"US versus UK halftrack platoons" Topic

I was lately looking through some armoured infantry TOEs on Gary Kennedy's website, and remembered something that I had been also thinking about previously: British army seemed to pack their halftracks a lot more sparsely than US army, at least according to the official TOE.

Here is 1944 TOE for the US armoured infantry company:

link

As you can see, full strenght platoon had 5 halftracks mounting in total 56 men. Four of the halftracks were allocated 12 men each (including the driver), while the 60 mm mortar was allocated 8 men (including the driver) – giving them some extra space to fit the mortar.

Here is TOE for British motor company in 1944 (which is surprisingly similar to 1940 TOE which had motor platoons carried in trucks):

link

This time full strenght platoon has 4 halftracks and 1 motorcycle for a total of 31 men. Platoon command halftrack is allocated 6 men (including the driver) plus 2 inch mortar and PIAT. The other 3 halftracks are each allocated 8 men (including the driver), with the last odd man riding around on a motorcycle.

As far as I know, the lend-lease M5/M9 halftracks used by the British had same carry capacity as the M3 halftracks used by US, which makes me wonder why they neglected to leave so much of the carry capacity empty. The same man-power would easily fit into three half-tracks, reducing the amount of fuel and maintenance needed to maintain the platoon vehicle pool. The only advantage I can think at the moment is that the extra capacity in the vehicles allows the platoon to lose one of the halftracks due to technical malfunction and still be able to carry the full manpower. And I guess the passengers appreciated having a bit of extra space to carry their supplies and tea kettle.

Anybody having more insight into this issue?

By late war the UK was facing severe manpower shortages. Plus extra space is more room for ammo and rations.
Also keeping ea H section in it's own track means they can mwneuver as sections while mounted.

The M5 had 13-seat capacity like the M3; the M9 had 10-seat capacity like the M2.

Also, a fair number of Brit HTs were the ex-AA lend lease models reconfigured as carriers and fitted with bench seats.

The strength of the British Section in 1938, for both normal Infantry and the new Motor Bns, was 8 men. While the Inf Sec briefly went up to 11, before settling at 10 men, the Motor Sec remained at 8 men throughout. Note, this excludes developments in North Africa.

Halftracks were a late acquisition for the Motor Bns, only appearing in the months before Normandy as I recall, and prior to that the 15-cwt truck was the standard Motor Sec vehicle. I don't know how spacious the back of a 15-cwt truck was compared to a halftrack. If it did offer an advantage, I suspect that the halftrack appeared rather too late for Motor Bns to consider either a sizeable increase in their complement of riflemen, or a complete rejig of their organisation for manoeuvre.

Mostly covered above but I suspect the reality in the US platoons was a rather smaller number of men except at the outset of a campaign.

Probably 8-9 GIs in a squad and the British having around 6 in their sections.

While the TOE may be for more the British were using the eminently sensible LOOB system to keep back 1-2 men from each section to give them a break and have somebody to rebuild around in the event of disaster.

I also doubt the US replacement system was able to keep pace with losses during heavy sustained combat. I suspect they would usually be at 60-80% strength in the front line. Every time I read an anecdote or memoir they always seem to be shorthanded – never at full TOE.

UK doctrine was to have all their HT drivers and co-drivers make their way back thru the lines and rejoin the HT Driver Regt. so as to be available for future missions.

US practice was to have HT drivers and co-drivers drink their way back thru to the rear area, make their way to Britain to chase "skirts" so as to keep them fit for when the British military returned home.

Seriously, nice discussion and input. I don't usually have HTs on the board other than for eye candy or as some sort of marker. I too am not sure as to who goes along and who stays with the vehicle.

By late war the UK was facing severe manpower shortages.

Very much true. That said, the number of motor battalions deployed was relatively low (one per armoured division).

Also keeping ea H section in it's own track means they can mwneuver as sections while mounted.

Even with three halftrack platoon you could have each section on their own track if you split the platoon HW between vehicles, for example like this:
- Platoon commander, sergeant and signaller go to the first section halftrack
- 2 inch mortar crew go to the second section halftrack
- PIAT goes to the smallest man in platoon
- Other extra load goes to the third section halftrack
- Fourth driver, now unemployed, goes to the battalion reserve pool

That said, looking at the number of vehicles in motor company scout platoon (11 carriers, scout car, truck and 2 motorcycles) I have a feeling that training of drivers might not have been a major problem at the time…

Also, a fair number of Brit HTs were the ex-AA lend lease models reconfigured as carriers and fitted with bench seats.

Did these get allocated to the motor battalions, or did they end up in other duties like artillery tractors?

Mostly covered above but I suspect the reality in the US platoons was a rather smaller number of men except at the outset of a campaign.

True, US had trouble keeping their infantry units up to strenght once the casualties started mounting.

I must admit that I do not envy the task that US armoured infantry platoon leader had with commanding and coordinating three rifle squads, MG squad, mortar squad and five halftracks – that is quite a circus already. To make things even more complex, the early TOE even had an anti-tank gun towed by one of the halftracks, though these were luckily eventually grouped into their own anti-tank platoon.

One half track per section and one for platoon HQ, seems eminently sensible.

Halftracks were officially classed as '15cwt trucks', the same as White Scout Cars and actual 15cwt trucks. This was nothing to do with the weight (which was considerably more than 15cwt), but was to do with the fact that they'd occupied the slot in the orbat previously occupied by 15cwt trucks.

Motor Battalion organisation remained essentially the same, regardless of the actual vehicle that filled the '15cwt' slot. This is why they stayed with 7-man sections (which suited 15cwt trucks) even when they adopted a larger vehicle in the form of the halftrack.

Halftracks were officially classed as '15cwt trucks', the same as White Scout Cars and actual 15cwt trucks. This was nothing to do with the weight (which was considerably more than 15cwt), but was to do with the fact that they'd occupied the slot in the orbat previously occupied by 15cwt trucks.

Sometimes I have slight difficulties in grasping British logic…

Essentially the TO&E remained the same, but they got a new (larger) truck.

Something else to consider is that Motor Companies had four platoons – the fourth platoon was a scout platoon in Carriers. So the companies were very strong to start with, despite the relatively low section strength.

I am sure the capacity was not wasted. Soldiers seem to fill all available space with something.Usualy to the point of overstuffing.

JFs explaination makes perfect sense to me. set the organization, then fill in the gear as it comes in. what a nightmare to have to change an MTOE just becasue you got halftracks in this month.

Owen

In the case of the Canadians, they went from halftracks to C15TA armoured trucks, so lost space again.

Did these get allocated to the motor battalions, or did they end up in other duties like artillery tractors?

My understanding is that there were a number of standard reconfigurations of the GMCs to personnel carriers, ambulances, artillery prime movers, general service cargo carriers and command vehicles.

Some more info here:
link

I don't know how spacious the back of a 15-cwt truck was compared to a halftrack.

One source that I checked suggests that the back of 15 cwt was roughly 6 feet times 6.5 feet. With two guys sitting in the front (but some of their baggage going to the rear), the six guys in the rear would have around 2 x 3 feet area allocated for each man and his possessions. In practice you would probably need to fit in tents, tarps, jerry cans, tea kettle, ration boxes, biscuit tins, extra ammo, tools and anything else that the section had managed to acquire.

On another note, while the motor battalion of the British armoured division was transported around on 15 cwt trucks, the motorized battalions that were later on added to the divisional structure seem to have been assigned the more spacious 3 ton lorry. As far as I know they stuck to the regular infantry battalion organisation (10 man sections), though I am not really sure where the drivers go in the TOE.

Something else to consider is that Motor Companies had four platoons – the fourth platoon was a scout platoon in Carriers. So the companies were very strong to start with, despite the relatively low section strength.

Good point. The scout platoon was actually noticeably stronger than motor platoon (43 vs. 31 men) though a lot of those were vehicle drivers.

The lorried battalions were just that, infantry battalions in lorries. They certainly didn't have one three tonner per section…

No, they certainly didn't. In 1940 the WE for a RASC Troop Carrying Coy allowed for three Sections (actually Platoon sized subunits), each capable of lifting the marching personnel of one Inf Bn (the RASC Coy being able to carry an Inf Bde).

Each Section had 25 task vehicles, in 5 Sub-Secs of 5x 3-tonners each. The official allocation was one Sub-Sec per Rifle Coy with the fifth carry Bn HQ and HQ Coy (much of which had enough MT to lift itself).

In North Africa, the Lorried Inf Bns (not to be confused with Motor Bns) were noted as requiring 6x 3-tonners per Rifle Coy (of which there were three, not four) and 4x 3-tonners for HQ Coy. By 1942 the RASC Platoon had 30 task vehicles, in 5 Secs of 6x 3-tonners each.

In 1944 the Armd Div Tps Coy, RASC, of an Armd Div included two Pls with TCVs (3-tonner troop carrying vehicles). Given it had always taken 5 or 6 3-tonners to transport a Rifle Coy, and the 1944 model was 127 all ranks (less 10 in Coy tpt) I can't see why they could squeeze the Coy into anything less than the 6x TCVs of a normal Sec. The TCV drivers were RASC pers so not on the Inf Bn strength.

Gary

Thanks for the info, Gary!

I presume that the lorried rifle companies still had their own vehicles (carrier, jeep and a couple of 15 cwt trucks) in addition to the attached lorries. Those company vehicles might be sufficient to transport the HQ, in which case six attached lorries would mean two lorries per rifle platoon.

Yes, all the transport was the same as for a normal Inf Bn, and the April 1943 WE allowed for a few additional vehicles for Inf Bns in Armd Divs. An extra 15-cwt for each Rifle Coy HQ and Sp Coy HQ, and motorcycles replacing all bicycles in Bn HQ and one in each Rifle Coy HQ.

Marching personnel in Rifle Coy HQ was only supposed to be the 2ic and the two snipers, but I'm sure they could have hitched a lift somewhere.

I did ask a while ago about how many troops could be transported in the Troop Carrying Vehicle. A lot of written sources refer to it carrying a whole Platoon, which seems a bit of a squeeze, and given the allocation of six per Coy I've always thought of two per Pl as well.

There's a nice picture here showing the view from the rear of the vehicle. I count 8 internal seats, so assume the bench seats either side would allow the same, making 24 seats. But, if you couldn't load beyond the line indicated, that could trim down to perhaps 20? A pair of TCVs could easily seat carry a full strength Pl and all their kit on that basis.

Gary

I had the privilege of talking with a RAM Kangaroo driver a few years ago. When asking him how many men it could carry his answer was, " Depends what they're carrying, wearing, and how friendly they were!" He then said it was probably 8 or 9.

There may also have been a mission difference between US armored infantry and British motor bns. In a Brit armoured division, the main infantry tasks were performed by the lorried infantry battalions. The motor bn was used to provide an immediate mobile infantry presence for 1 or more of the tank formations, IIRC.

In a US armored division, the armored infantry was used for tasks equivalent to those assigned to lorried infantry bns in Brit formations.

So it may well have been felt that motor bns would undergo less attrition than lorried infantry or US armored infantry. Hence the smaller section manpower pool.

There may also have been a mission difference between US armored infantry and British motor bns. In a Brit armoured division, the main infantry tasks were performed by the lorried infantry battalions. The motor bn was used to provide an immediate mobile infantry presence for 1 or more of the tank formations, IIRC.

That is an interesting view for the late war division.

However, in the early war division the motor battalions provided the only infantry element in the division (2 motor battalions to 6 armoured regiments).

On another note, speaking of the British motor company, does somebody have information about how the scout platoon (mounted on carriers) was expected to be used tactically? As regards organisation, it seems rather similar to an infantry battalion carrier platoon.

It was smaller – three sections (11 Carriers total) instead of four sections found in a Bn Carrier Platoon. In terms of tactical useage, it was theoretically identical.

However, Scout Platoons did tend to get tooled up with .50 Cals on occasion and don't seem to have been used for the fairly menial tasks assigned to Carier Platoons (casevac, ammo resupply, etc).

Good point about the difference in sections, though the very early infantry battalion carrier platoon seems to have also been three sections before getting upped to four.

As for the motor company, three motor platoons and three carrier sections would mean that every motor platoon could be given one carrier section in support, which would give them quite some extra firepower.