Loyd Carrier
Stuart
universal carrier made by Loyd.
Now I have been informed that a Loyd carrier was designed to carry a 10 man
infantry squad.
That's a pretty tall order for a universal carrier unless you stack them
like cordwood.
So what was a Loyd carrier?
Maybe there's a good photo of one on the www?
In a related discussion, I was informed that the bren gun carrier was not a
carrier of bren guns but a gun carrier built by Bren. Some were adapted to
mount a anti-tank gun.
Is somebody pulling my leg?
While I'm on the subject, Australia developed a carrier similar in design to
the universal carrier. Did this have a name?
Thanks
Stuart
Daniel
Stuart wrote:
>
> Until yesterday, I was under the impression that a Loyd carrier was simply a
> universal carrier made by Loyd.
>
> Now I have been informed that a Loyd carrier was designed to carry a 10 man
> infantry squad.
> That's a pretty tall order for a universal carrier unless you stack them
> like cordwood.
>
> So what was a Loyd carrier?
Designed by Lloyd (note spelling) of Carden-Lloyd fame (the
suspension system used most notably on the Machine Gun,
universal and Light Tank 1 to 6 series, as a "cheaper"
alternative to the Universal/Bren/Scout carriers. Larger
and less complex it turned out to be under powered and weak
suspension (like the universal). Was used in specialist
roles (like Battery Slave) or as a gun tractor for the 6 Pdr
AT guns.
> Maybe there's a good photo of one on the www?
>
> In a related discussion, I was informed that the bren gun carrier was not a
> carrier of bren guns but a gun carrier built by Bren. Some were adapted to
> mount a anti-tank gun.
>
> Is somebody pulling my leg?
>
Yes. Was originally designed as a Machine Gun carrier (for
the Vickers MG) but adapted for the movement of the standard
Infantry Weapon of the time - the Bren. Similar Scout
Carrier was the Bren carrier with the side panniers reversed
while the Cavalry Carrier had different bodywork. A
combined Universal Carrier to suit all roles was made but by
then the name Bren Carrier had caught on....
> While I'm on the subject, Australia developed a carrier similar in design to
> the universal carrier. Did this have a name?
>
Yes Machine Gun Carrier, Local Pattern Aust Mk1 (drew its
antecedents from the Machine Gun Carrier not the
Bren/ScouT/Universal Line) but effectively looked the same.
Machine Gun Carrier Local Pattern Aust Mk1A had detail
differences to suit Australian parts and manufacturing
patterns.
Machine Gun Carrier Local Pattern Aust Mk2 was radically
different - engine moved to where crew commander sat and
left a large open compartment in the rear. Engine intake
louvres are immediately behind driver to aid wading ability
(higher than previous models). If you see the 1944 film
Rats of Tobruk - these are the carriers used in there and
the German tanks are Australian Sentinel Mk1 tanks.
> Thanks
> Stuart
Felicitations
Daniel
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Stuart) wrote:
> Until yesterday, I was under the impression that a Loyd carrier was
> simply a
> universal carrier made by Loyd.
Carrier design was moderately complex. Originally there were scout
and Bren gun carriers the armament of which varied and which were both
armoured. The Loyd carrier was a tracked unarmored load carrier. The
universal carrier replaced the scout and Bren versions and various
kits were available to fit it for different duties including carrying
a three inch mortar. Loyd carriers continued in service. I can not
remember the maximum load but because it was not armoured it was
greater than the universal carrier.
Bren is not the name of a manufacturing company. It was a name for
the machine gun devised from a combination of Brno <sp> (designer)and
Royal Enfield (manufacturer).
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Stuart
How many men is the L(l)oyd carrier designed to carry.
I'm still not convinced about the spelling.
Stuart
Daniel
news:3a7456a...@news.pacific.net.au...
(Where have you seen LLOYD spelt other than with the LL ?
It is Welsh you know, boyo !)
>From Chamberlin and Ellis Making Tracks The British Carrier
Stroy 1914 to 1972 Profile Publications Ltd Windso England
1973 ISBN 085383 0886
The Lloyd Carrier (note spelling) was intoduced in 1940,
built by the firm of Vivian Lloyd (note spelling) and Co Ltd
and various motor companies including Dennis, Wolsley and
the Ford motro Co of Canada, Captain Vivian Lloyd having
left the firm of Vickers to establish his own concern after
the death of his partner, Sir John Carden, in an air crash
during 1935....
(Capacity was 8 personnel...adapted to a variety of roles
including gun towing for 2 pdr and 6 pdr AT
guns...development started in 1943 of an improved version
for tractive ability and load carrrying but abandoned...)
--
Daniel Ross
Danie...@Adelaide.on.net
Jon-paul
Daniel <Dan...@nowhere.nohow.adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
news:939q6b$nmm$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...
> (Capacity was 8 personnel...adapted to a variety of roles
> including gun towing for 2 pdr and 6 pdr AT
> guns...development started in 1943 of an improved version
> for tractive ability and load carrrying but abandoned...)
having had a look at one close up I could see 8 men in one, 2 up
front, 3
each side of the engine cover. 3 very close friends though if they are
fully
kitted out! Mind you I rember some contempory comment about the Carden
Lloyd
MG carrier saying some thing along the lines that the spec was for
armored,
tracked transport to carry a vickers Mg plus crew across country in
extream
discomfort! so not much change there.
The universal was an attempt to standardise production, Australia also
made
them. One of the Aussie versions mounted a 2pdr and its shield on the
back.
There was also an ambulance version/conversion and various field mods
to
carry various kit like motars (for shoot & scoot ops).
Elsewhere it was addapted for use in combat, The Italian CV3/33,
Polish TK
series both owe direct parentage to the mg carrier. even the Russians
and
the Czechs were at it! The Germans however had to good sense to put
the MGs
in a turret however in their derivitive (the PZ1). In the end all
abysmal
flops. In the UK however realisation that it was useful in the combat
zone,
but not at actual combat itself, and use accordingly covered it in
glory as
a tractor and light utility vehicle extrodinair.
As a side note, before the war there was also the 'Dragon' (name
derived
from its job, literaly dragging guns) that was larger but simmilar in
appearence/concept. The Guy Quad tractor however was more cost
effective so
was the replacement of choice for the machines lost in France. Besides
the
armour plating manufacturing plants were needed to armour tanks, The
carrier
was good for introducing small or inexperianced manufacturers to the
problems of building tracked armored vehicles, the draggon however
distracted too much from tank production.
JP
> --
> Daniel Ross
> Danie...@Adelaide.on.net
>
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.219 / Virus Database: 103 - Release Date: 05/12/00
Danny Egan
Stuart wrote:
> In a related discussion, I was informed that the bren gun carrier was not a
> carrier of bren guns but a gun carrier built by Bren. Some were adapted to
> mount a anti-tank gun.
>
> Is somebody pulling my leg?
>
Either they're pulling your leg or they don't know much about it. I
won't claim
to be an expert either but I think that the lloyd carrier was an early
carrier
design from the 1930s, designed to move the Infantry's heavier weapons
(machineguns, mortars, ammo) and so forth. One was used for tests at
least as a
self-propelled 25-pounder mount. The photos I recall showed a vehicle
similar in
size to a Universal Carrier.
Early in WWII the Brits had the bren carrier and Scout carrier. Both
very
similar to the universal carrier that came later. The bren carrier was
indeed
designed to carry Infantry crew-served weapons and had some slight
armor
protection for doing so. The Scout carrier was designed to carry a
small
(three-man?) scout section into combat. The Universal carrier was
AFAIK an
attempt to rationalize these two very similar vehicles, improve the
armor a bit,
and I assume improve the engine. The Universal could tow a
six-pounder. All of
these vehicles were used as APCs also. They mounted Brens, Boys AT
rifles,
Vickers watercooled MGs, and even Soviet Dushkas in Red Army service.
Universals
were built in the USA, Canada, and the UK.
There was also a Dragon carrier which was a bit bigger, used for gun
towing and
as an APC.
There was no "Bren company" - the Bren was built in Enfield, Britain.
A lot of the confusion (including mine, probably) comes from the fact
that this
entire group of very similar vehicles is often called "Bren Carriers"
when that
is the proper name for just one of them.
Daniel
Jon-paul wrote:
>
> Daniel <Dan...@nowhere.nohow.adelaide.on.net> wrote in message
> news:939q6b$nmm$1...@beast.TCNJ.EDU...
> > "Stuart" <stuart...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:3a7456a...@news.pacific.net.au...
>
> > (Capacity was 8 personnel...adapted to a variety of roles
> > including gun towing for 2 pdr and 6 pdr AT
> > guns...development started in 1943 of an improved version
> > for tractive ability and load carrrying but abandoned...)
>
> having had a look at one close up I could see 8 men in one, 2 up
> front, 3
> each side of the engine cover. 3 very close friends though if they are
> fully
> kitted out! Mind you I rember some contempory comment about the Carden
> Lloyd
> MG carrier saying some thing along the lines that the spec was for
> armored,
> tracked transport to carry a vickers Mg plus crew across country in
> extream
> discomfort! so not much change there.
>
> The universal was an attempt to standardise production, Australia also
> made
> them. One of the Aussie versions mounted a 2pdr and its shield on the
> back.
Tested and placed into production before they realised that
it would not suffice on the modern open battlefield. About
200 made I believe.
> There was also an ambulance version/conversion and various field mods
> to
> carry various kit like motars (for shoot & scoot ops).
Unfortunately the ability of the chassis to take the blow
from the mortar meant its range was limited and its accuracy
(never a strong point for the Stokes-Brandt unrifled mortar)
was worse.
In practice it was still dismounted before firing though the
redesign did give better storage space.
Now we are talking about the original machine-gun carrier
sold by Vickers to a number of countries...
>
> Elsewhere it was addapted for use in combat, The Italian CV3/33,
> Polish TK
> series both owe direct parentage to the mg carrier. even the Russians
> and
> the Czechs were at it! The Germans however had to good sense to put
> the MGs
> in a turret however in their derivitive (the PZ1).
Questionable if this vehicle was from the MG carrier more
like from the early Lt. Tank series and even then mainly in
role and possibly suspension design....
> In the end all
> abysmal
> flops.
?? Japanese used theirs successfully for the whole war (in
their intended role - battlefield resupply), Italians
(against "savages"), Germans as valuable recce vehicles for
the first couple of years. Hardly flops - just the
battlefield moved on and they were used inappropriately (see
also the use of universal carriers by Australians at
Buna-Gona-Sananada battles - a "death ride" if ever there
was one...)
> as did the In the UK however realisation that it was useful in the combat
> zone,
> but not at actual combat itself, and use accordingly covered it in
> glory as
> a tractor and light utility vehicle extrodinair.
>
But failed to really standardise - why then the Lloyd,
Universal, Windsor, T16 carriers off the top of my head ???
> As a side note, before the war there was also the 'Dragon' (name
> derived
> from its job, literaly dragging guns) that was larger but simmilar in
> appearence/concept.
Derived from and developed in parallel with the Vickers
Mediums. Totally different vehicles and essentially
disappeared by the start of W.W.II. None saw any service in
that conflict except for a couple of Vickers Mediums used in
training (post Dunkirk) and some emplaced as strong points
(immobile) in Mesa Matruh...
> The Guy Quad tractor however was more cost
> effective so was the replacement of choice for the machines lost in >France.
Many were lost there anyway - and what of the AEC, Austin
and Morris gun tractors (plus Canadian Ford and Chev ones
used by UK, Canadian, India, Australia and NZ amongst a host
of others)?
I don't get the point being put here......
> Besides
> the
> armour plating manufacturing plants were needed to armour tanks, The
> carrier
> was good for introducing small or inexperianced manufacturers to the
> problems of building tracked armored vehicles, the draggon however
> distracted too much from tank production.
>
Dragon series was well and truly defunct by the start of
W.W.II based on obsolete and damn near impossible to obtain
components. Never even contemplated post 1935 if not
earlier !!!! (How many were actually made ...)
PS Dragon was spelt with one g - apocryphal tale is that it
comes from the original concept of the gun carriers having
to "drag on" the 60 pdr guns and ???howitzers they were
designed to take. Dragons were also unarmoured anyway !!!!
Felicitations
Daniel