APCs before the end of WW2.

[Apophenia]

Would anyone here know of the T17 USAF command post variant mentioned in the article, I'm intrigued but cannot find anything after some googling around?

The T17 was also known as the Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle.

Based on the multi-purpose M44E1 which was 10 inches taller, had forward-opening hatches in the roof, and the side doors were deleted. The M44E1 ran on new rubber chevron tracks. Power was provided by an air-cooled, supercharged, gasoline 6-cylinder boxer engine - the 500 hp Continental AOS-895-1 - driving an Allison CD-500 cross-drive transmission (as per M26E2).

One puzzle for me is, since the T17 served the USAF operationally, why was the Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle not assigned an 'M' designation?s

T17 Command Post Vehicle

The T17 Command Post Vehicle (or Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle) was an armoured command vehicle based on the M44 Armoured Personnel Carrier, itself developed from the M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer.

www.historyofwar.org

 

[riggerrob]

I found a few French vehicles that could be called APCs:

Theres the rather neat little Lorraine 39L apc which just missed out on going into production

View attachment 670952

VBCP 38L was the ammunition/refueling tractor Lorraine 37 with an armored trailer that could carry 6 troops on bench seats and two troopers in the back. Crew was two. 150 were delivered to four battalions by May 1940.

Were the rear tracks powered?
This reminds me of a powered trailer offered by Land Rover during the 1970s (?). The Land Rover had a power take-off shaft near the trailer hitch and a quick-disconnect shaft that drove the trailer's wheels. i doubt if it was built in significant numbers.
This also reminds me of the Swedish Viking articulated snow machine used by a variety of armies.

 

[dan_inbox]

Were the rear tracks powered?
...
This also reminds me of the Swedish Viking articulated snow machine used by a variety of armies.

Does not look it. Those things were much smaller than the BV-206: Length 4.20 m; Width 1.57 m; Height 1.29 m.
They started off as chenillettes, comparable to the Universal carrier.

 

[drejr]

One puzzle for me is, since the T17 served the USAF operationally, why was the Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle not assigned an 'M' designation?s

T17 Command Post Vehicle

The T17 Command Post Vehicle (or Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle) was an armoured command vehicle based on the M44 Armoured Personnel Carrier, itself developed from the M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer.

www.historyofwar.org

Probably because it wasn't used by the Army. I'm not sure the USAF had a designation system for non-aircraft equipment at the time.

 

[Apophenia]

One puzzle for me is, since the T17 served the USAF operationally, why was the Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle not assigned an 'M' designation

Probably because it wasn't used by the Army. I'm not sure the USAF had a designation system for non-aircraft equipment at the time.

Thanks drejr. That makes sense. I had assumed that 'M' designations were DoD-wide, not just US Army.

 

[Kat Tsun]

I found a few French vehicles that could be called APCs:

Theres the rather neat little Lorraine 39L apc which just missed out on going into production

View attachment 670952

VBCP 38L was the ammunition/refueling tractor Lorraine 37 with an armored trailer that could carry 6 troops on bench seats and two troopers in the back. Crew was two. 150 were delivered to four battalions by May 1940.

Were the rear tracks powered?
This reminds me of a powered trailer offered by Land Rover during the 1970s (?). The Land Rover had a power take-off shaft near the trailer hitch and a quick-disconnect shaft that drove the trailer's wheels. i doubt if it was built in significant numbers.
This also reminds me of the Swedish Viking articulated snow machine used by a variety of armies.

I doubt it, given how lame p:w ratios were in the '30's, but I don't know for sure. I think it was just the Lorraine 37 with a big metal box riveted on it and a non-powered, tracked trailer that was tracked exclusively so it wouldn't get stuck in mud as much as the half-tracks did. The resupply/refueling carrier TRC 37 had a towed fuel pod that was harped about a lot in popular media at the time for increasing the range of French heavies like the B1 or whatever. I don't think any B1s ever towed fuel pods though.

That said unpowered, over-wheel tracks aren't hugely uncommon even today:



This an M200 tactical trailer, modified with a second axle, to carry the MCLC used by the US Army. In 2003 the Army found that the trailers tended to sink into Iraqi desert terrain carrying full load MCLCs, so they slapped some band tracks onto them, and this is the result. The MCLC weighs 4,000 pounds, which is probably more than half a dozen scrawny Frenchmen with Lebels even under bulletproof armor.

Bit of a tangent, but the technology is still used today to reduce ground pressure of wheels. Not all trailers necessarily need (nor can prime movers spare) the extra traction provided by powered wheels.

 

[Rickshaw]

The T16 version of the Universal Carrier of Canada

The "Mobile Slit Trench" or Rover APC of Australia

 

[dan_inbox]

In the immediate post-WW1 period, Germany had the SdKfz 3 gepanzerter Mannschaftswagen.
It was strictly an unaarmed APC, prevented by the Versailles treaty from having any weapons.
(the army version couldn't, whereas the police version Schupo-Sonderwagen/21 could)

 

[Perdikofas]

Vickers Peerless Armored Car, built on the Peerless TC4 model 1916 chassis, 10 or 20 ordered by Greece in 1923. 40hp engine at 7.5 tons, 40 kmh max speed. All-around armor was 8mm, with a 5.3mm floor. The roof of the troop compartment was originally a wire mesh to protect from large throwable objects like rocks and grenades, it was later replaced with actual armor. It could carry a squad of 10-14 troops, most of which could shoot out of firing ports (at least 2 of them were for Hotchkiss MGs). Originally used by military police for riot control during the turbulent (for Greece) years between 1920 and the beginning of WW2. It's possible some of them served until the capitulation of Greece in WW2 against Axis forces.

 

[BB1984]

One puzzle for me is, since the T17 served the USAF operationally, why was the Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle not assigned an 'M' designation?s

T17 Command Post Vehicle

The T17 Command Post Vehicle (or Tactical Air Control Party Vehicle) was an armoured command vehicle based on the M44 Armoured Personnel Carrier, itself developed from the M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer.

www.historyofwar.org

Probably because it wasn't used by the Army. I'm not sure the USAF had a designation system for non-aircraft equipment at the time.

Another possibility is because the number of vehicles involved was very low, i.e., it was never standardized for mass production.

The US used the "T" designation not just for prototypes but also for pre-production/early production vehicles (much the way the Air Force used to use the "Y" designation). For instance, the first 240 or so Pershing tanks, built Nov '44 to Feb '45 were built and sent to Europe as T-26E3, the M-26 designation not coming until March of '45.

If only a few vehicles were made as some sort of rush job for Korea, then it seems reasonable that it never would have been standardized by either the Army or the Air Force and thus retained the "T" designation.

A more USAF example would be air to air machine guns and cannons. The "T" was used for guns (e.g., the numerous .60 caliber machine guns) while standardized guns got "M" designations (e.g., the T-160 20mm cannon was standardized as the M39, but not before it had been deployed to Korea as the T-160 for operational testing).

 

[drejr]

That's not so much another possibility as an example of the same thing. The M39 and M61 cannons were developed and standardized at the Army's Springfield Armory.

This got even more confusing after ASETDS was published, because both the Air Force and Navy uses it for aerial equipment, but only the Air Force uses it consistently and the Army doesn't use it all even though they'll use the Navy's Mark-Mod system - sometimes.

M-numbers are assigned by the Army, not the USAF. A more recent example are the USAF-specific Hummer variants. I can't remember their M-numbers off-hand but they have them because the Army is the lead agency in HMMWV procurement.

You're probably correct about the low production run. (Of course the T17 armored car was never standardized even though thousands were built for other users.)

 

[Bottleship]

During the war in the USSR, a number of T-34, KV-1 and IS-1 were converted into tractors, turrets were removed from them. It was very similar to the Kangaroo, but it didn't seem to be intended to carry infantry (which is rather odd).



In 1947, the K-75, 1 + 16 transporter was developed on the basis of the T-70 light tank. Apparently, this was not done during the war due to the heavy burden on industry.

By the way, I heard somewhere that the Sd.Kpfw.251 was comparable to light tanks in terms of labor intensity.

Is it possible to mention the projects of different IFVs before 1945?

 

[riggerrob]

During the war in the USSR, a number of T-34, KV-1 and IS-1 were converted into tractors, turrets were removed from them. It was very similar to the Kangaroo, but it didn't seem to be intended to carry infantry (which is rather odd).
View attachment 672368
View attachment 672367
View attachment 672370
In 1947, the K-75, 1 + 16 transporter was developed on the basis of the T-70 light tank. Apparently, this was not done during the war due to the heavy burden on industry.
View attachment 672369
By the way, I heard somewhere that the Sd.Kpfw.251 was comparable to light tanks in terms of labor intensity.

Is it possible to mention the projects of different IFVs before 1945?

IFVs are distinct from APCs because APCs lack turrets or any weapon heavier than a .50 caliber Browning machine gun.

OTOH modern IFVs have 20 mm, 25 mm, 30 mm, etc. auto-cannons and maybe TOW missiles. During the Gulf War, American M1 Bradley IFVs killed dozens of Iraqi tanks (T-55, T-62, etc.) with TOW missiles.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

During the war in the USSR, a number of T-34, KV-1 and IS-1 were converted into tractors, turrets were removed from them. It was very similar to the Kangaroo, but it didn't seem to be intended to carry infantry (which is rather odd).
View attachment 672368
View attachment 672367
View attachment 672370
In 1947, the K-75, 1 + 16 transporter was developed on the basis of the T-70 light tank. Apparently, this was not done during the war due to the heavy burden on industry.
View attachment 672369
By the way, I heard somewhere that the Sd.Kpfw.251 was comparable to light tanks in terms of labor intensity.

Is it possible to mention the projects of different IFVs before 1945?

Those are early ARV recovery vehicles. Note the masses of tow ropes on them. Later on, these would get refinements like a wench and crane.

 

[robunos]

Later on, these would get refinements like a wench and crane.

She'd need to be really strong . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[BB1984]

By the way, I heard somewhere that the Sd.Kpfw.251 was comparable to light tanks in terms of labor intensity.

"Light Tank" is a pretty broad range, from the T-60/Mk VI at one end to the M24 (which was superior to an early model PzIV in capability). That said, the Sd.Kfz. 251 was a very complex vehicle compared to, for instance, the equivalent US M3 half track and probably was comparable to many light tanks in cost.

The reasons for this go back to its development history. The Germans were well aware of the issue and worked on cheaper alternatives for second line use (the Leichte Wehrmacht Schlepper and Schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper) as well as a replacement line of 3/4 tracks that would at least rationalize production.

Only the Schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper made it into mass production, as the Germans, like everyone else, drifted away from semi-tracks. The role of the Leichte Wehrmacht Schlepper was taken by the full tracked Raupenschlepper Ost and, as already mentioned in this thread, they were looking at a 38d variant as an APC at war's end.

 

[Bottleship]

IFVs are distinct from APCs because APCs lack turrets or any weapon heavier than a .50 caliber Browning machine gun.

I know
There are quite a few projects of different APCs. In the 1870s in France there was a project of a tank train with cannons and machine guns, which was supposed to carry infantry. During the First World War in Russia, a large armored car with two 3-inch short guns and two to four machine guns was offered, with 36 infantrymen. During World War II, a Polish colonel suggested building this:

The Tanks of Pawel Chrobok - Tank Encyclopedia

Unusual Polish WW2 tank designs designed by Pawel Chrobok while he was stationed in England.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

This "land ironclad", developed in Russia in 1915 by Alexander Porohovshchikov, had an option without large turrets, but with an armored "box" for transporting 500 infantrymen, but also with 20 grenade launchers and 40 machine guns in wheels:

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Later on, these would get refinements like a wench and crane.

She'd need to be really strong . . .

cheers,
Robin.

 

[riggerrob]

The T16 version of the Universal Carrier of Canada

The "Mobile Slit Trench" or Rover APC of Australia

The "Mobile Slit Trench" reminds us of the silhouette of the proposed Canadian-Polish Armoured Trolley. The AT was proposed by ex-pat Polish General Slanislew Sochaczewski who was in Canada during 1943. No prototype was built and only a handful of sketches survive. This 1.2 meter tall vehicle weighed about 4 tons and was intended to assault enemy defenses for a fraction of the cost of full-sized tanks. The chassis would have been similar to the British Universal Carrier, but all 3 crewmen lay prone to fire their rifle-caliber automatic weapons (Bren guns?). Armor was 8 or 10 mm thick ... enough to stop rifle bullets. Triangular, prismatic fuel tanks added additional protection on both sides of the hull (silhouette like an M-10 tank-destroyer). The armored Trolley was never built.

He later proposed another assault vehicle that looked more like a Universal Carrier, but still had 3 crew laying prone to fire at the enemy. That was not built either.

Tank Encyclopedia - The Online Tank Museum

All about the tactics, technologies, and evolution of the tank worldwide, from World War I to the Atomic and Digital Ages.

tanks-encyclopedia.com

 

[riggerrob]

The "Mobile Slit Trench" or Rover APC of Australia

There is a write-up about the Australian Rover APC on www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/Australia/Rover_light_AC.php

It is also mentioned on the Nevington Museum's website because they have one in their collection. www.nevingtonwarmuseum.com

Does anyone have 3-view drawings of the Rover APC?

Has anyone sold a sub-scale model of the Rover "Mobile Slit Trench?"

 

[Bottleship]

Soviet 1940-1944 A-42 project - tractor/APC, based on T-34, 2+16, armour 50 mm front and 15 mm side:

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Germans converted a good number of Unic P107 Kegresse type halftracks into APCs after France fell:

 

[Newtonk]

The Soviet A-42 looks like it could have worked. No overhead armour for the guys in back, that would need to be addressed.

 

[BB1984]

Soviet 1940-1944 A-42 project - tractor/APC, based on T-34, 2+16, armour 50 mm front and 15 mm side:View attachment 672616

The lines do get blurry, but gun tractors have a different emphasis, often being basically unarmored (or at least unarmored beyond what was on the base hull to begin with when tank chassis were used).

The US mass produced a number of full track gun tractors in WWII, but I don't think we'd call any of these APC.

• M4 High Speed Tractor – USA, 1943
• M5 High Speed Tractor – USA, 1942
• M6 High Speed Tractor – USA, 1944

 

[T. A. Gardner]

By the way, I heard somewhere that the Sd.Kpfw.251 was comparable to light tanks in terms of labor intensity.

That said, the Sd.Kfz. 251 was a very complex vehicle compared to, for instance, the equivalent US M3 half track and probably was comparable to many light tanks in cost.

The reasons for this go back to its development history. The Germans were well aware of the issue and worked on cheaper alternatives for second line use (the Leichte Wehrmacht Schlepper and Schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper) as well as a replacement line of 3/4 tracks that would at least rationalize production.

Only the Schwerer Wehrmachtschlepper made it into mass production, as the Germans, like everyone else, drifted away from semi-tracks. The role of the Leichte Wehrmacht Schlepper was taken by the full tracked Raupenschlepper Ost and, as already mentioned in this thread, they were looking at a 38d variant as an APC at war's end.

The Sdkfz 251 and other German halftracks with that interleaved suspension were far more complicated to build than an M3 series halftrack.

First, they are really three-quarter tracks, not true halftracks. The suspension is grossly more complex. It uses torsion bars rather than leaf springs, the tracks are lubricated roller pin bearing, double end, with replaceable rubber bushed pads on them. The maintenance is far higher than on the M3 on the track and suspension as a result. The M3 by comparison uses leaf springs and a 'rubber band' track that's easy to make and both require no real maintenance in use.
The Sdkfz 251 also has a way more complex transmission with more gears and an interlock system that when the steering is turned past a certain point causes a braking system on the tracks to operate and turn the vehicle like a tank would be steered. This makes making the transmission and drive train far more complex than an M3 where the tracks are driven by what is essentially the same transmission system as used on a 4 x 4 vehicle with the rear wheels replaced by the drive sprockets.
A mistake on the Sdkfz 251 is that the front wheels are not powered. This helps the M3 overcome obstacles and be more maneuverable off road. The 251 does have some advantage on really soft ground, however.
Even the LWS is more complicated than an M3 and it is simplified over the Sdkfz 251 considerably.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Soviet 1940-1944 A-42 project - tractor/APC, based on T-34, 2+16, armour 50 mm front and 15 mm side:View attachment 672616

The lines do get blurry, but gun tractors have a different emphasis, often being basically unarmored (or at least unarmored beyond what was on the base hull to begin with when tank chassis were used).

The US mass produced a number of full track gun tractors in WWII, but I don't think we'd call any of these APC.

• M4 High Speed Tractor – USA, 1943
• M5 High Speed Tractor – USA, 1942
• M6 High Speed Tractor – USA, 1944

These are unarmored tractors specifically for towing heavy artillery



These are unarmored, and have three sections:

The front is a crew cab with seating for up to 11 men
The mid-section (where that screen is) is the engine for the vehicle.
The box behind that is interchangeable and is a combination shell and charge ammunition box that fits the artillery piece being towed. Normally these are the 155mm gun, the 208mm howitzer, or the 240mm gun (in two loads using two tractors)

 

[riggerrob]

Small numbers of "defrocked" Cromwell Kangaroos were used by British artillery units in Normandy during the summer of 1944. Their turrets were removed and taller (about 1 meter), armored side walls were added. They remained open-topped and were mainly used to tow guns, or haul artillery ammo around the battlefield. They could carry about 10 gunners.

 

[riggerrob]

Does anyone have 3-view drawings of the APCs based upon Canadian Military Pattern chassis: Indian Carrier, Australian Ford S1 Scout or Rover "Mobile Slit Trench?"
Has anyone marketed sub-scale models of those vehicles?

 

[SeaslugMk2]

Small numbers of "defrocked" Cromwell Kangaroos were used by British artillery units in Normandy during the summer of 1944. Their turrets were removed and taller (about 1 meter), armored side walls were added. They remained open-topped and were mainly used to tow guns, or haul artillery ammo around the battlefield. They could carry about 10 gunners.

Do you have any photos of these? The Cromwell was ruled out of a postwar APC project as the fighting compartment was too small. The Crusader was used as a gun tug for the 17pdr and had a built-up superstructure added.

SRJ.

 

[riggerrob]

Small numbers of "defrocked" Cromwell Kangaroos were used by British artillery units in Normandy during the summer of 1944. Their turrets were removed and taller (about 1 meter), armored side walls were added. They remained open-topped and were mainly used to tow guns, or haul artillery ammo around the battlefield. They could carry about 10 gunners.

Do you have any photos of these? The Cromwell was ruled out of a postwar APC project as the fighting compartment was too small. The Crusader was used as a gun tug for the 17pdr and had a built-up superstructure added.

SRJ.

Sorry mate,
I only took a quick look at the suspension and miss-named it.
You are more accurate with your description of Crusader Mark II, gun tractor Mark I towing 17-pounders around Normandy. They could carry up to 6 gunners and a few were converted to armored command posts.

I found one miss-labelled photo of a Crusader Armored Command Post miss-captioned as a converted (Kangaroo) Priest APC ... used by a general commanding Canadian troops in Normandy. That conversion definitely had Crusader tracks

 

[SeaslugMk2]

Small numbers of "defrocked" Cromwell Kangaroos were used by British artillery units in Normandy during the summer of 1944. Their turrets were removed and taller (about 1 meter), armored side walls were added. They remained open-topped and were mainly used to tow guns, or haul artillery ammo around the battlefield. They could carry about 10 gunners.

Do you have any photos of these? The Cromwell was ruled out of a postwar APC project as the fighting compartment was too small. The Crusader was used as a gun tug for the 17pdr and had a built-up superstructure added.

SRJ.

Sorry mate,
I only took a quick look at the suspension and miss-named it.
You are more accurate with your description of Crusader Mark II, gun tractor Mark I towing 17-pounders around Normandy. They could carry up to 6 gunners and a few were converted to armored command posts.

I found one miss-labelled photo of a Crusader Armored Command Post miss-captioned as a converted (Kangaroo) Priest APC ... used by a general commanding Canadian troops in Normandy. That conversion definitely had Crusader tracks

Ah, That makes sense.
I've retrieved an Airfix Churchill kit from the container most of my worldly possessions are stored in to make a Churchill APC; and have bought some Airfix Cromwells to attempt to build a Challenger APC...the discussion that triggered that is over on the Navweaps site.

SRJ.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here's probably one of the most obscure prototype APC's ever. While I'm not sure if it is HMS Walrus or HMS Seal, the APC shown is one of the two.



It's the vehicle closest in the photo. The two vehicles shown are two prototype tanks built for the RAF in the 1930's when the RAF thought it needed more serious airfield defenses. They are built on dragon artillery tractor chassis and used Rolls Royce armored car components for the superstructure and turret. One was converted to an APC.

The vehicles were shipped to RAF field Habbaniya near Bagdad in Iraq for testing (presumably to keep this whole project out of sight of the army) where they languished after a brief period of testing. In 1941 with the Iraqi uprising against British rule they were drug out of storage and used as defense positions at the base gate.

Anyway, whether it is Walrus or Seal, yes, the RAF had an APC they designed serve in wartime...

Two Dragons, or a Seal and a Walrus - RAF Museum

Assistant Curator Bryan Legate indulges his passion for military vehicles by writing about two lesser known RAF vehicles.

www.rafmuseum.org.uk

 

[SirCoutin]

That is super interesting, thank you very much!

 

[tiv]

This is an artillery tractor. This is not an armored personnel carrier.

The Army had a personnel carrier pre-war like that, based on the Bren Carrier and called the Cavalry Carrier. Weather protection only, by a sort of canvas tent fixed over a frame. A number went to France and were lost, and the remainder mostly converted to Bren Carriers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is it possible to mention the projects of different IFVs before 1945?

I wouldn't have said there were any IFVs before the 1960s, with the Soviet BMPs defining the idea.

 

[Apophenia]

I wouldn't have said there were any IFVs before the 1960s, with the Soviet BMPs defining the idea.

Some people stretch a point and list the 1959 Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 (SPz lg 12-3) as the first IFV. It carried five dismounts but, according to the Bundeswehr's Panzergrenadiere doctrine, the SPz lg 12-3 were also meant to stay around and provide support with their 20 mm autocannons.

The earlier Schützenpanzer SPz 11-2 Kurz had a similar function - but for Panzergrenadiere support troops rather than infantry. Both the SPz 11-2 Kurz and SPz lg 12-3 were replaced by the SPz Marder.

 

[WatcherZero]

I wouldn't have said there were any IFVs before the 1960s, with the Soviet BMPs defining the idea.

Didnt the A7V essentially just have a forward firing British 57mm then firing ports on the sides and rear for six Maxim machine guns?
The German design ethos wasnt so much a Tank in the British sense but a mobile Pillbox.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Didnt the A7V essentially just have a forward firing British 57mm then firing ports on the sides and rear for six Maxim machine guns?
The German design ethos wasnt so much a Tank in the British sense but a mobile Pillbox.

But no no intent to dismount the crew.

Some people stretch a point and list the 1959 Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 (SPz lg 12-3) as the first IFV. It carried five dismounts but, according to the Bundeswehr's Panzergrenadiere doctrine, the SPz lg 12-3 were also meant to stay around and provide support with their 20 mm autocannons.

The earlier Schützenpanzer SPz 11-2 Kurz had a similar function - but for Panzergrenadiere support troops rather than infantry. Both the SPz 11-2 Kurz and SPz lg 12-3 were replaced by the SPz Marder.

Valid point. I keep forgetting about that one. My personal pet peeve is the low dismount count, but even the Bradley and BMP aren't great about dismounts.

 

[dan_inbox]

I wouldn't have said there were any IFVs before the 1960s, with the Soviet BMPs defining the idea.

Yes there were, even before WW2. It can be argued depending on one's definition of "IFV", but vehicles with dismounts and capable of supporting fire existed before WW2. They were not so much used in Europe (no major war), but they were used in the colonial operations: Armored vehicles transporting troops under shelter until contact, then supporting the dismounts with machinegun fire.

For example the Camion Blindé Panhard AM-179 used in Morocco for "guerre du Rif" in 1929 had the following crew:
Chef de voiture, conducteur, tireur + groupe de combat 10 hommes + deux fusils mitrailleurs dont un pour le groupe de combat embarqué :
Vehicle commander, driver, gunner + 10 dismounts fighting squad + 2 MGs incl one for the squad.

Counter-insurgency operations very much prefiguring the Soviet BMP-1s columns in Afghanistan 1980s. (Except the French succeeded when Abdelkrim al-Khattabi capitulated and exiled )

 

[ArmchairSamurai]

Late in WW 2 the Germans experimentally built the Kätzchen (Kitten) APC. There were two versions tested. This is the one on the Pz 38d chassis. Yes, there is a d (German) version of that hull with sloped sides behind the road wheels, making it slightly wider.

View attachment 670630

There is also the Auto Union version built on an E series chassis

View attachment 670631

Both were still open topped and designed to carry 8 or 9 men total. They look fairly modern for 1945.

For the sake of the thread, I am adding this. I believe it is elsewhere on the site, under a different thread. Good topic, considering what it could have been had there not been a deteriorating situation at home in Germany deterring resources from its construction.