Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resources

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#31

Post by RichTO90 » 12 Aug 2014, 04:19

phylo_roadking wrote:You....forgotten already?
Do you really have difficulty understanding my statements? I'll repeat them for you:

"Neither the Mustang nor the T16 were "British-designed". The idea they were British "paid-to-be-designed" is closer."
Only the changes were U.S.-developed (possibly at British request - see below); it's the same situation as the "CMP" Canadian versions of Ford/GM/Chevy trucks for British and Canadian service - noone calls them Canadian designs, they're American designs that were altered by the Canadians. I.E. it doesn't change the origin of the original design beneath the changes.
Are you babbling on about an immaculate design conception now? How do you think engineering "changes" occur anyway? :roll:
Ford chose to market them as "completely different machines", the T16 is regarded in UK classic military vehicle circles as just another variant/sub-type of the Universal Carrier....
Oh, I see, so it was a Ford marketing decision that made the Model T a Model A? :roll:
The order (sic) of this would bear further checking; Nigel Waston's series of articles says that "With Britain and Canada unable to meet the demand for MkI and MkII Carriers, production started at Ford's plant at Somerville, Mass., and it was during this time that the company began designing and testing their own version."
This is the "order": the 13,893 Universal Carriers produced at Somerville were the T-16 and the T16E2, with production starting in March 1943. The Mark I Universal Carriers were produced in Canada, by Windsor Ford, but U.S. financed. U.S. production financing began in August 1941 and continued to May 1943. A total of 5,714 were built [Edit: in double-checking I find that this is entered in one place as 5,714 and another as 5,718, which makes the final total either 33,988 or 33,992. The discrepancy appears to be with the first four pilots built, which get subsumed into the Canadian total.]. In addition, Canadian financing paid for another 23,278 built in Canada between April 1941 and February 1945 when the last one (literally) was completed. The "Windsor" production in Canada began in December 1943 and continued to April 1945 with 5,000 built.

Since the T-16 and T-16E32 were produced in Somerville and incorporated design changes found in the production, the "designing and testing their own version" had to precede the production. QED.
...and that it appears that the original British order was subsumed into and became part of the 21,000-item order that the Ordnance Board gave to Ford for the U.S. Army.
No, it did not, the Canadian Universal Carrier Mark I (both Canadian and U.S. funded), the T-16/T-16E2, and the Windsor are all distinct separate production runs totaling 33,992 vehicles [Edit: or 33,988].
As a P.S....
Oh goody, perhaps you will reveal the issues numbers of CMV?
Does either source happen to mention that the British had already made exactly the same modifications in 1940-41 to produce the Loyd Carrier variant - 25,000 of which were built by Arnfield, Aveling-Barford, Dennis, Ford, Harland Engineering, Sentinel Wagon, MB Wild, Wolseley and Vivian Loyd & Co.?
No, of course not...

Anyway, I see, so then the T-16 and T-16E2 now are just copies of the Loyd Carrier? Interesting. I thought you said they were just Bren Carrier copies, no, sorry, Windsor Carrier copies, no, sorry, Canadian Carrier Mark I copies, no... :roll:
Do they likewise happen to mention that the T16E2 variant was developed in Britain?

There had been an attempt in the U.S. to re-design the T16 further beginning in May 1945 to stop its habit of "rearing up" when climbing or towing, but it hadn't worked. Ford Dagenham - in Essex, UK - had actually taken on "parentage" of the T16, and were assembling the majority of them from kits and testing them before issue...and they converted the T16 MkI to prevent rearing AND stretch its capacity. The list of changes that resulted in the T16E2 were indeed the hull lengthened by 6 7/8ins by moving the front bogie back 6ins and the drive sprocket back by 9ins, the rear bogie reversed, and modifications to the pintle and skid plate...and dish-style wheels that kicked up less debris onto and into the tracks - although there are also pics of T16 MkIs assembled at Dagenham with the dished wheels, so that may have been an earlier Dagenham modification than the E2. This all increased its payload by 3cwt, better all-round handling, and no sign of "rear-up".
The "lengthening" to prevent "rearing" was done in the Windsor as well, along with adding an extra bogie for better weight distribution also to solve same...beginning production in December 1943. T-16E2 production began after May 1945 eh? So 80 were produced? How interesting, given that between 280 and 300 (sources vary) went to Argentina... :roll:
P.P.S...
CMV issue numbers?
Just for information - Vickers' original MkI/II "Light Dragon" carriers of 1930-32 had two two wheeled bogies per side and two-tiller controlled diff steering; the MkIII Light Dragon went to the more familiar bogie layout and wheel/trackwarping steering and fed directly into Vickers' development of the "next" generation of carrier in 1934 - and these trackrun and steering changes were regarded to the end of the subsequent carrier design life at the end of the war as an improvement over the two two-wheeled bogies and "conventional" steering. Bren/Scout/Cavalry Carriers and the Universal Carrier were ideally intended for combat...and required the sharper turning circle provided by track warping and wheel steering...while the Loyd and T16 carriers were intended for loadcarrying and towing.
Which obviously means they are all one and the same.
On checking, it's actually five parts - February-June 2013
What do you know the prolix chap finally eructed some useful information... :lol:

Thanks, I'll look them up.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#32

Post by Sid Guttridge » 12 Aug 2014, 13:20

To add a few more - I think some early US PT boats were based on British precedents, as was the H2S/H2X radar. The up-gunning of the Sherman tank was based on the Sherman Firefly of the British. The standard US light anti-tank gun was, I think, a close copy of the British 6-pdr. I recall that the British Bailey Bridge was also produced in the US. British ASDIC technology was also transferred to the USA.

The Mustang was certainly a US design, but it only began to stand above its contemporaries when fitted with the British Merlin engine.

My point was that there was a lot more cross fertilization than a simple totting up of Lease-Lend and Lend-Lease numbers would imply.

Cheers,

Sid.


RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#33

Post by RichTO90 » 12 Aug 2014, 13:46

Now that I've gotten some sleep and am having my morning coffee at work, let's just see how this latest phylo-generated rhubarb started... :roll:
phylo_roadking wrote:
The Lease-Lend flow was more reciprocal than one might think. Although the British used far more US equipment than the US used British equipment, the flow of ideas went more heavily from the UK to the USA than v.v. (i.e. the Liberty Ship, Mustang fighter, the radar that picked up the Japanese approach to Pearl Harbour, etc., etc., all had their origins in the UK.)
Don't forget the 'umble Bren Gun Carrier! 20,000 of which were produced as the T16.

The question is - how were British-designed or paid-to-be-designed items like the Mustang, the T16 etc. priced up for the exchange? A set cost payment for the actual design...along the lines of a production licence...or a per-unit price offset against Lend Lease?
Just exactly :roll: HOW is the Bren/Universal/Canadian-pattern/T-16/T-16E2/Windsor carrier, "'umble" or not, supposed to be any kind of example of reverse Lend-Lease? Of materiel or the "flow of ideas". They were British and Canadian kit, utilized almost exclusively by British, Canadian, and other "Commonwealth" nations NOT by U.S. military forces - they were never an item of standard or substitute standard issue for U.S. forces (and yes, I'm aware of the Canadian carriers used by USAFFE and those the 1st Marines acquired in exchange for their Scout Cars M3A1, and doubtless there are other such minor examples). They are an example of LEND-LEASE pure and simple.

But, as usual, phylo couldn't be satisfied with accepting the minor correction I gave him and instead used it for his latest excuse to troll. :x

Instead of concentrating on the interesting question of how lend-Lease and reverse Lend-Lease exchanges were calculated and approved, he wandered off into the least interesting thing - jingoistic chest thumping over who did what to whom and when. :roll: Never mind of course that the T-16 and T-16E2, after redesign for American manufacture, and ofter all their improvements regarding simplified body manufacture, suspension, and the like, also included one major feature making it INFERIOR to many of the other designs derived from the Universal: it used brake-only steering and then complicated things by using four instead of two steering tillers. Which reportedly made driving it very akin to the operations of the proverbial one-armed paper hanger. :lol:

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#34

Post by RichTO90 » 12 Aug 2014, 15:20

RichTO90 wrote:Instead of concentrating on the interesting question of how lend-Lease and reverse Lend-Lease exchanges were calculated and approved, he wandered off into the least interesting thing
I suspect the answers to those questions are in John Maynard Keynes, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes Volume 23, Activities 1940–1943: External War Finance, (London: Royal Economic Society, 1977). Which I also suspect that phylo well knew, but instead of looking for the answers to his questions he decided to troll down a rabbit hole.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#35

Post by RichTO90 » 12 Aug 2014, 16:08

Sid Guttridge wrote:To add a few more - I think some early US PT boats were based on British precedents,
No, the origin of the U.S. Navy PT-boat design was yacht designer William H. Hand, Jr., who in 1902 adapted the Chesapeake dead-rise hull to his warped v-bottom motorboat design. The Royal Navy ordered a number of 40' Hand motorboats for evaluation during World War I. The Thornycroft line of MTB in World War I used a 55' stepped-hydroplane hull and is a separate evolution.
as was the H2S/H2X radar.
Yes.
The up-gunning of the Sherman tank was based on the Sherman Firefly of the British.
No, the American up-gunning was designed into the original T6 Medium Tank, which had an interchangeable mantlet/gunshield that was intended to mount a 75mm Gun, 3" Gun, or 105mm Howitzer as needed. However, when the first 3" mounted M4 pilot was completed over a year before the first Sherman 17-pdr pilot, tests showed the 3" Gun was simply too large to fit well in the then-standard turret. The solution found in 1943 was to redesign the 3" as the more compact 76mm Gun and utilize the T23 turret, which had been designed for the 76mm from the beginning. It was contemporary with the Sherman 17-pdr development, but followed a different path - the British adapted the existing turret and internal trunnions, whereas the American design used a different turret and external trunnions.
The standard US light anti-tank gun was, I think, a close copy of the British 6-pdr. I recall that the British Bailey Bridge was also produced in the US.
Yes.
British ASDIC technology was also transferred to the USA.
No, British ASDIC and American SONAR technology, which had been developed independently interwar, was shared beginning in September 1940 after the Tizard Mission went to the U.S. However, the invention was Canadian, the result of the work of Robert Boyle, working with French physicist French physicist Paul Langevin in 1917.
The Mustang was certainly a US design, but it only began to stand above its contemporaries when fitted with the British Merlin engine.
At altitude the Merlin was superior to the Allison, but at low altitudes the Allison was better. I asked Peter Cope who flew Mustangs in PR missions about that and he loved the Mustang I's low-level capability, while recognizing the hi-altitude capability of the later marks. However, in his opinion it was the (British) development of the Malcolm "blown" and Miles "bubble" canopies, along with Packard's adaptation of the Wright supercharger to the Merlin in the V-1650-3 that was more important in terms of the Mustang as a fighter. [Edit: and...given that Peter was also an Empire Test Pilot who had the distinction of never crashing an aircraft or being forced to bail out from one - even though many aircraft broke under him, notably in one case nearly shooting himself down - in some 20 years of flying that included the Arrow, I think his opinion was likely valid. :lol: ]
My point was that there was a lot more cross fertilization than a simple totting up of Lease-Lend and Lend-Lease numbers would imply.
I agree completely...but it won't stop phylo haring off down rabbit holes of his own creation. :lol:

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#36

Post by phylo_roadking » 12 Aug 2014, 21:30

Are you babbling on about an immaculate design conception now? How do you think engineering "changes" occur anyway?
I know how they happen, thanks. I also know that when a number of changes are made to a base design the resulting object becomes just a variant/version of the original.
The order (sic) of this would bear further checking; Nigel Waston's series of articles says that "With Britain and Canada unable to meet the demand for MkI and MkII Carriers, production started at Ford's plant at Somerville, Mass., and it was during this time that the company began designing and testing their own version."
This is the "order": the 13,893 Universal Carriers produced at Somerville were the T-16 and the T16E2, with production starting in March 1943. The Mark I Universal Carriers were produced in Canada, by Windsor Ford, but U.S. financed. U.S. production financing began in August 1941 and continued to May 1943.
I was talking about the order of events in which the Universal carrier design came to be altered in the U.S. - not production.

By the way - taking out your "edit" for a moment...
The Mark I Universal Carriers were produced in Canada, by Windsor Ford, but U.S. financed. U.S. production financing began in August 1941 and continued to May 1943. A total of 5,714 were built.... In addition, Canadian financing paid for another 23,278 built in Canada between April 1941 and February 1945 when the last one (literally) was completed. The "Windsor" production in Canada began in December 1943 and continued to April 1945 with 5,000 built.
...it's not that simple; the Canadians went to producing the MkII (which came in four separate sub-variants - No1 MkII, No2 MkII, No2A MkII, and No3 MkII) in January 1944. All-welded hulls, "Welsh Guards stowage", Stacey towing attachment and the tow rope stowage repositioned, single headlight, side mounted marker lights, extra fuel can stowage and special leather ammunition bags...with the last "Universal" carriers being produced in February 1945...

...except the last 1,300 were actually the seemingly Canada-produced-only MkIII* variant! With another raft of changes. And some 4,100 "modifications and main stores for UC MkIIW" were ordered, along with another separate order from British Diamix for 1,100 "stores for UC MkIIIW" - which either implies that there were actually more than 1,300 MkIIs built in Canada - or that a number of MkII carriers were converted to MkIII spec.
Since the T-16 and T-16E32 were produced in Somerville and incorporated design changes found in the production, the "designing and testing their own version" had to precede the production. QED.
Yes - but...
The British Tank Mission commissioned the U.S. Tank Committee to manufacture fully tracked carriers for them. It then had to be redesigned by Ford to fit American manufacturing practices.
....did they order the T16 initially - or did, as Nigel Watson says, order U.S.-built Universal carriers and get the T16 with no choice in the matter - THAT is what I'm interested in determining. As in - "This is the product we are going to manufacture to fill your order..." Not unlike the BPC being shown the turbosupercharger-equiped P-39...but eventually Britain receiving the P.39 with interal single-stage, single speed supercharger - and inadequate climb and high-altitude performance...
Just exactly HOW is the Bren/Universal/Canadian-pattern/T-16/T-16E2/Windsor carrier, "'umble" or not, supposed to be any kind of example of reverse Lend-Lease? Of materiel or the "flow of ideas". They were British and Canadian kit, utilized almost exclusively by British, Canadian, and other "Commonwealth" nations NOT by U.S. military forces - they were never an item of standard or substitute standard issue for U.S. forces (and yes, I'm aware of the Canadian carriers used by USAFFE and those the 1st Marines acquired in exchange for their Scout Cars M3A1, and doubtless there are other such minor examples). They are an example of LEND-LEASE pure and simple.
So, when the Ordnance Board gave Ford U.S. an order for 21,000 T16s in 1942, seemingly including the original "British"order for 15,000 univeral carriers that the U.S. was supposed to produce at Somerville - who used the excess 6,000? The orginal contract card is in Bovington, and it specifies 15,000 T16s with WD census numbers beginning T92001. (The Canadian-produced T16s had WD numbers in a different series that had originally been allocated to Canada for Universal carriers, so that's not them...)

{Nigel Watson ventures the idea that the 6,000 excess U.S.-built T16s went to the Canadian Army also using WD numbers meant for Canadian Universal carrier production - but surely that would mean a shortfall somewhere in the accounting of 6,000 in Canadian-built MkI/II/IIIs ...?}
Instead of concentrating on the interesting question of how lend-Lease and reverse Lend-Lease exchanges were calculated and approved, he wandered off into the least interesting thing - jingoistic chest thumping over who did what to whom and when.
Unintersting to you, maybe - but interesting to ME. Which is, of course, what matters to ME.
Never mind of course that the T-16 and T-16E2, after redesign for American manufacture, and ofter all their improvements regarding simplified body manufacture, suspension, and the like, also included one major feature making it INFERIOR to many of the other designs derived from the Universal: it used brake-only steering and then complicated things by using four instead of two steering tillers. Which reportedly made driving it very akin to the operations of the proverbial one-armed paper hanger.
I didn't actually put it in THOSE terms - I just referred to it as "Bren/Scout/Cavalry Carriers and the Universal Carrier were ideally intended for combat...and required the sharper turning circle provided by track warping and wheel steering...while the Loyd and T16 carriers were intended for loadcarrying and towing"...

...but as I'm supposed to be so jingoistic - yes, the T16 does have the reputation of Ford U.S. ruining a good product. Happier now?

And finally - after returning to the subject in THREE posts - you use the term "prolix" to refer to ME??? :roll:
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#37

Post by phylo_roadking » 12 Aug 2014, 23:31

Nearly forgot...
[Edit: in double-checking I find that this is entered in one place as 5,714 and another as 5,718, which makes the final total either 33,988 or 33,992. The discrepancy appears to be with the first four pilots built, which get subsumed into the Canadian total.]
Not necessarily; Watson notes a tiny order, AID/GB 213 and given the census numbers T281844-8. Although it was for a tiny handful of MkIIIs the census numbers could...as we've seen above...have been transferred to T16s...

...or of course it could just be a coincidence that we have an unaccounted-for handful of carriers - and a minute order for a similar number of carriers...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#38

Post by David Thompson » 12 Aug 2014, 23:52

RichTO90 -- Drop the personal references or watch your posts disappear. No one here cares about your opinion of other posters.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#39

Post by Rob Stuart » 13 Aug 2014, 03:00

The original question read in part "What divisions used Commonwealth instead of US equipment and where were they deployed at?" I suspect that the Polish 1st Armoured Division, which fought in Western Europe with 1st Canadian Army, and the Polish II Corps, which fought in Italy, had Commonwealth equipment, except for having US tanks. The 1st Belgian Infantry Brigade, the Prinses Irene Brigade and the 1st Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade likewise had British-pattern equipment. On the other hand, I think that the French divisions which fought in Italy and France 1943-45 had US and French equipment. Earlier in the war the smaller French formations which fought with the British had mostly British pattern equipment, for example the 1st Free French Brigade at Bir Hakeim.

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#40

Post by RichTO90 » 13 Aug 2014, 04:26

phylo_roadking wrote:I know how they happen, thanks. I also know that when a number of changes are made to a base design the resulting object becomes just a variant/version of the original.
Good. Then you understand finally that the T-16 and T-16E2 were American redesigns-paid-by-the-British through Lend-Lease?
I was talking about the order of events in which the Universal carrier design came to be altered in the U.S. - not production.
Oh, that order of events. If you are that interested in those details, then you will need to refer to OCM 16635, 16727, 18229, 18434, 18598,19782, 20576, 23959, 24491, 25361, and 263380.
By the way - taking out your "edit" for a moment...
...it's not that simple;
Pardon me for not listing them all. Unfortunately in OMPUS all the Canadian production (both U.S. and Canadian financed) is listed as "Carriers, Full-Track Universal Bren".
Yes - but...
....did they order the T16 initially - or did, as Nigel Watson says, order U.S.-built Universal carriers and get the T16 with no choice in the matter - THAT is what I'm interested in determining. As in - "This is the product we are going to manufacture to fill your order..." Not unlike the BPC being shown the turbosupercharger-equiped P-39...but eventually Britain receiving the P.39 with interal single-stage, single speed supercharger - and inadequate climb and high-altitude performance...
Without referring to the OCM's you are not going to know for sure. The best evidence is the capacity at Windsor Ford was maxed out and so Somerville, which had an excellent reputation for speed and quality of manufacture, was tapped to take up the slack in the requirement. In the peak months of September and October 1943 they cranked out 2,500 T-16 (1,250 each month). Windsor's peak was 939 in May 1943. However, for whatever reason, Somerville either could not or would not duplicate the track-warping steering...which wore out brake shoes at alarming rates anyway...so they went with the simpler system. According to Hanno Spolestra,

"The U.S. T-16 Carrier was an interesting answer to some of the known design problems inherent in the initial British genus and derivatives. After several years of hard use in varying climates and environments, the inherent weaknesses in the basic carrier design had become known: rear axles prone to failure under sustained load, a steering system which required constant adjustment and which wore out brake shoes at a prodigious rate, and suspension and track failures under high loads. In addition, it had been found that the original 221cubic inch Ford engine and its six volt electrical system was not reliable or strong enough to perform the tasks demanded of the carrier under battlefield conditions. For example, the weight of towing a six-pounder antitank gun and the carriage of its crew and stores frequently wore out drive train components and made for unsafe handling.

All of these shortfalls were addressed when the engineering staff at Ford of U.S.A. were tasked with creating an 'all-American' version of the now-ubiquitous universal carrier. The result was a fascinating hybrid!
Despite the fact that no vehicle like the Universal Carrier was ever adopted by nations other than Britain and the Commonwealth, the type remained immensely popular with those armies and to meet the continuing demand the United States was drawn into the production programme. The US Tank Committee, after discussion with industry, agreed to produce the vehicles to the same performance specs, but with US engineering. A Ford Motor Company design was accepted and the (Joint) British Tank Mission placed orders under the Lend-Lease Agreement for 30,000 carriers under the American designation T16."
So, when the Ordnance Board gave Ford U.S. an order for 21,000 T16s in 1942, seemingly including the original "British"order for 15,000 univeral carriers that the U.S. was supposed to produce at Somerville - who used the excess 6,000? The orginal contract card is in Bovington, and it specifies 15,000 T16s with WD census numbers beginning T92001. (The Canadian-produced T16s had WD numbers in a different series that had originally been allocated to Canada for Universal carriers, so that's not them...)
Huh? The order originally was for 30,000 T-16. The number actually built was 13,893. The remainder were cancelled. The original order number is confirmed in the 1944 Catalogue of Standard Ordnance Items, Volume 1, page 60 and by Hanno, see above.
Nigel Watson ventures the idea that the 6,000 excess U.S.-built T16s went to the Canadian Army also using WD numbers meant for Canadian Universal carrier production - but surely that would mean a shortfall somewhere in the accounting of 6,000 in Canadian-built MkI/II/IIIs ...?
That is simply incorrect. They are simply different items and different numbers. To repeat:

13,893 T16 and T16E2 were manufactured in the U.S.
5,000 Windsor Carriers were manufactured in Canada
28,992 Universal Carriers were manufactured in Canada (both U.S. and Canadian financed)

In checking, there is no great mystery in the 4 "missing" Canadian Carriers. The 4 pilots completed in August 1941 were not carried over from one section to another in OMPUS (page 258 to page 409). In the later section - the "U.S.-Canadian Supplement" they simply aren't accounted for as "Under U.S. Contract". Thus, in the earlier section accounting for "Foreign Programs" the total comes to 5,718 and in the latter 5,714. Likely it is an oversight in the compilation and it is unlikely the 4 pilots were actually American funded, given the program began in January 1942.
Unintersting to you, maybe - but interesting to ME. Which is, of course, what matters to ME.
Then follow the breadcrumbs.
I didn't actually put it in THOSE terms - I just referred to it as "Bren/Scout/Cavalry Carriers and the Universal Carrier were ideally intended for combat...and required the sharper turning circle provided by track warping and wheel steering...while the Loyd and T16 carriers were intended for loadcarrying and towing"...

...but as I'm supposed to be so jingoistic - yes, the T16 does have the reputation of Ford U.S. ruining a good product. Happier now?

And finally - after returning to the subject in THREE posts - you use the term "prolix" to refer to ME??? :roll:
No problem for me, since I actually had additional information to impart with those posts and the edits in the previous ones.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#41

Post by Rob Stuart » 13 Aug 2014, 11:42

Rob Stuart wrote:The original question read in part "What divisions used Commonwealth instead of US equipment and where were they deployed at?" I suspect that the Polish 1st Armoured Division, which fought in Western Europe with 1st Canadian Army, and the Polish II Corps, which fought in Italy, had Commonwealth equipment, except for having US tanks. The 1st Belgian Infantry Brigade, the Prinses Irene Brigade and the 1st Czechoslovak Armoured Brigade likewise had British-pattern equipment. On the other hand, I think that the French divisions which fought in Italy and France 1943-45 had US and French equipment. Earlier in the war the smaller French formations which fought with the British had mostly British pattern equipment, for example the 1st Free French Brigade at Bir Hakeim.
Further to the above, the Czech, Polish, Norwegian, Dutch and French units which fought with the RAF were given British aircraft for the most part, although some got US aircraft. As well, the RN gave a number of warships to various navies-in-exile, e.g.:

U-class subs to the Poles, Dutch, French and Norwegians (and to the Soviets)
Corvettes to the Dutch, French, Norwegians, Greeks and Belgians (and to the Americans)
Hunt-class destroyers to the Poles, French, Norwegians and Greeks
S-class destroyers to the Norwegians
N-class destroyers to the Poles and Dutch

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#42

Post by RichTO90 » 13 Aug 2014, 16:08

RichTO90 wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:So, when the Ordnance Board gave Ford U.S. an order for 21,000 T16s in 1942, seemingly including the original "British"order for 15,000 univeral carriers that the U.S. was supposed to produce at Somerville - who used the excess 6,000? The orginal contract card is in Bovington, and it specifies 15,000 T16s with WD census numbers beginning T92001. (The Canadian-produced T16s had WD numbers in a different series that had originally been allocated to Canada for Universal carriers, so that's not them...)
Huh? The order originally was for 30,000 T-16. The number actually built was 13,893. The remainder were cancelled. The original order number is confirmed in the 1944 Catalogue of Standard Ordnance Items, Volume 1, page 60 and by Hanno, see above.
It actually looks like that was a bit fuzzier than the references would make it sound. The original 1942 order was for 21,000, but by 1944 it had expanded to 30,000. That doesn't change that Somerville Ford completed and had accepted 13,893 T16/T16E2 before the contract was terminated.

From the Ford History, which also touches on how and why the design changes were made:

"The Ford branch at Somerville, Massachusetts, had one of the unique contracts in the Ordnance Department's nationwide system. The plant was the only one in the U.S. to build universal carriers, and it did so during the entire war. As previously mentioned, the Ford Motor Company of Canada was already producing universal carriers at the Windsor plant according to a British design for the British Army. The Windsor plant could not meet the demand, so the Ordnance Department began negotiations in February 1942 to convert the Somerville branch to carrier production. The Ordnance Department gave Ford engineers some latitude in studying the design of the carrier, both to improve its performance and to expedite production. At the end of the summer. Ordnance approved Ford's changes and in September contracted with Ford to build 21,000 universal carriers of the modified design."

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#43

Post by RichTO90 » 13 Aug 2014, 20:19

Just to make sure this is absolutely clear:
RichTO90 wrote:13,893 T16 and T16E2 were manufactured in the U.S.
5,000 Windsor Carriers were manufactured in Canada
28,992 Universal Carriers were manufactured in Canada (both U.S. and Canadian financed)
Production Year Canadian Universals / Canadian Windsors / US Financed Universals / US T16 Carriers

1941 2,927 / 0 / 0 / 0
1942 4,780 / 0 / 4,023 / 0
1943 8,791 / 5 / 1,691 / 4,693
1944 6,696 / 2,006 / 0 / 8,200
1945 104 / 2,989 / 0 / 1,000
Total 28,992 / 5,000 / 5,714 / 13,893

Notes:
Canadian Universal Carriers includes all variants (except Windsors) with production beginning April 1941
US T16 Carriers includes T16E2
1945 is for the first 8 months ending 31 August

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#44

Post by phylo_roadking » 13 Aug 2014, 23:35

From the Ford History, which also touches on how and why the design changes were made:

"The Ford branch at Somerville, Massachusetts, had one of the unique contracts in the Ordnance Department's nationwide system. The plant was the only one in the U.S. to build universal carriers, and it did so during the entire war. As previously mentioned, the Ford Motor Company of Canada was already producing universal carriers at the Windsor plant according to a British design for the British Army. The Windsor plant could not meet the demand, so the Ordnance Department began negotiations in February 1942 to convert the Somerville branch to carrier production. The Ordnance Department gave Ford engineers some latitude in studying the design of the carrier, both to improve its performance and to expedite production. At the end of the summer. Ordnance approved Ford's changes and in September contracted with Ford to build 21,000 universal carriers of the modified design."
Yes - but...
....did they order the T16 initially - or did, as Nigel Watson says, order U.S.-built Universal carriers and get the T16 with no choice in the matter - THAT is what I'm interested in determining. As in - "This is the product we are going to manufacture to fill your order..."
...did the British know and approve of that decision on the part of the Ordnance Dept.? As in - did they know the extent of the changes made to the Universal Carrier to create the T16 when they issued the contract?
In addition, it had been found that the original 221cubic inch Ford engine and its six volt electrical system was not reliable or strong enough to perform the tasks demanded of the carrier under battlefield conditions.
There had been a project on hands for some time for the universal carrier engine installation to be replaced by the new 95bhp Ford Mercury V8...but by late 1943 it was still under test - which is why the UC MkII stuck with the original 85bhp units.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

RichTO90
Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 22 Dec 2003, 19:03

Re: Commonwealth Miitary Production and deployment of resour

#45

Post by RichTO90 » 14 Aug 2014, 03:55

phylo_roadking wrote:....did they order the T16 initially - or did, as Nigel Watson says, order U.S.-built Universal carriers and get the T16 with no choice in the matter - THAT is what I'm interested in determining. As in - "This is the product we are going to manufacture to fill your order..."
...did the British know and approve of that decision on the part of the Ordnance Dept.? As in - did they know the extent of the changes made to the Universal Carrier to create the T16 when they issued the contract?
I suspect the British were happier to have Carriers than they were worried about just how they got them or how they were altered. I also doubt that it was British approval that was crucial in that negotiation.

And I know Nigel Watson is a Carrier wonk and all that with the three books and the CMV articles and so forth, and he is no doubt very knowledgeable about the nuts and bolts, but given the misapprehensions you developed regarding production numbers after reading him I would be careful about what he says about the U.S. involvement.

In any case, you've been given the breadcrumbs so tally ho!

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”