MLU FORUM  

Go Back   MLU FORUM > MILITARY VEHICLES > The Armour Forum

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #29  
Old 18-06-17, 19:54
Mike Cecil Mike Cecil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cody, Wyoming, USA
Posts: 2,372
Default

Lynn,

Good point regarding the effect (ie less likely to throw tracks) of the design changes, however the reasons for the variations in design from the British MG/Bren carrier were not in regard to improvements in performance but "...firstly to standardise certain parts with similar parts on the light tank [Vickers Mk6A] and secondly to suit Australian production methods. The War Office was not advised before the variations were taken in hand." (Dept of the Army Memo to Secretary Military Board, 22-10-1941).

These variations caused some considerable problems, particularly in the ME when units were handed both Brit and Aust built carriers, and the spares situation for the Aust carriers did not keep pace with the usage. Result: grounded Aust carriers where available Brit spares could not be fitted.

Mike
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Door Resto Barry Churcher The Restoration Forum 13 15-05-22 15:36
FAT cab 13 No 9 resto Mrs Vampire The Softskin Forum 27 29-09-21 06:11
C15A resto harrygrey382 The Restoration Forum 9 08-06-15 09:40
another CAN m37 resto Steve Wilson The Restoration Forum 11 25-08-12 15:57
m 37 resto in new brunswick pauljboudreau Post-war Military Vehicles 118 07-03-11 22:29


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 19:11.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Maple Leaf Up, 2003-2016