Kangaroo versus M3 halftrack

I didn't want to disrupt the other topic further, but I am still wondering if not the Kangaroo would make a better APC than the M3 halftrack. I think the Kangaroo had better traction as other versions were used for pulling heavy artillery and I think it had better protection for the troops as well.

 

I thought the Kangaroo was an interesting idea, but what was its carrying capacity? Could it cart around as many men, and as much gear as a halftrack? Hell, for that matter, can our modern APCs?

 

I think the Kangaroo's main problem is the fact that the only entrance is "over the top", sort of negating the vehicle's protective power when the infantry needs to deploy. Other than that, the M3 was more versatile, being used as AT, mortar support, artillery towing vehicle, field ambulance, command vehicle and so on.

 

We should decide whether we want to discuss which is best in the APC role or if we want to discuss them in more general terms.

But the Kangaroo was every bit as versatile as the M3 as far as I can tell. It could mount a gun, a couple of bolts and you'd have a mortar carrier, it pulled much heavier guns than the M3 and anything can be converted into a field ambulance or command vehicle. The only thing I can think of is that the M3 was probably cheaper.

I looked up both on various websites and found the M3 to give only minimal crew protection, but I couldn't find how thick the armour plates on the Kangaroo were.

 

First to dispell a misconception: the M3 (or M2 or M5) halftracks were not armored personnel carriers. Although they had minimal armor, it would not provide protection against anything other than small arms fire, nor was it intended to. (<- note sentence ending preposition, I love being a rebel!)

The initial Kangaroos were converted from SPA (M7 HMC I think, they were Canadian), which may have been a converted M3 or Ram in the first place. A "Defrocked Preist" kangaroo was intended to carry 20 men (+ 2 crew) , basically a BCW infantry squad. Later on, Shermans had their turrets removed to create kangaroos, carrying 10 men (+2 crew). The same was done with the Cnadian built Ram tanks carrying 11 men (+2 crew). Those converted from SPA may have had rear access and better interior arrangement for troops or weapons. A tank with a turret removed would have left no altenative other than over the side. Since they were basically tanks, the Kangaroos had decent armor protection, although the troops were in the open, no top cover. The 400 or so horsepower engines would have provided better towing capability than the halftracks and the full tracks probably provided better off road capability, although some of this would have been lost as a result of the higher weight (I'm guessing about 23 tons, a combat ready M7 weighed 25 tons).
The M3 halftrack carried 10men + 3 crew and had a smaller 150 hp engine (less fuel? It was probably easier to maintain as well). Halftracks were meant to provide infantry, towed weapons and support troops with an off road capability similar to tanks, at a lower cost. Any small armor protection they provided was a bonus.
For an APC, any Kangaroo (defrocked Priest, Sherman or Ram) is undoubtably a better choice than the M3.

 

Well, that'll teach me to check the library before answering! :-? At least I hedged a little on my response!

 

The following http://www.ramtank.ca may be of interest for more info on Kangaroos and other Rams.

 

I would have thought the over the top problem could be solved by cutting a couple of hatches in the side of the hull. Okay this would weaken the protection but its not as if you want your APC to be shot at by AT weapons. Secondly hopping out of an APC (any APC) while its under small arms fire doesn't sound like fun. I'd rather it take me somewhere out of the firing line where I can debus. If it’s being shot at by something bigger then having to go over the top will probably be the least of my worries.

Just my thoughts

 

I think Patton summed it up when he said -

"The two most dangerous weapons the Germans have are our own armored halftrack and jeep. The halftrack because the boys in it go all heroic, thinking they are in a tank. The jeep because we have so many God-awful drivers."

The Kangaroo was the first genuine attempt at an APC that could go where the tanks go and offer infantry a similar level of protection - as such it was the true forerunner of the modern APC.

 

Probably offered better protection relative to a Sherman than a Warrior or Bradly offer relative to an Abrahams or Challanger.

 

Yes, but if it did any less, then no German weapon in use when it was introduced would have much more trouble with it than it would with a halftrack. It's all relative...

 

Yes, of course the weapons that could knock out the tanks could also knock out the kangaroo but it did offer its troops greater protection. The half-track, much like the British Universal carrier, could be easilly knocked out by heavy machine-gun fire and relatively light HE - the Kangaroo could not - except for that vulnerable open-topped design that was common to them all, of course.

:x

 

Maybe it's no coincidence then that "A Kangaroo" is Scottish for "I can't get out".

 

Did they make any any atempt to protect the crew on their vulnerable Top i.e in latter versions

 

I would offer the LVT-4 Buffalo was a specialized APC-type vehicle that had a lot going for it.
Reliable air-cooled, radial-engine. Armored sides in later versions, with rear-ramp for sheltered ingress/egress of troops and cargo. Couple .50 calibers and the best amphib-performance meant it didn't need a bridge to make a river crossiing.
Had there not been such a demand for these vehicles in the Pacific, I daresay they would have written some new pages in the European campaigns.

Tim

 

Yes Hoosier, I'll wager that the LVT-4 was possibly a match for almost any Japanese armored vehicle, seeing as the Japanese thin armor could be penetrated by machine gun fire... But i don't see how on earth such an APC could have made a difference in the oceanless terrain of Western Europe... They had no anti-tank capbiliy whatsoever, and the anti-infantry capability enjoyed would have been quite diminished once the Alligator got into contstrained close quarters, which due the abundance of trees and villages in Europe would have made the amphibious alligator no better than any other APC. Probably much worse in fact, as its amphibious capability meant that it could only have thin armor (0.6cm on the sides IIRC) which could be penetrated by a machine gun.... Using the Alligator more extensively in Europe beyond the D-Day landings would have been a rather expensive affair, to which better armored land APCs were better suited... although it was useful enough to make river crossings in Germany & Italy, it certainly would not have made history

 

Smeg:
I maintain the LVT-4 had enough armor to protect against machine-gun fire... 7.62 caliber at least. In the race to the Rhine, they would have made it possible to insert troops across blown-bridges... and perhaps even do some end-runs as was accomplished by the 776th "Amtankers" in the Phillipines.
I don't understand your comment about anti-tank capability being a factor. APCs were not intended to slug it out with tanks, nor shed anti-tank rounds like a MBT. Keep in mind that the Buffalo could also haul some serious cargo as well as troops. I've seen photos of them with a 105 howitzer filling-up the cargo/personnel compartment.
Depending on terrain, the Buffalo might have been quite an asset. While not as fast as the M3-series of APCs, it was nigh unstoppable... which might have proved valuable in snow, muddy conditions, as well as river-crossings.
I'm not so sure the Ram held any real advantages when engaged by armor, or AT emplacements.
Your volley.

Tim

 

I hope you mean 7.92 mm there (altough the difference is not that much)

 

Ome:
".62 or .92... it ain't getting through."

Tim

 

Well I wish i had my machine gun and LVT-4 with me today, but I'm afraid not

I'll admit i know next to nothing about the 'kangaroo', however I believe that when comparing the LVT-4 with the M3 Halftrack, the latter was superior in both protection and speed, (65kph vs 40 kph) and the only thing that the LVT-4 had going for it over the M3 Halftrack was amphibious capability and possibly better off road performance... in Europe, where amphibious capability was less necessary, and where the terrain was far more accessible, the M3 halftrack was really the far more suitable choice

Also the M3 could be equipped with a varity of weapons, i believe that there were AA, mortar and AT versions but to name a few... So unlike the buffalo it had more versatility...

P.S. Does anybody know the rationale of equipping APC's with AT weapons? It seems to have been quite popular with the Americans and Germans, yet i have never heard of a tank being knocked out by an AT-APC... were such guns fitted for the worst-case-scenario where a Tiger just rolled into view, behind enemy lines and the only thing protecting the supplies was an APC or two? Or were they actively used to destroy tanks? (Given their high-profile and low armor, i highly doubt it)