Wasp, Badger and Crocodile in March 1945

[TColvin]

I know about the Crocodile. There were 183 units operated by 141 RAC, 1 F&F Yeomanry, and 7 RTR in 31 Armoured Brigade in 79 Armoured Division. BTW, they were brigaded with the 278 units of Kangaroos operated by 49 APC Regiment and 1 CACR. Crocodiles, like Kangaroos, were available to 1 Canadian Army in 21 Army Group by arrangement with Monty who controlled them all directly through Hobart.

What I don't know, and ask anyone reading this for help even if they only know some of the answers, is the situation with Wasps (Universal carrier with flamethrowing equipment) and Badgers (Ram tank with flamethrowing equipment).
Their use is described in Stacey, so that is known.
But specifically, please, can anyone help with these questions:
1. why were they needed? In other words what did they do that the Crocodile could not do? The reverse is obvious. The Germans feared and hated flame and threw everything they had at their tormentors. The Wasp was only a carrier, for gods' sake. Anyone getting into one should have received an automatic VC
2. who designed them?
3. who built them?
4. who operated them?
5. who controlled their use?
6. what was the TOE?
7. how many of each was there in March 1945?
8. what were their losses?
9. was the flame equipment and the fuel used the same as on the Crocodile, or different? If different, who designed and procured it?
10. how many of each were delivered to Russia under lend-lease? There is a Wasp on exhibition at Kubinka.

[kevinT]

Original design taken over by Canadian R.P. Fraser of Lagonda.
Improved on Ronson design. Range now 100 yards. Now known as Wasp MK II. Mk I now used for training.
Cheers
Kevin

[Colin Williams]

Tony,

Canadian Military HQ Report #141 summarizes the development and use of flame weapons within 1st Canadian Army. It can be found online as a pdf file through the Canadian Defence Dept. website - http://www.dnd.ca/hr/dhh/history_arc...hq_e.asp?cat=1

The relevant text is below

30 Report No. 141
57. Flame Weapons. Various types of flame-throwing weapons were employed by the Canadian Army during the year. Flame throwers had been used by the British on an experimental scale since 1940 (C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw)2: Senior Officer C.M.H.Q. to H.Q. First Cdn Army, 24 Nov 42), but the development of these weapons as standard equipment of the Army depended largely on Canadian interest. Various experiments had been carried out by the Canadian Army in the United Kingdom and the first production on a large scale was in Canada (C.M.H.Q. file 55/4220/2:
D.C.G.R.D. Memorandum, 25 Mar 42; W.D., Canadian Training School: An Account of Flame Warfare and Technical Development by Lt.-Col R. Arnason,, O.C. No. 4 (C.W.) Wing, February 1945; see also W.D., Cdn Petroleum Warfare Experimental Unit, June 1943).

58. The first type developed on a large scale for use by the Canadian Army was the Canadianmade Ronson. This weapon was mounted on a Universal carrier. Orders had been placed in Canada by July 1942 for 1000 of these for the Canadian Army Overseas (C.M.H.Q. file 55/4220/2: Tel G.S. 2427, CANMILITRY to DEFENSOR, 13 Jul 42; C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2: Tel G.S.W. 272, DEFENSOR to CANMILITRY, 4 Mar 43). First deliveries were ready by the end of 1942, when a British proposal to use 50 of them in the Middle East was opposed by the Canadian Army Commander on the ground that surprise would be sacrificed by their use on a small scale. The proposal was abandoned (ibid: Memorandum by G.O.C.-in-C. First Cdn Army, 23 Nov 42; Tel G.S. 4123, CANMILITRY to DEFENSOR, 12 Dec 42). It is worth noting that none were yet available from British production (ibid: War Office Memorandum, 21 Nov 42). By the end of July 1943 the Canadian Army Overseas had received 818 Ronsons from Canada; the rest of the order had been lost at sea (ibid: S.D. 3, C.M.H.Q. to D.O.S., C.M.H.Q., 3 Aug 43). Supplies were not adequate, but it remained to determine the method of their employment. Training was carried out at the Canadian Training School, particularly with personnel of infantry divisional reconnaissance regiments. The intention was to use a maximum of 300 at one time using three reconnaissance regiments to operate approximately 100 each (ibid: Tel S.D.W. 474, CANMILITRY to DEFENSOR, 16 Oct 43). It was intended to hold these equipments in ordnance depots in the operational theatre for issue as required for particular operations.

59. The principal defect noticed in the Ronson was the difficulty of maintenance. There was some suggestion in March 1943 of adopting a new type, but the Army Commander expressed himself as satisfied with the Ronson (ibid: Tels S.D.T. 901 and S.D.T. 948, CANMILITRY to DEFENSOR, 12 and 19 Mar 43). The only alternative available at that time was the British Wasp Mk 1, which was not as good. In October 1943, however, the Canadian Army decided that the British Wasp Mk 2 Flame
Thrower, just coming into production, was superior to the Ronson and placed an order for 500 of these with the War Office. The Wasp Mk 2 is a more advanced design using the principles established by the development of the "Barracuda" by the Canadian Petroleum Experimental unit in conjunction with the British Petroleum Warfare Department (Major G.E. Wilson, S.D. 11, C.M.H.Q.). It is mounted
like the Ronson on Universal carrier and has two fuel tanks mounted inside the carrier, but the Canadian Army desired to have one external tank in view of the difficulty of maintenance with the internal tank (ibid: G.O.C.-in-C. First Cdn Army to Senior Officer, C.M.H.Q., 24 Oct 43; Tel S.D.W. 506, CANMILITRY to DEFENSOR, 23 Oct 43; Cdn Ops in N.W.E., series 17 pp. 1-3).

The production of Wasps was proceeding rather slowly and the modified Canadian version, known as Wasp Mk 2c, was accordingly delayed (ibid: Director of Special Weapons and Vehicles, War Office to Senior Officer, C.M.H.Q., 14 Jan 44; S.D. 11, C.M.H.Q. to S.D. 3, C.M.H.Q., 15 Apr 44). Meanwhile Ronsons were used for training and it was intended to use them for operations if the Wasps were not available. They were not in fact used in North-West Europe and the Canadian Army had
some 700 Ronsons available for disposal (C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2/2: Tel CARO 570, DEFENSOR to CANMILITRY, 6 Oct 44).

60. The policy in 21 Army Group was for the Wasps to be used by infantry carrier platoons as an occasional weapon; stocks held in advanced ordnance depots would be available on 7 days' notice (C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2: Tel S.D.W. 637, CANMILITRY to DEFENSOR, 12 Nov 43; Chief of Staff, First Cdn Army Letter, 23 Mar 44). Training was given to personnel of infantry carrier platoons at the Canadian Training School on the British Wasp 2. The first Wasp 2c was ready about 1 Jun 44 (ibid: Chief of Staff, C.M.H.Q. to Under-Secretary of State, War Office, 21 May 44). On the scale of 8 equipments for each infantry divisional reconnaissance regiment, motor battalion and infantry battalion, First Cdn Army had a requirement of 192 with wastage estimated at 29 per month. Up to the latter part of November First Cdn Army had received 134 Wasp 2 and 73 Wasp 2c, but many of these had gone to equip 49 and 51 Brit Divs. Total holdings were 45 Wasp 2 and 37 Wasp 2c of which 10 were held by the Polish Armoured Division. Efforts were being made to have First Cdn Army equipped entirely with the Canadian model (C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2/2: First Cdn Army Memorandum, 25 Nov 44; Notes on Visit by Col F.F. Fulton, (S.D.W.) C.M.H.Q. to H.Q. First Cdn Army, 4-9 Nov 44).

Wasps were used by the Canadian forces in North-West Europe, often with considerable effect (Cdn Ops in N.W.E., series 7, p.2; series 12, p.1; Historical file AEF/7 Cdn Inf Bde/C/D, the Bridgehead over the LEOPOLD CANAL, Account by Major A.L. Gollnick and Capt. C.M. Rehill; Historical file AEF/3 Cdn Inf Div/L/F, Docket III: Conversion G.O.C. 3 Cdn Inf Div with Major-General Eberding, G.O.C. 64 German Inf Div, 1 Nov 44). They were also supplied for operations in Italy (Historical file Italy 1944/1 Cdn Corps/C/F: Bi-Monthly Summary of Ops of 1 Cdn
Corps by Hist Offr, 16-30 Nov 44).

61. Early in 1944 another and more powerful flame-thrower was coming into production in the United Kingdom. This is the Crocodile, a flame-throwing apparatus usable in all Churchill VII tanks. Other types of tank and other marks of the Churchill cannot be used for Crocodiles. The fuel is carried in an armoured wheeled container pulled by the tank; the flame gun is mounted in place of the Besa. These were to be issued on the scale of one per troop in each Churchill regiment; due to short supply, 141 R.A.C. was equipped as a Churchill VII unit capable of using Crocodiles as an interim measure for the initial stages of Operation "OVERLORD" (C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2: Director of Special Weapons and Vehicles, War Office to Senior Officer, C.M.H.Q., 14 Jan 44; Chief of Staff, 21 Army Group to H.Q. First Cdn Army, 6 Mar 44).

On the basis of one per troop in each armoured regiment First Cdn Army had a requirement for 100 Crocodiles, but they would have to be adapted to fit Sherman tanks. The American Army were intending to use Crocodiles on the Sherman I which should fit the Sherman III and V used by the Canadian Army (ibid: A/G.O.C.-in-C. First Cdn Army to Chief of Staff, C.M.H.Q., 19 Feb 44; Chief of Staff, C.M.H.Q. to H.Q. First Cdn Army, 25 Mar 44). No production was started on the Canadian requirement owning to the prior claims of the Churchill model. At the end of August the requirement was cancelled. The American Army had abandoned the idea of
using Crocodiles on Shermans, leaving the Canadians as the only potential users (ibid: Director of Special Weapons and Vehicles War Office to C.M.H.Q., 1 Aug 44 and 23 Aug 44; Tel S.D. 88, S.D. Main First Cdn Army to S.D. Main EXFOR, 2 Sep 44). The Canadian forces in North-West Europe frequently had the support of Crocodiles provided by 141 R.A.C. (Cdn Ops in N.W.E., series 8, p. 3; series 9, p. 10; series 12, p. 1; Historical file AEF/First Cdn Army/R/H: 2 Cdn Corps Requirements Special Eqpt, 4 Oct 44).

62. To meet the lack of Crocodiles First Cdn Army in August requested to have a Wasp 2 mounted in Ram Armoured Personnel Carrier. By December 1944 First Cdn Army had received 36 of these (C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2: Tels S.D. 90 and S.D. 68, S.D. First Cdn Army to S.D.(W), C.M.H.Q., 15 Aug 44 and 17 Sep 44; C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2/2: Tel S.D. 99, First Cdn Army to S.D.(W), C.M.H.Q., 21 Dec 44). These equipments, known as "Cougars" and later "Badgers", were issued for trial purposes on the scale of 6 to each armoured regiment of 2 Cdn Armd Bde and 6 to the motor battalion of 4 Cdn Armd Div. They had not been used by the end of 1944.

63. Another flame-thrower employed during the year was the Lifebuoy, Mk 2. This is a portable flame-thrower operated by one man. Like the others it was held in ordnance depots for issue as required for operations. It was intended for use particularly in house or wood clearing or in street fighting where the Wasp and Crocodile cannot be manoeuvred (Cdn Ops in N.W.E., Series 17, pp. 3-4). It was employed occasionally by the Canadian Forces, but in practice it was found to be too heavy and to require considerable maintenance, and there was a lack of trained operators (Cdn Ops in N.W.E., series 8, p.7). A few Lifebuoys were held by Canadian forces in the United Kingdom for training at the Canadian Training School (C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2: Director of Special Weapons and Vehicles, War Office to C.M.H.Q. (S.D.3), 29 Jul 44). There was a shortage of these equipments
for the Canadian Forces in Italy (C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2/2: War Office to A.F.H.Q., 29 Nov 44). At the end of the year there was under development in the United Kingdom the A.A.A. Pack flame Thrower, which was reported to be better than the Lifebuoy but would not be in production until March 1945 (C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2: Tel S.D.W. 2545, C.M.H.Q. to S.D. Main first Cdn Army, 31 Jul 44; C.M.H.Q. file 1/F1 Throw/2/2: Tel S.D.W., 3645, CANMILITRY to G., S.D. Main First Cdn Army, 7 Dec 44).

[Nigel Watson]

"The Wasp was only a carrier, for gods' sake."

WAS ONLY A CARRIER!!!!!!!!! I'll have you know that...................

[TColvin]

Thank you Colin.
The source you give also answers another question I had as to why 141 RAC was not in 79 Armoured Division on D-Day.

Nigel.
When I made the statement that the wasp was only a carrier, I was conscious that my wife was in England burying her uncle. He was an anti-tank gunner in 43rd Wessex Division travelling in a Carrier towing a 17-pdr in the Geilenkirchen area around Christmastime 1944. A mortar bomb landed in it. He spent four years in hospital and emerged minus his ears, an arm and a leg, and with his face looking like all those veterans who have been burned alive. He proceeded to live until he was 92 years old. His argument was that his heart had only half a body to service so it wasn't likely to wear out prematurely. He climbed ladders and drove a car. He refused to discuss the war with me or with anyone, except as he lay dying he asked to speak to a curate. She told my wife that he spoke about the war for over an hour, but of course what he had to unburden himself with was between the two of them.

The driver of a wasp risked being killed either by an AP round that would barely slow down as it went through the carrier's minimal frontal armour like a knife through butter, or a mortar bomb that would land in it and set off the flamethrowing fuel. The crew of a Crocodile by contrast was in a Churchill VII that was the most heavily armoured tank in the world at that time and was vulnerable only to a Panzerfaust that the infantry would ensure didn't get near, or to an 88-mm. They were immune to mortars.

Carriers needed overhead armour in 1944 given the German reliance on mortars, rather than the canvas covers on the Lloyd and Windsor Carriers.

[Nigel Watson]

Tony I was only kidding as I'm sure the rest of the gang here knows!! I follow with interest the conversations on carriers as they are my "thing".

We can certainly see the shortfalls of this wonderful vehicle (biased) in hindsight, but it was also recognised in its development as well; chiefly no overhead protection from enemy fire let alone the weather! An armoured roof was designed and tested on the MkI carriers but was discarded as the crews found it difficult to get in and out quick enough!

I have two separate accounts from carrier veterans concerning the open top. One was from a veteran in Burma who said that the Japanese were extremely skillful using their efficent rifle grenade and could lob a grenade inside a carrier from quite a distance. To counteract this his platoon was issued with chicken wire to cover the carrier and from then on this became a standard issue item and one which he would never travel without. The other veteran was involved in Europe after D-Day and told me that before entering any villages or towns they would dismantle any hen houses and use the corrugated iron roof for their own protection by laying it over the back of the carrier. The Germans you see used to drop grenades from the windows as the carrier passed below. So that stopped that!
Cunning people these carrier crews!! Nowadays too!!

The Wasp, now that's another tank of oil all together! Came across some useful information in my notes. At optimum elevation a range of 70 yards was achieved by adding 3% aluminium stearate to petrol and a maximum range of 93 yards could be achieved with 2.5% rubber in the petrol. Must try that!!! Soon!!
Its getting cold over here.

Further trawling came up with the following which may be of some use for you Tony. Dated 31/12/49 the report reads:
Wasp Carriers in various theatres.
UK - 10 units, 45 S, 13 R
BAOR - 7 units, 46 S, 84 R
BTA - 2 units
BETFOR - 4 units
FARELF - 72 S

making a total of 283 vehicles. If anyone can explain these letters I'd be grateful. Know some but struggling with the S and R and the last two on the list.

Nigel

[TColvin]

Sorry to be heavy. I knew you were kidding.

But I question whether the open Carrier was in fact battleworthy in 1944/45. It was designed to keep out bullets, and gave a false sense of security against all the other shit flying around and dropping out of the sky.

Why should the troops in the field have to modify their vehicles with chicken wire? The Llyod and Windsor were supplied with a hooped frame and sliding armour should have been fitted over it to stop shrapnel and mortars. Being laid horizontally it would not have increased the target area.

And no wonder the Canadians wanted a Badger. That's what they should have had from the beginning rather than the cheapo Carrier.

BAOR = British Army Of The Rhine = British forces in occupied Germany.
BTA is, I suspect, British Forces in Austria, but I can't be sure. These are abbreviations for geographically based forces.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by Nigel

BETFOR - 4 units
FARELF - 72 S

If anyone can explain these letters I'd be grateful. Know some but struggling with the S and R and the last two on the list.

Nigel,

BETFOR ; British Element Trieste Force
FARELF ; Far East Land Forces

Will we see your carrier with a sheet of rusty wavy tin tied on it now?

Richard

[Geoff Winnington-Ball (RIP)]

Originally posted by Richard Farrant
Will we see your carrier with a sheet of rusty wavy tin tied on it now?

Naw, his is a British Indian Army carrier, he's gotta go with the chicken wire...

What's Urdu for 'chicken wire'?

[Nigel Watson]

Firstly, thanks to you Richard and Tony for the abbreviation enlightenment I had such fun making up possible phrases and as you can guess some funnier than others. Could the S and R after the numbers refer to Section and Regiment? Although I would have expected them written in a different order!

As far as the open topped carrier is concerned what I was trying to get at was that despite everyone having the same reservations about its vulnerability from above it was still manufactured open topped and I can't help thinking that this was a concious decision by the powers to be without because most of the other armour was being constantly revised during the war. It was perhaps that the carrier was such a mean machine, a special wee vehicle that everyone had and used almost as much as the jeeps! Sorry the Willys and GPWs! Slap wrist!! What I loved was the extra storage racks they fitted to the sides so they could load it up more than usual! Cool idea but why they made them in steel is anyones guess, and forgetting to put a driver's slot in the front is to say the least, very forgetful!!

Richard I'm afraid Giff is correct, it will have to be the "murghi tar" that I would carry, I have thought about it but you know its hard to find war dated wire. You got a source?! Once my transporter is completed I will be travelling the whole rig southwards.

Going to Stoneleigh, see some of you there perhaps!

Nigel

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by Nigel
Richard I'm afraid Giff is correct, it will have to be the "murghi tar" that I would carry, I have thought about it but you know its hard to find war dated wire. You got a source?! Once my transporter is completed I will be travelling the whole rig southwards.

Nigel,
What about carrying "murghi ka keema"? Make a nice meal to finish off the day!

Look forward to seeing you in the southern counties again.

Richard

[TColvin]

Going to Stoneleigh, Nigel? That's where I came from, for gawd's sake in the days when Massey Ferguson had its world-wide training organization there in the old US military hospital.
I don't think I ever ran my Windsor Carrier there though.

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by TColvin
That's where I came from, for gawd's sake in the days when Massey Ferguson had its world-wide training organization there in the old US military hospital.

TC,
Thats a coincidence because I went to the MF training school at Stareton a number of times in the late sixties when I was an apprentice with a Massey distributor.

Richard

[Tony Smith]

Don't know any of this for a fact, just making wildly inaccurate pot shots with blanks in the dark!

BTA-- British Territorial Army?
S-- Spares/Salvage only
R-- Repairable

[Richard Farrant]

Originally posted by Tony Smith
Don't know any of this for a fact, just making wildly inaccurate pot shots with blanks in the dark!

BTA-- British Territorial Army?
S-- Spares/Salvage only
R-- Repairable

Tony,
I am now certain that BTA stands for British Troops Austria. Your suggestion is refered to as just plain TA. Regarding S and R, I looked at Nigel's message again and now think it is the typical army parlance, S meaning Serviceable and R, as you correctly say, Repairable.

Richard

[Andrew Tomlinson]

Now that explains the use of that (unpainted) corrugated as strapped to the Bren Carrier side in the picture I have. I think it's next to a line of Cromwells / Shermies in Normandy. Thanks for that !

Anyone want to see it ? Got to find and scan it.

PS. Anyone into Windsors ? I made a model of one (a cut and shut) from 2 Tamiya kits - but labour to find any wartime shots - if so, they are usually without the roof bars - which I would like to add to the model. Has this been on this site before ? I see T16s but no Windsors.

BTW - there is a poor T16 at Eden Camp, Yorkshire, GB.

[John McGillivray]

I have come across an account of the early trials with flame equipment mounted on carriers. It is contained in “An Historical Account of the 7th Canadian Reconnaissance Regiment (17th Duke of York’s Royal Canadian Hussars) in the World War 1939 – 1945” by Capt Walter G. Pavey (Montreal 1948).

“Towards the end of October (1943), Col. Hugman received some orders from Canadian Military Headquarters, informing him that the Regiment would be required to do some specialized training under very strict security rules, and would have to be moved completely away from 3rd Division for this purpose. So it was, that on the night of October 29th, under a blanket of secrecy, the Regiment left Nine Yews.

“It was still not definitely known just what this specialized training was to be when the 17th arrived at this tiny English town (Woldingham), some twenty miles from London, the next day. However, a few days later the Technical Adjutant, Capt. M.G. Christie, arrived with some 100 of the new Ronson Flame Throwers. It seems that the 17th, because of its fine training record, had been selected to try to devise a method for using flame throwers en masse. The Regiment had been given three months to teach itself how to use these new weapons, maintain them and produce some sort of method of tactical employment for them. Incidentally, the methods of tactical employment devised by the Unit were compiled by the various Squadrons into a written pamphlet which later was used as the basis for the subsequent Army Training Pamphlets pertaining to the use of flame.

“It is no wonder then that leaves were cancelled and all entertainment was curtailed, for once again the 17th had an important job of work to do and they would not rest until it was done. It was soon discovered that although they could learn the mechanics of the new toy, it would be impractical for the Regiment to stay at Woldingham for tactical training, and on the 22nd of November, the 17th moved with their flame-throwers well camouflaged, back to West Chiltington.

“This last stay in West Chiltington was to cover one of the most important training periods in the Regiment’s history and, in fact, the final one, for it was from this place that the 17th Hussars left for their trip to the Normandy beachhead. Arriving the 22nd of November, the Unit, now fully acquainted with the working of their flame-throwers, set out on all-out training syllabus which would cover everything from Section Flame Tactics to Regimental Flame Tactics.

“A special training area was allotted to the Unit which was guarded day and night by Detachments of Security Police to insure that the business of the Regiment was not allowed into the public’s hands.

“The method in which the Regiment arrived at its final decision on flame-throwers was by having each Squadron devise its own flame tactics and each Squadron, in turn, had its troops study and produce Section tactics.

“Finally, on January 13th, the regiment was able to train as a whole on the South Downs with their flame carriers massed. During all this period, it was becoming more and more apparent to the Officers of the Unit that the use of flame-throwers in great numbers would not be practical because of their vulnerability and because of the big maintenance problem. The business of keeping flame-throwers well-equipped with flame fluid had become really quite difficult.

“At any rate, no matter what various members of the Regiment thought, there was to be a large-scale demonstration for the benefit of high-ranking Canadian and British Officers, to be held on the South Downs on the 21st of January and the Unit was still determined to put on as good a show as they possibly could, in order to give this new war idea a truly fair trial.

“On the day of the big demonstration the Brass Hats arrived in droves to see just exactly how far the Regiment had gone with this thing. So, in order to give them a proper idea of what it would be like, the Commanding Officer placed these visitors in all flame vehicles which would take part in the demonstration, then started the thing going.

“After it was all over, even the high-ranking officers who had been the promoters of this idea, agreed with the Regimental Training Officers and Col. Hugman that to commit a whole Regiment to flame-throwers would not be a sound idea. At the same time, these Officers paid the very highest compliments to the Regiment, as a whole, for the way in which they had gone about producing what they considered to be the most complete and fairest trail the new weapon could possibly have had. Almost immediately, the Regiment lost their flame-throwers, keeping only one per Scout Troop, which remained in their normal establishment throughout the war.”

Tony
I hope you wont mind my quizing you on some of your comments. In a reply to Nigel you mentioned that your wife's uncle was an anti-tank gunner in the 43d Wessex Division, that would put him in the 59th Antitank Regiment (RA). Further you say that he was wounded while in a Carrier towing a 17-pdr. From my research 17-pdrs were towed by Artillery Quads, I wouldn't be surprised that there were other vehicles used. I doubt very much that a UC Carrier could tow a 17pdr for very long if at all as the gun weighs almost as much as the UC Carrier. The UC was used to tow a 6-pdr and had some stability problems with the weight hence the developement of the T16 and the Windsor Carriers. Post War the Oxford Carrier was produced and used to tow the 17-pdr. At the time that you refer to the 59th was using 17-pdrs.

[TColvin]

Art.
It looks as if I got it wrong. My wife's uncle would never talk about the war, but you're right he did say he was in the 59th Anti-Tank Regiment RA in 43rd Wessex Division. He wouldn't even let me take him to Vernon to see where the 43rd Division forced the crossing of the Seine. He let me drive him in my 1944 Jeep here in Canada, and I think I drove him in the Windsor Carrier that I owned in Britain but sold when the company wouldn't pay to bring it out to Canada. I have seen pictures of Windsor Carriers towing 17-pdrs and assumed that he would have been in an earlier version of such a towing vehicle.
So thanks for that. I shall now picture him in an artillery quad. They were just as exposed to mortar bombs, I take it.

[John McGillivray]

Another tractor used by the British to pull 17pdrs was the Crusader II, Gun Tractor Mk I, which was based on the Crusader II tank. These were also used by the 5th Canadian A/T Regt of the 4th Canadian Armoured Div. They had an open topped armoured box structure built on top of the Crusader hull.

John sounds like you hit the nail on the head. The site below has pictures of a model of the Crusader Gun Tractor.

http://www.mujweb.cz/www/kpmct/Modely/72_GunTractor.htm

[John McGillivray]

Here is a photo of a Wasp belonging to 7th Recce (17th D of Y's Hussars. The photo is from the units history published in 1948.

[Andrew Tomlinson]

Thanks for the great picture !
Note the Canadian smoke Discharger fit on the front too !

Andrew