Forums

Great posts :) I have only one reservation and that is firing the vickers from the MMG carrier. For any kind of long range sustained fire, which is what the Vickers does best, it seems that the Vickers was dismounted, because the carrier is a light-ish vehicle and would rock back slightly when the Vickers fired a burst, sending the bullets off-target.

Speaking of Wasps ...

An interesting article on the use of machinegun Carriers in the desert in 1940 - 42

http://anzacsteel.hobbyvista.com/Armoure...stph_1.htm

of interesting note is

"The volume of fire that the carriers were able to produce, with their Vickers guns connected to the engine radiators of the carriers, was largely responsible for minimizing the infantry casualties"

Seems to clearly indicate that the Vickers were used mounted in the vehicle. This would make sense considering the mobility of desert warfare

I am unsure that the vickers would cause the Vehicle to move when fired as it did weigh 3.8 tonnes unloaded, and when you consider, full crew allotment and kit it would have weighed over 4 tonnes in combat. If the Vickers was intended to be used, connected to the radiator, and provision was made for this in the vehicles design then it is doubtful that this would be an issue.

Oh and to even it up a bit I found this nice Canadian website

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/mediawik...l_Carriers

In relation to the Oxford Carrier used in the post war years, this was actually a M5 tank with the turret removed and converted into an APC. Which is essentially what the Americans did when they created the M39 AUV (Armored Utility Vehicle), which was an M18 Hellcat with the turret removed. Both saw extensive service in Korea.

I'm only talking about real long range stuff, like by-the-map indirect MG fire. But I'm not certain of my facts.

The only reason I made a reference in the other thread to halftracks was
that I thought it might get people's attention and I thought there was at least some similarities to the regular halftrack debate :)

Some interesting stuff has come up! After reading the posts I think
any review of the Hells Corner: Vanguard scenario (Canadians D+1) would see me changing the MMG carriers to UC carrying MMG platoons as passengers.
In fact I would never again use MMG carriers in a scenario without
having the MMG as a passenger unit unless some historical reason
had them famously firing on the move.

Would anyone disagree with this?

Thanks for all the answers,
Chris

Well If I was a Vickers gunner with the driver and commander sitting next to me in my universal carrier and I had the option of either

a) getting the gun disconnected from the radiator grabbing the tripod mount and water cooler. lugging the gun out of the vehicle to a suitable spot, setting it up and commencing firing. Hoping that noboby decides to drop a few mortar shells in my direction, or dares to actually shoot at me.

or

b) staying in my nice little vehicle with a bit of armour plating in front of me and having the option of speedily reversing when fired upon..

I think I would choose B every time, unless there was some terrain that the vehicle couldn't cross or I was asked to set up the MG in a building or something

I like the MMG carriers in the game as, they are fast, I can move up shoot and shoot with the effect of an MMG section, great when attacking. Though when defending I think I would rather have the MMG section dug into an entrenchment.

Digger- 1943 -if you were ASKED to set up etc...........

Even today soldiers, sailors are still mostly told -not asked.

Cheers
KKR

Rod,

Yes, you are right on that score. I think I'll stick with the armchair generals lot in any case, certainly alot safer

Matt