Terrapin, DUKW

[Cross]

Hi Don,

I just noticed unit 057 in the British OOB is named Terrapin, but the picture and Icon are of a DUKW.

Not sure if it's the wrong name or wrong pic and icon.
I'd guess wrong name because the unit has no armour, and the Terrapin had armour and was more like the US AMTRAC (unit 058).
And I don't think the DUKW appears elsewhere in the British OOB.

Here's the wikipedia descriptions:

DUKW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUKW

Terrapin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrapi...ibious_vehicle)

AMTRAC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrac


Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for Wikipedia content, and in no way refer to this source as 'authorative', it's merely a 'quick reference' and research starting point.


cheers,
Cross

[redcoat2]

The Terrapin looked different from both the DUKW and the AMTRAC. It needs its own pic and icon. I think it was a soft skin amphibian.

I also think the British used DUKWs as well. At least they did after WW2 because my Uncle Eamon used one in Malaya to hunt down communists.

Must go now. I'm late for the pub. I may post some further info, sources etc when I have some free time.

[DRG]

If I had to guess I'd guess that at some point in the past somebody thought "terrapin" was the Brit name for DUKW and it's taken over five years for someone to notice that is incorrect

I've put it and the "AMTRAC 4" that is unit 58 on the list to investigate. There's something fishy about that one too


Don

[redcoat2]

Terrapin

Here is some very basic info about the Terrapin from the Encylopedia of Weapons of World War II:



The best source of info about the Terrapin that I have is British Military Transport 1829-1956 by David Fletcher of the Tank Museum. It also features a lot of information about the British use of US-made DUKWs.

There are a few photos of the Terrapin on the Web. Here is a wartime drawing of the Terrapin with measurements that could be useful for an icon maker:



The Terrapin was designed to carry four tons as against the DUKW’s 2.5 tons, but it was capable of handling 5 tons on land or in very calm water. Four tons was preferred to leave a safe margin. Unfortunately, the load had to be split, because the driver, or helmsman, occupied a central cab with separate cargo holds fore and aft. The Terrapin could not therefore carry a single large indivisible load like an anti-tank gun.

It was only used by the British. The Terrapin should therefore be removed from the ANZAC OOB (spob15/ Unit 057) – and possibly replaced with a DUKW. AFAIK it was only really used by one unit – the specialist 79th Armoured Division. Its heyday was during the Battle of the Scheldt/ Walcheren Operation when 40 Terrapins were used to transport Canadian troops and supplies. It wasn’t used during the Normandy landings. The British used fleets of DUKWs instead.

The Terrapin wasn’t employed outside NW Europe. Cooling problems rendered it unsuitable for service in warmer climes.

Buffalo

Originally Posted by DRG

I've put it and the "AMTRAC 4" that is unit 58 on the list to investigate. There's something fishy about that one too

The British imported the American LV 4 and used it as the ‘Buffalo.’ It was armed with various combinations of guns. The armour was said to be “barely bullet proof”.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by redcoat2

It was only used by the British. The Terrapin should therefore be removed from the ANZAC OOB (spob15/ Unit 057) – and possibly replaced with a DUKW. AFAIK it was only really used by one unit – the specialist 79th Armoured Division. Its heyday was during the Battle of the Scheldt/ Walcheren Operation when 40 Terrapins were used to transport Canadian troops and supplies. It wasn’t used during the Normandy landings. The British used fleets of DUKWs instead.

Yeah, I did that and removed it from India when I fixed the Brit one

Originally Posted by redcoat2

The British imported the American LV 4 and used it as the ‘Buffalo.’ It was armed with various combinations of guns. The armour was said to be “barely bullet proof”.

It was the 30 man carry capacity that I've flagged for attention not the vehicle itself. I'm aware of it's use by the Brits in NW Europe

Don

[redcoat2]

Originally Posted by redcoat2

It was the 30 man carry capacity that I've flagged for attention not the vehicle itself. I'm aware of it's use by the Brits in NW Europe

I was concerned about the unit name and the armour (2 instead of 1).

They were generally known as Buffalo. AFAIK the name AMTRAC wasn't used by the British. Unit 58 could be renamed as the Buffalo. There is another Buffalo (Unit 306) in the British OOB, but I think it represents those that were up-armoured and up-gunned.

The British probably used the Buffalo as much in northern Italy as in NW Europe. Buffalos in Italy looked rather different from those used further north. The Buffalo originally had a ramp at the front and an engine at the back whereas those in Italy had the ramp at the back and the engine at the front. They were called ‘Buffalo Fantails’ or ‘Fantails’ because of the appearance of their hinged rear ramp. In game terms they are probably very similar to other Buffalos.

AFAIK Buffalos were only used by a couple of British organisations: the 79th Armoured Division in NW Europe and the RASC in Italy. It may be a good idea to check the Buffalos in other OOBS. It appears as Unit 154 in the Canadian OOB for example. AFAIK the Canadians didn’t have them – but I haven’t looked. I know that the British transported Canadian troops in the Scheldt using Buffalos from the 79th Armoured.

British Military Transport claims that the Buffalo could carry a 4-ton payload. In Italy they were used to transport jeeps and 25 Pounder guns across flooded areas of the Po Valley and Lake Commachio. 30 men would be a very tight squeeze though.

P.S. The largest amphibious assault undertaken by the Fantails in Italy was their attack across Lake Commachio in April 1945. The BBC has published the memories of one of the veterans of the operation on their website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/s...a1135234.shtml

Edit: the veteran's account says that "each Fantail carried one platoon".

[Imp]

Do not take this as correct but think several versions possibly with a lower payload in later ones, due more than anything I think to extra guns. Seem to remember 16 or 18 men was carry capacity or indeed a jeep or small gun

[redcoat2]

Originally Posted by Imp

Do not take this as correct but think several versions possibly with a lower payload in later ones, due more than anything I think to extra guns. Seem to remember 16 or 18 men was carry capacity or indeed a jeep or small gun

I guess it is likely that the up-armoured and up-gunned version of the Buffalo (Unit 306 in the game) was able to transport fewer soldiers than the normal Buffalo. I suspect that these up-gunned Buffalos may have been less common though.

A photo of a ‘Buffalo 20mm’ (wargamers name)



A photo of a straightforward Buffalo ‘Troop Carrier, Amphibious’



I’m beginning to doubt what I read in one of my books about the design of the Buffalo. I think most if not all Buffalos in NW Europe had a ramp at the back of the vehicle rather than at the front. They were nicknamed ‘Fantails’ in Italy whereas they were just called Buffalos in NW Europe. They were basically the same.

[Imp]

Nice pictures this is from a dodgy memory, early ones were front loading perhaps thiner armour couple of MGs for armament. Later ones had 3 or 4 weapons including a 20mm cannon & were the most common. Think both these carry about 18 men or jeep but there were firesupport versions to with restricted lift capacity. As said dont take as correct long time ago.