Carrier/Armored HT?

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
Is the British Ram Kangaroo APC considered a Carrier/Armored HT for purposes of fire grouping with infantry or other Kangaroos? I don't see specific definition of an Armored HT and I think everyone just assumes carrier means the British carriers. I also don't see anything in the vehicle listing that denotes a vehicle as an armored HT. The Ram is not a carrier and not a half track but seems to fulfill the same purpose. I did not see a Perry Sez on the matter either. Any thoughts?

Mike
 

ScottRomanowski

Forum Guru
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
1,616
Reaction score
2,087
Location
Massachusetts
Country
llUnited States
As I understand it, an armored halftrack is a halftrack (D1.14) that is armored (D1.2), and I think a "Carrier" must have "Carrier" in its name (e.g., British Vehicle Notes 64-67). A Ram Kangaroo is ft, not ht, and it's not a "Carrier", so those special rules don't apply.
 

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Not to necessarily disagree with Scott here but under Chapter H the Kangaroo is listed as an APC (Armored Personnel Carrier) for type {See British Vehicle Listing Table). Now does this equate to it being a carrier? I would suppose most may agree that this is the case as that is its function and it is listed as a carrier but only a question to Perry would actually resolve the matter.
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,776
Reaction score
7,200
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
As I understand it, an armored halftrack is a halftrack (D1.14) that is armored (D1.2),...
Per D6.6 is must also have an ability to carry Passengers:
"An armored halftrack is unique in that it can carry Passengers...."

For Carriers I think the Vehicle Notes usually spell out if rule D6.8- applies to the vehicles.
 

The Purist

Elder Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
2,917
Reaction score
1,480
Location
In my castle by the sea, Trochu, AB
First name
Gerry
Country
llCanada
Well,... it was certainly used like a carrier/HT. It's not like it rolled up behind the fighting, unloaded and then drove away like a truck. What ASL calls is may be something else again.

The same question could be used for US LVT* and the British Buffaloes and Stuart Recce. All were used to carry infantry into combat and then fought alongside them.

Note that one could argue D6.6 applies pretty much to all the fully tracked 'APC' vehicles (being open topped and having passengers and crews vulnerable to fire and capable of being CE or BU.

*One model is closed top but Passengers unload like the other LVTs
 
Last edited:

Eagle4ty

Forum Guru
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
6,913
Reaction score
5,094
Location
Eau Claire, Wi
Country
llUnited States
Looking at this a bit closer I believe Scott is correct in his assertion the AFV must included "Carrier" (Note the use of capitalization) in its nomenclature. "D6.64 FG:" also uses the capitalized use of the word Carrier in its description of AFVs that may participate in multi-unit fire groups. This, I believe, is an attempt to delineate these units separately from the more general use of the term carrier as attributed to other types of armored personnel carriers noted in the Chapter H MAVN tables. Note also that D6.82 notes that Carrier inherent crews are represented by a HS, a condition not attributed to other APCs by their Chapter H descriptions or applicable Notes.
 

Actionjick

Forum Guru
Joined
Apr 23, 2020
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
4,989
Location
Kent, Ohio
First name
Darryl
Country
llUnited States
Checked out Tank Chats #46, The Ram Kangaroo video. It was a very interesting video about seven minutes long.

Some interesting trivia, which I'm sure that Paul would have known.

The Ram Kangaroo used by the British had a MG in a turret to the left of the driver. The Canadian model had a bow mounted MG.

The Ram Kangaroo couldn't climb as well as the Churchill so a Churchill Ram was developed.

The video didn't shed any light on the firegroup question but was enjoyable. I may take a look at some of their other Tank Chats.🤔
 

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
Interesting Q&A but doesn't really resolve the issue. One other thing to note. In the British vehicle notes the Carriers are listed as APC's as are the Kangaroos. The half tracks that do qualify for the fire group rule are listed as ht, not APC. Go figure. Perhaps a Perry Sez is in order.

Mike
 
Last edited:

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
Submitted the following question:

Can a British Ram Kangaroo (British vehicle note 68) be considered an Armored Halftrack (D6.6) and thus fire group as per D6.64?

Mike
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,776
Reaction score
7,200
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Interesting Q&A but doesn't really resolve the issue. One other thing to note. In the British vehicle notes the Carriers are listed as APC's as are the Kangaroos. The half tracks that do qualify for the fire group rule are listed as ht, not APC. Go figure. Perhaps a Perry Sez is in order.
Pretty sure one needs a Vehicle Note - like British MAVN U - to make a vehicle a Carrier per D6.8.

"U. See D6.8-.84 for the basic rules pertaining to Carriers...."
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,776
Reaction score
7,200
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Submitted the following question:

Can a British Ram Kangaroo (British vehicle note 68) be considered an Armored Halftrack (D6.6) and thus fire group as per D6.64?
This Q is (IMO) answered by the Q&A. It's not a halftrack to begin with - it's a fully-tracked vehicle.

There's also this old Q&A.

British Vehicle Note 86 Ram Kangaroo(a) Do the armored halftrack rules apply to Ram Kangaroos?
A. No. [Letter119]
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
11,335
Reaction score
5,070
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Letter119 is a PerrySez: "Perry Cocke to ASLML 20 November 2001".
Yes. Klas notes it as "old Q&A" because, in theory, old Q&A was made NA with the introduction of the v2 rule-set. Perry made some comment akin to "don't make me answer it all again" putting it in this weird state where it is and isn't official. You have to be careful with this older Q&A because some if it made it into the v2 rules as errata. -- jim
 

klasmalmstrom

Forum Guru
Joined
Feb 26, 2003
Messages
19,776
Reaction score
7,200
Location
Sweden
Country
llSweden
Although a Q&A posted in 2001 could be an (albeit unoffcial) Q&A asked under the 2nd Edtion....
 

sfcmikej

US Army Retired
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
885
Reaction score
161
Location
North Carolina
Country
llUnited States
I can report that Perry responded with a no to my question. Thank you all for the assistance.

Mike
 
Top