Size wise , yes, plenty of 3-5 ton trucks ( British Y Type , French Latil TAR ), cross country capable ones, not so much, tyres look very skinny. The stuff I've seen pictures of in the mud tend to be tracked (or half tracked ) and towing.
A Better Rifle at Halloween
- Thread starter diesal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- britwank rifles ww1 different
Ok now I have gone down the rabbit hole of prewar armoured cars.Rereading the wiki article it mentions that the first cars were open (like the second photo) and were enclosed after summer 1914 has demonstrated their usefulness. The '13 turreted model is not mentioned in the text where it is stated that the first two units were improvised by an lieutenant and immediately copied. So I don't know what the turreted one was but I strongly doubt that it was available for this battles.
"During the war those that could afford to rode into battle on their own horses, much like this (in 1914) Lieutenant Charles Henkart arranged for two of his civilian Minerva Motor Works tourers to be armoured at the Cockerill Works in Hoboken.[9] The initial armoured cars were ad hoc but soon Minerva had created a standard design. American papers were reporting the use of the armoured car by September 1914.[10] The crew was partially exposed to gunfire with the open top. This would prove fatal to Lieutenant Henkart when on September 6, 1914 he was killed by gunfire after the armoured car he was in was caught in a German ambush.[11][12] Before the Minerva factory was captured during the German invasion and occupation of Belgium about thirty Minerva armored cars were built. In 1916 the design of the original armoured car was completely revised. The open top was now fully enclosed and the machine gun under an armoured cupola. The Belgian Army used the cars as motorised cavalry units with three-car platoons. The armoured car units were mostly used for reconnaissance, infantry fire support and missions behind enemy lines.[13] After the Western Front became bogged down in trench warfare some of the cars were sent to the Eastern Front with the Belgian Expeditionary Corps in Russia.[13]"
From wiki.
Minerva Armored Car - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Later in the war 3" AA (which may have been DP) was truck mounted, so it should be possible.
But carrying armour and even a gunshield would be a lot to ask from an early war truck along with the crew and ammo. But it's just possible that a 47mm or 57mm gun could be tried out, and the 37mm Maxim was still around - mostly as AA guns. Any of these will be very handy, though very vulnerable with high profile and no crew protection.
I was thinking more along the lines of a Hotchkiss gun. They had both field mounts and fixed mounts for ship use.
I’m sure someone thought of taking a QF 1lb “pom Pom” off its wheels and onto the truck bed.
I understand Rolls Royce made most armoured cars because they were reliable and well built to cope with the weight of the armour. Once things start to get muddy I am sure someone in the RNAS will be phoning the Caterpillar Company for some of their tracked tractors.
Ditto for the French, but didn’t hotchkiss make a lighter 20mm auto-cannon they used on aircraft?
I understand Rolls Royce made most armoured cars because they were reliable and well built to cope with the weight of the armour. Once things start to get muddy I am sure someone in the RNAS will be phoning the Caterpillar Company for some of their tracked tractors.
Ditto for the French, but didn’t hotchkiss make a lighter 20mm auto-cannon they used on aircraft?
at least one of the RN's armoured lorries (actually a cut down London bus) was in 1914 fitted with a Hotchkiss 3 pounder QF gun.
That will do for a starter!
That will do for a starter!
Anything more than a Machinegun is overkill at this stage of the war.
Combat experience from WW1 showed that Machineguns were far more effective than cannon in combat. That was why early WW2 British tanks had those daft mini MG turrets and the Matilda 1 exists the way it did (in part anyway)
You only need something larger than a machinegun if you are going to be fighting another tank or armoured vehicle at this stage and that won't be happening. The other use for cannon armeament as a counter to AT positions etc is also not really applicable now either.
Combat experience from WW1 showed that Machineguns were far more effective than cannon in combat. That was why early WW2 British tanks had those daft mini MG turrets and the Matilda 1 exists the way it did (in part anyway)
You only need something larger than a machinegun if you are going to be fighting another tank or armoured vehicle at this stage and that won't be happening. The other use for cannon armeament as a counter to AT positions etc is also not really applicable now either.
You might need a HE lobber to clear field fortifications and strongpoints if the artillery cannot keep up ( the reason the early Panzer IV's had a short barrelled 75mm )
Once trench warfare is established HE to remove dug in machine guns is much more important, but in the early stages of the war a mobile machinegun is king on or near a road and HE isn't so useful.
The main benefit of a quick fire naval gun or pompom is that it outranges the mg, but that rather spoils your ambush.
NotBigBrother
Monthly Donor
Garford-Putilov armoured trucks had a 3-inch short cannon and three machine guns. Introduced in 1915.
Seabrook armoured lorry - Wikipedia
(Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough. "Oh s**t where'd the road go, we're stuck")
Though designed in 1914, as a replacement for the B-Type I cited the Seabrook armoured lorry did not see action until 1915.
Direct battlefield experience from WW1 contradicts you both.
Couple of reasons for this.
- Suspension was either very crude or non-existent on early vehicles making aiming very difficult unless stationary. Machinegun's got around this by volume of fire and were still effective.
- The early HE available for shell filling was less powerful than the stuff available in WW2 for instance. A 6 pound HE shell in WW2 would be more effective than the WW1 variant. This meant that you had to be bang on with you accuracy to be effective. A situation made worse by point 1
This is the right idea. Properly used artillery was more effective than tanks in the 100 days. If an offensive had tanks but no artillery it was more likely to fail than an attack with artillery but no tanks. Of course true combined arms was the most effective.
As it stands right now though ITTL we are a long way off of any 100 day type action. The British and French could not pull that sort of tactical maturity off but they don't need to. This isn't a 1918 German defence they are facing it is a thrown together 1914 German defence and that is a lot weaker. Anything well prepared enough to stop an armoured car with MG's will be able to stop an improvised armoured truck etc with a small cannon. Artillery will be needed for places like that and then you are back to being armoured cars with MG's are enough to tip the scales.
I don't think we're looking at armoured trucks, just wondering what might be possible with available weapons and technology. So far, ITTL the most effective use of machine guns on cars was in an ambush from static vehicles, which supports your (very sensible) view. And most of us know how useful WW2 British army firing on the move turned out.
Certainly my thoughts were that a 47 or pompom could be handy to provide some longer range fire, but that would conflict with the ambush role, so probably not a big driver for it at the moment.
I could be wrong, but by the time a truck's suspension can support a gun, gun shield and some shells, I suspect we'll be looking at 1915. MGs are lighter and I think towed artillery would be 3/4 of the advantage for 1/4 of the development process. British armoured theory until 1941 suggested the tank stop moving before engaging a target if it wanted to hit it.
Provided the Entente's mobile units can keep moving fast enough, the Germans likely won't have time to dig in beyond the ability of a couple batteries of truck towed 75mms to dig them out.
My personal WWI What-If was to have a Motor Brigade built around trucks & RR Armoured Cars. It would be supported by towed artillery from the RHA, a few organic RFC squadrons and truck-based mobile balloons. It would be rounded off with reconnaissance units of paired motorcycle combinations where one has a gunner with a madsen and the other an artillery spotter with a radio and the standard issue rifle would be the F-H (possibly in .275 H&H). I can't think of a possible driver, but a LSW like the Beardmore-Hill of the 20s (so a bit like the Soviet DP-27), and a simple SMG based on the Webley Automatic Pistol would also be desirable.
Most of the cars would, of course, have radio and the Caterpillar Company is working on building tractors & "APCs" protected against shrapnel and rifle fire if the Brigade should ever run into boggy fields.
Possibly a middle-class independent Volunteer Force manned by aspiring professionals that survives the Childers Reforms might be the POD for this entirely theoretical Britwank but I'm off-topic.
But hopefully some of these ideas are helpful for @diesal.
Provided the Entente's mobile units can keep moving fast enough, the Germans likely won't have time to dig in beyond the ability of a couple batteries of truck towed 75mms to dig them out.
My personal WWI What-If was to have a Motor Brigade built around trucks & RR Armoured Cars. It would be supported by towed artillery from the RHA, a few organic RFC squadrons and truck-based mobile balloons. It would be rounded off with reconnaissance units of paired motorcycle combinations where one has a gunner with a madsen and the other an artillery spotter with a radio and the standard issue rifle would be the F-H (possibly in .275 H&H). I can't think of a possible driver, but a LSW like the Beardmore-Hill of the 20s (so a bit like the Soviet DP-27), and a simple SMG based on the Webley Automatic Pistol would also be desirable.
Most of the cars would, of course, have radio and the Caterpillar Company is working on building tractors & "APCs" protected against shrapnel and rifle fire if the Brigade should ever run into boggy fields.
Possibly a middle-class independent Volunteer Force manned by aspiring professionals that survives the Childers Reforms might be the POD for this entirely theoretical Britwank but I'm off-topic.
But hopefully some of these ideas are helpful for @diesal.
If we are looking at an AH mobile machine gun force then I would offer unarmoured light Ford Ts with Madsens and/or Farquharsons which can cope with off road movement with the firepower to stand off an ambush and withdraw. Backed up by armoured heavy car armoured chassis with Vickers to engage the enemy at a distance or in ambush. The Heavy Support mounts to be able to operate their Vickers in indirect fire as well as direct fire, themselves supported by Ford Ts carrying spare ammunition and spare tyres and fuel etc.
As speculated above, ideal for a peacetime TA establishment with Troops in small drill halls and exercising as local Squadrons and annually as a Regiment. Wheeled cavalry if you will. If it takes off then one might take the whole concept further by creating Lorried infantry mounted in contract requisition charabancs etc. as battle taxis with their own lorried B echelon to accompany them at the rear. Without modern radios a signals complement of motorcycles and combinations as runners, with flags, signal lamps or heliographs This latter might have a period radio for a rear link to higher formations, but I can easily be corrected on the feasibility of that last.
Initially they will seek a conventional analogy for tactical doctrine. IOTL the analogy was light naval forces, autonomous wheeled gunboats. In my concept they are wheeled cavalry with machine gun support and dismounts as part of the all arms battle.
As speculated above, ideal for a peacetime TA establishment with Troops in small drill halls and exercising as local Squadrons and annually as a Regiment. Wheeled cavalry if you will. If it takes off then one might take the whole concept further by creating Lorried infantry mounted in contract requisition charabancs etc. as battle taxis with their own lorried B echelon to accompany them at the rear. Without modern radios a signals complement of motorcycles and combinations as runners, with flags, signal lamps or heliographs This latter might have a period radio for a rear link to higher formations, but I can easily be corrected on the feasibility of that last.
Initially they will seek a conventional analogy for tactical doctrine. IOTL the analogy was light naval forces, autonomous wheeled gunboats. In my concept they are wheeled cavalry with machine gun support and dismounts as part of the all arms battle.
Last edited:
Ford Model T's had aftermarket parts that did the following:
1. Ruckstull axles that in effect made you have double the gearing, both high, low, forward and reverse on a T. They were also Ford Motor Company approved aftermarket parts. Model T had a transmission that had the same gear ratio for both forward and reverse.
2. Tractor wheels to convert you T into a tractor to pull implements on a field. These also gave a cross country mobility to them.
3. Tread units that were developed to turn it into a half track.
4. You could easily convert body styles between sedan, coupe, truck body or just a bare frame and build a new body around it. Even less bolts than a VW bug body.
Articles on offroading a T:
1. https://mr4x4.com.au/heading-off-road-in-a-ford-model-t/
2. https://www.motorious.com/articles/features-3/ford-model-t-off-roading/
Last edited: