The Loose Association of Wargamers

Oh I'm not offended, just need to get the history correct.
Gary Kennedy's excellent WE is here: https://www.bayonetstrength.uk/BritishA ... an1944.pdf

I would point you to note 7 on page 15
"All trucks, 15-cwt, personnel, in the Motor Battalions of 21 Army Group were replaced on a
one-for-one basis by US supplied halftracks during early 1944. The WE was not amended".

Excellent link. Thanks, WingCo, I hadn't seen that.

I see what you mean about the ORBAT not being amended. However the fact that the M3's were replaced by the the tracks means the requirement was there, just (as with so many changes) not officially recognised at the time. My main references (apart from the usual "hobby" booklets) have been WWII Talk (http://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/mo ... its.23759/ ) and Monty's The Armoured Division in Battle (released by 21 AG in December 1944- one of three he had issued, but I only managed to get this one as a downloadable .pdf through the Defence library). I can give you a copy if you don't have it. It's not a rollicking read, but if you're used to doctrine papers you shouldn't be made comatose too quickly.

Yes, WW2 talk is an excellent resource.
The best thread on the matter is not the one you linked to by Trux, but this one:
https://ww2talk.com/index.php?threads/o ... ost-973824

My point stands, the General Staff never had a requirement for half-tracks but when the the USA said "here's about 10,00 armoured half-tracks we don't want; would you like them?" they said "yes".

At some level there must have been a discussion about armouring 15 cwt trucks because an order was placed with General Motors(Canada) for the C15TA (almost 4,000 produced). But they weren't half-tracks.

Wg Cdr Luddite wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:32 pm My point stands, the General Staff never had a requirement for half-tracks but when the the USA said "here's about 10,00 armoured half-tracks we don't want; would you like them?" they said "yes".

At some level there must have been a discussion about armouring 15 cwt trucks because an order was placed with General Motors(Canada) for the C15TA (almost 4,000 produced). But they weren't half-tracks.

I think we're arguing semantics, WingCo. General Staffs (General Staves? ) can be decidedly slow about addressing many issues (as can their naval and aerial peers), and sometimes seem perverse in their decisions. One could ask why, even though the half-tracks were put into service, the ORBAT wasn’t changed? So in that sense your statement about them not being required was correct, I agree, because there was no formal requirement for a half-track to be met- the ORBAT showed they already had a solution in the armoured 4X4 trucks. However, I was talking about the practical requirement. That the practical requirement existed is proven by how quickly the half-tracks were taken into service, once they were available. Obviously the M3 SC and C15TA (which didn’t have significantly better cross-country performance to the M3, despite only being ~2/3 the weight of the M3) didn’t meet the cross-country requirements as well as the half-tracks.

The C15TA concept wasn’t a bad one, especially the armoured ambulance. We resurrected the concept just after Afghanistan arced up, when we put armour on the B Vehicles going over there. Do you know whether the C15TA (an ugly beastie in the "flesh") was used for the independent armoured brigades, Canadian or Polish formations, or did they also get the tracks? Or was it primarily used a LoC asset instead?

That’s a good discussion in that link. I didn’t join in at the time because I couldn’t add anything worthwhile (and that hasn't changed- there's a great depth of knowledge on that board). I prefer the link I posted, though, as it gives the ORBAT in detail and notes where the WE instruction and reality diverged somewhat.

I haven't researched the C15TA in detail, but they didn't arrive at the front until late 44 (2 years after the half-tracks).
You may be correct that they went to the Canadians and other non UK formations.

My final thought on half-tracks. The Kégresse track was seriously old technology by 1944, there are pictures of The Czar's car collection fitted with them pre WW1.

The British Army's Experimental Mechanised Force played around with them in the late 20s and went "meh".
The French had loads of half-tracks in 1940 (which was where the US got the idea).
The Soviets got thousands via Lend Lease.

Yet not one of these nations pursued the idea of half-tracks after WW2.

This suggests to me that half-tracks were obsolete before WW2 even started.

Wg Cdr Luddite wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:40 pm I haven't researched the C15TA in detail, but they didn't arrive at the front until late 44 (2 years after the half-tracks).
You may be correct that they went to the Canadians and other non UK formations.

I haven't really looked at the Canadian and Polish ORBAT. One reason that there's very little available down here, even if I had a firm idea of where to look for the info'. Most of the NW Europe histories are either a paean to the all-conquering US, or character assassinations/ defences of Monty. The Canadians and Polish are relegated to the "Didn't they do something on the coast?" category. It makes sense for the Canadians to have them because they were based on CMP chassis and built in Canada, but even that's a guess.

Wg Cdr Luddite wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 10:40 pm My final thought on half-tracks. The Kégresse track was seriously old technology by 1944, there are pictures of The Czar's car collection fitted with them pre WW1.

The British Army's Experimental Mechanised Force played around with them in the late 20s and went "meh".
The French had loads of half-tracks in 1940 (which was where the US got the idea).
The Soviets got thousands via Lend Lease.

Yet not one of these nations pursued the idea of half-tracks after WW2.

This suggests to me that half-tracks were obsolete before WW2 even started.

I agree- the half-tracks were obsolete well before '39. The only thing in their favour, in post-Normandy NW Europe, was that their cross-country mobility was generally better than the armoured 4X 4 vehicle options, and they provided better protection than the (even more mobile) Lloyd and Universal carriers. Until a dedicated APC and/or enough Kangaroo conversions were available, though, the half-tracks were the best pick in a basket of ad hoc options.

While the Mk.IX failed in the APC role in '17-'18, mainly due to the infantry being semi-suffocated by carbon monoxide, I know that various dedicated "Armoured Personnel Vehicles" were played with during the inter-war years (most of which may have been concepts rather than prototypes). Most, if not all, were based on wheeled vehicles, not tracked. (Wheels are all the go again, these days, despite ASLAV's habit of leaving suspension assemblies embedded in termite mounds and Bushmaster's tendency to fall over sometimes).

It's a pity someone hasn't published a good overview of the interwar period. (Not Liddell-Hart or Fuller, who are more generalist theoreticians than technical historians.) Do you know if a history of the Experimental Mechanised Force was ever written, WingCo? Not a personnel history of who signed who's leave app, or who tupped who's wife, but something on the development of theory and practice?

Sadly not. Pre-war isn't really my think.