Kangaroo versus M3 halftrack

I agree, the advantage that the Ram enjoyed was the commonality of parts for repair and maintenance as well as training cycle for drivers.

 

This was not the case in the Netherlands where water obstacles contributed to high casualties. The Canadian use of Terrapins and Buffaloes (supplied by 79th (BR) Armd Div) were of much more value than any other vehicle.

 

The term Ram is being used in the same context as Kangaroo here which is not correct as Kangaroos were conversions based on mainly Rams, Shermans and Priests (some others too). It is no more correct to call Kangaroos Rams than it is to call them Shermans - the converted Kangaroo was, functionally, very different from its origins.

Also on the point of armour - is anyone seriously suggesting that the halftrack or buffalo was as well armoured as a Kangaroo based on - say - a Sherman tank ?

I agree that the Buff would have have been very useful in many crossings in Western Europe - in fact it was used very successfully on some. And let's not forget the German defensive tactic of flooding large areas of land.

 

I agree. A fair-sized contingent of LVT-4s could have been a great help clearing the Scheldt estuary and opening up the port of Antwerp.

On the other hand, not all of the Netherlands is wet enough to allow the proper use of amphibious vehicles - but too wet to allow most other kinds of vehicles!

 

Lone Wolf:
I don't believe anyone has suggested that the M3 halftrack or LVT-4 Buffalo was as well armored as the, ahem... KANGAROO.
(Thanks for the correction.)

What I have suggested is that the point is a moot-one as the German tanks and AT-guns had little or no problem dispatching a Sherman. The Kangaroo would simply draw heavy AT-fire and be knocked-out.

The APC-concept most always resulted in a lighter-skinned vehicle compared to the thick-hides of tanks. Perhaps it came down to economy of operation relative to increased crew protection.

While the Kangaroo explored an APC conversion based on a tank-chassis, the result was of limited-value at best. In my mind the LVT-4 Buffalo with it's true amphibious capability was superior in both concept and execution.

Tim

 

Hoosier -

Hi

I think we are actually in agreement here - anti-tank weaponry could knock out a Kangaroo as easily as anything else but the heavier armour of the Kangaroo gave better protection against some other weapons. Mind you - many anti-tank rounds would probably go right through a half-track and leave relatively safely out the other side as with Jap tanks which the Allies preferrerd to use HE against. I alway recall the famous account of Michael Wittman in the Battle of Villers-Bocage in which he describes using his main armament against armoured vehicles whilst his machine gunner is similtaneously chewing up some of the more lightly armoured vehicles such as half-tracks and carriers - a Kangaroo would have demanded the attention of his main gun.

I agree that the Buffalo was a great design - it was a successful concept carried right through from design to deployment whereas the Kangaroo, whilst a good idea and reasonably effective, was not a purpose built concept and thus was always a compromise.

 

Yes, I also agree... All that I was pointing out was that the M3 Halftrack was generally a more suitable choice for the war in Europe, due to its superior land performance... The LVT-4 buffalo was of course preferrable in all water traversing situations, but due to the comparitive lack of water in Europe to the Pacific Islands, i think it was there more sensible to mass produce the M3, and use the buffalo more sparingly (as was done) ...

 

Would the earlier introduction of Kangaroo type APC conversions have influenced any battles?

 

they were used mainly as convoy/base protection. but they were used in north africa against the French and the Italians in morocco and tunisia by the americans. i think the americans only hadone version though a short barreled 75mm on a m3 half track (they had no machine gun though)

 

Weren't the original M3-with-75mm-gun supposed to be Tank Destroyers?

 

they were but found out in north africa they werent powerful enough

 

I've seen photos of an LVT-4 mounting a 40mm Bofors in French Indo-China (Vietnam) in the 1950s. I'm not sure if it was in French service or ARVN-manned. It was mounted very low in the hull with just that wicked barrel protruding, and looked quite menacing. I wonder how effective it ultimately proved to be?

The French used lots of M29C Weasels--up-armed with .30 and .50 caliber machine-guns, as well as 57mm and 75mm recoiless rifles. They recognised the value of an 'amphib' such as the M29C and the LVT-4 in the terrain that was South Vietnam.

The South Vietnamese Army also understood the value of an amphibious, heavily-armed APC, and--utilizing M113s supplied by the United States--used them very effectively in combat operations during the 1960s.

Tim

 

APC's are generally not in the forefront of a combined armour/infantry attack, but form a second wave. If proper numbers and fire support are provided, defensive anti-armour weapons will have enough on their hands dealing with tanks to worry too much about follow-up APCs. The tanks in the forefront of the attack will be the priority targets. However, good armour in the APCs WILL prevent those weapons incapable of tackling the tanks playing havoc among the infantry carriers (HMG's, HE weapons). For that reason, I'd sure as hell prefer to be transported in a kangaroo than an M3!

 

Given that the UK developed an APC version of the tank in WW1, was there ever any attempt to develop an APC to operate alongside the Infantry tank before WW2 started?