AEC Mk1 Gun Carrier - Deacon

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by Rob Dickers, May 25, 2010.

  1. Rob Dickers

    Rob Dickers 10th MEDIUM REGT RA

    Has anyone any pics?
    Cheers
    Rob

    The AEC Mk I Gun Carrier, known as Deacon
     
  2. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

  3. Rob Dickers

    Rob Dickers 10th MEDIUM REGT RA

  4. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Rob Dickers likes this.
  5. Rob Dickers

    Rob Dickers 10th MEDIUM REGT RA

  6. Gerard

    Gerard Seelow/Prora

    It would appear that Turkey also used this vehicle as per the datasheet. Any idea of whether it was effective or not?
     
  7. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    I don't think it really did have much of the limelight. How many were used, where, by whom and in what time frame?
     
  8. Rob Dickers

    Rob Dickers 10th MEDIUM REGT RA

    Only used for this campaign, so seems not. Don't know how they performed in Turkey.
    Rob

    The Deacon was developed during 1942 as a highly mobile anti-tank weapon for use in the North Africa Campaign. Based on the Matador 4x4 chassis it was fitted with a 6 pounder anti-tank gun on the rear cargo bed and shielded to the front & sides. The cab was also lightly armoured. Whilst being serviceable as a vehicle, it had a high profile and was difficult to conceal. It also had poor cross country performance.
    It would seem that only 175 were built by AEC at Southall and were issued to divisional anti-tank regiments. The vehicles were reasonably successful but were only used in the later stages of the Africa Campaign. They were withdrawn afterwards and eventually sold on to Turkey
     
  9. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

  10. Za Rodinu

    Za Rodinu Hot air manufacturer

    Only used for this campaign, so seems not. Don't know how they performed in Turkey.
    Rob

    The Deacon was developed during 1942 as a highly mobile anti-tank weapon for use in the North Africa Campaign. Based on the Matador 4x4 chassis it was fitted with a 6 pounder anti-tank gun on the rear cargo bed and shielded to the front & sides. The cab was also lightly armoured. Whilst being serviceable as a vehicle, it had a high profile and was difficult to conceal. It also had poor cross country performance.
    It would seem that only 175 were built by AEC at Southall and were issued to divisional anti-tank regiments. The vehicles were reasonably successful but were only used in the later stages of the Africa Campaign. They were withdrawn afterwards and eventually sold on to Turkey

    They didn't need to perform very well in Turkey as the Turks remained neutral :)

    High profile, poor cross country mobility? All right, a way to provide speed to the anti-tank screen, but with a vehicle that was impossible to keep hull down whereas the barrel of the original 6pdr doesn't 60 60cm stand above ground. The weak armour and open back also meant it was vulnerable to artillery.

    So it took part in the NA campaign and the remnants were flogged to some gullible customer and nobody else ever heard of it afterwards. Not really the ingredients of success.
     
  11. Bodston

    Bodston Little Willy

    Three more publicity shots

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I've been looking for some dates and production figures. Only 175 built in 1942 and all shipped to the Middle East and handed over to the Turkish Government in spring 1943 after the conclusion of the campaign. They weighed 12tons and had a top speed of 19mph.
     
    Rob Dickers likes this.
  12. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

  13. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    So it took part in the NA campaign and the remnants were flogged to some gullible customer and nobody else ever heard of it afterwards. Not really the ingredients of success.


    Well....sounds financially successful to me! :lol:

    It does make sense...as a "super portee" - but it's not necessarily a good idea to formalise a "stopgap" idea like that, all it does is take you down the road of fielding a derivation of a derivation! Looking at the spec sheet, it seems to put as much emphasis on the Deacon's ability to throw HE as it does its A/T performance....and that 4X4 was fine for crosscountry work on hardpack sand and gravel flats ;) But by the time of Italy we were fielding enough Shermans etc. with their combined HE/AT capability...

    Also - when under development IIRC it was also viewed as the rebirth of a quite successful idea from WWI, the "Heavy armoured cars" of the Royal Naval Armoured Car Division in 1914 in the Belgian Salient, and later in that war they performed creditably in Russia!
     
  14. LesCM19

    LesCM19 "...lets rock!"

    Armour is listed as 8-20mm from various sources, I personally think the 20mm thickness was actually on the shield front as that was more than likely facing the enemy, not the cab front/"hull". Seems to be borne out by the line drawing & photo below. What do you think? Any definitive armour thickness data available?
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    Seroster, ozzy16 and CL1 like this.
  15. Seroster

    Seroster Canadian researcher Patron

    I wish I knew!

    Except 20mm wasn't going to stop direct fire from anything but small arms. It may have been intended to stop shrapnel and mortars. In which case, only putting it on the front of the turret does not seem particularly useful. All-around 20mm armour, on the other hand, might be useful.
     

Share This Page