Birth of the Armored Personal Carrier

[Cowboy31a]

With the success of the US Army's Armored Infantry Battalions and other units in North Africa and Europe, the US Army started a program to find a fully tracked carrier to move them. This program was brought about because even though the M2 and M3 half track was proving to be an adequite APC (Armored Personal Carrier), it had several drawbacks. The first among these drawbacks was the fact that the M3 had some trouble keeping pace with the tanks going cross country. This lead both the Infantry Board and the Armor Board to request a full tracked APC. It was suggested at the time the US Army consider using LVTs for this role, but this was ruled out, because they were needed for amphibious operations in the Pacific, though a test was conducted at Fort Benning, where Mechanized Task Force, consisting of two Armored infantry companies and a company of M4 tanks, tested the idea. They used LVTs to test the mobility and found it to be an improvement over the half track. This lead to the US Army taking the M18 chases and developing the M39 AUV, that could move the squad.

After combat reports were starting to come in of the open toped APCs being used by the USA were vonrable to small arms and artillery. It was decided to come up with a fully inclosed vehicle.

The first, program of this was the T13 AUV based on components from the M24 Chaffee tank. This project was dropped because it was felt that the components were needed for other projects. This AUV would have been able to move around 24 infantry troops around the field. After the T13 was dropped it was proposed to use components from the M18 GMC. This project became the T16 AUV. The hull of the vehicle was of the same shape as the T13. It looked like a rolling box on tracks....pretty much the same shape APCs in the US Army kept, until the M2 Bradly....the power train was the same as found on the M18. This project had the same ability to move 24 infantry men. Even though the T16 was standerdized as the M44 AUV, it wasn't procured in large numbers after WW2, because the vehicle was to large to fall into the doctrine of having a squad per APC in the armored infantry platoon. the vehicle found itself being used in other roles.

This left the army with two fully tracked APCs. The M39 was able to keep pace with the tanks but it still had all the problems of protections for the men, and the giant M44 was to large for the needs of its rule as personal carrier. So this lead to a new design, in late 1945, based on the components of the new T41 light tank project. the new vehicle was designed to meet the requirements of the armored infantry from the start, putting all other posible roles to the side. the New vehicle was designated as T18 AUV in September of 1945. The T18 used a shorter hull then the previous T13 and T16. The power train was the same as the T41 light tank. After tests throughout the late 1940s proved the vehicle..it was decided to place it in production as the M75, and to reflect its role for the armored infantry it was designated US Army, M75 Armored Personal Carrier. Procurement was slow due to the demoblization of the army, but as Korea broke out it was decided to procure these vehicles, but without the benifit of mass production to lower costs, the vehicle was to expensive so a handful was bought, because of this small procurement and prolonged development time, the vehicle final cost came to a unit cost of 100,000 dollars per vehichle. This was a design meant for full wartime production. The M75 did prove itself in the field during Korea, but the costs lead the army to seek a cheaper alternative.....but that is outside the scope of this post.

[Pruitt]

Cowboy,

The British already had Armored Personnel Carriers in action. They took Canadian Ram tanks, Grants and maybe a Sherman or two, removed the turret and voila! Some Priests and Bishops also had the Artillery piece removed and opening plated up. The Infantry egressed through the open hole at the top. Self defence was provided by the co-driver's hull mounted mg or by the 50 calibers on the SPs.

While the US was looking for the perfect solution the British were fielding a good vehicle.

Pruitt

[Cowboy31a]

the Kangaroos still had the problem that both the US halftracks and M39 had, the crew compartment was open to small arms fire and to artillery fire. The US concept was to produce a vehicle that gave the troops the protection they needed.

[Pruitt]

The Israelis are still taking old tanks, gutting them and putting an Infantry dismount inside. Now they are covering the turret ring and adding hatches.

The M-75's biggest problem was it was made of steel. Steel is heavy and does not float well. The M-113, a descendent, is made of Aluminum armor and floats.

Pruitt

[Centrix Vigilis]

Originally Posted by Cowboy31a

With the success of the US Army's Armored Infantry Battalions and other units in North Africa and Europe, the US Army started a program to find a fully tracked carrier to move them. This program was brought about because even though the M2 and M3 half track was proving to be an adequite APC (Armored Personal Carrier), it had several drawbacks. The first among these drawbacks was the fact that the M3 had some trouble keeping pace with the tanks going cross country. This lead both the Infantry Board and the Armor Board to request a full tracked APC. It was suggested at the time the US Army consider using LVTs for this role, but this was ruled out, because they were needed for amphibious operations in the Pacific, though a test was conducted at Fort Benning, where Mechanized Task Force, consisting of two Armored infantry companies and a company of M4 tanks, tested the idea. They used LVTs to test the mobility and found it to be an improvement over the half track. This lead to the US Army taking the M18 chases and developing the M39 AUV, that could move the squad.

After combat reports were starting to come in of the open toped APCs being used by the USA were vonrable to small arms and artillery. It was decided to come up with a fully inclosed vehicle.

The first, program of this was the T13 AUV based on components from the M24 Chaffee tank. This project was dropped because it was felt that the components were needed for other projects. This AUV would have been able to move around 24 infantry troops around the field. After the T13 was dropped it was proposed to use components from the M18 GMC. This project became the T16 AUV. The hull of the vehicle was of the same shape as the T13. It looked like a rolling box on tracks....pretty much the same shape APCs in the US Army kept, until the M2 Bradly....the power train was the same as found on the M18. This project had the same ability to move 24 infantry men. Even though the T16 was standerdized as the M44 AUV, it wasn't procured in large numbers after WW2, because the vehicle was to large to fall into the doctrine of having a squad per APC in the armored infantry platoon. the vehicle found itself being used in other roles.

This left the army with two fully tracked APCs. The M39 was able to keep pace with the tanks but it still had all the problems of protections for the men, and the giant M44 was to large for the needs of its rule as personal carrier. So this lead to a new design, in late 1945, based on the components of the new T41 light tank project. the new vehicle was designed to meet the requirements of the armored infantry from the start, putting all other posible roles to the side. the New vehicle was designated as T18 AUV in September of 1945. The T18 used a shorter hull then the previous T13 and T16. The power train was the same as the T41 light tank. After tests throughout the late 1940s proved the vehicle..it was decided to place it in production as the M75, and to reflect its role for the armored infantry it was designated US Army, M75 Armored Personal Carrier. Procurement was slow due to the demoblization of the army, but as Korea broke out it was decided to procure these vehicles, but without the benifit of mass production to lower costs, the vehicle was to expensive so a handful was bought, because of this small procurement and prolonged development time, the vehicle final cost came to a unit cost of 100,000 dollars per vehichle. This was a design meant for full wartime production. The M75 did prove itself in the field during Korea, but the costs lead the army to seek a cheaper alternative.....but that is outside the scope of this post.

Very nice rundown Cowboy, I personaly remember those 113's and 114's very well as Cav platoon leader and scout. one of my very first assignments was as a heavy weapons plt ldr, in a varient model for the 4.2 mortar, a 107 if i remember correctly...but for the moement, i cant recall if it's a 44 or 75 that sits on the padock next to the Patton Museum at Knox...ah age again....

Nice job pardner.

[Cowboy31a]

I believe it is a M75

[Cowboy31a]

Several factors in the cost of the M75 were.

research and development on it.

Its power train was the most expensive part. it used the Continental AO-895-4; 6 cylinder, 4 cycle, opposed gasoline engine and the Allison CD-500-4, 2 ranges forward, 1 reverse transmission. This power train combination actually delivered a road speed of 44 MPH! Not bad for a 21 ton vehicle. This was an expensive combination. The steel used in the APC was of a high grade, and it was thicker then its cheeper followons. Given the low production run and so on..and with the above factors the project's cost just got out of control.

[frisco17]

As I see it an APC is an armoured vehicle designed to safely carry infantry into battle and keep up with the advancing tanks.By that definition I'd have to say the fist APC was the Sd.Kfz.251 Hanomag. It wasn't perfect but it fit the criteria. Just my opinion so I could be wrong.

[Cowboy31a]

So many systems meet this criteria....the universal carrier, the American and German half tracks, the Kangaroos...etc....but they really don't meet the criteria of the American APC program. I guess i should change the subject line here to the Birth of the Modern full tracked APC.

[Cowboy31a]

here is the only pic of the M44 i can find right now

I wonder if anyone has a better one

[Centrix Vigilis]

Originally Posted by Cowboy31a

here is the only pic of the M44 i can find right now

I wonder if anyone has a better one

Couldnt find one off hand but my peepers are a little out of whack today so it's a little tough...below is a great site for any and all's exploration...some great photo's. Licensing agreements however prohibit their reproduction elesewhere per se but they are certainly free to examine at the sight...Anything and everythings there....so have fun.


http://www.photovault.com/Link/Milit...ARYMASTER.html

[Scout32]

Originally Posted by Centrix Vigilis

Very nice rundown Cowboy, I personaly remember those 113's and 114's very well as Cav platoon leader and scout. one of my very first assignments was as a heavy weapons plt ldr, in a varient model for the 4.2 mortar, a 107 if i remember correctly...but for the moement, i cant recall if it's a 44 or 75 that sits on the padock next to the Patton Museum at Knox...ah age again....

Nice job pardner.

CV,The SP mortar came in two versions:M125(81mm) and M106(4.2 in or 107mm).I was in those Cav platoons in the early '70's also.At first we had 5 M114A1E1's,3 M551 Sheridans,an M113 for the grunts and an M106 for the 4.2 Mortar.In August of 73,They replaced the M114's with 3 more M551's and mixed the Scouts with the DATS to crew them.In the early 80's after I switched MOS's to 11B I was on M113A2's until I went to Germany in 83 and we were re-equipped with the first M2 Bradley's.

[Cowboy31a]

here are some photos to go along with my short history of the APC program developed by the US Army


Halftrack M3. this vehicle was used as a personal carrier and as a prime mover for light anti-tank guns. In the APC role the halftrack carried an armored infantry squad.


Once it was decided that a full tracked personal carrier was needed for the armored infantry....the M39 armored utility vehicle was developed from the M18 GMC. This vehicle also was able to carry a squad of infantry and tow light guns.


The next step along the way was the full tracked fully armored personal carrier. This was developed to stop loses of soldiers being hit by small arms fire and shell fragments. The first design in this group was the T16 armored utility Vehicle (standardized as M44). This vehicle was taken into service but was considered to large for the intended role....this was based on the doctrine of each AUV was to carry a single squad of infantry and this one could carry up to 24 passengers. This vehicle also used components from the M18 GMC


The final development (during WW2 designs) was the the T18 Armored Utility Vehicle. this was a downsized version of the T16 to fall into US Army doctrine. Its automotive components were based on the T41 Bulldog light tank. It was able to move an infantry squad. When it was accepted and standardized it was designated M75 Armored Personal Carrier....to reflect its intended role for the armored infantry...it was only procured in small numbers because of its price $100,000

[Trung-si]

I remember in infantry AIT we had to load a squad in one of them things and swim across a lake in it.
It stuck a few inches out of the water. Glad to get out of it.

In VN, they used them mostly from what little I saw, as security running roads.
Thet were full of ammo and everyody rode on top-not inside.
They flew a bunch of them up to my camp where they flailed around a bit, lost some tracks and some people and flew away.
Anytime they tried to get off the road they would get tangled up and throw a track.
Funny part is that the Stars N Stripes reported they had fought all the way up a long unused road to relieve a beleagured SF camp.
Nevah hoppened, GI, they rode in C 130's.
No disrespect to those troopers, tough.
11th ACR.
Friend of mine was in N Africa at the beginning as a motorcycle scout for a half-track artillery unit. He does not speak highly of this attempt at mobile artillery. It was all they had, though.

[Cowboy31a]

These early AUV and APC types were amphibious. That didn't come into play tell the replacement for the M75....the M59 APC joined the army. all three of these full tracked APCs had to wade across because of their weights. These were good first attempts and they did set the pattern for things to come