"Bren carrier = tankette?" Topic

Would a Bren Carrier be considered a tankette?

Yes.

I'd incline against: a tankette is designed to be used as an AFV; the carriers are just that -- lightly armored transport.

I'd also take into consideration that most other tankettes are closed-top.

I'd say no – needs a roof, imo.

I think it is close, but no cigar. Its intended use and open top just make it a jeep type vehicle with tracks instead of tires.

Not Bob Marley's most successful number, that one….

It is derived from a tankette, but it is an APC, though it was sometimes used like a tankette.

Not a tankette.

Carden-Loyd MkVI did'nt have a roof. All the rest were based on that.

No roof, and it wasn't used as a tankette, so no.

No. It was a tracked weapons carrier.

It wasn't a tank.
It wasn't a tankette.
It wasn't an APC.

It was essentially a lightly armoured, tracked, jeep.

David Fletchers 'Mechanised Force' covers the development of carriers, tankettes and tanks between the wars more than adequately.

Nope. I agree with Martin's characterization of it.

Doug

Definitely not a tankette.

Pretty much what Martin Rapier said while adding they were used for armed recon and the inf. battalion carrier platoons were sometimes used as an ad hoc assault force. There is a picture in one of my books of 1945 Canadian unit where the bren carriers all have a 50 cal mounted on the armour in front of the driving compartment.

It's armored, it carries personnel -- it's an APC.

Did the Bren come standard with any weapons? I seem to recall one equipped with a Boys ATR.

LOL! That would technically put it on par with several of the early war Polish and Italian tankettes. NOT that I would want to fight in it, but SOMEBODY thought it would be a good idea to pair up an anti-tank rifle and the track.
Larry

The clue is in the name, originally "bren carrier" and then "universal Carrier" -- the operative word as far as the british army was concerned was "carrier" ie it was there to carry men and equipment.

It was most definately not any kind of APC, Tankette, or whatever and training and doctrine emphasied that point.

I like tracked weapons carrier as well. Its job was to transport a detachment to serve a single Bren gun, which in the original incarnation was just an NCO, rifleman and driver-mechanic for the carrier. Technically, it was armoured and carried personnel, but even the sawn-off SdKfz250 could carry more bods without them having to ride above the armour protection.

The carrier manual was very specific in cautioning officers that Bren/Universal carriers were NOT tanks and should not be used as such. It is one of those vehicles that doesn't neatly fit into a more widely accepted category, it was just a carrier, and now doubt bemused any army outside of the Br/CW nations as to what they were for, especially if they didn't have a Bren gun to fit around them!

Each Section of three vehicles had one Boys atk rifle issued from the off, and in North Africa that was eventually extended to one per carrier, which is quite a punch compared to some actual tankettes.

Gary

Having always considered the Bren Carrier a tankette, I was taken ababck a bit when I read all the messages saying it wasn't. So I googled "Tankette", and here is part of an entry in Wikipedia:

"Characteristics

Tankettes were made both in one- or two-man models. Some were so low that the occupant had to lie prone.[3] Some models were not equipped with turrets (and together with the tracked mobility, this is often seen as defining for the concept), or just a very simple one that was traversed by hand or leg. They are significantly smaller than light tanks and do not have a tank gun, instead their main weapon tended to be one or two machine guns, or rarely a 20mm gun or grenade launcher."

Does the Bren Carrier not fit into this type of vehicle?

It's disappointing that the only diminutive form of "tank" seems to be "tankette". One might have hoped for "tankling", "tanklet", "tankino", or "tankushka".

All the best,

John.

"Does the Bren Carrier not fit into this type of vehicle?"

I would argue the defining point is that the Bren carrier was designed to move a gun team, who would then dismount and fire from cover, as infantrymen, in support of riflemen. I won't claim to a great knowledge of interwar armour, but I'm reasonably sure that the true tankettes were designed to mount a gun that was fired routinely from the vehicle. The Bren could be fired from the carrier, and could be successfully employed in a mobile action against enemy troops devoid of decent atk weapons, but it's still to my mind not quite the same thing.

The weakness in that argument is probably that Div Cav Regts and later the Recce Corps used carriers by the boatload for recce in concert with light tanks and wheeled vehicles throughout the war.

Gary

Some nice footage of the various weapons fittings on a carrier YouTube link

While it is true that the Italian CV33, Polish TK series and the British Carriers/Vickers Light Tanks are all direct descendent of the same developments by Carden, Lloyd and Martel. The line was diverging into very separate, specialised strands. The British evolved the line in 2 different directions.

1) The light weapons carrier for a crew served weapon, which quickly also gained use as a re-supply vehicle and all round general utility vehicle. In effect a tracked Jeep. The French also took a similar route with the Renault UE and Lorraine tractor.

2) The Vickers light tank series, in effect becoming a tracked armoured car from the mkV onwards.

Others started on this route.

The Germans to create a training vehicle which was forced into combat(the Panzer 1).

Japanese turreted tankettes, though used as both a Renault FT style light infantry support tank, and a supply tractor pulling a trailer.

Skoda and Tatra developed their own turreted tanketts (mostly export), but Skoda did a bizarre divergence and produced the T-32/Skoda S-I-d, which was in effect a pocket STuG! (take a look)

link

Where as the Poles, Italians and to a degree the Russians with the T-27 all went the route of a light armoured turretless combat vehicle.

Japanese modified Bren gun carrier

The bren carrier derived from the machine gun carrier designed to carry a Vickers MG and crew.

A totally different line of evolution to the Carden-Loyd tankettes and light tanks and the Vickers light tank series.

That can't be a Japanese Bren gun carrier. There aren't any school girls manning it.

TMP link

Yup, an open-topped tankette.

And an open-topped tankette destroyer for sure.

Got to agree with Dom Skelton.

A quote from the old AFV Profile #14 Carriers.

" IS the Brengun Carrier an AFV?" Question in the military quiz in the Army Bureau of Current Affairs Publication WAR.

Answer: " No it is a firepower transport. It's crew fight dismouonted."

So there. Nyaaah!

It's disappointing that the only diminutive form of "tank" seems to be "tankette". One might have hoped for "tankling", "tanklet", "tankino", or "tankushka".

Tank-chan? Cute widdle tanky-wanky? Teeny-tanky? :)

I forget, did Leona in Tank Police have a pet name for Bonaparte?

Teeny-tank works for me!

Another vote here for the 'not meant to be a tankette' response. As to what it actually got used for, that's another matter.

I can see both sides of the argument, but am going on the tankette side.

Used as firing platforms for both bren and vickers (as well as transport of these weapons), mobile or just crew transport mortar, and then the final Wasp flamethrower version gives it maybe a dash more of the tankette than the personel carrier.

No, not a tankette.
Too much crew, amongst other things.
-Kle.

Wikipedia isn't too bad on this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tankette

link

if I can be bothered I will however dig out the relevant sections from David Fletchers comprehensive histories of the development of British armoured fighting vehicles after the first world war and which explain exactly what a tankette was and why a carrier wasn't one. Or maybe I won't.

We did invent both of them after all….

I'd say no … it's a light APC/Weapons carrier, IMO … And in case you missed it, kind'a on the same subject – TMP link

Bonjour,

I suggest that anyone wanting to know more about what carrier platoons were and how to use them, buy this book in PDF:

link

If the guys at Battlefront had read that manual, maybe less people would think they were tanks/tankettes (and not use them as if they were in their games).

Salutations du Canada,
François

It would be nice if players also used American half tracks correctly and not as 50cal armoured cars!!

So in the spirit of compromise and inclusiveness, may I suggest we classify the carriers as "APCettes" or "Treeps" and then we can all get on to the serious business of determining just how many angels really fit on the end of a pin!
Rod Robertson.

Yes, whether an M3 1/2 Track or M113 (the 113 was an improvement over the M3, but not much in many ways !), the APC needs to dismount troops under cover and use the .50 for fire support to cover those troops …

Still looks like an open topped tankette destroyer to me.
A tankette for all your tankette destroying needs::

One of the missions on my list of things I would not want to do in combat is go tank hunting in a Bren or Univeral Carrier with a Boys AT rifle … Just say'n !

Our understanding is this. In part based on an american gude to british forces of them that did not make publication before war end.

The were armoured to stop rifle bullets. Tha manual notes that they should not be deployed closer than 400 yds to the enemy as there effcitiveness does not improve and they become vulnerable to fire as they are open topped. They can carry a 2" mortar and a considerable number of rounds.

Our understanding is that they had radios so could be used as communications vehicals where certain of the infantry had no radio or telephone they could provide a much needed link.

The carrier didn't mount a radio itself, but was provided with sets from the Sig Pl in the Inf Bn. Generally speaking the allocation was one No.18 and six No.38 sets, allowing one No.38 per Sec of three carriers (on the 1943-45 scales). The Scout Pls of Motor Coys had a No.19 set, one each for the Pl and three Sec commanders.

Wouldn't disagree with the second paragraph, the vehicles were vulnerable with no overhead cover and really weren't for up close and personal work; though there is the sotry from Sicily I think where a carrier pretty much went over a German MG team.

Gary

@Legion 4, Absolutely, you should only go tankette hunting in a Bren with a Boys AT ~,~

Indeed …