked thread. Find "Carriers" under "Armour" by "Trux". Have a read.
I am actually registered there, but that put me off.
I am not strong on the formation stuff, more into the nuts and bolts.

[RichardT10829]

ok buddy i will have a wee peep.


EDIT: found it. http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/armoure...tml#post316396 must have taken him some time to create the post. what i have noticed is he only has a post count of 81 (Which although should not be used to gauge knowlege can indicate his input onto the forum) its only one persons view bud i would not worry or let it put you off, there are some very knowlegable folk there. Owen, Rich Payne, Smudger, Tom Canning (Canadian Vet) to name but a fiew. what it does need is someone like yourself (who i consider one of the most informed on carriers) to go and create a thread. what i have found is many of the questions people raise about AFV's.... the ww2 talk lads always refer them to this site (we are considered rivet counters and MLU is second to none for info) its nice to be part of something that is respected within its field.....makes me feel all warm inside

[Lynn Eades]

Thanks for the kind words. Any more of that, and you'll be the next b.s. generater on here. You obviously have the head for the structure/ formation stuff, so, if I need to know, I'll ask you (if Mark T. is too busy)
I can live with "Rivet counter" .....I've been called worse!

[Rich Payne]

Lynn, I posted a reply on the softskin 'Ice Cold in Alex' thread to your comments in a similar vein there but it seems to have 'slipped under the radar' so I've copied it to here :-


"Lynn, if you mean the information under the 'Trux' heading, this was added lock stock and barrel from the old Trux Models site in order to save the extensive 21st Army Group establishment details from being lost to the web - the site hosting was / is about to disappear.
The main value for me is in the other listings. Although the information thread is locked, the administrator at WW2talk has added a separate thread for comments and corrections. I'm sure it would be appreciated if you or others felt able to correct any 'howlers'.
There are many people with an interest in the period who would feel intimidated by a site such as this, populated as it is mainly by vehicle owners and restorers. They do a great job there helping casual enquirers deal with the (mainly British) wartime service of their ancestors and other similar projects. Any help from those who really know the vehicles would undoubtedly be appreciated."


The establishment details are clearly the result of a great deal of research work. Personally, I would rather that the author hadn't added extra 'detail' regarding vehicles (he forgot my beloved Norton motorcycles entirely !).

WW2 talk is a forum rather than a website so it's always open to correction and the 'Trux' threads were simply locked to retain some order there, not to avoid comments and criticism for which space has been allowed.

It is very much a forum with it's heart in the right place. One of the regular posters is currently engaged in photographing completely every WO167 series BEF war diary and making them available for a discretionary donation to a service charity and an Australian poster is using the forum in an attempt to obtain a photograph of every RAAF CWGC grave worldwide in order that they be available to families and researchers. Many of us have been out and about in order to help him.

It's not a forum that exists to pander to wild theories ("What if's" are banned) and authoritative corrections are always welcomed.

Rich

[Noel Burgess]

Afraid I must jump in and join Rich in supporting both WW2 Forum and the "Trux" information.
Lynn seems to be condeming an entire discussion forum as bull s**t because of two points he dissagrees with and it is clear he hasn't read the pages properly because he bemoans the exclusion of bren carriers from an article about 21st Army Group.
Surely the thing to do is get on there and point out the errors.

I'm sure somebody could take a few lines from MLU and come to a similar conclusion

Rant over
Noel

[RichardT10829]

yes... just look at my threads buddy you will find plenty about har har har. and yes Lynn i seem to have some brown substance on my nose however respect where respect is due i say.