Return to Index  

Additional Info to Nelson's Comments

June 6 2014 at 11:43 PM
No score for this post
Pat Brennan  (Login brennapj)

Response to editorial comments on the preceding post

Hi Nelson

The following are a few comments on your two posts.

1. Armoured Car Journal Issue # 10

For those who are interested, all issues of this journal are available online. The URL for Issue #10 is as follows:

The URL for the top page is:

The top page gives access to all 36 issues.

2. Armoured Carrier, Wheeled, Indian Pattern, Mark II thru IV

The Wheeled Carrier was manufactured in India. The bulk of the units were built at the Tatra Iron and Steel Factory and the East Indian Railway Workshops. A total of 4655 carriers were manufactured. Armor plate was made by Tatra. The Mark II and subsequent Marks were built on Ford 4x4 rear engine chassis supplied by Canada. These carriers were used the same as tracked Universal Carriers in the Middle East, Italy and the Far East.

(This comment essentially plagiarized from booklet British Armoured Cars 1914-1945 by B. T. White)

3. 100th Light Tank Squadron

The following comments are opinion and not based upon direct or indirect knowledge of the equipment of the 100th Light Tank Squadron.

I personally do not believe that the 100th Light Tank Squadron was equipped with Carden-Loyd tankettes.

First, Universal carriers were available at Singapore. The Universal carrier did what the Carden-Loyd could do and more. Why equip a unit with junk when better equipment was available.

Second, the British had light tanks available that were much better than the Carden-Lyod. At this time, American tanks had arrived in the Middle East and largely replaced the Mark VI light tank by this time. The earlier Models had been removed from front-line duty way before this. These were true light tanks and not machine gun carriers.

Third, The official British history says that the unit had 16 obsolescent light tanks. The Carden-Lyod was never called a light tank. It was called a machine gun carrier. Some may have called it a tankette. I dont think that the British history would call it a light tank.

Fourth, The term obsolescent light tank fits the Mark VI and earlier Marks. Limited quantities of these were available to send to Singapore. I believe that the light tanks sent to Singapore were true light tanks of the Mark IV to VI types

However, I cant find any proof either way. (end of rant)

Hope items 1 and 2 help
Pat Brennan

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.Respond to this message   

  • Re: Additional Info.... - Nelson on Jun 8, 2014, 2:02 AM
    Find more forums on Network54Create your own forum at Network54
     Copyright © 1999-2018 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement