| Steve M | 15 Jun 2014 5:38 a.m. PST |
Just added a short post to my blog on some British transport. Hopefully interesting if nothing else as each vehicle type is a different manufacturer: link Steve |
| Jemima Fawr | 15 Jun 2014 6:31 a.m. PST |
More beautifully-painted stuff there Steve! :) Re the LVT – it's an LVT-2, known as a Buffalo II in British service. The British 79th Armoured Division (i.e. 'Hobart's Funnies') adopted both Buffalo II and Buffalo IV into service at the same time in late 1944 – just after Normandy. There had been some in service before that for training & evaluation purposes – the Royal Navy had also used them in Normandy as supply ferries. Buffalo IIs and IVs were mixed into the same regiments and squadrons, though troops within a squadron tended to be all of the same type. There were a lot more Buffalo IV than Buffalo II. British Buffalos tended to be bristling with MGs – frequently mounting one on each side, as well as on the front. Buffalo IVs even had a 20mm Polsten cannon typically mounted on the front. Buffalos saw extensive service in NW Europe from October 1944 onwards, being used for the crossing of the Braakman Inlet, the Walcheren landings, the crossings of the Rhine, Elbe and other rivers, the left flank of the Reichswald and for continued operations in the creeks and flooded polders of the Netherlands. They were also used in Italy during the 1945 spring offensives, where they were known as 'Fantails'. In Burma the British & Indian Armies also made use of LVT-1s, known locally as 'Alligators'. |
| Steve M | 15 Jun 2014 6:42 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the info – good to know how it was used as I had not managed to research in any depth. |
| Jemima Fawr | 15 Jun 2014 7:17 a.m. PST |
No worries. They're very handy for a number of late-war engagements – I must get around to buying a few myself! :) |
| x42brown | 15 Jun 2014 9:21 a.m. PST |
Steve
Nice paint jobs R Mark Davies
How confident are you as to "British Buffalos tended to be bristling with MGs"? It does not fit with my memories of Father's tales (he drove them Rhine crossing and some other action) nor with his notes. My memory is not perfect but it says father regarded the main weapon to be the load it carried and extra guns were a distraction. Shuggie, a friend I'll be playing Nuts with tomorrow, was an infantry man operating from them in The Netherlands. I'll have to ask him what weapons the ones that carried him had. x42 |
| Jemima Fawr | 15 Jun 2014 11:02 a.m. PST |
Hi x42, I'm sure that there were exceptions, but the vast majority of photos show a usual armament of 2-3x MGs or in the case of most Buffalo IVs, 2x MGs & 1x 20mm cannon. |
| Jemima Fawr | 15 Jun 2014 12:07 p.m. PST |
|
| x42brown | 16 Jun 2014 8:12 a.m. PST |
mark
From your pictures it looks like my memory of Dad's remarks is faulty. I asked Shuggie during our game. All I got from him was "They didn't put them back after the anti tank gun". Which meant nothing to me but I didn't push for clarification (his mind does occasionally wonder). x42 |
| Jemima Fawr | 16 Jun 2014 8:41 a.m. PST |
Not at all, they probably just didn't have them on his Buffalo or possibly his entire troop – an entirely reasonable supposition (there were a heck of a lot of Buffalos by 1945 – something like 6 regiments in NW Europe alone). Aha! I know exactly what he means! :) Buffalo IVs could carry 25pdrs, 6pdrs, Carriers, Jeeps, etc internally via the rear ramp, but couldn't cope with anything largers. Consequently, some Buffalo IIs were modified for the crossing of the Rhine with the addition of a deck that could carry a 17pdr, Bofors Gun, scout car or Quad tractor precariously on top of the vehicle. I've never seen a photo of this arrangement, but there is a diagram in one of the 79th Armoured Div histories. The modification clearly required the removal of all pintle-mounted MGs. That's got to be what he was describing. :) |
| Jemima Fawr | 16 Jun 2014 9:16 a.m. PST |
As an aside; I once interviewed an old boy who had crewed a Sherman Crab in the 22nd Dragoons. He was adamant that my friend Mike's models were wrong, as they shouldn't have any external stowage or AAMGs (The AAMG stopped a quick escape and any stowage got shredded by exploding mines and flying bits of chain). That seemed fair enough… Then we found a photo of a clearly-marked 22nd Dragoons Crab, flailing a road in NW Europe, festooned with stowage and mounting a .50… :) |
| x42brown | 16 Jun 2014 11:01 a.m. PST |
First an apology to Steve for hijacking the thread. Mark
Perhaps a tank crew about to find out why the others removed their stowage prior to flailing? I know from many different people that AAMGs were not generally popular with British tankers and my fathers notes are full of accounts of removing them, from after being attacked by the Vichy French Air Force in Palestine (or may be Lebanon) through North Africa and on to NWE. The decking, especially if fitting and removing takes less than an hour would account for much of Dad's notes. x42 |
| Steve M | 16 Jun 2014 11:05 a.m. PST |
no problem, always good to get an actual historical real life perspective around things we use on the game table Steve |
| Jemima Fawr | 16 Jun 2014 12:55 p.m. PST |
x42 Indeed! Sorry Steve! :) Ha, yes! I imagine that the old boy's operating procedures came about through hard-won experience, so there probably was a time when stowage was carried before he knew better… :) It would be interesting to find a photo of the Buffalo II with decking and gun or truck perched on top. Perhaps someone reading this has such a photo…? |
