Any use? WarWheels.Net-AEC Index WarWheels.Net - AEC Armored Car Photos Cheers Adam All I could get is the Armored Car, not the Deacon,except for an airfix pic. Rob
The data sheet linked to from there's worth a shufti: http://www.warwheels.net/images/AEC_Deacon_datasheet.pdf Nice clear manufacturers shot.
It would appear that Turkey also used this vehicle as per the datasheet. Any idea of whether it was effective or not?
I don't think it really did have much of the limelight. How many were used, where, by whom and in what time frame?
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 They were withdrawn afterwards and eventually sold on to Turkey
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 They were withdrawn afterwards and eventually sold on to Turkey They didn't need to perform very well in Turkey as the Turks remained neutral High profile, poor cross country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.
Three more publicity shots 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.
Anybody ever seen a shot of a Deacon in Turkish service? Got my hopes up with a link to Overvalwagen, but seems there's a chap there also interested, and no pictures as yet. The Overvalwagen Forum: Turkish softskin and armoured vehicles, 1930-45
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! 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!
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?
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.