LP2 wheels

[Tom Millward]

Thanks Lynn, I will pass the info onto my colleague. Useful to know that the rubber And track are a different profile than the UK/Canadian wheels. I’ll suggest he gets his wheels re-rubbered to the correct profile.

Cheers,

Tom

[David Herbert]

I would add that Windsor Carriers also have the wider rims and tires and track horns wider spaced to suit. I am not certain that they are precisely the same dimensions as the LP2s but they look the same. However the Windsor wheels and track are the same style as other Canadian / UK carriers, and look exactly the same unless you know to check the width of the wheel and spacing of the horns.
T16 carriers use the narrow format wheels but in straight spoke (similar to UK / Can), curly spoke or pressed disk designs.

David

[Lynn Eades]

Hi David, I have never seen Windsor bits, but believe the track would be dimensionally interchangeable with the Australian carriers. It is my opinion that the Australians that came up with their design made great improvements in many areas, (except that I love the classic style of riveted carriers) The adoption of the wider rubber and track horns from the later VLTMk6B along with the higher track guards made for a quieter and much more stable track that leaves me wondering why it was not universally adopted.
I can only imagine national pride being the barrier.

[David Herbert]

Hi Lynn,
I agree with all of the above but bare in mind just how desperate the situation was in the UK at that time. There was a huge pressure to not mess with anything that worked and as a result we were behind where we should have been in many fields. Canada and Australia and NZ were tooling up from scratch and so only inherited what we forced on them.
In my view the T16 was by far the best of the WW2 carrier family in terms of its driving and mobility qualities. There were teething troubles but once they got them right they worked well and continued in use post war until that class of vehicle became too small and under protected.
The Windsor in contrast I find under powered and extremely hard work to drive as the track warping phase of the steering just makes it crab as the two bogies move out of line with each other rather than creating a curved track path as in a UC. I am sure the Windsor owners club will disagree but everyone to their own !

David

[Tom Millward]

I’m sure that British designers were investing their time in the development of future armoured vehicle design, to combat the ever increasing capabilities of German armour, rather than perfecting what was already considered to be a working design. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

[Lynn Eades]

David, I have no doubt about the desperation of the time, but there was a big difference in the desperation of 1939 versus 1944. As you know, there was also a world of difference (production pressure wise) between an English 1941 U.C. and a T16 (that never made the battle field until the end of the war)
At the wars start much of the population (U.K. and colonies) were pretty much still horse and cart orientated. By the time of the T16 things had changed.
An example from this end, is that N.Z. had new vehicle number plates made in the U.K.(yearly)
In 1940 we were kindly told to F.O. Because of the war effort.
The result was that the 1939 plates were used for the next 4 or 5 years. We were totally reliant on mother England.
Australia was obviously further ahead than little N.Z. however it would have been relative.
My point was really to praise the Australians.
While in their infancy in the area of design and mass production they came up with a very practical carrier . I assume the biggest reason why it never saw more active service was also in the interests of standardization.
As an aside: The Eastern War Council ordered LP2a's from N.Z. but during production cancelled them in favour of Canada filling the order. (same reason?)
When you compare details of the LP2 with a British or Canadian carrier, you realize how much they improved on the faults of the riveted carrier while simplifying the construction.
BTW: this was their second effort. The Australian Govt. had bought a Machine gun carrier from England prior to the war from which they'd built the LP1. (Qty. 161) They had done away with the warp steering, which lead to brake issues. However I believe some of the T16 details were "acquired" from the LP1. No evidence, just my opinion.

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

My point was really to praise the Australians.

Point taken. *places in pocket for future use*

[Tony Smith]

Originally Posted by David Herbert

Hi Lynn,
I agree with all of the above but bare in mind just how desperate the situation was in the UK at that time. There was a huge pressure to not mess with anything that worked .....

David

And imagine how much time and production savings could have been made (even before the war) by standardizing Carrier track with Vickers Light Tank track, but no, they had to create yet another unique part system.