Talk:Universal Carrier

Carrier

Altered text to try to remove possible confusion between weapons carried (ie moved about using the Carrier) and weapons mounted (ie fixed to and fired from the carrier)

GDL 16th Jan 2004

Safekeeping - Development History

The Universal Carrier was a successor to the Carden-Loyd Mk.IV tankette developed during the late 1920s. It originated from a light tractor "VA D50", designed by John Carden and Vivian Loyd of Vickers in 1935. The VA D50 appeared to be a successful design and development was ordered by the British Army. The first production was by Vickers in 1936. There were several different types of Carrier that varied slightly in design according to their function, designated: "Medium Machine Gun Carrier", "Bren Gun Carrier", "Scout Carrier" and "Cavalry Carrier". It was obvious that production of a single model would be preferred and the Universal appeared in 1940. The Universal would be the most widely produced of the Carriers. It differed from the previous models in having a rectangular body shape in rear section, with more space for crew.

As with the earlier Carriers, the Universal had the driver and commander at the front sitting side-by-side, the driver to the right with a vertical steering wheel. The hull in front of the commander's position jutted forward to give room for the Bren gun (or other armament) to fire through a simple slit. The engine was in the centre of the vehicle and the final drive at the rear. To either side of the engine were two areas in which passengers could ride or stores be carried.

Universal Carrier brings in a batch of German prisoners

Universal Carriers were commonly used as platforms for infantry support weapons such as the Vickers machine gun, the Bren, Boys anti-tank rifle or to carry weapons such as the 3-inch mortar along with its crew. The Universal was also used to tow anti-tank guns such as the QF 2 pounder. When the QF 6 pounder anti-tank gun came into use the Universal was also used for that role but the subsequent QF 17 pounder was too much for such a small vehicle.

Universal Carriers were lightly armoured on their fronts and sides, sufficient to protect to some degree from small arms, shrapnel and explosive blasts. They were open at the top, leaving the occupants completely unprotected from shoulder height upwards.

The Canadian-designed and built Windsor Carrier was a related vehicle. It had a similar body and mechanicals but was some 30 inches longer and had an extra road wheel. Five thousand were built and sent to Europe.

Windsor Carrier

Should this be a seperate article or should we put information in this one?©Geni 23:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If it can be confirmed from verifiable sources that it was a related development based on the British Universal Carrier (rather than just a variant), which seems to be the case, and there is a certain volume of information that can be written about it, then IMHO should have its own article. And be mentioned in this one too, at high level. Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Just browsed the equivalent article in the Italian Wikipedia, and seems that the Windsor is not the same as the T16... sadly is not supported by a citation. Will look for supporting sources, and ament this article as required. Regards, DPdH (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the AFV Profile No.14 Carriers. T16 is an attempt by the US at remedying some of the Universal's problems. However the T16 had less payload than the Universal and the initial production was unreliable. The Windsor is a development by Canada of the Loyd Carrier ("90% of the components" is the phrase used) for the Loyd's roles (towing guns), but it was thought it was possible it could do the Universal's roles as well. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

UK-designed vehicles built abroad for the commonwealth armies were modified to use locally-produced automotive components such as engines, gearboxes, differentials, etc., there being little point in shipping these components from the UK to the place of carrier manufacture, only to have to re-ship them back again in the completed vehicles. This would have wasted valuable cargo space on ships as well as promoting considerable delays in producing the vehicles - the supply line to Australia was over 9,000 miles via the Suez Canal and took nearly 40 days at 10 knots, but that was when it was possible to ship via the Mediterranean. It was nearly 11,000 via the Cape of Good Hope. Not entirely comparable but for comparison in 1985 a Concorde made the same journey in 17 hours. Going the other way via the Panama Canal the sea journey was over 13,000 miles.

IIRC, all the carriers used normal standard UK lorry components and so it made sense to adapt the designs to use locally-produced ones and it would also have taken too much time to set up production lines for the UK parts in Canada or Australia during a period after Dunkirk when the vehicles were needed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.158 (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

'Incorrectly referred to as the Bren Cun Carrier

Please elaborate on why this is incorrectly called this. Bren Gun Carrier redirects to this page and there is no other page for Bren Gun Carrier. Thanks.24.36.79.200 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Pre-war there were several different carriers; MG (from which the others were developed), Cavalry, Bren, Scout and AOP, which were manufactured with slight differences depending on the role. The Universal carrier was designed as a single vehicle to replace all the earlier types. The Universal Carrier could be used specifically to carry a Bren gun and its team but could also be used for other purposes and could still carry a Bren gun). A Bren Carrier was designed specifically to carry a Bren gun and because this was its designed purpose using it for other roles was not always possible. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Expansion needed - any suggested sources?

The article needs expansion in the "Combat use" section, and it also needs a section listing the main "Users" (pre, during, and post-war) which are surely a lot. Can anyone please help suggesting verifiable sources that can be used for this? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of sources given in the References section, they probably have the information. Starting with the Osprey book. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have access to the books listed, will check the online ones. Regards, DPdH (talk) 10:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with the article improvement! Regards, DPdH (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Profile No. 14 "Carriers" by Peter Chamberlain and Duncan Crow in the AFV Profile series from Profile Publications is an old (c 1968) but useful source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

... Never mind, I've just seen it mentioned in an earlier section above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Weight

The infobox says the weight is:

• 3 ton 16 cwt (3.75 t) laden
• 3 ton 5 cwt (3.19 t) unladen

The conversion to metric tons is incorrect. Assuming imperial "long" hundredweight, {{convert}} gives:

• 3 ton 16 cwt (3.9 t) laden
• 3 ton 5 cwt (3.30 t) unladen

If I guess the source was American and used short tons, the result is even worse:

• 3 ton 16 cwt (3.4 t) laden
• 3 ton 5 cwt (2.95 t) unladen

I don't have access to the source for these figures. Does it really have these incorrect values of metric tons? Hairy Dude (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No. Being that the source is dated 1970 only the imperial figures are given. These seem to be taken from vehicle handbooks or something else official from the 40's which did not generally have metric conversions. So just unladen 3t 5cwt and laden 3t 16cwt figures are present. Ways (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)